Once again, Mike Defensor - My Viewpoint

This story, it would seem, just won't go away. But, on second thought, there really may be good reasons why we should stay with it. So, let's!

The latest development is that Representative Mike Defensor is reportedly bent on suing certain officials of the PNP's Central Police District for libel. At the rate they're trotting out policemen and pimps, an unlikely combination, to testify about Mike's alleged nocturnal proclivities, Mike ought to be concerned that someone is bound to swear that they've seen the Spice Boy wearing a black leather outfit and spike heels, with steel-studded whips in his clammy hands. This case is already winning dubious awards for tastelessness and production value. Some commentators are branding it an epic battle between two institutions, the PNP vs. the House of Representatives.

We should separate the chaff from the grain. What are the real issues? Some say it's the allegedly illegal arrest of the four suspected call girls at Padi's Point, their unlawful detention at a police station for over 19 hours, and their forced confession and plea of guilt before an inquest fiscal without assistance of counsel. Others say it's Congressman Defensor's illegal interference in a legitimate police operation, his subsequent attempted intimidation of police officers, and his attempt to get them to sign a written admission that the arrest was indeed illegal. Well, yes, these are issues, but they're not the only ones. As the case becomes more complicated, other issues are beginning to rear their ugly heads.

To begin with, the individual characters of the four girls and of Mike Defensor are relevant only to their credibility, and not much else. The girls have said they aren't call girls or prostitutes, admitting though that they love to party. A witness presented by the police, a supposed parking lot attendant moonlighting as a pimp, says the girls hire themselves out. The same pimp claims he knows that Mike Defensor patronizes these women. Even if true, which is hardly settled by the pimp's testimony, what does that prove? Maybe that the women have bad habits and expensive tastes, but not necessarily that they're professional prostitutes. Or maybe that Mike may be headed for, if he's not already steeped in, serious domestic problems. The idea, I suppose, is that if the girls and Mike can lie about their activities, they can lie about other things.

But does any of this prove that the arrest of the girls wasn't illegal? Not by a long shot. The central question here is factual: Where were the girls arrested, inside or outside Padi's Point? If they were dancing inside the club, then they weren't wandering aimlessly about as vagrants. Were they detained by the police longer than legally permissible? Were they "persuaded" to sign written admissions and enter pleas of guilt without advice of counsel?

If the arrests were illegal, then Mike Defensor's telephone calls do not seem to me to have been improper if his purpose was merely to inquire into the circumstances of the arrest. And if he concluded that the ladies' human rights were violated, taking up the cudgels for them would obviously put him on a collision course with the police, but doing so wasn't necessarily unethical. People in dire need tend to run to the first most accessible and available person. The possibility that Mike might have been more than friendly to one of girls opened him to speculations about his true motives. But he probably thought the risk was worth taking, since it was the protection of the women's basic legal rights that he said was his main concern. In the same way, whether or not one of the policemen was a former boyfriend of one of the girls, or whether it is true that the girls were under surveillance by the police for eight months, is not particularly relevant. The focus of the inquiry has to be to determine the facts attending their arrest.

Even prostitutes have rights, as women's groups that support the four embattled women correctly emphasize. In the enforcement of those rights, we don't have to argue the sociological or politico-economic implications, or find possible gender-related discrimination against women in general. Nor do we have to theorize about what drove the women to whatever it is they were doing. Rights are rights and we must take them seriously.

Both sides are apparently presenting their own witnesses to address the illegal arrest question. I am also encouraged by Chief Supt. Egay Aglipay's assurances that if the arresting officers are found to be guilty of any transgressions, he will come down hard on them. If the emphasis is on uncovering the facts, rather than protecting backsides or wallowing in lurid character assassination, we may still learn a few valuable lessons from this soap opera.

Ricardo V. Puno's e-mail address: [email protected]