Smoking gun - WHY AND WHY NOT by Nelson A. Navarro

The cat is half out of the bag. So why not let all of it out? Yes, and let’s be done with the pesky mystery of who "Jose Velarde/Valhalla" happens to be and what role, if any, he plays in the smoldering Juetengate scandal.

By forcing today’s dramatic showdown on the question of opening sealed bank records regarding the case, President Estrada’s lawyers are doing both their client and the nation a most terrible disservice.

The presiding justice of the Senate Impeachment Tribunal, Hilario Davide, clearly wants the disputed Equitable-PCI Bank documents to see the light of day. It’s no coincidence that, according to the most recent SWS survey, Davide stands out as the most trusted official in the land.

Reluctantly turned over by the bank on pain of being cited for contempt, the disputed records should – at the very least – prove or disprove the prosecution panel’s contention that contained therein is the "smoking gun" or proof positive of Estrada’s alleged complicity in the massive web of corruption exposed by his former buddy and partner Luis "Chavit" Singson.

The erring bank once regarded as Estrada’s personal "piggybank" has since made it known in full-page newspaper advertisements that it would cooperate with the authorities – even to the extent of turning over data on another account not previously detected by the prosecution.

Going by the prosecution panel’s arguments, the "smoking gun" – like the tell-tale gaps in Nixon tapes during the Watergate trial – could bring the expected month-long and divisive impeachment process to a quick and merciful end. The road could then be cleared for Estrada’s early acquittal or removal from office. Thereafter, this much-battered nation could presumably move on to the next chapter of its tortured history as Asia’s once and current economic basket case, hopefully in the direction of democratic reform rather than military intervention.

So why would defense lawyers Estelito Mendoza and Andres Narvasa go to such elaborate lengths (even vowing to drag the matter all the way up to the Supreme Court) to abort what’s supposed to short circuit the country’s most worst political crisis since the fall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986?

Fairly or unfairly, the widespread impression is that the unopened records may be prejudicial or even fatal to Estrada’s case. Hence, the frantic Mendoza-Narvasa maneuvers to keep it out of the public domain through legal acrobatics and obfuscations that, of course, could indefinitely tie up the process and force the prosecution to walk out in disgust.

Apart from casting Estrada as the possibly guilty party whose shrewd lawyers are engaged in suppressing unfavorable evidence, the defense panel also puts pro-Estrada senator-judges prematurely on the line.

Some of these presidential friends who have loudly proclaimed "objectivity" and promised to "abide by my conscience" may have to reveal their true feelings and loyalties way ahead of schedule and at incalculable costs to their public personas and careers.

Should these pro-Estrada honorables muster at least 12 votes and thus overrule Davide, they will further stoke popular suspicions that the whole process has been a big farce all along. With Estrada’s acquittal a foregone conclusion, the current crisis can only shift from the discredited impeachment mode back to the dangerous resignation mode or a return to street demonstrations and confrontations that could well turn violent and ugly.

The horror implied by this imminent polarization of forces, however, could yet convince a more sober Senate majority to stand by Davide and thus give the faltering trial a new and desperately needed lease in life.

But this can only be bad news for the defense. For starters, the stage would be set for handwriting experts to determine whether "Jose Velarde/Valhalla" is indeed Joseph Estrada or somebody else. Claims and counterclaims could hopelessly tie down the proceedings and play into the hands of some hotheads who have been maintaining all along that the trial will sooner or later be overrun by events.

All along, some prosecution lawyers have claimed that their first case on bribery could be proven in no time at all and that the next three cases (graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violations of the Constitution) need not take much more time to conclusively establish Estrada’s guilt and remove him from the highest office of the land.

The President, as everybody knows, has consistently denied he has taken any bribe from jueteng lords. He says he’s not Jose Velarde/Valhalla. Instead of playing hardball with the bank records and foregoing with the opportunity to prove the prosecution wrong, Mendoza and Narvasa ought to prepare their client to face the music before the tribunal. Estrada has repeatedly vowed he’s willing to testify. Pulse Asia says 78 percent of the Filipino people want him to face his accusers. So why the doubletalk?

Do these lawyers know something we still do not know? We shall soon find out.

* * *

Nelson A. Navarro's e-mail address: [email protected]