A problem of Filipinos

It is not true that once Col Victor Corpus has presented hard evidence on Panfilo Lacson, the senator would be convicted. It is also not true that to convict Panfilo Lacson we would have to rely on the Americans — the DEA, the FBI, the US Customs, DEA and IRS. That is only partly true. What is true is that we can request their assistance under the mutual legal assistance treaty. And that has been done. But to say that we should now leave the matter to American agencies because they can produce the evidence is to misunderstand the problem.

* * *

Public opinion as shield. What Col Corpus has done, in bringing the matter to the Senate is create a channel through which public opinion can shield the investigation. Therefore to demand that the shield be removed is really to impair the process. Besides, the case of money laundering and drugs is only half of the problem. The bigger and more significant aspect is the allegations that drug money is being used to buy elections and that the election of Panfilo Lacson as senator is a demonstration of our descent into narcopolitics. Unless government and citizens act together to get at the bottom of the problem of narco-politics in the Philippines, Panfilo Lacson will not be convicted, will not be even tried and will probably end up President of the Philippines in 2004.

* * *

Critical mass . The Senate hearing is an attempt to form that critical mass of public opinion so that the case against Lacson can be pursued and escorted to court. Without that critical mass, any court case against Lacson whether it is supported with hard evidence or not, will not prosper. Witnesses will be intimidated (as they have already been intimidated) and justices can be paid off (as justices are already suspected of having been paid off.)

* * *

Hard evidence can be useless. I am not saying that we do not need the American DEA;’s or FBI’s help.. What I am saying is that without the support of an informed Filipino public and the will of the government to enforce the law, whatever evidence may be presented through their help will be useless. The case of narcopolitics and the role of Panfilo Lacson is a Philippine problem, not an American problem.

* * *

The Senate is the correct venue.The problem before the Senate is the danger of drug money becoming the engine of our political life. It is logical that the hearing is conducted in the Senate where Panfilo Lacson has been elected.

* * *

Comparison with Imelda’s NY trial. As for evidence that is expected from the US, I remember vividly the larger than life FBI charts which traced the movement of Marcos money from Manila to San Francisco to New York. As far as the RICO law was concerned, any wire transfers of money that was the fruit of cime or illegal activity is a breach of law and becomes criminally liable. At the time it was the certainty and the details presented by the FBI that made us euphoric and certain that Imelda would be convicted. But as one pundit commented then why should Americans want convict someone who had brought in money to the US in the first place? If the money were the fruits of graft in the Philippines, these were committed against Filipinos, not against Americans. The money merely travelled to the United States.

* * *

Distinction between Marcos and Lacson moneys. As far as drug money is concerned, however, especially if moneys came from drug trading and transhipment into the US, then Americans were alsovictims. Here is an important distinction between the Marcos moneys and the Lacson drug moneys.

* * *

Communal rites of passage. The question, as far as we are concerned, is what we will do with the evidence once we have it? Indeed, what will we do with Panfilo Lacson, senator? We cannot even attempt to answer these questions unless we participate in this communal rites of passage occasioned by the senate hearing. In listening to testimony and the presentation of evidence, we are also sorting ourselves out, confronting the challenge of what it takes to create a strong and viable democracy.

* * *

The Senate is investigating as well as legislating. Is the Senate better left doing its job of legislating rather than conducting this hearing. In the first place I do not see the conflict between the two. It only means that the senators are working harder, giving some time at the end of the day for the hearing while tackling legislation in the other hours. It is not one or the other. And for this the Senate ought to be complimented instead of criticized.

* * *

Getting to know about FinCen. It has already been said of Erap’s impeachment that it was an invaluable political educaton of the masa, at least those who had access to television. The Lacson hearing is also an occasion for another group of masa, the computer users. For example, Mark Mallari whom I know only through my e-mail has been sending me materials on FinCen, short for The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in the US. He also sent the same materials to STAR columnist Federico Pascual who had published it earlier.

* * *

Specializing in money laundering investigations. According to the information from the website "FinCen was established in April 1990 by Treasury Order Number 105-08. Its original mission was to provide a governmentwide, multi-source intelligence and analytical network to support the detection, investigation, and prosecution of domestic and international money laundering and other financial crimes. In May 1994, its mission was broadened to include regulatory responsibilities. Today, FinCEN is one of Treasury’s primary agencies to establish, oversee and implement policies to prevent and detect money laundering."

* * *

"This is accomplished in two ways. First, FinCEN uses counter-money laundering laws (such as the Bank Secrecy Act–"BSA") to require reporting and record keeping by banks and other financial institutions. This record keeping preserves a financial trail for investigators to follow as they track criminals and their assets. The BSA also requires reporting suspicious currency transactions which could trigger investigations. FinCEN establishes these policies and regulations to deter and detect money laundering in partnership with the financial community."

* * *

Those who are interested in getting more informations can access the. FinCen Website: Here are some addresses http://www.ustreas.gov/fincen/ or just goto the site map for info at: URL: http://www.treas.gov/fincen/sitemap.html or goto Inside FinCen http://www.treas.gov/fincen/infinc.html or FinCen Careers:http://www.treas.gov/jobs/fincenexceptional.html Also, at the alphabical index site map of the treasury gov, it contains some useful info that probably meets your needs. http://www.treas.gov/sitemap.html.

* * *

If Col. Corpus has not already done it FinCen is the right agency to turn to for the evidence that is required in the Panfilo Lacson case. With a few taps of buttons he might find what he is looking for. After all it is the mission of the agency "to support law enforcement investigative efforts and foster interagency and global cooperation against domestic and international financial crimes; and to provide U.S. policy makers with strategic analyses of domestic and worldwide money-laundering developments, trends and patterns."

* * *

Many are puzzled by the behavior of some senators. Is there something they are afraid might be revealed if the investigation is pursued? As fellow columnist Belinda Cunanan correctly pointed out: why can’t our senators learn from the US Senate? It didn’t matter whether one was Republican or Democratic. There was a problem of money laundering that needed to be addressed by the American legislators. The public interest superseded any party or individual interest in their pursuit of reforms in the banking system. If that had been the attitude in our Senate, then the direction of the hearings and line of questioning in the Lacson case would have been different.

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected] or [email protected]