Mike Defensor’s statement over radio indicates two things: one, that there is an ongoing conflict between Malacañang advisers as to how she should handle this controversy; second, that she isn’t entirely convinced her acceptance of the advice to stonewall was the right thing to do. If Mike represents the view that silence is at this time not golden, but downright leaden, I hope his side prevails.
Let’s be clear on what this whole thing is not about. It is not about compelling the President to testify before Congress. No one is arguing, least of all the congressmen who are part of the five investigating committees, that she has a legal obligation to appear before them and subject herself to interrogation. Nor is this about preempting any technical determination on the authenticity of the tapes.
Those technical evaluations can proceed on the basis of all those tapes which have thus far surfaced and have been claimed to be the originals, the "mother" of all the tapes or the untampered, unaltered version. I doubt though, being somewhat familiar with the dynamics of congressional investigations undertaken by openly partisan groups, that there will be consensus on one technical outfit, be it the US Federal Bureau of Investigation or the UK’s Scotland Yard, or any other group, to do the job.
That’s assuming that the House will be able to overcome the formidable legal obstacle caused by the undeniable fact that the tapes were clearly the result of an illegal wiretapping carried out by still unknown sinister forces with highly questionable motives. By using wiretapped conversations as "evidence" or bases for technical evaluations, there is, I believe, a real legal issue that has great ramifications for how we treat future cases of this kind, not only in the legislature but before the courts.
That’s because the law is clear. Under Section 4 of Republic Act 4200, the wiretapped tapes are inadmissible in evidence "in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation."
But let’s assume that the opposition contingent in the House nevertheless risks a legal and constitutional crisis and both plays the tapes during the hearings and sends all the tapes thus far produced, whatever their source, to the FBI and/or Scotland Yard. Can we expect the administration congressmen to sit and do nothing? I seriously doubt it. They will either bring this issue to the Supreme Court or, if their backs are truly against the wall, they will at least come up with their own technical findings that the tapes are fake, contrived and altered.
In short, while I do not doubt that the congressional hearings will be milked for all the media mileage they can produce, I do not see the House of Representatives as the venue for the ultimate resolution of this controversy. As I said in my last column, the real destination of these hearings is an impeachment. While opposition legislators acknowledge that there is as yet insufficient basis for a credible impeachment complaint, experience has shown that proceedings in the Senate can be driven to the point that, regardless of the validity of the charges in the impeachment bill of particulars, a President can be booted out of office.
The determining factor has always been public perception. The players are even now watching where the wind is blowing. All of them are, of course, doing their best and using all means at their disposal to get the wind to blow in the direction favorable to them. For now, this is the real battleground, not the legislature or the courts.
That’s why many believe the stonewalling approach will not work. Silence surrenders the initiative to the destabilizers and allows the kind of gratuitous ridicule we’ve seen in those hilarious cell phone ring tones and text messages. From one point of view, these ring tones and text messages are a clue as to what the public thinks or wants to think about who’s telling the truth. From another, they are all part of the conspiracy. In any case, I can’t see how all this can be good for the President.
There are still a few things working for the President such as the lack of a clear alternative leader, the popular distaste for military rule or a junta, the refusal of the Church and the business community to call for her resignation, and the fact that there is no widespread consensus among people that the time is ripe for her ouster.
On the other hand, many respected commentators, probably for the above and other reasons, are prepared to allow her an opportunity to assert that, even if those were her voices on the questioned tapes, nowhere did she order or propose any electoral fraud or other illegal activity. They hope she will be able to give credible explanations.
Some who are disillusioned with her talk about "gloss" or the things that routinely go unsaid in criminal conversations. But this is at least debatable and, for the legal purists, would not stand up in court. Obviously, what she said or left unsaid will be the subject of endless and impassioned linguistic analysis which will end ... I know not when or how.
Still, the President has to decide quickly whether she will take refuge in silence or engage in the debate. Eventually, people will equate silence with cover-up or guilt. Those who continue to support her may begin to feel that her refusal to address the issue may be an indication of a lack of any plausible response.
Ultimately, those things we said were working for her may erode and disappear altogether. She, a most experienced politician, must know that when the tide of popular perception turns against a leader, people in their desperation will be willing to take even the unpalatable political route. In a sense, that is a profound flaw our so-called constitutional system has been unable to resolve, but it is reality.