The Puno affair is the best proof so far that some public officials in this administration consider the public office they occupy as a personal trust of the appointing authority to which they owe their position. They look at their position not as a public trust wherein they must at all times be accountable to the people pursuant to the provision of our Constitution (Article XI Section 1). Thus when it was discovered that Puno and his men tried to “lockdown” Robredo’s condominium unit containing some confidential documents, he chose to keep mum instead of opting for transparency and accountability. He seemed to be more concerned about exposing “certain persons to danger” than being accountable to the people for his questionable move. This is exactly the opposite of P-Noy’s oft repeated vow assuring the people that “kayo ang boss ko”.
It is quite clear that Puno’s immediate boss is not the Filipino people. No less than P-Noy himself said that he appointed Puno as DILG Undersecretary to be “his eyes and ears” on police matters. Indeed, as early as 2010 after the Luneta hostage taking, P-Noy’s Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa already said that Puno was DILG undersecretary for peace and order “directly in charge of the PNP affairs pursuant to the order of the President”.
Obviously, there is already something irregular in this special arrangement on Puno’s position as DILG undersecretary. Administratively, it is the DILG Secretary who is supposed to be the President’s alter ego in running the agencies of the Department like the PNP. So he should be directly in charge of its affairs, not the undersecretary. Under the set-up however, there seems to be two secretaries, Puno for police matters (Interior) and the late Robredo for Local Government. Even if there is a plausible explanation for such arrangement, it still looks like treating a public office as something that can be divided to accommodate somebody close to the appointing authority. This is definitely contrary to the concept of “public office as a public trust” envisioned in the Constitution. Hence in the Senate inquiry, Puno himself had to lie or contradict P-Noy and Executive Secretary Ochoa by claiming that he had no direct control over the PNP but merely assisted and represented the late DILG Secretary Robredo.
It seems that this administration is trying to protect Puno in these incidents. First in connection with the 2010 hostage taking fiasco, Ochoa issued that statement about Puno’s role in the DILG to overturn the recommendation of the fact finding committee to file administrative charges against Puno. Then in this attempt to enter the Robredo residence, P-Noy himself admitted that he was the one who ordered Puno to secure the papers of Robredo in the DILG offices upon learning of Robredo’s death in a plane crash. The problem here is that P-Noy’s order does not cover the condominium but only the DILG offices, and it was issued after Puno had already gone to Robredo’s condominium. It really looks like Puno is so “malakas” with P-Noy. Why? This is a big mystery that Senator Santiago tried but apparently failed to unravel.
Because of this highly questionable “lockdown”, Puno has been suspected of trying to suppress investigations into his alleged involvement in jueteng, the irregular firearms deal and illegal logging.
With respect to his involvement in jueteng and illegal logging, he blamed some sectors of media for requiring him to prove his innocence instead of demanding his accusers to prove their allegations. But this is also the same method used by this administration in prosecuting officials of the past administration. So Puno is now telling us that this method is wrong when used against officials of this administration but correct when used against past officials.
Then Puno also falls back on the same style employed in the past of merely denying the accusations coupled with a challenge to file charges and “prove it” with “hard evidence”. In his case, he said, no charges have been filed yet since 2010 when the exposé was first made as there is no direct and hard evidence presented against him.
Of course when it comes to payola, the culprits do not leave any paper trail or direct evidence that will pin them down. Everything depends on the credibility of the informants’ statement. The rules of evidence however also allow proof of guilt by circumstantial evidence. In this case there are several circumstances all pointing to the existence of payola given to the police and high government officials. These facts and circumstances are: that there have been repeated denunciations of jueteng and illegal logging in the past; that despite such denunciations jueteng and illegal logging continue to flourish as the police seems to be “natutulog sa pancitan”; and that some of the informants have been “silenced”.
There are also many circumstantial evidence coming out in the firearms deal implicating Puno in the overpricing of the P400 million M4 rifle deal. Even if he was not a member of the bids and awards committee (BAC, he intervened in the bidding process. Then the BAC initially awarded the contract to R. Espineli, the same company which originally bagged the supply contract for 59,904 handguns. Thereafter Puno was seen going to Israel together with Espineli. Later on in an interview with reporters in Vladivostok P-Noy himself said that he found the gun deal overpriced when he searched Google. Malacañang also confirmed that the rifle deal triggered Puno’s ouster at DILG. In fact sources claimed that as early as July, 2012, P-Noy had already asked Puno to resign.
To show therefore that his fight against graft and corruption is not a sham, that he means business even if a kabarilan, kaibigan or kabarkada is involved, P-Noy should ask DOJ Secretary De Lima to conduct further probe on these anomalies. Ombudsman Carpio-Morales should also conduct an inquiry so that proper charges can be filed. BIR’s Kim Henares can likewise look into the tax evasion angle. If not, there is really walang pagbabago, as critics claim.
Our new email address: attyjosesison@gmail.com