|
As expected, police and organizers of last Friday’s protest
rally in Makati gave conflicting estimates of the crowd size. The
authorities, as if to mock the protester leaders’ one-million
target, said 10,000 protesters gathered at the corner of Ayala
Avenue and Paseo de Roxas. Protest organizers put the figure much
higher at around 70,000.
Whatever was the real crowd size, live TV
coverage gave viewers the impression that it was one of the biggest
protest actions—if not the biggest—in recent memory.
Beyond the numbers, however, ex-Sen. Francisco
Tatad told the Kapihan sa Sulo media forum Saturday, the rally drew
the participation of the widest array of anti-GMA forces since the
scandal over the abortive NBN-ZTE contract erupted.
“The situation remains fluid,” Tatad added,
“although the government seems to be learning. At least, it did
not attempt to inflict violence on the protesters in Metro Manila
and other cities.”
Tatad would not venture a guess on whether the
protest actions will escalate and lead to President Gloria
Arroyo’s ouster any time soon. He did say, however, that the
Makati protest probably signals the beginning of an unstable
period—especially with the growing involvement of students.
Whether or not Mrs. Arroyo survives this latest
crisis and serves out the rest of her term, the tumult sparked by
the NBN-ZTE deal and other alleged irregularities needs to be
resolved.
Resolution, in turn, should lead to fundamental
changes in how the government operates.
“There has to be a convergence between those
who seek basic reforms and those who are merely looking toward [the
next presidential election in] 2010,” Tatad said. “That
convergence has not taken place thus far.”
Quest for truth
Everyone says they want to know the truth—even
those who are already demanding GMA’s resignation even if the
multiple investigations into the NBN-ZTE deal in the Senate, at the
Department of Justice and by the Office of the Ombudsman are still
ongoing.
That Mrs. Arroyo has managed to hang on cannot
be attributed merely to her legendary luck. As in the “Hello,
Garci” scandal of 2005, the jury—the “critical mass” of
Filipinos whose collective action led to the ouster of sitting
presidents in 1986 and 2001—is still out.
The leading elements of People Power, which took
to the streets in large numbers last week, are convinced of the
President’s guilt. Their credentials are impressive, their public
statements eloquent and their hold on the mass media virtually
total.
Yet, the middle forces—which in their millions
made EDSA 1 and 2 possible—are evidently not yet ready to throw
their all-out support for Mrs. Arroyo’s detractors. And these
middle forces, although attentive to the Senate inquiry, are not yet
inclined to accept the oral testimonies of its witnesses. At the
same time, neither do they put much store on investigations of the
Ombudsman and DOJ, whose credibility are tainted by their top
officials’ closeness to Malacañang.
The Arroyo administration has found solace in
the refusal of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines to
lend its voice to the “Oust-Gloria” clamor. For this stand, the
CBCP drew brickbats from groups that had expected the bishops to
call on the President to finally step down.
The CBCP majority stopped short of supporting
the more radical clergy. However, it did demand a continuation of
the quest for truth behind the allegations of irregularity in the
NBN-ZTE deal—primarily though greater government transparency with
the revocation of Executive Order 464.
The CBCP’s hesitancy could quickly turn into
certainty about the President’s guilt if Malacañang insists on
remaining opaque.
Government dilemma
The administration is thus caught in a dilemma.
Its rivals in the Senate will conclude their inquiry with a damning
report on the President. Meanwhile, the DOJ and Ombudsman can expect
the public to view their investigations with suspicion.
The NBN-ZTE controversy has many parallels with
the Watergate fiasco, which not only forced Richard Nixon to resign
but, more disturbing, eroded the faith of Americans in their
political system. Fortunately, they had someone like Leon Jaworski
as special prosecutor who led the investigation of the 1973 break-in
of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the
Watergate building by Republic Party operatives.
Jaworski became famous for his lengthy legal
battle with the White House as he tried to secure evidence for the
trial of senior Nixon administration officials who tried to cover up
the Watergate burglary.
In July 1974 the US Supreme Court ruled that
“the generalized assertion of [executive] privilege must yield to
the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal
trial.” Thereafter Nixon was forced to hand over the unedited
tapes to Jaworski—including the recording of a discussion on June
23, 1972, known as “the smoking gun” tape.
What this brief review of Watergate hints at is
a way out of our present predicament in the Philippines.
What we need is an independent prosecutor, armed
with sufficient powers to oblige the cooperation of even the highest
officials of the land. The independent prosecutor needs to be
insulated from partisan persuasion—preferably through a law passed
by both the pro-administration House of Representatives and
oppositionist Senate.
If, as Mrs. Arroyo says, the administration also
wants to get to the bottom of the accusations hurled by Rodolfo Noel
Lozada Jr. et al.—then Malacañang, too, ought to support the
creation of an Office of the Special Prosecutor.
In order to ensure that this office remains free
from political pressure, its head should be named by the Supreme
Court.
Only an independent investigator authorized by
all three branches of government would have the trustworthiness to
conduct a probe whose findings would be acceptable to all.
That is, of course, if the truth is what we
seek—and not just GMA’s ouster.
|
