Obstruction
If the “Hello, Garci” tapes had never surfaced, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be firmly in charge, there would be, at best, a token opposition, and she wouldn’t be, today, the Richard Nixon of Philippine politics. But the tapes surfaced, and the country then, as now, must ask: Why does the chief victim of the wiretapping, the President, seem the least inclined to get to the bottom of the matter?When the first (modified) versions of the tapes appeared, let no one forget that the Palace began by trying to muddle the issue with its own doctored version. Then it proceeded to wield its own interpretation of the law like a club. It threatened media with prosecution if they broadcast the tapes or published transcripts. It then issued executive issuances that were found defective by the courts, but which provided a shield for vulnerable Cabinet and military officials. It embarked on a divide-and-rule strategy by resisting both a truth commission and impeachment, until it had lobbied enough support to block both.
The President herself tried to grovel before the people. When that failed, she proceeded to do her best to intimidate those who wouldn’t be induced into cooperating with her. We should never overlook the reality, however, that throughout this time, until the present, she has acted as the primary defendant, instead of the foremost victim, and that is because whether she instigated the wiretapping or not, at the heart of the tapes is the revelation of a larger crime, the subversion of democracy.
The public instinctively knew then, and on the whole continues to believe, that these revelations stripped the President of legitimacy. While the public has also, on the whole, been willing to keep an open mind, all efforts to resolve this paramount question have failed. This failure has given the President an uneasy tenure.
But there is a difference between what we, the people, knew about the “Hello, Garci” issue in 2005, and what we know today. Someone has stepped forward to testify how it was done, by whom, and to whom. That someone is Vidal Doble Jr.
In 2005, he was the kind of fugitive over whom various camps conducted a tug-of-war that the intelligence establishment won. Today, he is acting as a whistle-blower. And now the public wants to see if his allegations can be debunked, or if they can withstand sustained scrutiny.
Instead of finally resolving matters, the Palace has reached into its old bag of tricks. It has dismissed the whistle-blower out of hand, threatened to recycle discredited executive issuances, proclaimed its own interpretation of the law as the only valid one, and tried to rally its old reliables in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Doble has finally done what he didn’t do in 2005, which is to give testimony on the vital questions of who were wiretapped, by whom and how, all of which suggest a possible answer, at long last, to the question of motive. Who was interested in getting the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to eavesdrop on such a wide-ranging group as a member of the Cabinet (Michael Defensor), a constitutional officer (Virgilio Garcillano) and members of the opposition? In 2005, the public could only wonder, but now we are inching closer to suspects, and the chief suspect seems to be a member of the President’s official family.
These are allegations that demand an investigation. We are told that Congress can investigate with one of two purposes in mind. It can investigate in order to exercise oversight over the executive branch, or it can investigate in aid of legislation. Every aspect of these allegations touches on these two justifications to hold a Senate hearing.
Former senator Francisco Tatad warns of a constitutional crisis if the Senate proceeds to investigate the case. The separation of powers, he says, means the Senate cannot investigate a president unless articles of impeachment have been approved by the House.
Tatad is being true to the spirited defense he made of then-embattled President Joseph Estrada. But we are not convinced by his reasoning, and we’re glad that the Senate committee on rules voted that hearing by the committee of the whole is in order.
To be sure, the Senate, at the end of the hearings, can only recommend action or amend existing legislation or pass new bills. It cannot remove the President from office without an impeachment. But it can, and should, ask: Why the President, who may have been victimized by her own people, coddles them. Why did the law prove impotent to prevent such a situation? And is it being used to protect the culprits?
