Silent witness
Silent witness
Updated 02:45am (Mla time)
Oct 21, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on Page A12 of the October 21, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
JUDGING from the belated appearance of the controversial Major General Carlos F. Garcia at the congressional hearings, and using newly available information, we can already see the outline of his defense.
Before the joint House committees last Monday, the former deputy chief of staff for comptrollership (J-6, in military speak) repeatedly invoked his right not to incriminate himself. He also reserved the right to answer the corruption allegations against him at the proper forum. "With due respect, I would like to answer the question before the Ombudsman, the Court of Appeals and the military court," he told the lawmakers.
When he appears in those venues, however, we can be certain he will employ a defense that will depend in large part on the fine art of delegating upwards. In Monday's hearing, he gave a sample of the strategy. "J-6 releases funds only with the approval of the chief of staff," he said. Not to put too fine a point on it, he then offered the negative construction: "J-6 cannot release funds without the approval of the chief of staff."
His defense, we are certain, will also employ a related strategy: minimizing the scope of his responsibilities. On Monday, he tried a variation of a theme we are sure to hear again and again. "We only release [funds]. We don't have discretion."
A third defense strategy may be the most crucial. The most telling pieces of evidence against Garcia have come from his wife, who unwittingly provided US customs officials with a detailed confirmation of their family's illegal sources of income. Now there is talk, from within the military community, that may prove legally useful.
Clarita Garcia has had brain surgery, not once but twice. "That's why I am not surprised why she said those things. Iba na ang [She's on a different] frequency," a retired general told the Inquirer.
In other words, the Philippine version of the insanity defense.
State witness
THE NOTION that the national interest would be better served if the government worked with Major General Carlos F. Garcia as a state witness is premature at best. At worst, it will leave the military unreformed, and allow Garcia to go scot-free
Let us be clear. Turning the dollar-rich, sleep-deprived general into a state witness will likely mean that we won't see any general convicted of graft at all.
That the state witness must be proven to be the least guilty among principals in a crime is the elementary requirement. We cannot even be sure that Garcia, who as comptroller of the Armed Forces had access to military funds, would pass this test. But assuming that he does, we can almost be certain that the legal case against the other generals will be weaker than any case against him. The case against Garcia will be based in large part on smoking-gun documentation, including papers from or submitted to US customs. The case against the other generals, if Garcia turns state witness, will rely on Garcia's own testimony.
Even only in terms of legal tactics, this is not a good deal.
To be sure, Garcia's millionaire lifestyle, as recounted in the documents his own wife submitted to the US customs, cannot be an isolated case. Other generals also live beyond their stated means. But the way to charge them with cases that stick is not to let Garcia get away with it.
If indeed there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt against Garcia, then he must be found guilty. If, in his defense, he maintains that other generals have done it too, then by all means his statements must be used to buttress the cases against the others. If, in the trial, patterns of corruption in the military are proven, then the same patterns should be used to support the other cases.
But throw all the incontrovertible documentation against Garcia into the wind, for the chance to, maybe, just maybe, land a big fish? Nonsense. Garcia is big enough.
Updated 02:45am (Mla time)
Oct 21, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on Page A12 of the October 21, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
JUDGING from the belated appearance of the controversial Major General Carlos F. Garcia at the congressional hearings, and using newly available information, we can already see the outline of his defense.
Before the joint House committees last Monday, the former deputy chief of staff for comptrollership (J-6, in military speak) repeatedly invoked his right not to incriminate himself. He also reserved the right to answer the corruption allegations against him at the proper forum. "With due respect, I would like to answer the question before the Ombudsman, the Court of Appeals and the military court," he told the lawmakers.
When he appears in those venues, however, we can be certain he will employ a defense that will depend in large part on the fine art of delegating upwards. In Monday's hearing, he gave a sample of the strategy. "J-6 releases funds only with the approval of the chief of staff," he said. Not to put too fine a point on it, he then offered the negative construction: "J-6 cannot release funds without the approval of the chief of staff."
His defense, we are certain, will also employ a related strategy: minimizing the scope of his responsibilities. On Monday, he tried a variation of a theme we are sure to hear again and again. "We only release [funds]. We don't have discretion."
A third defense strategy may be the most crucial. The most telling pieces of evidence against Garcia have come from his wife, who unwittingly provided US customs officials with a detailed confirmation of their family's illegal sources of income. Now there is talk, from within the military community, that may prove legally useful.
Clarita Garcia has had brain surgery, not once but twice. "That's why I am not surprised why she said those things. Iba na ang [She's on a different] frequency," a retired general told the Inquirer.
In other words, the Philippine version of the insanity defense.
State witness
THE NOTION that the national interest would be better served if the government worked with Major General Carlos F. Garcia as a state witness is premature at best. At worst, it will leave the military unreformed, and allow Garcia to go scot-free
Let us be clear. Turning the dollar-rich, sleep-deprived general into a state witness will likely mean that we won't see any general convicted of graft at all.
That the state witness must be proven to be the least guilty among principals in a crime is the elementary requirement. We cannot even be sure that Garcia, who as comptroller of the Armed Forces had access to military funds, would pass this test. But assuming that he does, we can almost be certain that the legal case against the other generals will be weaker than any case against him. The case against Garcia will be based in large part on smoking-gun documentation, including papers from or submitted to US customs. The case against the other generals, if Garcia turns state witness, will rely on Garcia's own testimony.
Even only in terms of legal tactics, this is not a good deal.
To be sure, Garcia's millionaire lifestyle, as recounted in the documents his own wife submitted to the US customs, cannot be an isolated case. Other generals also live beyond their stated means. But the way to charge them with cases that stick is not to let Garcia get away with it.
If indeed there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt against Garcia, then he must be found guilty. If, in his defense, he maintains that other generals have done it too, then by all means his statements must be used to buttress the cases against the others. If, in the trial, patterns of corruption in the military are proven, then the same patterns should be used to support the other cases.
But throw all the incontrovertible documentation against Garcia into the wind, for the chance to, maybe, just maybe, land a big fish? Nonsense. Garcia is big enough.
posted by Dante at 10:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home