This is certainly a triumph for justice and a big loss against those who dare to commit corruption.
This article has been reposted here from the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Villar to go on trial for C-5 road diversion
By Michael Lim Ubac, Christine Avendaño
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:25:00 05/22/2009
MANILA, Philippines—The vote was unanimous.
The Senate acting as a committee of the whole Thursday said there was a “prima facie case” to support the charge of ethical violations filed against Sen. Manuel Villar in connection with the purported double funding and diversion of the C-5 road extension project.
All 12 senators at the hearing, including the presiding officer, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, voted in the affirmative, thus authorizing the committee to go on to the next step—the public trial or adjudicatory hearings.
Villar and the other five members of the minority did not attend the hearing, having earlier decried the purported one-sided nature of the proceedings.
Enrile said Villar could not be compelled to attend the yet to be scheduled trial.
The original ethics rules would have compelled Villar to attend the trial under pain of being cited for contempt, Enrile said.
“But that was removed from the rules at the behest of the minority members,” he said.
‘Ganging up on me’
At a press conference held hours after the voting, Villar told reporters he was not surprised by the majority bloc’s decision.
“I did tell you earlier that I was willing to bet I would be adjudged guilty,” he told reporters in Filipino.
Villar, one of the senators aspiring for the presidency, said he was saddened just the same. “But that’s life. They ganged up on us,” he added.
On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel predicted that Villar would be “hanged” by the majority.
In a text message following Thursday’s voting, Pimentel said: “The known world condemned Galileo centuries ago when he said that the world was spherical. The world was wrong then. The Senate committee of the whole is full of holes [and] is also wrong today despite a majority vote.”
Pretrial ordered
Enrile ordered the holding of a preliminary conference among the concerned parties right after the committee of the whole voted to adopt the resolution read by general counsel Johnmuel Mendoza finding “credible, substantial evidence” to warrant a public trial.
He directed the general counsel, special counsel and secretariat of the committee to meet “between now and Monday” behind closed doors to tackle pertinent issues.
A report on the result of the preliminary conference, which is akin to a pretrial in criminal proceedings, is expected to be submitted to the committee at a hearing set on Tuesday.
In the eight-page resolution, the committee noted that despite being informed on May 11 of the scheduled preliminary inquiry on May 14, Villar “neither appeared … nor responded to the charges against him.”
It said Sen. Jamby Madrigal had provided documentary evidence in support of the charge against Villar, “and without any responsive pleading or controverting evidence from the respondent, it appears that there is substantial credible evidence to support” the allegations against him.
These are:
• That Villar caused the realignment of the C-5 road extension project to benefit properties registered in the names of corporations owned and controlled by him and his family.
• That he is in a conflict of interest position when he failed to divest himself of his interests in the corporations whose properties were acquired by the government for road right-of-way for the Las Piñas-Parañaque link road.
• That he made an insertion of P200 million in the General Appropriations Act for 2008 when the project was already covered by an appropriation for the same amount in the same law.
Madrigal said her evidence consisted of maps, deeds of sale and certified true copies of documents, as well as testimonies of witnesses.
“I don’t care for a vindication. In the end, it’s the Filipino people who should be vindicated because if a senator indeed committed such corruption, he does not deserve, or even run for, higher office … We have to spare the nation of a president like that who will continue to condone corruption,” Madrigal said.
Not guilt or innocence
Senators Madrigal, Rodolfo Biazon, Jinggoy Estrada, Edgardo Angara, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, Richard Gordon, Panfilo Lacson, Loren Legarda and Gregorio Honasan said their vote had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Villar.
Legarda said there was a “reasonable basis to continue” with the trial after a careful study of the evidence.
But she said her final vote would be based on her “conscience, not the dictates of party, politics or personal interest.”
Madrigal said she voted to prove the veracity of the complaint she had filed. “I will stand by the evidence here,” she said.
Biazon voted “as a result of my examination of the pieces of evidence” presented by Madrigal’s lawyer, Ernesto Francisco, during last week’s preliminary inquiry.
Biazon said this would allow the public a chance to “examine what this issue
is all about.”
Zubiri said the trial would afford Villar the proper chance to refute the allegations.
“Let it be stressed that this vote is not tantamount to pronouncing the guilt of the respondent,” Zubiri said, adding that “testing the truth through careful examination of the pieces of evidence is a very crucial action.”
Estrada said he voted for a trial “although I have some doubts as to how Senator Villar may be liable for some acts that may be without his direct participation and beyond his control.”
But the case needs “deeper scrutiny and thorough study, and the participation of Senator Villar is necessary to bring out the truth,” Estrada said.
Gordon said Villar owed it to the public to give “an adequate explanation as to what actually happened.”
“It would appear that upon serious perusal of the presentation of the facts
as well as the laws that have been quoted, there will be prima facie evidence
against Senator Villar,” he said.
Roxas said the committee was only after the truth because the charges lodged against a fellow senator were serious enough to test the credibility of the entire Senate.
He added that the final resolution of the case would be scrutinized by the public.
Lacson, Angara, Aquino and Enrile did not explain their votes.
Aspirants, too
Villar pointed out that those who voted for a trial were presidential aspirants like himself—Roxas, Legarda, Gordon and Lacson.
Another aspirant, Sen. Francis Escudero, was absent in Thursday’s proceedings. “This is just a confirmation of what I’ve been telling you—that I won’t get justice in this hearing,” Villar said.
He also said that among the senators who voted that he be fully investigated were “the complainant” (Madrigal) and “the first to accuse” him (Lacson).
Villar to go on trial for C-5 road diversion
This is why he will not participate in the trial or send a lawyer, Villar said.
“I won’t attend because I don’t recognize this proceeding,” he said.
Invite him as ‘friend-senator’
But if he will be invited as “a friend-senator,” and not “as part of the committee hearing,” he will attend, he added.
Villar said he would continue to defend himself in the media and the public, but that his actions were not meant to disrespect the Senate.
“I love the Senate as an institution,” declared the former Senate president. “I led the Senate and defended it during the times its independence was challenged.”
Villar also thanked Estrada for saying he had doubts about Villar’s liability:
“I’m thanking Senator Jinggoy for those statements. I know he had difficulty in this vote. He was following the line of the majority, and I know in his heart he knows what the truth is.”
Prima facie case
Prior to the voting, Angara simplified the meaning of “prima facie case” for the benefit of the public.
He said a vote of yes meant that “you are convinced as a reasonable doubt that there is really a ground to believe that [Villar] committed the violations.”
In effect, Angara said, the committee as a whole was applying to the Madrigal complaint the same standards applied to preliminary investigations in criminal cases, which require a mere finding of probable cause before a case can be filed in court for trial.
But to convict, the judge—in this case, the senators—need to establish after the trial that the offenses charged were committed “beyond reasonable doubt,” Angara said.
