There is an interesting
development at the House probe on the illegal drug trade in the New Bilibid
Prison. This development has something
to do with the philosophical problem of arriving at truth which I am going to
discuss a bit later.
Some personalities involved in
this drug trade were summoned to testify[1]
on the alleged illegal activities happening inside NBP. Drug lords, police officers, NBP officers,
and security aides of former DOJ secretary including Ronnie Dayan, who claimed he
was a driver-security, a lover as well of then DOJ secretary Leila de Lima
appeared in the Committee hearing and read prepared testimonies with an
assistance of a legal counsel. This
Committee hearing in the Lower House appeared like a real scenario in the
proper court, only that in the hearing there was no accused presented, no
eyewitnesses shown (members of the Committee called them “resource persons”
instead), and no judges. That was not,
however, judicial in nature but intended to aid Representatives in their
legislation.
What transpired in the series of
hearings is that all testimonies of “resource persons” summoned by the
Committee to testify implicated Sen. Leila de Lima allegedly asking from drug
lords some payolas for her senatorial campaign in exchange of protection in
their drug trade. However, during the
last hearing, a certain member of the Committee noted and remarked addressing
to Dayan, “paiba-iba ang kwento ninyo”
(you’re making different versions of the story.) He might not be referring only to the testimony
of Dayan but other testimonies of some resource persons as well. This remark tickles my imagination and leads
me to write this article since this is not only a problem in hearing cases but
a very philosophical one.
The nature of reading sworn affidavits
like one read by Dayan is to find out what is really the truth. I like how it is said in Tagalog, “kung ano talaga ang katutuhanan.” Truth has been a subject matter of lively
debate by different philosophers in the history of philosophy. Many philosophers claim that truth doesn’t
change; it’s immutable. In the words of Aristotle,
“a proposition is true if, of
what is the case, it says that it is the case, or if, of what it is not the
case, it says that it is not the case.”
In a testimony, a witness should meet the following truth-conditions:
(1) what he is going to testify is what is really the case or is happening, (2)
nothing is left unsaid or unspoken, (3) nothing is intentionally omitted, and
(4) nothing is a lie. If all testimonies
given by all persons involved in the issue meet all of these truth-conditions,
then it would follow that each of them is telling the truth and their
testimonies shall cohere (magkatugma ang
sinabi nila). In the hearing, convicted
drug lords and some NBP personnel involved pointed their fingers to Dayan as
the bagman of then Secretary de Lima.
Dayan, however, denied their allegations and denied having acquaintance
with them.
That’s where the problem lies. One of them must be telling a lie. Thus, one or more sworn affidavits by those
resource persons are “stories,” not testimonies. “Stories” are pre-fabricated, intentionally
made to meet the end of the author/s. If
they’re not testimonies but stories, then this House probe fools the public
into believing that De Lima is the culprit.
If that’s what the Committee is up to, then it defeats the purpose of having
that hearing, which is to know the issue of illegal drug trade in NBP.
The current DOJ Secretary Aguirre knows that
all of these testimonies presented at the House probe don’t hold water in the
proper court to implicate De Lima as the mastermind of all these illegal
activities. Testimonial evidence is
insufficient; it gives “probable cause” to implicate De Lima though. But, by principle, a judge can’t convict a suspect
on the basis of insufficient evidence. A
judge convicts a suspect unless pieces of evidence give “no room for
doubt.” Until now, there is no case
filed against De Lima by the DOJ.
Senator De Lima knows it very well.
Despite all issues hurled against her, she remains in composure. She can’t be convicted based on all those
testimonies. Well, in the first place,
DOJ can’t find a case against her. "Sextortion," illegal possession of husband, guess what?
[1] I
think “testify” is not the correct term because in the first place they were
not considered eyewitnesses but “resource persons.”
