Depending on which newspaper you read, Ping Lacson is either guilty as sin as the alleged mastermind in the liquidation of PR man Buddy Dacer and his driver, or the predictable target of criminal justice, Philippine style because of his relentless campaign against corruption in the Arroyo administration.Reynaldo Berroya is either a seeker of justice or a vengeful former jailbird-turned-public official who wants to get even with Lacson.
Raul Gonzales is either acting true to stereotype as Gloria Arroyo’s hatchet man, ready to swing the ax on Lacson’s neck, or a do-nothing justice secretary who can finally score on a high profile target.
Don’t bet on knowing the truth anytime soon. First of all, the above scenarios are not necessarily “either-or.” Despite the seeming contradictions, there could be some truth to all the premises.
Surely, Ping Lacson didn’t develop his Dirty Harry reputation by being the chairman of the church choir during his stint as a police officer. Too many anecdotes portrayed him as a berdugo, they couldn’t all have been based on the fertile imagination of Carlo Caparas or the cinematic exploits of FPJ.
But he has also been a real pain-in-the-behind for Arroyo, her husband and her cabinet. It should be no surprise to anyone that their avenging angels are going after Lacson with every piece of evidence they can muster, whether truthful, half-truthful or fabricated.
Berroya is a former jailbird, thanks to Lacson. It is believable that he is also a seeker of justic e, especially if it means dishing it out to a sworn enemy.
Raul Gonzales is, without doubt, Arroyo’s hatchet man, but if he truly can convict a high profile target like Lacson, that would be a feather in his oft-tarnished cap.
In other words, it really shouldn’t matter if Lacson is prosecuted for reasons of political vendetta. If he is proven guilty, that would still be an achievement for an administration that has allowed too many obvious thieves to get away.
Having said that, it should also be noted that the criminal justice system in our country operates at several levels.
There is the press release level, which comes in two versions. That of the accuser and that of the accused. In advertising, the number or frequency of commercials or ads released for a brand is referred to as its “share-of-voice.” In the battle of press releases between the accuser and the accused, the applicable reference point is called “share-of-pocket.” The more reportorial and editorial pockets lined, the greater the share-of-voice.
At this level, also, the parties involved all manage to sound convincing, sure of themselves, ready to submit to lie detector tests or face investiga tors, prepared to back up leaked information with incontrovertible proof and, naturally, all vowing to see that justice and the truth prevail.
To the uninitiated, this can all sound so confusing. They couldn’t all be telling the truth, but which side is lying? This is where share-of-pocket and share-of-voice count, with the second being a logical consequence of the first.
This is all based on the principle that “He who buys the most media support gets to be believed,” a variation on Joseph Goebbels’ theory that a lie repeated often enough will be taken for the truth.
Then there is the second level where the backroom negotiations occur. Oftentimes, it’s a game of blackmail and counter-blackmail.
I’ve got the goods on you.
Oh yeah? I’ve got the goods on you, too.
I’ll pin you down first.
Do that and I’ll expose all the skeletons in your closet.
Maybe we should talk this over.
Yeah, maybe we should.
The next day, both accuser and accused appear before the media to announce that “It was all a misunderstanding.”
Peace follows – until one of the parties decides to double-cross the other. Then the excrement once more hits the fan.
And then, there’s the third level, which is where the truth really is.
The trouble with the truth in our country is that it implicates too many people, not just one or a couple. Oftentimes, the accuser turns out to be as dirty as the accused, not to mention several others who would not have been drawn into the case if those involved had been more reasonable – that is, if they had agreed to just talk things over.
This is the reason why most celebrated cases involving high ranking officials and prominent personalities are never resolved, after reams of press coverage and pompous announcements by authorities. The collateral damage is considered unacceptable.
It is often at the second level where these cases end up. The quid pro quo is what results. The accusers and the accused who are also often the blackmailers and the blackmailed agree to back off and leave each other’s skeletons in their respective closets.
If this were not the case, why haven’t those who claim to have the evidence in hand made their findings public? If they have the goods on Lacson, what’s keeping them from ordering his arrest?
On the other hand, if Lacson is as blameless as he vigorously claims to be, why doesn’t he have affidavits from the very same persons who are said to be implicating him, clearing him of any involvement?
And why did these police officers go into hiding in the first place?
Frankly, I don’t think the protagonists in this shadow play really want the truth to come out. I think they would all rather agree on a détente. No more corruption exposes by Lacson and no more ambition to become president. No more anti-Lacson inquisitions by the Arroyo government and all the grisly cases simply left to gather dust.
Such is criminal justice, Philippine style.
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment