THE “GLORIAGATE”
TAPES AND WHY THE PRESIDENT SHOULD RESIGN
By Cong. Roilo Golez
The political scandal and constitutional
crisis resulting from the taped conversations between the
President and COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano was dubbed
by the media as “Gloriagate,” alluding to the
Watergate scandal of the early 1970s in the United States.
The Watergate scandal arose from the discovery
of a burglary into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters
at the Watergate Apartments in Washington.
A Senate investigation ensued. The existence
of White House tapes of the conversations between the President
and his assistants was revealed.
At first, President Nixon refused to surrender
the tapes citing his executive privilege to withhold documents
and information from other branches of government, which
contention was promptly dismissed by the US Supreme Court
in the case of United States v. Nixon. The subpoenaed tapes
were grudgingly released by President Nixon and the House
of Representatives began formal investigations into his
possible impeachment.
In August 1972, a previously unknown tape
was released. Recorded only a few days after the break-in,
it documented Nixon and an aide formulating a cover-up.
When the information on the cover-up and
other damaging information were revealed by the so-called
Watergate tapes, Nixon's political party leaders deserted
him. Nixon resigned in disgrace instead of waiting for the
result of the impeachment proceeding.
PART ONE: HOUSE INQUIRY INTO THE TAPES
Watergate certainly has startling parallels
with the scandal President Arroyo is currently embroiled
in.
There were the tapes’ revelations
on possible rigging of the 2004 election, followed by an
apparent cover-up.
I believe the cover-up started on June
6, 2005 when Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye released two
CDs -- one allegedly containing a “manufactured”
conversation between the President and Commissioner Garcillano,
the other the supposed source conversation between the President
and a political aide named Gary. The latter recording appears
innocuous, while the former, if authentic, appears to reveal
the commission of election fraud.
On June 8, Sec. Bunye backtracked from
his earlier statement and said the woman’s voice in
either recording might not be the President’s after
all, attributing the likeness in the voices to manipulations
made possible by digital technology. By this time, Malacañang
had floated the idea that, irregardless of the President’s
silence on the matter and of the fact that none of the voices
in the recordings have been owned up to, the CDs contained
illegally wiretapped conversations.
On June 8, the House ordered five committees—Public
Information, Public Order & Security, National Defense,
Information & Communications Technology and Suffrage
& Electoral Reform—to conduct an inquiry into
the Gloriagate tapes.
The majority took the position that the
tapes could not be used as evidence because they were the
result of illegal wiretapping in violation of Republic Act
4200.
On June 10, The Department of Justice warned
news organizations not to air or print the contents of the
wiretapped recordings.
Bearing in mind this complication, as Chairman
of one of the designated five committees, the Committee
on National Defense, I released a statement on the day of
our first hearing on June 15, likening the wiretapping audiotape
to a corpse with a bullet wound discovered in the residence
of a public official when a team of policemen barged in
without a search warrant. Continuing:
“…The public official can claim
that the corpse cannot be used against him in a judicial
hearing because the corpse was discovered and obtained without
a search warrant and therefore inadmissible in evidence.
That may be true, but the public official
would not be able to escape the political repercussions
once the discovery of the corpse in his residence becomes
public knowledge due to the unavoidable media coverage.
The President can say that she does not
wish to comment on an illegally obtained wiretap. From the
legal point of view, she may be correct. But since the voice
sounds like her voice and this was earlier confirmed by
the Press Secretary, I believe that she must now make a
statement on this and level with the people.”
Despite the President’s insistence
not to “dignify” the tape issue with a response,
the public’s clamor for the truth snowballed.
Finally on the evening of June 27, after
three weeks of deafening silence which detractors termed
as stonewalling, the President, addressed the nation and
admitted a “lapse in judgment” by talking to
a COMELEC official in the period immediately following the
May 2004 elections, impliedly admitting that hers was the
voice in the tapes.
That very same evening, after spending
over an hour digesting the impact of the President’s
address, I released the following statement:
“The President did not answer the
accusation of electoral fraud in conspiracy with a COMELEC
commissioner. The deception that followed the discovery
of the audiotapes, particularly the attempt to make us believe
that the President was talking not to a COMELEC official
but a political leader, has aggravated the “lapse
in judgment.” The President is now in an untenable
position. She cannot anymore lead and govern… She
has lost her moral authority, a crucial component in national
leadership. Resignation, for the sake of the country, is
the only honorable option for the President.”
Demanding the President’s resignation
made it untenable for me to remain in the majority. The
next day, I submitted my irrevocable letter of resignation
from the KAMPI. As a matter of course, I likewise resigned
from my chairmanship of the Committee on National Defense,
thus sacrificing a much coveted position in the House.
I thus became the first member of the majority
to demand the resignation of the President and for around
two weeks became a lone voice in the wilderness as former
party mates attacked both my stand and person. But my resignation
from both the President’s party and the committee
chairmanship released me and allowed me to participate in
the hearings according to conscience and not party dictates.
PART TWO: LEGAL MEMORANDUM
While the President admitted that she conversed
with Commissioner Garcillano during the elections, she continues
to deny having committed any violation of law.
I would like to share with you the conclusions
of a legal study done by a lawyers’ group called The
Committee for the Defense of Lawyers (CODAL).
The CODAL study concluded that the President
may have committed crimes and offenses in violation of the
Revised Penal Code, the Omnibus Election Code, the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act and the 1987 Constitution for
the following acts:
1. Despite knowing that she was the person in the tape,
Pres. Arroyo ordered (or at least, allowed) Sec. Bunye to
declare that the said 'tape' is a concoction of the opposition
to destabilize the government-a very serious charge against
members of the opposition. The use of one's public office
(the Office of the President and the Press Secretary) for
personal ends or interest (in this case to cover up her
actions) and spread misinformation, is unlawful.
2. Pres. Arroyo allowed, if not ordered,
Sec. Bunye to present the supposed 'genuine' CD containing
her supposed conversation with Mr. Edgar Ruado in a Malacanang
press conference on June 6, despite her knowledge that the
said 'genuine' CD is completely false. Pres. Arroyo is aware
that she had the conversation with a COMELEC official and
not with Edgar Ruado. The use of the resources of a government
office (such as the Office of the Press Secretary) to disseminate
false information for the purpose of defending and covering
up her personal (and illegal) acts is a criminal offense.
This is violative of Section 1 (f) and (i) of PD 1829 on
Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal
Offenders which provides makes illegal, the following:
"(f) Making, presenting or using any
record, document, paper or object with the knowledge of
its falsity and with the intent to affect the course or
outcome of the investigation of or official proceedings
in criminal cases.
(i) Giving of false or fabricated information
to mislead or prevent law enforcement agencies from apprehending
the offender x x x"
3. Her order or 'request' for Comm. Garcillano to 'delay'
the canvassing of Senatorial elections is in violation of
various provisions of the Omnibus Election Code prohibiting
the delay or disruption of election processes. (PAUSE FOR
.WAV FILE)
4. Her implied 'request' for Comm. Garcillano
to deny any petition filed by Sen. Rodolfo Biazon to open
the election documents in Tawi-Tawi is an unlawful interference
in the quasi-judicial function of a Member of an independent
constitutional body. (PAUSE FOR .WAV FILE)
5. Even if Pres. Arroyo will not admit
to being privy to Comm. Garcillano's fraudulent acts, she
still violated Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code, among
others, for her failure to file the necessary legal action
for the impeachment and prosecution of Comm. Garcillano
despite his open admission to the commission of the following
crimes:
a) Comm. Garcillano committed a crime when
he informed Pres. Arroyo that he will 'hide' the Election
Officer of Pagundaran 'para hindi maka testigo'.
b) Comm. Garcillano committed Electoral Fraud when informed
her that 'ganito ang pagpataas ng iyong boto, eh malinis
naman ang pagkagawa'. (PAUSE FOR .WAV)
c) Comm. Garcillano committed electoral
fraud when he told Pres. Arroyo that he will 'ensure' (pipilitin)
that her votes will not go below one million. Considering
that elections are over except the counting, there is no
other way to ensure this except through manipulation of
votes. (PAUSE FOR .WAV)
6. Talking with her appointee, Comm. Garcillano, is a betrayal
of public trust and violates the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act for Undue Influence on a public official.
(PAUSE FOR .WAV)
Reappointing Comm. Garcillano to the COMELEC
despite her knowledge of said electoral fraud can be used
as proof of conspiracy to commit fraud. If Pres. Arroyo
intended to officially communicate with the COMELEC, she
should have corresponded with Chairman Abalos rather than
her appointee. This also puts into question her persistence
in appointing Comm. Garcillano to his post despite widespread
opposition.
The only conclusion we can draw from all
this is that the President must resign now and face whatever
charges may be filed against her so we may put our house
back in order.
PART THREE: GROUPS CALLING ON PGMA TO RESIGN
Several groups and personalities, not associated
with the so-called United Opposition, have since joined
the call for the President’s resignation. Among them
are:
a. De La Salle University;
b. University of St. La Salle, Bacolod
City
c. University of the Philippines College
of Law;
d. University of the Philippines, Baguio;
e. University Student Council, UP Manila;
f. National Council of Churches in the
Philippines;
g. Association of Religious Organizations;
h. Ateneo de Manila Student Council;
i. Concerned Faculty, Professionals and
Staff of the Ateneo de Manila University;
j. Student Christian Movement of the Philippines;
k. College Editors Guild of the Philippines;
l. Christian Nationalist Union;
m.La Liga Policy Institute;
n. Action For Economic Reforms;
o. Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya;
p. Catholic Bishops, among whom:
Quezon Bishop Emeritus Julio Xavier Labayen
Novaliches Bishop Antonio Tobias
Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez
Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz
San Pablo, Laguna Bishop Leo Drona, and
Bacolod Bishop Vicente Navarra;
q. Former President Corazon Aquino;
r. Integrated Bar of the Philippines –
Negros Oriental and Cebu Chapters;
s. Business, Industry, Retired Chapter,
Philippine Military Academy Alumni Association;
t. Makati Business Club;
u. Financial Executives Institute of the
Philippines;
v. Jose W. Diokno Foundation;
w. Committee for the Defense of Lawyers;
x. Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG);
y. Kongreso ng Mamamayang Pilipino II (KOMPIL
II);
z. Management Association of the Philippines
aa. University of Makati; and
bb. University Council (UC) of the University
of the Philippines (UP) Diliman
Considering the gravity of the “Gloriagate”
crisis, I am expecting more groups to come out and make
a stand likewise based on principle and integrity.
On July 11, the Catholic Bishops Conference
of the Philippines (CBCP) released a very strong message
admonishing the President to “discern to what extent
she has contributed to the erosion of effective governance”
and “whether it is irreversible.” The CBCP said
in Tagalog: “sinasabi dito na hinihiling namin na
suriin ng pangulo ang kanyang pananagutan, at kung ang pagtitiwala
sa kanya ay hindi na maibabalik, dapat siya na mismo ang
gumawa ng desisyon.”
In other words, the CBCP is asking for
voluntary resignation if the loss of moral authority and
confidence is deemed irreversible.
In her inaugural address delivered in June
2004, the President promised that, under her watch, “elections
will no longer raise a single doubt about their integrity.”
Add to that statement the any instances in various forums
which I witnessed where the President pledged to make a
clean and honest system of election as one of her legacies.
It is so tragic that the opposite has happened.
The 2004 presidential election now stands as having raised
the most doubt in the modern history of presidential elections
in the country.
On 27 June, I stood alone from the majority
coalition in demanding the President’s resignation.
On July 8, in a dramatic turn of events,
eight cabinet members and two prominent bureau heads resigned,
sacrificing their powerful and prestigious positions and
demanded the President’s resignation. This was the
biggest mass resignation of cabinet members in the history
of the Philippines. More resignations followed. And more
are expected in the coming days.
The mass resignation was followed by former
President Cory’s statement asking the President to
resign. Likewise the Senate President and most of the Liberal
Party members of the House and the Senate followed suit.
They all cited their dismay over the revelations of the
tapes apparently indicating that the President allowed the
rigging of the 2004 Presidential elections.
Today, the latest national surveys indicate
that more than 80% of the nation wants the President to
be ousted from office either by resignation or impeachment.
The President has a national trust rating of only 12%.
The impeachment process is about to start
in the House. With a President disliked by 80% of the people
and a trust rating plunging to close to 10%, is there a
need for a painful impeachment process when there is a more
honorable Constitutional option for the President which
is to resign?
I ASK YOU THEREFORE TO JOIN THE CLAMOR
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO RESIGN FOR THE SAKE OF THE COUNTRY.
*****
