Last September 12, 2007 the Sandiganbayan finally convicted former President Joseph ’Erap’ Ejercito Estrada of plunder, sentenced him to forty (40) years imprisonment and ordered the forfeiture of the almost one billion pesos worth of bank deposits and assets in favor of the government. The verdict was the culmination of more than six years of court proceedings that started after Estrada was ousted in the EDSA 2 uprising of January 2001.
Estrada was originally charged with four violations of plunder. It was, however, in two specific instances that the Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt — the P189.7 million in commissions he got from the purchase of Belle Corp. shares by the Government Service Insurance System and the Social Security System, and the P545 million in payoffs from jueteng lords. He was cleared from the charge of diverting the tobacco excise taxes for his personal use, and from the charge of maintaining a bank account under the false name of Jose Velarde. Another case of perjury for allegedly misdeclaring his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) was likewise dismissed.
But even after the verdict was read and Estrada was flown back to his Tanay resthouse, the spirit of jubilation that should have accompanied such a victory was nowhere in plain sight. After all, many key personalities of EDSA 2 have either already become disinterested in the outcomes of these cases or may have, in fact, already reached a modus vivendi of sorts with Estrada. On the part of the biggest beneficiary of EDSA 2, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo herself, the last thing that may be said was that she gloated over such a decision. On the contrary, she was more concerned with the political backlash of the guilty verdict, so much so that just two weeks after the Sandiganbayan decision, she is now reportedly seriously considering giving Estrada an absolute pardon. In such an eventuality, an absolute pardon will exonerate Estrada of any accountability and will allow him to keep his about-to-be forfeited bank accounts and assets.
I beg to disagree with some columnists who have opined that the whole issue of pardon rests solely with GMA and Estrada, insofar as the entire matter supposedly depends on their sole prerogatives — i.e., GMA offering a conditional or absolute pardon, and Erap accepting or rejecting the offer in return. Such a standpoint reduces the plunder charges as nothing but a personal fight between the two presidents and implies that what happened in 2001 was nothing more than a conspiracy between GMA and her allies to oust Erap and grab power. In such a case, it then follows that Erap is correct in claiming that the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan that tried his cases was created with the sole purpose of convicting him.
There is of course so much truth in such lines of reasoning. However, my disagreement stems from the fact that such a viewpoint ultimately leaves the people who trooped to EDSA during those historic days out of the equation — the multitudes of people who endured hot days and cold nights on the streets, risked their lives and endured threats as a consequence of their political judgment of the Estrada government as an immoral and unethical regime.
Perhaps the greatest irony of EDSA 2 is the fact that two of its most important principles —morality and ethics in governance — far from being upheld in the aftermath have, in fact, been mocked countless times over. The current ZTE-NBN scandal, to which Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos and First Gentleman Mike Arroyo are being linked, is nothing but another entry in the long list of shady and shameless deals that includes the Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard scam, the NAIA Terminal 3 mess, the Jose Pidal bank accounts, the controversial North Rail Project, and of course, the primus inter pares of them all, the “Hello Garci” scandal. Thus, the common question is that since the present administration has proved to be more corrupt than the one it replaced, why celebrate the resolution of Estrada’s corruption cases at all?
One can easily understand the EDSA 2 politicians who have already distanced themselves from the GMA administration or have altogether joined the Opposition. As it has often been said, politics is addition, not subtraction. The case of Sen. Manny Villar may be the best example in this regard. Villar, who was instrumental in impeaching Estrada in 2000, is now politically collaborating with the leader he helped depose. In fact, it was Estrada’s support that allowed Villar to retain the Senate Presidency. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Estrada’s son, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada is the current Senate President Pro-Tempore and, if rumors are true, Villar’s most likely running-mate come the 2010 presidential elections. And though he is yet to declare his intentions, Sen. Mar Roxas is also seen as increasingly courting the support of the former President, if his frequent visits to Estrada’s Tanay resthouse in the days following the Sandiganbayan verdict are of any indication.
To a certain point too, the anemic response of civil society groups to the guilty verdict is quite understandable. At a recent gathering of leftists and progressives under the Laban ng Masa (LnM) coalition, many assailed the ‘hypocrisy’ of the GMA administration and argued instead that GMA and her “cohorts of plunderers and murderers” be the ones delivered to justice. LnM then called for the prosecution of people involved in the Hello Garci scandal, the Jose Pidal scandal, the JocJoc Bolante fertilizer scam and the current ZTE-NBN scandal. Although on the whole, LnM attacked the bankruptcy of the current system which is dominated by economic elites and traditional politicians, it ended up eventually sounding pro-Estrada.
In a similar yet more subdued fashion, the Black and White Movement (BnW)---a formation of professionals and middle forces organized after Hello Garci scandal---issued a press statement that respected and welcomed the Sandiganbayan ruling but at the same time, lamented the failure of the GMA administration in pursuing cases against Nani Perez, Jose Pidal, Jocjoc Bolante and others. It likewise assailed E.O. 464 and Memorandum Order 108 that allowed the administration to stonewall any investigation.
The most telling of all, however, is the response of PlunderWatch which was among the complainants in the original plunder case and which counts among its organizations a group in the radical left. It manifested days ahead of the promulgation that it is no longer interested if Estrada is found guilty or not.
Ultimately, the sentiments of the Filipino people who are bombarded by daily news of rampant corruption may have something to do with such lukewarm response. Two recent SWS surveys conducted just before the promulgation by the Sandiganbayan serve as evidence to this. The first survey which was conducted in Metro Manila and the neighboring provinces shows that only 31% of the respondents believed Estrada was involved in corruption. Contrast this with 72% of the respondents who agreed to the statement that ‘under the current administration corruption increased’ and that they believed GMA (77%) and Mike Arroyo (71%) are directly involved in corruption. The second survey, on the other hand, released on the day of the promulgation showed that the majority of the people nationwide expected an acquittal of Estrada. This sentiment is strongest in Mindanao (63%), while those in Luzon (57%) and Metro Manila (56%) comprised simple majorities.
Be that as it may, the question propounded earlier can only take greater significance: whatever happened to the EDSA 2 principles of moral and ethical governance? Does it escape civil society groups that their anemic response to the guilty verdict diminishes the value of exacting accountability from Estrada? Consequently, don’t they realize that they are aiding GMA into precisely pardoning Estrada, thereby negating the spirit and dreams of EDSA 2?
Why have we come into this?