trail

        It is now the end of office hours of Thursday and up to now, a week  after the Melo Commission had formally submitted its 89-page report to the President last week (Inquirer, Jan.30), the Chief Executive refuses to release it. Why?        

         This is not to give undue reliability on  the Commission itself. The Commission based its findings largely on the testimonies of AFP officials; and failed to gather any evidence from the  victims’ kin, friends, and colleagues, because it did not enjoy the trust of the victims’ families; and neither did the Commission go out of its way to go to the sites and attempt to talk to townsfolk.         

       But just out of curiosity, it might be worth asking: Why would the President not want it released?             

        There is a rule in evidence, that is almost commonsensical, that goes:                    RULE 131. Burden of Proof and Presumptions.       xxx

           Sec. 3.Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

xxx

(e)That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced; xxx         

          Commonsensical because, it means: if a party refuses to release an object or document or witness, it means (or it is presumed) that, that object, document, witness, is adverse to his/her interest.                 One of the members of the Commission  leaked some of the findings of the report as follows: “the military, leftist groups and private “goons” (armies) of politicians were all involved though the bulk of assailants came from the AFP. “ (Manila Times, Sam Mediavilla, Anthony Vargas and Maricel v. Cruz, Reporters, Jan. 30).               

        “The bulk of the assailants came from the AFP.” Who are these soldiers? What are their ranks and units? Where are they assigned? Who are their commanding officers? Presumably, the 89-page report contains some leads that the Commander-in-Chief does not want known. It is election time. Not a good time for her and not a good time to antagonize certain sectors in the military that have information on her and whose help she might need in the elections.                    The Commission used the principle of command responsibility and pointed to Palparan. Presumably, but without giving undue reliablity on the Commission itself, they (the Commission members) would have to cite some basis for its conclusions; and that maybe worth the curiosity; and from the point of view of the President, worth the concealment from the public. It is impossible to comment intelligently on its findings because the President refuses to release the report, but  presumably the Chief State Prosecutor, the NBI Director, and Justice Melo,  knew their criminal law, criminal procedure,  evidence, and are familiar with the concept of criminal conspiracy and, in military law, command responsibility; and would not cavalierly use the word “command responsibility” without any  support. I know that they did not include the Commander-in-Chief in finding liability but we could use the same reasoning that the Commission  used in its report to find liability all the way up to  Commander-in-Chief.  

         And that is why up to now, the 89-page report is still under lock and key in her drawer. Her exhortations of: “We’re calling (on them, families and friends of victims) to speak out, lay the evidence, and serve the high cause of justice” are empty election propaganda considering that the families and friends of the victims have been speaking out and laying the evidence in public forums yet the killings continue unabated; and the President has refused leads that may be contained in the report. The pronouncement of the DOJ Secretary that he had wanted Palparan to serve as DOJ adviser on intelligence and security because “I think he’s a very capable officer” (Inquirer, Jan. 31) should dispel any illusion being fostered by the President that “the high cause of justice” would be served.    

        Those who are seriously interested in getting at the murderers should have preserved the physical evidence; that trail will never be cold as long as the witnesses are willing to testify in better times or under better climes.