o we hear snickers
in all freshman law classes in the land when a lawyer who claimed he is
representing police officers assigned to secure Jun Lozada said his clients
refused to appear before the Senate inquiry into the national broadband deal for
fear they might incriminate themselves?
The lawyer got a mini-lecture from Chiz Escudero, who cited a
long string of Supreme Court rulings which say the right against
self-incrimination may be invoked only when confronted with specific questions,
not to evade summons to valid proceedings over a vague fears of saying things
that could land one in jail.
Undaunted, the lawyer pointed to an obstruction of justice
charge filed by Jamby Madrigal against PN chief Avelino Razon, Environment
Secretary Lito Atienza and airport security chief Angel Atutubo for allegedly
thwarting efforts of Senate warrant servers by spiriting Lozada out from the
airport. The lawyer said his clients feared that they would end up like Razon,
Atienza and Atutubo after testifying in the Senate hearing.
Madrigal quickly pointed out that not one of the statements
of the three during the Senate hearing was used against them, with such fact
easily established by a reading of her complaint. The lawyer answered that his
clients (and presumably himself) derived their conclusion from media reports.
Policemen have been receiving laughable advice lately.
Remember Razon’s position that the arrest orders issued by the Senate are
enforceable only within the chamber’s premises? We suspect there’s method to
this feigned ignorance of the law.
Simultaneous with the Senate, the Palace yesterday staged a
press conference featuring Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Press Secretary
Ignacio Bunye and Higher Education chair Romulo Neri. When Neri was asked
something related to the NBN deal, he was cautioned by Ermita that the case is
now under investigation by the Ombudsman. Ermita said they ought to respect a
constitutional body like the Ombudsman. He said they should reserve their
comments for the "proper" forum.
The difference between the positions of the policemen’s
lawyer and that of the Palace is a matter of degree of sophistication. The
intention is the same: to invoke legal processes to justify their continued
silence.
The cover-up goes on.
