Senator Leila de Lima professed to the news media that she is not a coddler of drug lords, and that during her incumbency as the Secretary of Justice, she never took a bribe from any of the drug lords detained at the national penitentiary in Muntinlupa, which was under her control.
Despite her protestations of innocence, De Lima declared she will not participate in the inquiry currently being undertaken by the Department of Justice regarding allegations that she received bribes from the drug lords, enough to fund her Senate campaign, in exchange for special treatment during their detention. De Lima claims that the evidence the DoJ has against her are fabricated, and that the witnesses the DoJ expects to testify against her were coerced or paid to do so.
It will be recalled that even when De Lima was still the Justice secretary, the news media revealed that the convicted drug lords serving time at the national penitentiary were allowed spacious, air-conditioned quarters with all the conveniences of a modern hotel, including access to restaurant food, appliances, mobile telephones, the internet, firearms, narcotics, and cash.
Despite repeated raids conducted by DoJ officials at the national penitentiary, the special treatment enjoyed by the detained drug lords continued after each raid. The amenities taken away were simply replaced by new ones.
Considering the extent of the special treatment afforded by prison officials to the convicted drug lords, it is difficult not to believe that this glaring anomaly took place without the knowledge, or at least the tacit consent, of De Lima as Justice secretary.
The latest accusation lodged against her is that her personal driver is her lover, and that this driver is her collection agent for the bribe money allegedly paid to her by the convicted drug lords. Since then, the story has been all over the social media.
If De Lima insists that she is innocent, and that the evidence against her in the DoJ inquiry is fabricated or perjured, she should still attend the DoJ hearings to clear her name. The seasoned litigation lawyer that she is, De Lima should not be easily intimidated by sham evidence and perjured witnesses. As the former head of the investigation department of the government, De Lima should be able to discredit anybody who isn’t telling the truth.
Surely, if all of the witnesses produced by the DoJ are perjured, as De Lima alleges, then she just needs to discredit them on cross examination. That way, the credibility of her accusers will be put to naught and, as the good book says, the truth shall set her free.
If De Lima so wishes, she can have some of her trusted lawyers assist or represent her during the DoJ investigation. That will be less stressful for her, than if she were to defend herself personally.
De Lima can expect courteous treatment from the DoJ investigation panel. Since De Lima is a former justice secretary herself, it is certain that the incumbent justice secretary, Vitaliano Aguirre II, will not allow her to be disrespected during any of the proceedings.
By refusing to participate in the DoJ investigation, however, De Lima is encouraging suspicion that she may have had a role in the anomalies uncovered at the national penitentiary. Thus, De Lima owes the public a credible explanation for her refusal to attend the DoJ hearings, other than her self-serving claim that the evidence against her is fabricated.
De Lima’s presence in the DoJ hearings is vital to the credibility of the on-going Senate investigation she is pursuing regarding alleged extra-judicial killings arising from the government’s anti-drug campaign. If De Lima has gone to the extent of pursuing a Senate-sponsored investigation into alleged lawlessness, she should not have any reservations about facing a separate state-sponsored investigation into alleged lawlessness in the DoJ during her watch.
All citizens have the civic obligation to cooperate with government investigators. Thus, de Lima can’t go around investigating anomalies at public expense, and at the same time renege on her civic obligation to cooperate with the DoJ. Her refusal to do so is not only wrong; it also sets a bad example to others, and suggests that high office exempts one from fulfilling his or her civic duties.
Political analysts are still smarting from De Lima’s refusal to have herself interpellated by her colleagues in the Senate after she delivered her first privilege speech. Was she hiding something, or was she unsure of herself?
De Lima’s refusal to consent to any interpellation raised even more queries because after Manny Pacquiao (a freshman senator like her) delivered his first privilege speech about the death penalty, De Lima subjected Pacquiao to a series of questions about constitutional law and statistics which Pacquiao could not be expected to be familiar with. If Pacquiao agreed to be interpellated, how come De Lima is afraid to do so?
Another disturbing incident involves De Lima’s presence at the hearing of the arbitration case the Philippines lodged against Communist China at The Hague in the Netherlands last year. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of National Defense, and the Solicitor General attended the hearing because the nature of their offices demanded their presence. De Lima may have been the justice secretary back then, but her presence was not needed at the hearing because the Solicitor General, not the Secretary of Justice, is the lawyer of the government in arbitration cases abroad.
Even the presence of then-House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. at the hearing was just as unnecessary, but that’s the subject of another story.
De Lima still owes taxpayers an explanation as to why she spent public money for her needless trip to and stay in Holland. Her refusal to do so clearly underscores her penchant to choose when she will cooperate with the justice system, and when she will not. That’s De Lima’s selective understanding of justice.