There was no need for the Duterte administration to prove the “ouster plot matrix” despite calls from journalists and lawyers’ groups to show proof of their involvement, the Palace said Wednesday.
In a statement, Presidential Spokesman Salvador Panelo said such explanation to further justify the ouster plot was “totally unnecessary.”
“Those named in the matrix demand proof of their participation in the ouster plot. Such is totally unnecessary,” Panelo said.
As the President’s chief legal counsel, Panelo explained the matrix only showed a plot, a plan, and an idea, which were all “not actionable in court.”
“Conspiracy is not a crime unless the law specifically classifies a particular conspiracy to undertake a project or actualize a plan as a crime,” he explained.
The supposed ouster plot first emerged last week when the Manila Times published a matrix linking journalists from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Rappler, and VERA Files to an “Oust Duterte” plot.
The said matrix, which was confirmed by the Palace on the same day it was released, also linked the National Union of People’s Lawyers.
A week after the diagram was revealed to the public, VERA Files called on Malacañang and the Manila Times to “substantiate” the “spread of falsehood.”
The President previously mentioned that the source of the information was a foreign ally.
Duterte even hinted in his previous speeches that an intelligence report from “another country” tipped him off about the so-called ouster plot of the reporters.
However, Panelo maintained only the President knew about the origin of the said matrix and that the public should believe as it came from Duterte himself.
“It does not conclusively mean however that the information was originally obtained by the foreign country by an unlawful method that violates the privacy of an individual,” Panelo said.
“The information,” he said, “may have been acquired by a Filipino citizen who shared the same to the foreign country which then transmitted to PRRD pursuant to the global policy of intelligence information sharing between countries.”
“It is also erroneous to speculate that the information was obtained through wiretapping or any similar device prohibited by laws as it could have been personally heard or witnessed during a conversation between plotters in a place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, which according to jurisprudence is not violative of our privacy laws,” he added.
According to Panelo, it does not conclusively mean that the information was originally obtained by the foreign country by an unlawful method that violated the privacy of an individual.
“The information may have been acquired by a Filipino citizen who shared the same to the foreign country which then transmitted to PRRD pursuant to the global policy of intelligence information sharing between countries,” Panelo said.
“It is also erroneous to speculate that the information was obtained through wiretapping or any similar device prohibited by laws as it could have been personally heard or witnessed during a conversation between plotters in a place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, which according to jurisprudence is not violative of our privacy laws,” he added.
The Palace official pointed out that the information about the supposed plot “could also have been heard by one of their colleagues who does not agree on the ouster plan, who then shared the information to another, who in turn also relayed the information from whom PRRD received it.”
“The possibilities are endless,” Panelo bared.
To further defend the matrix, Panelo cited the Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code which states that “conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.”
Panelo said the examples of conspiracies, “which are punishable under the RPC,” are those conspiracies to commit treason, rebellion, insurrection, coup d’etat, and sedition.
Meanwhile, examples of proposals to commit a crime, which need no overt acts but punishable under the RPC, are proposals to commit treason, coup d’etat, and rebellion.
“Only when all the elements of any of these crimes have been committed will we file a case against the conspirators,” Panelo explained.
“Should their plans lead to overt acts punishable by law then criminal cases will also be filed against them. It is only when the cases are filed in court that proof will be submitted to substantiate the criminal charges,” he added.
Panelo said the government disclosed the matrix to the public to put the ring leaders and co-plotters “on notice,” reminding them that pursuing their plan by committing overt acts punishable by law will open themselves to criminal prosecution.
The President’s mouthpiece even argued that its declassification was constitutional, saying it was “pursuant to the people’s right to information.”
“The people deserve to know that there are ouster plans against the leadership of their government,” he said.
“Article 3, Section 7 of the Constitution categorically provides that ‘the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized’,” he added.
Even as the “critics cry that the move to reveal the ouster plot was meant to stifle political dissent and opposition,” Panelo said that those tagged in the matrix who can still vigorously voice their adverse opinions against the administration and even have increased their attacks a notch higher in this election season is eloquent proof that there is no stifling of dissent nor are their freedom to express their thoughts threatened.”
“Compared to all administrations, the dissent during this leadership is the freest. No person has been haled to court on account of the individual’s exercise of the freedom of speech or by reason of one’s disagreement against the Administration or its policies,” he said.
“Certain individuals are facing charges due to the presence of circumstances and facts giving rise to a reasonable belief that they are probably guilty of the crimes they are charged with but certainly and absolutely unrelated to their being critical of the administration,” Panelo added.
