At Thursday’s Senate hearing on the alleged rigging of the bidding of World Bank-funded road projects, the Bank came under fire for refusing to furnish the senators with a complete report on the anomaly. Because of this, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chairman of the economic affairs committee, says that unless the senators get hold of the report and the supporting testimonial and documentary evidence, all accusations linking certain political personalities to the controversy remain pure and simple “hearsay.”

As a legal luminary and former professor of law and Regional Trial Court judge, Santiago knows what she is saying. Everything remains hearsay unless credible evidence is presented. And unless and until the sources of the hearsay reveal themselves and come into the open—for cross examination to determine the validity and factual basis of their assertions.

Ask any law practitioner and he will probably tell you that in this country, reliance on hearsay testimomy seems to have become the rule, rather than the exception.  The preponderance of hearsay evidence is enough to convict people, at least in the so-called “court of public opinion.”

Commenting on the appointment book, purportedly showing First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo’s several meetings with one of the contractors blacklisted by the WB sanctions board for alleged collusive practices,  Santiago dismissed the book or diary presented by Senator Panfilo Lacson as having “no probative value.”

Probative means “tending to prove.”  Probative evidence “seeks the truth.”   As a general rule, any evidence that has no probative value is inadmissible in a court of law.  It can be stricken off the record if objected to by the legal counsel of either the plaintiff or the complainant.

But for all her brilliance and craftiness, Santiago seems to have overlooked one hard reality in the way the system of justice works here. To certain politicians, it appears that ascertaining the probative value of their evidence is the least of their concerns.   Provided the accuser can present his evidence in a legislative hearing with a straight face, with a threatening tone and with controversial innuendoes, that appears to be “probative enough.”

Maybe Santiago is asking too much of her colleagues.  She may have forgotten that her passion for the rules of the judicial processes are not shared by some of her colleagues.  They are politicians.  They were not trained in the ways of the judiciary.

We know what the headstrong legislator is trying to get at. She is trying to say that in a “due process” culture, a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.  Proving the guilt of one requires clear and convincing evidence. And the value of evidence is determined only by subjecting them to tests, cross-examination and validation.

For instance, Santiago probably wants to establish whether or not what is being alleged by Lacson as the First Gentleman’s appointment book is authentic, and that it was obtained through lawful means by its alleged source—Udong Mahusay, Mr. Arroyo’s former messenger.

But it seems Santiago does not get it.  In the hearsay culture, allegation equals conviction.  The savvy with which the alleged appointment book was presented is enough to convict the First Gentleman, at least before the court of public opinion. So what probative value is she talking about?

Now, Lacson claims the documents  in his possession, purportedly coming from the World Bank, also linked the late Senator Robert Barbers to the alleged cartel engaged in manipulating the bidding of road-building contracts.  Santiago demanded the submission of official and full WB report to check the veracity of the documents. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile says he has seen the WB report and found no portion linking either the First Gentleman or Barbers to the alleged road construction scam.

Now, the alleged whistle-blower, a Japanese businessman named Suzuka has supposedly left the country after implicating some politicians government officials and other personalities as part of the road project-rigging ring.  How do they cross-examine him to determine whether or not his claim is nothing more than the usual ruse of disgruntled losing bidders?

But who wants to cross-examine whistle-blowers? That may just unmask their person and motive. That may spoil the fun.

—   000 —-

The Senate hearing was marred by the walk out of three senators—Lacson, Rodolfo Biazon and Mar Roxas—in an obvious show of disgust  over the way Santiago steered the proceedings. First to stride out of the session hall was Biazon who felt insulted when Santiago blew her top while rebuking him for allegedly being out of order after he insisted on throwing more questions at Finance Secretary Margarito Teves.  Then Lacson and Roxas also sneaked out of the hall.

Although visibly distracted by the disappearing acts of her three colleagues, Santiago tried to downplay the incident by announcing that Lacson excused himself to attend a speaking engagement while Roxas had another prior appointment.  Perhaps realizing her gaffe for not controlling her temper, Santiago toned down her voice and this time she no longer sounded stern but gentle.

After the hearing was over, Lacson admitted to newsmen that he was turned off at the way Biazon was treated by Santiago in full view of television audience.  An aide of Lacson confirmed that he had to leave the hearing to speak at a luncheon meeting of the Manila Rotary Club at Manila Hotel. But why did he have to leave before 11 p.m. when he can still catch up at the Rotary affair by showing up at 12:30 noon?

Lacson said he sensed something fishy about the hearing. “It seemed orchestrated if you look at the events of the day.”