By Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino

The President appointed me to the fact-finding committee tasked with getting to the root of allegations that Justice Department prosecutors had been bribed into dismissing the case against the so-called “Alabang Boys”: Jorge Joseph, Richard Brodett and Joseph Tecson. It was my distinct privilege to share the bench with Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino, a retired member of the Supreme Court and wife of the late Chief Justice Ramon Aquino, and Justice Raoul Victorino, a retired member of the Sandiganbayan and later of the Judicial and Bar Council. In different press reports covering the hearings, I was repeatedly referred to as “San Beda Law School Dean”. I wish to apologize to Dean Virgilio Jara of the Mendiola San Beda College of Law but I never arrogated unto myself his title. I serve San Beda College as the dean of the graduate school of law—on a consultancy status because of my other commitments—but I guess “school of law” was easier for reporters to deal with than “graduate school of law” which is a rather rare animal.

After the closing statements of the last day of the hearing, everyone gave the panel a standing ovation—nd all posed amiably for pictures. At least for that magical moment, forgotten were the earlier harsh exchanges and sometimes acrimonious arguments. In fact Tommy Brodett, one of the respondents, sat beside me, and I was happy for that show of confidence and trust. That the proceedings were orderly, respectful and enlightening in the extreme was due considerably to the stature of Justice Aquino as well as to her firm control of the proceedings. She did not allow television coverage of the proceedings for the same reason that the Supreme Court does not – to avoid “performers.” Everyone was respectful—PDEA operatives and officials, DOJ prosecutors, the Alabang Boys, even journalists, columnists and TV commentators we had summoned and the lawyers who had entered their appearances. The conduct of all was admirable. There were witnesses, to be sure, who had to be reminded on occasion how to address the committee members properly. There were spirited arguments but they were always rational and academic in tenor, never visceral.

While the review of the assailed resolution of the Department of Justice lies with the Secretary of Justice (and ultimately, with the Office of the President), the Committee found it necessary to look into the Resolution itself because our task was to determine whether any irregularity attended its issuance: whether there were tell-tale signs in the body of the resolution itself of questionable conduct. We asked the “boys” (gentlemen, actually) themselves to testify as well as their arresting officers to know what really happened. We summoned Edu Punay, Jarius Bondoc, Ricky Carandang and others. In the process we also learned first-hand how journalists and reporters do their jobs and just how much credence to lend their averments. Dutifully they appeared and testified. They did claim the journalists’ right to withhold the identity of their sources but on the whole they cooperated without much ado. News reports and TV comments, like those of GMA’s Carlo Lorenzo who led us to Marissa Brodett and her statements supplied us too with important leads.

One thing that became clear to me throughout the proceedings was that precisely because our committee treated all with respect and cordiality, we got the cooperation we needed, and at the end, there was unanimity in acknowledging that we had been fair. That was a tribute well worth all the time and effort we put into close to eight hours of hearings per day.

Many will keep their focus set on the stuff that makes for innuendo and gossip, but what the committee was actually looking into was the difficult question of reconciling the demand of law-enforcement agencies for the resolute prosecution of arrant violators of law (I have every respect, for one thing, for the idealism and resoluteness of Dir. Gen. Dionisio Santiago and Maj. Ferdinand Marcelino) and the constitutionally guaranteed rights of suspects, those under custodial investigation and the accused. In the end it is the philosophical problem of the right of society to the truth and the right of an individual to his private space as against the force that resides in the State.

The DoJ prosecutors—obviously under fire—took it all with grace before the committee. They testified, answered questions, even allowing the committee access to very useful information. Even wives of the prosecutors had to present themselves, because in our search for facts, we were cognizant of the fact that wives often know more of family finances than do their husbands. This hypothesis, we corroborated in our proceedings.

At the start of the proceedings, Brodett, Joseph and Tecson were just to me “the Alabang Boys,” but as I listened to them and had the chance to talk with them informally on occasion after hearings, I found them to be articulate young men with very interesting personalities. We heard from their parents the difficulties these young men have had to live with since the day of their arrest, but we were as attentive to the very serious allegations against them as well. The PDEA operatives too deserve commendation. They risk so much to go after every peddler and pusher so that our streets and our communities may be rid of the scourge of forbidden substances. The danger does not consist in substance abuse alone, but in a country greased by the proceeds of the narcotic trade. It is a monstrous menace—and with it, the PDEA must do battle each day!

Chief Justice Reynato Puno so graciously allowed the hearings to take place at the Supreme Court Training Hall. To Justice Carol, these were neutral grounds. He also allowed Supreme Court staff to assist us. Lawyer Pepay Anama was virtually “clerk of court” for the proceedings and she saw to the reproduction of documentary evidence and to the arrangements that the hearings demanded. Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera was equally solicitous. She assigned Solicitor Faller who was some kind of “guardian angel” to the members of the committee— seeing to our meals, snacks, and every kind of assistance we needed. Lawyer Edna Dinio attended the hearings as she had been asked by Justice Carol to help in summarizing the facts, but it will ultimately be the task of each committee member to write out his or her findings and to draw the conclusions that follow from these.

In my closing statement, I said that although I had sat through the hearings as a representative of legal academia, I was going to conclude as a priest. As I thanked all, parties and counsel alike, for having conducted themselves with dignity and respect, I prayed that PDEA would continue to be relentless in its goal of ridding our country of the terrible scourge of drugs that not only threaten to ruin our youth but to invade the sacred precincts of governance. I prayed that the prosecutors of the Justice Department would be God’s instruments for the vindication of right and the defense of a social order that allows all to flourish. I finally prayed for Jorge, Tommy and Joseph that no matter how the case would finally end, God would enfold them in his loving arms. That remains my prayer.

rannie_aquino@rannieaquino.com