Neophyte Senator Alan Peter Cayetano and his senior colleague, Senator Richard Gordon, are on the warpath. Their bitter enmity began after Cayetano was stripped of the chairmanship of the powerful Blue Ribbon committee and replaced by Gordon in the aftermath of the Senate leadership revamp last November.

Cayetano reluctantly gave up the burdensome but glamorous post but left a lot of paperwork hanging.  Foremost of this was the committee report on the botched $329-million national broadband-ZTE contract, the drafting of which he had neglected even after presiding over 12 public hearings. At first, he agreed to Gordon’s request for him to write the report using the committee’s technical staff. But to Gordon’s consternation, Cayetano did nothing, subsequently tossing back the job to the former on the ground that he no longer had control over the lawyers and records of the committee.

To put an end to what looked like a petty issue, Gordon decided to take on the job of drafting the report himself— but not without hurling harsh and stinging diatribe against his younger colleague, short of calling him a spoiled brat.

A few days ago, their animosity erupted anew, this time on the Senate floor.  After Gordon delivered a long discourse on the committee’s findings and recommendations on the P728-million fertilizer fund scam, Cayetano stood up to present what was supposed to be the minority bloc’s comments and dissenting opinion.

 He prefaced his remarks by commending the committee for “having done a very good job of getting key witnesses to testify” on the scandal. However, Cayetano argued that the committee erred in concluding that there was no direct evidence to link President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the fraudulent project. “The absence of direct testimony does not mean that there is no evidence against the President. It is the totality of evidence, including circumstances and logical conclusions that should be considered,” he asserted.

The senator from Taguig also criticized the committee’s failure to summon fertilizer suppliers other than Feshan Philippines, as well as the non-government organizations and congressmen, governors and mayors who supposedly received either the overpriced fertilizer or cash, ranging from P1 million to P5 million each. As a consequence, he said that the investigation left a gaping hole, with P509 million in fertilizer funds still not accounted for.

Gordon felt so incensed upon hearing what he sensed was an attempt to denigrate the report that he spoke a mouthful in lashing back at his insolent detractor. He blurted out that his committee did not absolve the President but in fact ruled that she must be held liable for the anomaly under the doctrine of “qualified political agency.” He also questioned Cayetano’s propensity for finding fault with the committee’s work under a new chairman, reminding him of his dismal failure to come up with a report on the NBN-ZTE deal.

For failing to submit any report not only on the NBN-ZTE deal but also on other controversies investigated by the Blue Ribbon panel under his watch, Cayetano will find himself being hounded endlessly. No amount of excuse could justify his shortcoming.  Perhaps, he felt ill-equipped to discharge the task or he was just plain lazy. Why did he not delegate the work to the committee’s highly paid lawyers and consultants? Of what use was the committee’s huge budget?

* * *

The World Bank has found an ally in the Senate in the person of Senator Panfilo Lacson, who warned that some of his colleagues’ treatment on its report on the rigging of road construction contracts could have dire consequences on the country. This is a lucky break for the Bank which has come under fire even from unexpected quarters for what is now being perceived as its flawed report for supposedly being replete with “hearsay” evidence.

Even Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. denounced the “inquisitorial” method used by the Bank’s investigators in unearthing the alleged scam. Upon the motion of Lacson and other senators, the majority bloc came out with a decision, virtually removing the probe of this controversy from the economic affairs committee, chaired by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago and transferring it to the Blue Ribbon committee.

Why did Lacson feel ill at ease with Santiago’s handling of the probe on the issue?  Santiago was a UP law professor and trial court judge which is why she is a stickler to the rules of evidence and legal procedure.   Lacson, on the other hand, was a Philippine Military Academy graduate, a former chief of the Philippine National Police who had a lot of experience in crime investigation. Santiago strictly abides by the basic rule that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But there are critics who are asking about Lacson’s adherence to this rule, as they assail his way of implicating suspected wrongdoers, especially those from the administration.

Santiago seems to look at the report as a decision or resolution. She wants to find out how it arrived at its conclusions, how valid they are and whether they would stand amid the rules on evidence. On the other hand, Lacson looks at the report as a lead that must be pursued and which could bring the investigators to the doorsteps of a suspect he has always hunted down and wants badly to pin down.

Admittedly, Lacson’s approach makes for a more exciting telenovela than Santiago’s. This is why police stories are better sellers than legal tales.  Following leads bring out interesting characters and personalities, just like what the Sherlock Holmes series did for television decades ago.

Already, some of the allegations made in the Bank’s probe may have startled to crumble. During a recent Senate hearing, a Filipino associate of Japanese contractor Tomato Suzuka debunked the allegations that his partner implicated influential personalities in the alleged collusion among road contractors to rig the bidding process. Trix Lim showed up to deny that Suzuka had made such allegation.