ALL eyes were on Ramil Madriaga as he read his affidavit — actually a supplemental affidavit — to the House Justice Committee that is taking up the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. All attention was on him as he disclosed “revelations” that made the case against the vice president seem all the worse.
But this was not the first time that the nation’s attention was riveted on a testimony before a congressional committee. It has been the same thing played out with respect to so many other investigations.
The witnesses against them Sen. Leila de Lima all swore to tell the truth — and regaled the people with the supposed criminal activities of the good senator, replete with lurid and salacious details that became the fodder for rumor-mongers and purveyors of online porn.
We were later told by the courts that acquitted her that much of what had been testified against her was false, made-up, perjured! And that is exactly my point. Madriaga sounds credible on the whole. There are items that occasion doubt. But at this stage, as justice committee chairman Gerville Luistro has repeatedly pointed out, all that needs to be determined is the existence of a reasonable factual basis to proceed with the impeachment of the vice president. The cross-examination of witnesses takes place at the trial before the Senate.
After having heard so many witnesses testify before committees of Congress, only to have their statements discredited as lies and falsehoods, one cannot but be skeptical of testimonies, no matter how convincing they may sound, no matter their facial credibility, because they are so easily recanted or retracted subsequently on some pretext or proved to be perjurious fabrications! I am not in any way discrediting Madriaga. On the contrary, I hope to God that he has been truthful and that his averments are reliable.
The fact, however, is that affidavits have seen a tremendous depreciation in their probative worth precisely because of the frequency — one can almost say “regularity” — of perjury. For judicial purposes, of course, an affidavit is hearsay and does not constitute evidence unless the affiant is cross-examined. But that an affiant did make a statement under oath can be evidenced by an affidavit — not the truth of what is averred, but the fact of the averment was made under oath.
Just as Batas Pambansa 22 punishes the mere issuance of a worthless check into commerce or contractual dealings, the purpose of this unique penal law — the Philippines being the only jurisdiction that criminalizes the issuance of bad checks — precisely to interdict the introduction of worthless instruments into the stream of exchange, there should be more earnest prosecution of those who perjure or render false testimony under existing penal laws that render criminal lying under oath. We all have a stake in oaths — and when that which is declared under oath can no longer be relied on, the whole framework of ordered social and political life is threatened. Public officers swear to discharge their duties faithfully and to uphold the Constitution under oath. The statement of assets, liabilities and net worth that has been the basis of innumerable investigations for ill-gotten wealth is a sworn document. The personal data sheet is generally a sworn document because it provides the basis for the determination of the eligibility of an applicant for public office. But when oaths count for nothing, it should be obvious what detriment is visited on public life.
One sure deterrent to the proclivity to lie under oath is to prosecute liars and perjurers under existing penal provisions that punish falsehoods, and our laws should be so amended as to allow any interested citizen to file a criminal complaint for perjury, rendering false testimony or other forms of falsehood when the subject of the sworn statement, affidavit, deposition or testimony is a matter of public interest. Our tolerance of perjury and our inaction in the face of shameless lying under oath has led to the sorry state we are in. While curiosity draws us to pay attention to testimony publicly rendered, we cannot help but wonder when it will be retracted, or when the witness will claim to have been coerced or compelled into lying under oath and declaring what he later takes back!
Madriaga and others have rendered testimony. I hope to God that they have spoken the truth and will not go back on their word. And should they do so, I hope that we shall be as eager, prompt and assiduous in prosecuting them for misleading not only the legislature engaged in the constitutional process of demanding accountability of the highest officers of the land but the entire nation!
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
