EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

Evidence vs perception

The Supreme Court decision clearing businessman Danding Cojuangco of allegations on his having illegally acquired his 20 percent share in San Miguel Corp. (SMC) undoubtedly will be seized upon anew by the Yellow backers of Noynoy to crucify the SC, whose majority members the Yellow crowd considers as remnants of the past and thus are seen as their enemies.

What is being given the spotlight in one Yellow newspaper was a dissenting opinion of one of the senior associate justices that called a “joke” a contrary claim on the close association of Cojuangco and deposed President Ferdinand Marcos, on which hinged the allegation that Cojuangco used crony money to buy his way into controlling SMC and thus make it grow into one of the most successful business giants in Asia.

To back up the opinion, the justice cited the fact that Cojuangco was usually seen in the company of Marcos and was even with the disgraced leader when he was forcibly exiled.

“Clearly, the intimate relationship between Cojuangco and Marcos equates or exceeds that of a family member or Cabinet member, since not all of Marcos’ relatives or high government ministers went with him in exile on that fateful date,” the dissenting opinion went. That constitutes proof that Danding used coco levy funds to acquire his 20 percent SMC shares? Surely, that is an even bigger joke, coming from an SC associate justice.

Apparently, being a friend of a Malacañang tenant translates to that friend given the access to use government funds to purchase shares in a company.

If such is the logic, it should follow that anybody now who is a kin or a close friend of Noynoy who suddenly builds mansions and luxury cars, if not buy up businesses, is not also using that closeness and influence to gain access to borrowing public funds for their personal assets.

The majority SC decision, nevertheless, brought the possibility that after 20 years, the issue on the SMC shares would have found a conclusion. The remaining loose ends would be the obsolete Presidential Commission on Good Government’s (PCGG) plan to seek reconsideration of the ruling.

The argument about Cojuangco’s close association with Marcos, however, remained just that, an opinion, since the government has failed to prove the crony allegation on Cojuangco and that he used his connections with Marcos to benefit his business foray.

The government insisted during the trial of the case that it had proven that Cojuangco received money from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), which administered the coconut levy fund; and that Cojuangco received money from the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF) Oil Mills in which part of the CIIF or coco-levy funds had been placed and thereby used the funds of the UCPB and CIIF as capital to buy shares in SMC. Yet when one borrows from a bank, such funds do not necessarily come from government deposits.

The majority opinion of the high court clearing Cojuangco stated that the government failed to prove any of its allegations and that government lawyers only succeeded in providing the court “proposed” evidence that “did not materialize.”

“The Republic, being the plaintiff, was the party that carried the burden of proof. That burden required it to demonstrate through competent evidence that the respondents, as defendants, had purchased the SMC shares of stock with the use of public funds; and that the affected shares of stock constituted ill-gotten wealth,” according to the SC ruling.

The SC stated the Republic’s failure to adduce evidence shifted no burden to the respondents to establish anything, for it is basic that the party that asserts, not the party that denies, must prove the charges.

In a nutshell, the SC decision stressed the value of material evidence to establish proof of any allegations which is basic in law practice.

It was a battle between perception and hard evidence and for all of the past 25 yearsm government lawyers failed to establish the grounds for the sequestration of Cojuangco’s assets which they consistently failed to do.

The SC decision, thus, is a delayed vindication for what appeared to be the trampled rights of an individual.

The biggest joke of the century is PCGG’s plan to seek a reconsideration of the SC ruling.

After 25 years of failure, the plea is equivalent to it begging for sympathy from the SC.