FORMER Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan has effectively become a “hostage” of the Office of the Ombudsman after prosecutors secured his cooperation as a prospective state witness and successfully sought his exclusion from the plunder case before the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division, according to former law dean Jose “Judd” Roy III.
Former Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila president and College of Law dean Jose “Judd” Roy III told radio station dzMM Friday that granting former DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan immunity as a state witness could, in his view, create the risk of undue pressure on Bonoan to give testimony implicating individuals whom the prosecution may be seeking to link to the alleged flood-control anomalies.
“Matagal na natin ‘yang sinasabi na parang ang hirap naman na gagamitin mo siya bilang testigo. Sasabihin ang kapalit niyan eh sige, magbigay ka ng ebidensiya laban sa iba, palalayain ka namin. Parang naka-hostage siya,” he said.
He said because of the situation and age of 81-year-old Bonoan and perhaps his desire to enjoy life with his family, he cannot say no to the Ombudsman.
“Papano ba naman siya hihindi, may edad ka na, may sakit ka pa. Siyempre ang gusto mo na lang mangyari sa buhay mo kung maari, mabigyan ka na lang ng panahon na makasama mo ang iyong mga mahal sa buhay,” he said.
He added that with his predicament, it is possible what whatever the Ombudsman allegedly dictates on Bonoan, he would just accept it.
“Oh di kung ano na lang ang sasabihin niyo, total may edad na ko, eh papayag na lang ako, sige na. You see, yun ang sinasabi nating hindi magandang tingnan,” he stressed.
In freeing Bonoan, who was arrested in June in connection with a P573-million flood control kickback complaint, Associate Justice Zaldy Trespeses, the division chair, and Associate Justice Maryann Corpuz-Mañalac voted to grant the prosecution’s request to drop from the case.
Associate Justice Gener Gito dissented from the majority decision.
In his radio interview, Roy noted that there has been a lot of criticism about the fifth division ruling and that many critics shared Gito’s observations in his dissenting opinion.
“Napakaraming batikos doon sa disisyon na nangyari. At ang kinikilalalng mas malinaw o mas magandang interpretasyon ‘yung dissent ha, ‘yung pagkontra ni Justice Gito,” he said.
He said the dissenting justice stated that conditions for dropping Bonoan from the plunder and graft case have not been submitted to the Sandiganbayan before the former DPWH chief was freed.
“Maraming tinuturo si Justice Gito doon, pero higit sa lahat merong mga condiciones ‘yan eh bago ka palayain. Itong mga condiciones daw hindi pa sinusumite sa korte, pinayagan na. So, sinasabi ni Justice Gito, bakit ganun,” he said.
He pointed out that the court should have required the Ombudsman to explain what evidence could be produced by Bonoan, if he was the only one who could provide it and if he was the least guilty among the accused, among other pieces of information.
“Dapat ipaliwanag ano ba ‘yung mahalagang ebidensiya na hawak niya…siya lang ba ang pwedeng magbigay ng mga ebidensiyang yun, siya ang hindi pinakamakasalanan sa lahat ng mga nakasakdal diyan,” he emphasized.
“So, itong mga tanong na ito, palagay ko magkakaroon ng isang madiin at magandang motion for reconsideration na labanan itong mga ganitong pangyayari,” he added.
Bonoan’s co-accused in the plunder and graft case are Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and three engineers of Bonoan when he was DPWH secretary.
In his dissenting opinion, Gito said his two fifth division colleagues just relied on the Ombudsman’s resolution “recommending his (Bonoan’s) discharge on account of Bonoan’s desire to cooperate with the government.”
“But as to how Bonoan would cooperate with the government, what information Bonoan would relay to the prosecution, what his testimony would be, and in what cases his testimony would be used, the court is kept in the dark,” he said.
He also said the court was told that the “immunity agreement (with Bonoan) is still forthcoming.”
“The terms and conditions of the immunity agreement are vital to the court’s reasoned assessment of whether to discharge Bonoan…Besides, if there is prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction on the part of Bonoan, why discharge him in the first place?” Gito asked.
metrosundaily
