 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Lacson�s Word against the FBI�s By Antonio C. Abaya September 4, 2001 Allegations of misdeeds and outright criminal acts by Panfilo Lacson, when he was still PNP and PAOCTF chief, have been hurled with almost reckless abandon by alleged witnesses and/or former subordinates in, so far, four hearings in the Senate. But, aside from further demonizing Lacson in the public�s mind, none of these allegations will likely suffice to convince a majority of his peers to expel him from the Senate, much less to convict him in any court of law. For the simple, unvarnished truth is that these allegations are basically uncorroborated by documentary evidence or by other credible witnesses, and hence remain mere allegations, even if some of them do have the ring of truth. Much as many in media and civil society would like to see Lacson thrown out of the Senate and into jail, the case or cases against him, as of this writing (September 3), cannot prosper before an independent body if based solely on the often colorful but still unsubstantiated allegations made by Ador, Devnani and Mary Ong. ***** That is why I am puzzled and terribly disappointed that no one � not in the Senate, not in civil society, not anyone I know of in media � has seen fit to concentrate his or her attention on the solitary piece of information against Lacson, aside from the relatively minor charge of perjury and wiretapping, that has some semblance of documentary evidence to support it. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like to repeat ad infinitum that the investigation in the Senate, and the attention of media and the public, should focus on the allegation that Alice Lacson, the senator�s wife, has substantial deposits in two US banks. Once more with feeling. In his expose in the August 5 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Col. Victor Corpus alleged, among other things, that Alice Lacson had $21.9 million with the Bank of America and $18.4 million with the Wells Fargo Bank. Or a total of $40.3 million. In its August 16 issue, the Inquirer reprinted two letters, said to be dated April 18 and 30, from the FBI to our NBI. One letter contradicted Lacson�s protestation (Inquirer, August 6) that he had no social security number (and thus could not have possibly opened the US bank accounts alleged by Corpus). The FBI gave the NBI Lacson�s and his wife�s social security numbers and thus made a liar out of him. Yet no one in the Senate or media or civil society took note of this. The other letter from the FBI confirmed that Alice Lacson did have savings accounts �with large balances� in two US banks. One account was with the Bank of America, the other almost certainly with the Wells Fargo Bank, thus confirming � partially, at least � Corpus� expose of August 5. Is anyone listening with his/her brains in the active mode? ***** For two weeks, Lacson pointedly refrained from reacting to the FBI letters and its reference to his wife�s savings accounts �with large balances.� Apparently on the theory that if did not make a fuss about it, no one else would. But in a media forum that his PR people organized for him in Manila Hotel on August 27 � where he supposedly made a �winning performance� � at least one cynical journalist was obviously not �won over� and asked about his wife�s savings accounts. The August 28 issue of the Inquirer reported that �(Lacson) added that his wife Alice also had two accounts � one dormant and another that contained �a negligible amount��� Would Lacson have made this admission if the FBI�s letter had not appeared in the Inquirer? I seriously doubt it. So now, at least we have an acknowledgement from Lacson that his wife Alice has two accounts (savings or current, he did not say) but that they, or one of them, has only a �negligible amount.� The obvious question is, how much? How negligible is negligible? The FBI says both accounts contained �large balances�. How large is large? Corpus says, �Try $40.3 million.� It�s Lacson�s word against the FBI�s. Actually, all three of them could be right. The FBI could be right that the balances were �large��.in April. Corpus could be right that they totalled $40.3 million. Lacson could also be right that the amount is �negligible��in August, if he has moved most of it out. ***** There is only one way to resolve the matter. While we are waiting for the slow boat from the US Attorney General�s Office, Lacson should have photocopies made of the bank statements of his wife�s accounts for the 12 months preceding August 2001, and show them to everyone who wants to look. After all, if the balance is really �negligible�, as he claims, then the bank statements would vindicate him and clear his name and he can laugh all the way to Malacanang in 2004. But if the balances are �large� � say, $40.3 million or even only a tenth of that amount - then he will most likely have to face an �unexplained wealth� charge here, and he can kiss the Senate and Malacanang goodbye. And �unexplained wealth� of that magnitude can only be explained by drug trafficking. Plus he would have to face money laundering charges in the US. But someone in the Senate, in civil society or in media has to press him on this point. ***** This article appeared in the September 17, 2001 issue of the Philippine Weekly Graphic magazine. |