Frasco, Romualdez, Velasco et al. will be called to libel trial

AS a journalist fighting for the truth for 30 years, and as a citizen convinced of the widespread corruption under this administration, I’m looking forward to the trial of the libel suit that Cebu Rep. Duke Frasco filed against me.

Frasco sued me for libel last month, alleging that I libeled him for writing that he “in effect committed bribery when he voted for the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte in exchange for various benefits from House Speaker Martin Romualdez.”

But it was the congressman himself — reported by many newspapers last Feb. 11 and contained in a recorded video — who admitted it in a speech at a political rally that day. He incriminated himself, even posting his speech on his Facebook page.

This ignorant lawmaker thought he didn’t do anything wrong as he claimed that the proceeds of the bribery were for his constituents. But bribery is bribery even if the proceeds are used for Mother Teresa’s charity projects, as the Supreme Court has declared in so many decisions.

All of the 239 congressmen are believed to have accepted Speaker Romualdez’s offer in exchange for their votes to impeach Vice President Duterte. This was widely reported to consist of P50 million in “Ayuda and ASIK” (community aid and assistance programs) funds and P100 million in public works funds, totaling P150 million.

60 percent

Or else how would you explain this phenomenon that 76 percent of the 306 congressmen voted to impeach Sara, when all polls show that 60 percent of Filipinos trust her? They have proven not to be representatives of the people, but represent only their greed for power and riches.

Those who didn’t vote for Sara’s impeachment will be lining up to testify that indeed such bribes were offered to them, but that they refused to accept them.

We don’t know if it is naivete, ignorance of the law, or hubris that he is above the law, but it was only Frasco and Frasco alone who admitted to having been bribed in exchange for his vote to impeach Sara. He even admitted that his vote was also in retaliation against Sara for not defending his wife, Tourism Secretary Christina Frasco, in the “The Philippines is beautiful” fiasco that she got herself embroiled in last year. This was the Frasco tourism department’s promotional video for the country that embarrassingly featured scenes and footage not of the Philippines but of other countries.

To prove to the court that my article was accurate, Frasco will be called to the witness stand, to testify under oath if he said or didn’t say those statements implicating himself as having been bribed. How can he deny his statements when these were made, recorded and even posted on his Facebook page?

If there were 239 congressmen who were bribed, there has to be a briber. This could only have been the House Speaker Martin Romualdez, the only person in the world to have control of the Ayuda and ASIK funds as well as the allocation of funds for small-scale infrastructure projects. Romualdez of course will be called to testify at the trial, and the entire nation will be laughing at him if he claims that no such bribes were given to the congressmen for their votes.

Witness

One important witness to be called to testify would be House Secretary General Reginald Velasco, Romualdez’s factotum general who went around the representatives’ offices to gather their signatures to impeach Sara. I don’t think they signed the document simply because Velasco charmed or convinced them of the righteousness of the complaint.

The nation should be grateful to Frasco for being the unwitting whistleblower to expose what is really the biggest crime of the Marcos 2 administration.
Advertisement
The power of impeachment, contained in the constitutions of most Republican nations, is one of the most important pillars of democracy. Without this power, the most powerful officials of the land could easily be dictators, or facilitate the takeover of dictators.

To vote to impeach a high official based on the merits of the case, and without expectation of benefits from his vote, is a sacred duty of a member of Congress, especially since only they — and one-third of them, that is — have the power to impeach.

Frasco violated his sacred oath to fulfill this duty, claiming his Liloan constituents needed the bribe proceeds, and also that it was in vengeance for his wife.

Impeachment

This is the second time the solemn power of impeachment has been abused by Congress. The first time was in 2011 when then-president Benigno Aquino III ordered his Congress operatives, with the help of Budget Secretary Butch Abad, to remove Chief Justice Renato Corona from his post through impeachment. It was a last-resort effort by Aquino III to get his clan’s Hacienda Luisita to get P1 billion more in compensation for being put under land reform. The Corona-led court had ruled that only a fraction of that should be paid.

The most crucial aspect of Corona’s removal was the Aquino III regime’s invention of a so-called Disbursement Acceleration Program which allocated new funds of P100 to P200 million to senators who voted to convict the chief justice and have him removed.

It is such an irony that one of the three senators who resisted that bribe and voted to declare Corona innocent was then-senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (the other two were Senators Joker Arroyo and Miriam Defensor-Santiago), now the architect of the plot to impeach Sara out of office.

In his speech to explain his vote, Marcos said: “We must be very, very careful and very, very fair in making this decision because what we do today will reverberate throughout our social and political history affecting generations beyond ours.”
Advertisement
Sara’s impeachment, intended for his clan to remain in power for at least two more terms, will indeed affect generations much, much more than the Corona impeachment.

Exposé

Since my exposé last Monday on NBI Cebu head Rennan Oliva’s illegal support for Frasco’s libel suit against me — to the extent of acting as PR to portray me as an irresponsible journalist — I have received a number of messages from Cebuanos that are certainly not flattering to this official. One explained why Oliva is so biased for Frasco:

“Atty. Bret Monsanto, who serves as executive assistant to Cebu governor Gwendolyn Garcia (Rep. Frasco’s mother-in-law), works at the Cebu Provincial Capitol.
Advertisement
“His father, Atty. Jose Ermie Monsanto, is currently the regional director of NBI Region IX. Reports indicate that Governor Garcia played a role in facilitating his promotion to that position.

“This connection has allegedly made it easier for the family to engage with the NBI when needed, raising concerns that the agency may be used for personal or political motives.”

For readers who missed it, the following are the main self-incriminating statements made in Frasco’ speech, which were video-taped, with the video itself and transcript at: https://rigobertotiglao.com/video-and-transcripts-cebu-5th-district-rep-duke-frasco-explains-vp-impeachment-vote/.

“The number one reason I signed the impeachment complaint because of our programs, projects and developments here in my district. I want to ensure our programs and projects here continue. Heaven forbid, but what if all of them are stopped? The programs and projects will not continue. If I do not side with the majority in Congress, some projects might not receive support. Where will my projects go? Will I still be able to provide assistance to our fishermen? There are 16 scholars in my district, 16 scholars who are hoping to receive support from the government so they can finish their education. Support for solo parents, persons with disabilities, vendors, drivers, barangay security officers. University projects for all, the Liloan hospital, the government center, and the airport.”