Following the strong denial of three prominent journalists belonging to separate giant news networks in the country that they, too, enjoyed the fruits of the PDAF scam, the sure guilt of those named by Janet Napoles as having taken part of the P10-B PDAF stash is wobbly. The authenticity and truth of the sensational “Napolist” is likewise tainted with doubt. Further, the shock that gripped Mike Enriquez of GMA7, Luchi-Cruz Valdez of ABC5 and Korina Sanchez of ABS-CBN for being dragged into the mess cast much aspersion on certainty as to whether or not all other personalities disclosed by whistle-blower Benhur Luy to have benefitted in this stash is likewise placed in a balance. Most of the personalities so name-dropped into the imbroglio were placed in the hot seat at the Senate investigation. The entire Philippines has known the extent of their involvement with the probe given much focus by the national media. Even these newsmen thus named expressed their individual commentary against the scam. This is not a big deal because every citizen has right to know where each centavo of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money contributed to the coffees of the government – local or national goes is going and utilized. Of all citizens in a demicratic nation, newsmen enjoyed the highest rate of credibility next to church leaders. They are more believable than any statesman of any profession. Their integrity is beyond reproach. As between an accuser’s straightforward attestation and a vehement denial of a seemingly impeccable man as to his involvement in a controversial issue, the latter would usually end up clean and victorious. Now in the controversy at hand, whose pronouncement stands to be more trustworthy? If a lie detector machine is not that dependable and the justice system is not at all flawless, what quality verdict could we have in the PDAF scam? If the Napolist is being assialed by those named therein, who can prove as to its truthfulness? In law there is this long respected maxim that states, “The prosecution’s evidence must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.” In the Napolist contention and Luy’s allegation, Napoles, though being a suspect in the PDAF scam and Luy as the whistleblower have the same burden to prove their allegations. Whose testimony is worth believing is a matter for the investigating body weogh at the end of the day.
