WHY INSIST ON JURY SYSTEM?

WHY INSIST ON JURY SYSTEM?

Look at what is happening to the PDAF plunder case?  Until now it is floating to nowhere.  It has not been filed before the Sandiganbayan.

If this PDAF plunder case were in the Jury System, with all those testimonies of the witnesses led by Benhur Luy et al that we heard during the Senate investigation, with that sufficient report of the Commission on Audit (COA), it was easy for ordinary people as judges to know whether those named are guilty or probably guilty for the purpose of trial.

In the Jury System, it is the people through their representatives raffled and screened from them composing the Grand Jury investigation panel who vote whether to file the plunder case in court.

The members of the Grand Jury, usually 25, render duty for six months and replaced by newly-selected jurors and they deliberate secretly and their names are not divulged in public all in the name of fairness.

But with the present system where the Ombudsman is the one deciding who to charge before the court, the process has been unforgivably too long and so many interference have affected the run of the already slow wheel of justice.  And it has become more confusing when Napoles gave new affidavit naming 19 more senators and ex-senators and these are other than Tanda, Pogi, and Seksi.

What is important is that while there may have been no perfect judgment, Grand Jury is fair in deciding the probability of guilt to decide whether to file in court the plunder case.  The assurance of fairness is there because no politician can touch base with the secrecy of the names of the Grand Jury.  So that if Tanda, Pogi or Seksi is charged, they cannot complain that they were politically persecuted only.

It has been a long time now that there have been strong proofs of the existence of plunder consisting of the original evidence of the Commission on Audit (COA) audit proving the documented extremely huge amount stolen (more than P50 million) and that there are ready witnesses led by Benhur Luy who all appeared very credible when they testified in the Senate hearings.

There is even no need for Ruby Tuason and Dennis Cunanan in order to assure conviction of all those names listed by the COA as having funds not explained by them how these were spent.

The testimonies delivered by Benhur et al are more than sufficient to explain that those unexplained funds went not to the purpose declared.

I do not believe that Benhur Luy and his fellow original witnesses will never know there were other senators and congressmen involved.

Benhur et al had been for more than 10 years working in the operations of Napoles.  So they should know who had transactions with Janet Lim Napoles.  Ergo, it is impossible for Luy et al not to know if Miriam, then Senator Alfredo Lim, Senator Alan Cayetano, et al were also involved.  The fact that Luy et al did not name Miriam and others, it is fair and reasonable to conclude that this Napoles list being bragged about in public by Rehab Czar Panfilo Lacson is nothing but for the purpose of confusing the investigation and the mind of the public who may change mind to still vote for Tanda, Pogi or Seksi in the 2016 elections.  Moreover, Lacson is certified to be too close to Tanda.

With this premise, the Napoles admission and the new list are NOTHING BUT TO CONFUSE and aimed at making the Ombudsman think further twice and condition the minds of the eventual Sandiganbayan Justices to whom the cases may be raffled.