the more lists, the merrier

20 May 2014

to my mind, all legislators, past and present, who have availed of pork barrel funds for whatever project through whatever agency, governmental or non-governmental, fake or real, in all the years since cory institutionalized it — whether these legislators appear on any of the napoles-related lists or not — are suspect, i.e., under suspicion of pocketing kickbacks / commissions unless proven otherwise.

the conventional wisdom has always been that in congress, everyone does it.  even ping lacson, before he made that privilege speech in 2003 calling for the scrapping of the pork barrel, was said to have used up 147 M of his 150 M allocation for 2002.  i wonder if he never accepted kickbacks ever.

the same goes for the senators and congressmen, past and present, on the napoles lists, genuine or otherwise, who are quick to deny any dealings with napoles.  so okay, maybe your PDAF went to legit projects, but i’m still waiting to hear anyone deny that he or she has ever received accepted pocketed kickbacks or commissions.  surely there are a few good men and women who deserve to be on a short list of eminently qualified candidates come 2016?

other than lacson, of course, even if he is innocent of kickbacks, until he comes clean and tells us who ordered the dacer-corbito murders.  surely he knows.

^ lacson’s pork barrel 2003

3 Responses to the more lists, the merrier

  1. May 20, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    “… these legislators appear on any of the napoles-related lists or not — are suspect, i.e., under suspicion of pocketing kickbacks / commission unless proven otherwise.”

    Theoretically, how would one prove that?

    • May 21, 2014 at 11:46 am

      If the principal accused,i.e.,Napoles, makes a sworn statement in a notarized affidavit mentioning the person’s name and collaborated by another 2 witness’s affivadit, then I think that would be accepted in court as a documentary proof of the crime of plunder/stealing money from the govt.

      • May 22, 2014 at 4:01 am


        thanks, that makes sense as an argument — you want to rely on witnesses (and the attendant rules surrounding credibility i assume) to determine innocence and guilt.

        but in relation to angela;s comment, you want witnesses to prove they *DID NOT* steal, as she claimed a presumption of guilt (which itself is inconsistent with the justice system, but as a thought experiment lets go with it).

        i just thought there would be a way to determine malfeasance without going through a possibly arbitrary method of appraising witness testimony.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


follow @stuartsantiago on twitter

recent comments

  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago