Bid to summon 2 Cabinet execs junked
MAGDALO TRIAL
By Allison Lopez
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10/10/2008
MANILA, Philippines—For “utter lack of merit,” a Makati court on Thursday denied the petition of the junior military officers charged in the Oakwood mutiny to present National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales and Press Secretary Jess Dureza as witnesses in their ongoing rebellion trial.
Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Oscar Pimentel of Branch 148 sided with the prosecution, which had opposed the defense request to subpoena Gonzales, Dureza, Marianito Dimaandal, chief of the Records Office in the Office of the President, and Antonia Barros, chief of the Senate’s Legislative Archives.
The court, however, allowed the defense to file a motion for reconsideration.
Defense lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr. said he would insist on presenting Gonzales as a witness to testify on the Khadaffy International Foundation, its plans and activities in Mindanao, and its role and participation in relief efforts after the military overran the Buliok complex in Pikit, North Cotabato, in February 2003.
“Like we said before, one reason the officers went to Oakwood was because they could no longer stomach what was happening in Mindanao, because the attack was not in pursuit of kidnappers but to cleanse Mindanao so economic development could take place,” Francisco told reporters in Filipino after the 9 a.m. hearing on Thursday.
He said this came out in a 2001 speech in Davao by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who said Malaysia wanted 160,000 hectares of land in Mindanao for a palm oil plantation.
He said certified true copies of the President’s speech and press releases on the Buliok complex, which would show the commercial plans for Mindanao, could be supplied by Dureza’s office.
“According to the officers, before Oakwood happened, word had spread that the reason for the strife in Mindanao was commercial. And this was confirmed by no less than [then Defense] Secretary Angie Reyes when he testified that the offensive in Mindanao was launched in 2003 to pave the way for economic development,” said Francisco.
The Department of Justice has said it would continue to oppose defense motions to subpoena witnesses whose testimonies would be “foreign” to the case.
“We already stated in our opposition that the filing for this new request for this new set of witnesses was a dilatory tactic of the defense… we are talking here about an incident that happened in July 2003, the coup d’etat in Oakwood, and they are presenting witnesses concerning matters that happened in 2001 or early 2003. Unless he (Francisco) can show there is relevance to that testimony, we will oppose it,” said assistant chief state prosecutor Richard Fadullon.
Fadullon said the defense had so far failed to link the Buliok offensive to the Oakwood mutiny.
“Unless you are able to show that this was what precipitated what happened at Oakwood, that’s the only time there would be relevance,” the prosecutor said.
Francisco said it was actually the prosecution that was the cause of the delay, presenting only 22 witnesses in four years of trial.
“I was able to present eight witnesses in four months, whose testimonies were very long. If there’s anyone who should be complaining about the delay, it should be the accused, because the cause of the delay is the prosecution,” he said.
The next hearing is set for Nov. 6 at 2 p.m.