Conrado de Quiros Overkill

While a gaggle of bystanders watches, a team of cops clad in fatigues, bulletproof vests, helmets and gas masks and toting assault rifles storms the place. They start grabbing people and wrestling those who resist to the ground. One cop is pinning someone on his back with his knee while pulling out handcuffs. The other cops who have ringed the place are eyeing the perimeter watchfully, alert for any signs of trouble. Several cops on motorcycles hover in the wings. This is not Malaysia, about which we have been complaining for its nasty habit of tearing into crowds in search of Filipino illegals, and throwing them in jail, presuming them guilty until they can prove themselves innocent, or in possession of the proper papers. This is the heart of Chinatown, in 168. I saw the pictures, taken by someone in the crowd. The storm troopers are cops armed with mission orders from the Bureau of Immigration to arrest illegals. The mission orders do not specify who to arrest, let alone their addresses, and are not backed by warrants from the courts. As in Malaysia, this is to whom it may concern. Since December last year, the cops have been carrying out these raids in 168, 999, Lucky Chinatown, and 1188, terrifying shoppers and residents alike. The incident I mentioned took place early this month. Thus far, the raids have yielded, quite apart from a few illegals, several completely legal longtime residents and at least one five-year-old. The raids have extended to bodegas whose owners have been asked to show cause why these should not be closed down. Or as the Chinese there say, to show cost for it: Bodega owners have complainedprivately, of courseof having had to cough up from P100,000 to P300,000 to be left alone. Again, let us be clear. Do we want illegals, Chinese or otherwise, to be expelled from our shores? Yes. Do we want contraband to be seized and their sellers or hoarders arrested and jailed? Yes. Do we want government to crack down on criminals and criminality and do so with force and resolve? Yes. Do we want to do all these in this way? No. At the very least, whats iniquitous about it is that its a glaring violation of human rights. This is a case of doing things the Rodrigo Duterte way, which proves yet again the immense harm he is doing by the example he sets. At least Duterte knows who he wants to kill, this one is indiscriminate in who it wants to arrest. Last we looked, the principle was still that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Last we looked, the principle was still that the authorities supplied just cause why a person should be arrested, or his bodega padlocked, and not the arrestee or owner why he or his property should not be so. Last we looked, the principle was still, as reaffirmed by the Department of Justice in 1999, that the issuance of warrants of arrest by the Commissioner of Immigration for the sole purpose of investigation and before the issuance of a final order of deportation violates the right of a person to due process. Carrying this out, moreover, with cops in full battle gear in a fairly peaceful community makes it all the more iniquitous. Dutertes proposition is that the best way to solve rice smuggling is by killing rice smugglers. The proposition here is that the best way to solve the problem of illegal aliens is to grab the nearest persons in the Chinese malls and jail them until they can prove themselves legal. At the very most, this isnt just iniquitous, this is dangerous. You cant find a worse time to do it than right now. Were in the middle of a row with China, one where the rhetoric has become strident and the moves increasingly martial. An action like this taken against a predominantly Chinese population will not be seen as a purely internal affair. It will be colored by that dispute. It could, and probably would, be seen as action that did not originate solely from the BI, with the cooperation of the Department of the Interior and Local Governments which provided the cops, but from the national government which gave it its full blessings. It could, and probably would, be interpreted as some kind of retaliation for Chinas efforts to intimidate Filipino fishermen in the Spratlys, particularly driving them away by water cannon some weeks ago.

Weve already seen how a wave of anti-Filipino sentiment is sweeping through China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taiwan at one point made noises about keeping out visiting Filipinos and Hong Kong continues to demand an official apology from P-Noy for the Luneta massacre. Indeed, Hong Kong residents booed the visiting Azkals last year, which threatens to bring the dispute between governments to the level of the people themselves. What now if China and Hong Kong and Taiwan were to ban overseas Filipino workers from their shores? Or if not ban OFWs, since they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did (they need OFWs for work they do not particularly like to do and Filipinos are the best caregivers), making getting into their shores the hardest thing in the world? What now if those three countries, like Malaysia, were to conduct periodic raids on communities known to host concentrations of Filipinos, the raiders carting them off indiscriminately and dumping them in jail until they can show documents or pay their way out, whichever comes first? What now if the Chinese themselves, never mind their officials, were to presume Filipinos if not naturally given to smuggling at least to serving as drug mules, if not naturally given to gambling in casinos at least playing without work permits in clubs, if not naturally given to anarchy and subversion at least to being incapable of following laws and rules? Overkill does not kill only its victims, it also kills its authors.

The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth

The first thing they ask you while your right hand rests on the Bible is: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? That is the test of a witness testimony. One or two do not suffice. All three must be there. So far Benhur Luy and Ruby Tuason have passed the test, or at least Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla, and Juan Ponce Enrile have not been able to punch any gaping holes in what theyve said. Were they telling the truth? The richness and fineness of the detail they supplied in their accounts suggest so, both of them showing much confidence in their appearance at the Senate. They answered the questions of the senators without nervousness, refusing to be baited into speculation, talking only about things they knew. The three senators themselves made it a point not to attend the hearings to show that they did not take the witnesses seriously. But all they showed was that they were afraid to face them. Were they telling the whole truth? The best proof of this is that from the start they admitted their malfeasance. Chavit Singson was a thoroughgoing scoundrel, too, then (as now), but that was what made him believable when he spoke out against partner-in-crime Erap. Luy admitted to getting a substantial fee for his services, and Tuason admitted to getting 5 percent all the way. Were they telling nothing but the truth? Well, there will always be suspicions about their underreporting, or mis-declaration, of the amounts they got. An operation that produced such oodles of cash that Janet Napoles allegedly could no longer stash it in the usual places she had to pack it in her (probably queen-sized) bathtub naturally lends itself to kupit. And barya in this case could mean tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pesos. Jinggoys attempts to defend himself from this, never mind try to turn the tables on the government once again, have only looked like grasping at straws. His attempts to discredit Tuason in particular are cringe-worthy. Of course Tuason would need to consult her notes to answer questions. Can he himself remember who he was with at Zirkoh five years ago? (Well, maybe he can.) And of course there would be no footage of Tuason entering the Senate; CCTV tapes are regularly erased. But comes now Dennis Cunanan. Is he telling the truth? Like the others, he gives a richly detailed account of how the three senators, including Enrile, who he says directly interceded on behalf of a Napoles NGO of his choice (a member of his staff supplied a letter naming the NGO), pressured him into approving and releasing funds for their favorite projects. In Jinggoy and Revillas case, he claims dealing with them directly, Jinggoy for the most part over the phone. Jinggoy has denied it and says whoever it was on the line

wasnt him. He could have been cleverer and said for all you know it might have been Willie Nepomuceno, but that has pretty much left him only with that line of defense. Is Cunanan telling the whole truth? That is the crux of the problem. The part in his testimony where he faltered big-time was when Grace Poe asked him about Luys statement that he (Luy) prepared a bag containing P960,000 in cash on Napoles orders and he (Luy) saw him (Cunanan) leave Napoles office with it. That was when he suddenly became hesitant and evasive, refusing to verify or contradict Luys statement. It held echoes of Napoles own sustained bout with amnesia in her own appearance at the Senate, the joke about it being that it was an episode of Maalala Mo Kaya, which vastly amused P-Noy himself. I cant remember was Napoles repeated answer to the questions, infuriating some of the senators. Cunanans answer did not infuriate Poeshe is not naturally given to infuriation, but she did threaten to lift the immunity of a provisional states witness from him. She has a point. What was Cunanan thinking, that something like this could be hidden or snowed under? Quite apart from the fact that it is next to unbelievable that he succumbed only to the stick and not to the carrot when he allowed his office to be used and abused, what makes it so counterproductive is that the nation would have taken it in stride if he had admitted to it. It did with Luy and Tuason. Why be coy with something so easily verifiable? Jinggoys camp was of course quick to pounce on it, making joyful noises about it being the death of the case against them. But its just a lot of whistling in the dark, rumors of the death of the prosecution are grossly exaggerated. Were the witness Cunanan alone, his detractors might have done greatly to dent his account. You violate the principle of the whole truth, you raise suspicions about the mettle of the truth and the nothing but the truth. But taken in conjunction with the other witnesses, it adds weight to the case. It remains for Cunanan to own up to partaking of ill-gotten gains before he can enjoy the protection of law. Without of course prejudice to being compelled to return the loot, in the same way that Luy and Tuason have been compelled so, and who have promised to do so. But despite this, as they stand right now the accounts of the three witnesses taken together constitute one solid, humongous, and damning indictment of the accused. They do not contradict each other, they reinforce each other, except for a kink or two such as this one. Their core, their heart, their essence, which is how the three senators took part in Napoles scam, is there for all the world to see, for all the courts to punish. We may not be sidetracked once again. The culprits are not Luy, Tuason, and Cunanan, they are Estrada, Revilla and Enrile. That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Lets use it well

The Freedom of Information (FOI) bill that the Senate passed last Monday will not include Malacaang divulging the proceedings of its confidential meetings. At least until such time as those meetings end up in policy declarations, in which case the public may demand a summary of their salient points. Frankly, I dont know why that provision came into consideration at all. The nature of confidential meetings is precisely that they are confidential. And the reason they are confidential is not necessarily because they deal with national secrets but because they deal with personal ones. Those meetings are home, too, to banter and gossip, the language being irreverent and full of politically incorrect jokes. You want to parade that like dirty linen before the public? There are limits to the virtue of transparency or honesty, those limits having been shown in all their absurdity by hilarious movies like The Invention of Lying and Liar, Liar. You cant very well have, as in The Invention of Lying, someone opening the door and telling you, Oh, sorry, I couldnt answer the doorbell at once, I was upstairs jerking off. Civilization cannot survive such levels of honesty, which is why it invented, if not lying, at least discretion.

Not putting confidential meetings on the record is not not being transparent, its being, well, civilized. But Im glad the FOI has finally been passed, even if only by the Senate, even if the House, which needs to fling its doors open the most, has yet to do it. Grace Poe, who has been tireless in pushing it, deserves a great deal of the credit. The way she shepherded the bill to its approval in the Senate is an example of how to get things done. Poe is one of the calmer, more level-headed, senators. She isnt loud, she isnt strident, she isnt kulang sa pansin and weighing in on everything in front of the cameras. She is quiet, focused, and sees things through. She has seen this through. You wonder why Speaker Sonny Belmonte hasnt done the same. He vows that the FOI will pass before his term ends in 2016, but that is much too late. Its well past due, it should have become law as soon as P-Noy stepped on the plate. Why the foot-dragging? The choice is simple, as Poe points out: Madali lang naman ang pagpipiliandilim o liwanag. Kailangang masinagan ng araw ang lahat ng transakyon ng pamahalaan. (The choice is easydark or light. The light of day has to illuminate all transactions of government.) Of course, the FOI is just like any of the items in the Bill of Rights. Its just a potential, an enabler. Its power lies in our ability to use it. Having the right to assemble means nothing if people do not particularly feel inclined to assemble out of fear or indifference. Having the right to demand all sorts of records or documents from government means nothing if people will not demand them anyway out of the tedious lawyerly procedures it entails, or worse, out of not knowing what to ask for in the first place. But better to have a potential than none at all, as well we know from the Bill of Rights being scrapped during martial law. More this, the FOI isnt merely an enabler, its a catalyst. Its an instrument that encourages people to take an activeand intelligentpart in the way they are governed. Poe again puts it this way: The FOI will not only prevent graft and corruption but, more importantly, our citizens will learn to get involved and participate and thus will become true stakeholders in government. This is the true essence of democracy. Thats the subtler point about the value of the FOI, but the far more important one. One is tempted to say that is probably just a hope, a lofty one but not an easily realizable one. But it is a hope thats not unfounded or greatly removed from reality. Lest we forget, the clamor for the passage of the FOI rose to thunderous levels late last year at the height of the frenzied popular protest against pork. The one that was marked in particular by the Million People March on Heroes Day last August, a march that had the remarkable quality of being next to leaderless. It was as dazzling a show of people power as you could getbut one that arose, not from a need to oust government, but to stop corruption. The struggle for the FOI at least, if not the FOI itself, is allied, or strongly linked, to the struggle for the peoples voices to be heard in national discourse, in the shaping of national policy. The FOI did not create that spontaneous protest; the social media, more than any other, did. But the FOI stands to impact back on it. At the very least, it wont just give impetus to the public weighing down on things, it can give some direction to it. The public weighing down on things also has a downside, as we saw last year. It doesnt always result in the people trying to shape the terms of their governance, it can also result in people merely ranting and vituperating and parading their ignorance before the world. It doesnt always result in reasoned, or at least reasonably thought-out, observations about the way we live, it can also result in vicious rumors, innuendoes, and downright lies about just about everyone. The FOI helps in part to stem this tide, or better still, steer it to a more positive direction. Youve got the freedom to obtain information, whats your excuse for displaying ignorance? Youve got the freedom to ascertain information, whats your excuse for passing off speculation as fact, wish fulfillment as fulfillment? Youve got the freedom to test information every which way, whats your excuse for passing off stupidity as wisdom? The true essence of democracy is not just that we have freedom, its that we use it well. We now have freedom of information. Lets use it well.

Might is Right
When P-Noy first compared Chinas leaders to Hitler, his statement was met with mixed reactions. The masa of course applauded it, but not so the more critical sector of the public. Certainly not so non-Pinoys who, though sympathetic to the Philippines in its confrontation with China, found the comment overboard. I myself said it missed history by a mile, but if that was what it took to rouse the world to Chinas growing expansionism, so be it. Living under the shadow of a tyranny right at our doorstep was just as bad as living behind the barbed wire of an occupation. Over the last few weeks however, Ive begun to look at the comment in a new light. Not because it accurately captured the spirit of Chinas aggressionthat aggression remains nowhere near what Hitler did in the late 1930s, which plunged the world into an apocalyptic warbut because certain events today hold not very faint echoes of it. Even as China has been exhibiting expansionist ambitions in Asia, claiming virtually the whole of the South China Sea as sovereign territory, Russia is threatening to invade a neighboring country. For those who have not been following their current events, that country is Ukraine. Last February, Ukraine experienced its own version of People Power, though more bloodily, the residents of Kiev protesting their presidents, Victor Yanukovychs, decision to back off from a trade deal with the European Union and turn to Russia instead. The demonstrations lasted several days and ended nearly on the same date as our own People Power, Feb. 22. With the same result, Yanukovych, like Marcos, fled the country tail between legs. The difference being that Marcos fled to the United States while Yanukovych fled to Russia. Washington supported the uprising against Marcos (after supporting Marcos for a long time) while the Kremlin condemns the uprising against Yanukovych. Yanukovych is pro-Moscow while the interim government that succeeded him, which has promised elections in May, is pro-West. Last week, a counter-uprising took place in Crimea by pro-Yanukovych loyalists, a group that, observers believe, was organized and led by Russian elements themselves. The new government has been at pains to put it down. Presumably to protect Russian citizens in Ukraine, the Kremlin is preparing to invade it. US State Secretary John Kerry has condemned the incredible act of aggression and warned of economic sanctions and Russias alienation from the Western world. You just dont, in the 21st century, behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext. If Russia wants to be a G8 country, it needs to behave like a G8 country. One is tempted to say that Chinas and Russias recent belligerence demonstrates that those two huge communist countries, erstwhile or current, have not entirely outgrown their expansionist and militaristic instincts to learn the ways of the 21st century. Vladimir Putin seems to have forgotten that that the USSR, of which Ukraine was a part, dissolved more than two decades ago and Ukraine has become a sovereign state. And Wen Jiabao and Hu Jintao seem determined to push China back to its isolationist and paranoid times. They seem to have an out-of-this-world view of this world and are spinning out of control. Surely it must have to do with the atavistic impulses of their ideology? Not at all. It has nothing to do with the communist ideology. In fact, what makes US President Barack Obamas and Kerrys remonstrations equally out-of-this-world is that its a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Kerry would be a lot more believable in pointing out the odiousness of invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext if the United States had not in fact invaded Iraq on a completely trumped-up pretext just 10 years ago. Lest we forget, the Iraq invasion was justified in the name of self-preservation, Saddam Hussein apparently harbored weapons of mass destruction aimed at the heart of America. Lest we forget, the Iraq invasion had no global sanctionAmerica defied the United Nations on itand had only the veneer of the coalition of the willing going for it. And lest we forget, it had absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, the presumed mastermind of 9/11, in whose namefighting antiterrorismit had been carried out.

Self-preservation, or at least the preservation of Russian lives, is Putins justification for invading Ukraine, as though he needed a justification for doing as he damn well pleases. Can he be any madder than Dubya, aka George Bush Jr.? What all these suggest is that the penchant of nations to look at the 21st century through the prism of the 19th century is by no means rare or unusual today. It may be deviant when looked at from the point of view of rationality but it is not deviant when looked at from the point of view of reality. Its becoming more common now than ever: Might is right. Three of the most powerful nations of the world have resorted to it or are resorting to it. The United States has invaded Iraq, Russia is about to invade Ukraine, and Chinas bullying could very well lead at least to war, if not invasion, if it goes challenged. Or if it is not a throwback to the 19th century, then it is at least a throwback to the 20th, particularly the Germany of the 1930s. If I remember right, Hitler was how Bush was called by furious critics of the Iraq invasion. Arguably, fittingly: He didnt just embark on occupation outside his country, he embarked on repression inside his country, mounting a culture of paranoia, of which Homeland Security remains an obdurate reminder. P-Noys reference to Chinas leaders being a Hitler may be a humongous hyperbole, to put it euphemistically. But these days, it makes you think twice.

Pure Madness
The new arrangement is called Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation, and Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino assures it is 80-percent done. As though that news would elate us. Not to worry, adds Ambassador Eduardo Malaya, the agreement does not allow the United States to put up bases in this country, it allows it only to use our bases. And Filipino authorities will have complete access to the US installations set up inside those bases. That should dispel fears about infringement on sovereignty. As a concept, access is assured, being within Philippine military bases. The right of the base commander to have access to specific areas shared with them has already been agreed (on) in principle by both panels. What can one say? What the -?! The least of whats wrong with it is this: The problem with our agreements with the United States has never been the agreement, it has always been the implementation. Can anyone seriously imagine a scenario where the Filipino base commander tells his American counterpart wherever a dispute arises, Open the gates, I need to see whats on your grounds. More than likely, the Filipino commander will not be authoritative, he will be deferential. He will not put his foot down, he will be accommodating. He will not be in charge, the American official will. This is one case where the tail will wag the dog. History shows so. It is American policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons in their installations. The American base within a base can have all the weapons of mass destruction it wants and we will be no nearer to glimpsing it than we would be Fort Knox. That is assuming in the first place that we want to know. Remember that this agreement is being hammered under conditions where the Philippine government desperately wants American armed presence in the region on the batty assumption that we need it for our protection and wouldnt mind giving the United States as many bases as they want if only that were constitutionally possible. That is to say, under conditions where we are the beggars. Beggars cant be choosers. All this does is to give the United States the best of both worlds: having de facto military bases back without having to pay rent. The most of whats wrong with this is a couple of things: One is that we already have the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), why in hell do we need to give the United States de facto bases here all over again? The MDT not quite incidentally should already show us how utterly inutile our military arrangements with the United States are. The MDT specifies very clearly that in the event of an attack on any portion of the US or Philippine territory, including

those lying in the Pacific Ocean, the one is obliged to come to the defense of the other. The Pacific, all American officials have reaffirmed, extends in coverage to the South China Sea. Arguably, the islands where Chinas provocations are taking place are disputed territory. The United States itself, while condemning Chinas belligerence, says it is not taking sides or a position on who owns the islands, notwithstanding that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is clear that countries have sovereign rights to waters up to 200 nautical miles off their shores. But at the very least, surely the act of driving Filipinos away from the disputed islands by water cannons and various threats, not least Chinese gunships patrolling the area, constitutes an attack on territory the Philippines has a very strong claim to. Or that China has only a self-serving unilateral assertion of ownership to. Where is the American automatic military response to it as the MDT bids? Where is the American warship or two to confront the Chinese gunships there and protect the Filipino fishermen? What defenseat least of the Philippines, if not of Americadoes the MDT really give? Two is that this spits on the blood, sweat and tears we expended just to rid ourselves of US military presence in this country. Can we have forgotten already how hard it took to kick out the US bases, Cory herself trying to people-power her way into keeping them? The Visiting Forces Agreement was bad enough and was already a stab in the back of itErap, who passed it as president, ironically having been one of the Magnificent 12 that stopped the bases. He would joke later on, Kala ko kasi visiting lang, malay ko bang permanent, but some jokes hurt agonizingly when you laugh. This one is worse. Much, much worse. And for what? Because of our problem with China in the Spratly Islands? That is believing that the best cure for a headache is to shoot yourself in the head. As the VFA showed, the monumental atrocity here is that the agreement wont just end with one government. The VFA did not end with Erap, the Enhanced Defense Agreement wont end with P Noy. It will commit the next governments to honoring that agreement till kingdom come. It will commit the nation to harboring US military enclaves in our bases till kingdom come. Till kingdom come is no exaggeration as weve seen from the fact that except for the brief period when the only general to become president of this country was in charge, who was Fidel Ramos, weve had US military presence in one form or another. Long after P-Noy is gone, we will still be reeling under that presence. What a legacy to bequeath. By all means let us protest Chinas claim to the whole of the South China Sea and bring the world to vituperate against it. By all means let us bring America itself, with whom we share a fitful history, to lead the condemnation of it, however its own role in invading Iraq without UN sanction pulls the moral rug from under it. By all means let us call the Chinese leaders Hitler. But bring US servicemen and equipment to roost here all over again? Thats just madness. Pure madness.

Post Valentines, of sorts

This country is home to sublime ironies, and none comes more sublime than the fall of Juan Ponce Enrile. Only a year and a half ago, he was at the height of his powers and popularity. He had just presided over the impeachment trial of Renato Corona and had done so masterfully, unfurling his lawyerly skills for all the world to see. Armed with that triumph, he unfurled as well his recollection of his life and times for all the world to cringe. Insisting among others that his waylaying at Wack-Wack, which triggered martial law, was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God. God did not. His unraveling was as swift as his raveling. A year and a half later, he had lost his commanding heights and was looking at the world from the bottom of the abyss. He was one of three senators charged with conspiring with Janet Napoles to defraud the public big-time, and the senators he had pissed off during his heyday were determined to see him bite the dust. They had their knives unsheathed last Thursday, and two of them in particular, Antonio Trillanes and Miriam Defensor-Santiago, brandished newly sharpened ones.

They were unhappy with the way Ruby Tuason had dealt with him. She was rather clear in the part about Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, lamented Trillanes. But when it came to the part about Senator E nrile, she suddenly became forgetful. It was as if she wasnt interested. Santiago echoed the sentiment suggesting that Tuason knew more than what she told about Enrile. Their complaint drew from the fact that Tuason had testified only about dealing with the keeper of Enriles house and heart, Gigi Reyes, and not with Enrile himself. When they asked whether she knew if Enrile gave her his blessings and profited from the transactions, Tuason said no. She left it to the senators to draw their own conclusions. That left Trillanes and Santiago instead unsatisfied and demanding she say more. But why on earth should she, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima asked? In fact, De Lima went on, that was what made Tuasons testimony rock-solid, she spoke only about things she knew. The natural assumption that Reyes was merely Enriles alter ego, to say the least, might be acceptable in the court of public opinion, but it was not in a court of law. In a court of law, that will not be taken as proof, that will be taken as perjury. Butand heres the part that makes this a sublime irony, and a post-Valentine story of sortsI dont know that Tuason has really done Enrile a world of favor by pinning down only Reyes with her testimony. I dont know that she hasnt in fact twisted the knife after plunging it into his, well, heart. Look at the wonder of it: Here is a man who, now about to embark on his 10th decade on earth, has managed to survive pretty much every adversity, springing back from them with the ease of a jackin-the-box. Among them his (junior) partnership with Marcos, a partnership he cemented with his aforesaid ambush at Wack Wack, whose authenticity he has always been of two minds about. Among them as well his thwarted attempts to oust Cory by various coups, seeing his comrades jailed for their pains and for his ambitions (he himself escaped the fate), but rising back again to recover fame and fortune. The guy looked invincible. He had no known vulnerabilities, not conscience, not scruples, not compunction. Even when he went on a downhill slide soon after launching his bookhe was accused of giving his favorite senators millions in taxpayer money in the form of Christmas bonuses, he was accused of turning the Cagayan Special Economic Zone and Freeport into a smugglers paradise, his son lost in the elections after WikiLeaks reminded the world of his murder casehe seemed battered but unbowed. Indeed, even after being tagged as one of the senators in cahoots with Napoles, he looked headed to shrug it off all over again. Except, this time, for one thing. Ruby Tuason has given direct evidence not about him but about Gigi Reyes. Ruby Tuason has unfurled the specter of jail not on him but on Gigi Reyes. I remember again that scene in Casablanca where Humphrey Bogart tells Claude Rains, This gun is pointed right at your heart, to which Rains replies: That is my least vulnerable spot. As it turns out with Enrile, in his twilight years that is his most. Contrary to Trillanes and Santiagos interpretation that Tuason has spared Enrile, she has in fact put him in a bind. True enough, Tuason has given him a loophole. She hasnt named him directly as a party to the transactions. Of course she knows how to add two and two together, as Trillanes and Santiago bid her do in front of them, but the law forbids her from doing so. She does not know it for a fact, she knows it only for an assumption. Legallyand Enrile, like Marcos, has always found in the legal the most formidable protection, apart from the most lethal weaponEnrile can always say he had nothing to do with Reyes doings. Legally, he can always say what Reyes did is her own lookout. Legally, he can always hang her out to dry. Or he can bail her out and, at risk of his own wellbeing, and freedom, admit freely that all Reyes has done she has done for him. It wont do to just try to discredit Tuason by calling her a liar to her face, his capacity to call anyone a liar, like Jinggoys, particularly after his autobiography, not being there, never mind Tuasons own credibility. So, whats it going to be? Will he be playing a role in the movie, Hanggang Dito Na Lamang at Maraming Salamat, or Sa Dulo ng Walang Hanggan? Will he be singing the line from Frank Sinatras song, Its Over, The loving was easy, its the living thats hard? Or the song from Chorus Line, What I Did For Love?