‘Show me the (unassailable) proof’

Somewhat self-assuredly, Geo taunts Ricky:

. . . The Garci tapes may be for real - I’ve never denied that. And if GMA is proven to have orchestrated massive electoral fraud, she must go. However, I have not seen proof. And that’s what I want . . ..

I don’t find my position to be ludicrous at all, but nonetheless there are many who are convinced that they know the real score and disagree with my thinking (which is: “please show me the proof”).

I don’t understand why you would disagree with me about demanding proof. Especially when we both CAN agree that you are an intelligent guy.

I think Mario Taguiwalo’s Newsstand post in August 2004 in reply to a comment by Bobi Tiglao in the same blog is pertinent here. Mario wrote:

Ok, Bobi, let us sit back and see where we are now with regards to the culpability of GMA in electoral cheating.

It has been nearly two months since the tapes surfaced. Are the tapes downloadable from PCIJ website authentic or not? Let us assume that these tapes contained conversations that were made up, manufactured, spliced, merely performed or otherwise tampered. Clearly a thorough investigation of these tapes would have then benefited GMA would it not? Yet, do we see anyone in government doing anything to establish the provenance, character, authenticity of these tapes? No one! We then ask, why not, if indeed these tapes are in anyway compromised? I would be happy to hear Bobi’s explanation for this serious lapse in competence that has been going on for two months now, and which, if corrected, could have helped us avoid all this excitement. Yehey! FBI, Scotland Yard and Interpol have all concluded that the tapes were a hoax!

My next question is this: Why has there not been a direct and simple denial that that is not GMA’s voice on that tape? Maybe because such a denial would be blatant lie? Does the Palace think the avoidance of truth is somehow more respectable than direct lying? Again, Bobi, please explain to us this strange pattern of behavior for defending a president supposedly innocent of the crime of election cheating and merely undergoing unfair trial by publicity.

So finally we come to the GMA-Garcillano conversations. Suppose, for argument sake, we have agreed that the tapes are a real record of actual conversations that actually took place. Suppose further that GMA actually had those conversations caught on tape. Bobi, can you explain to us lesser mortals why we would not conclude that those conversations were about cheating planned, intended and executed. Why is GMA talking to Garcillano about provinces for which he was not even the commissioner in charge? Why is GMA reporting events to Garcillano so that he can take damage control measures?

Prior to June 6 when the tapes emerged, I did not question that GMA was duly elected. But the tapes are simply too gross to be ignored. The Presidency is not a right, it is only a privilege granted to the duly elected. Once that privilege is challenged by facts like those contained in the tapes, there is no hiding behind constitutional niceties or due process or presumption of innocence. The burden of proving she should retain the privilege of deciding for us must be on GMA’s shoulder.

This is what I mean when I say it is about legitimacy, stupid! Show me that the tapes are not authentic! Prove to me that it is not GMA talking to Garcillano! Convince me that those conversations between GMA and Garcillano are innocent and not about election cheating! Then you got your citizens back respectful of the mandate of your president.

But don’t tell me - go ahead sue me! Don’t tell me respect due process and grant GMA the benefits of her rights because she has not earned the right to be president, she has merely been granted that privilege by virtue of her election. Now that the very credibility of that election is under question, she has an obligation to re-assure us not provoke us, to establish her innocence not for us to pin down her guilt.

The president rules by contract granted by the people. Now we have reason to question that that contract was fraudulently concluded. She must show us convincingly that the facts contained in these tapes did not impair that contract.

That GMA has survived thus far is not a testament to a strong republic, it is merely proof that one can fool some people some of the time.

In support of Mario’s stance I also posted:

. . . perhaps differently put, GMA’s conduct after the outing of the tapes and up to the present has not comported at all with the conduct of an innocent person even in a rather legalistic frame that GMA apparently prefers to operate. Within that context, the doubting public reasonably should look forward to her going further than merely confessing “lapse in judgment” because even non-lawyers who are still giving her the benefit of the doubt expect her to state something like – “Ok, I have had this ‘lapse’ but I actually did it to avoid a greater evil or injury.” But we are not hearing any of those exculpatory circumstances at all except for the suggestion that some privacy rights could have been violated. Hence, the strong public perception of guilt that strangely she is not trying to overturn even after losing critical allies and constituencies.

Now, may be a distinction should also be made between “legitimacy” and “legitimation.” The latter term may be explained in the Clinton perspective. Recall that Clinton has been impeached for “lying under oath” about a misconduct that has nothing to do with the performance of his office as President. So Clinton upon acquittal was easily “re-legitimated” his legitimacy never having been in question at all. GMA doesn’t seem to have this luxury because she will have the baggage of both “legitimacy” and “legitimation” if a failed “un-election” process through impeachment would be perceived as equally tainted as her “election.”

We have waited for days for Bobi to respond prompting Jojo Abinales to wonder: “And has Bobi responded to Mario yet? I kind of miss his voice here . . ..”

So Mario pressed on:

. . . And what we see from Malacanang since these tapes emerged do not offer much hope. First, Bunye’s real and altered tapes went bust. Second, Iggy’s guy claining he is Gary not Garci fizzled out. Third, Gonzales illegal wiretap threat failed to stave off its spread. Fourth, silence from GMA only increased demand for response. Fifth, the debacle of the apology without admission. Sixth, just sue me in Congress. All these actions do not point to a defense by a misunderstood president who may be innocent of cheating, rather these are all consistent with mere damage control of a president indefensibly exposed as a cheater.

Bobi thought he was clever in referring to these tapes as “mere snippets of conversations” signifying nothing. But the actions of Malacanang relative to these tapes demonstrate a recognition that these tapes contain the cancer that is eating away at the legitimacy of GMA. And that cancer has already metastasized and continues spreading to this day.

The silence of Bobi propelled me to jump in once more:

First to Jojo’s question: “And has Bobi responded to Mario yet?”

In a microcosmic but parallel sense, that’s the same question the nation is asking GMA. Mario’s position is too inescapably compelling that if we don’t hear any further from Bobi, it would leave the impression from whoever is following this exchange that Bobi has really nothing to controvert it. In other words, all Mario has to do, without substantiating his points any further, is to sit back. Hence, the burden of going forward [as distinguished from burden of proof] is on Bobi. Otherwise, Bobi’s justification for the Strong Republic will sound like the bites in GMA’s SONA, even if we assume the merits of some of them in both.

I agree with Mario that the ringing tones of the Hello Garci tapes are more damaging than the whistle blowing of Chavit, in fact also too deafening to render Sammy Ong quite dispensable. My point of departure is where the metastasizing of the tapes into the “cancer” that it is now is somehow suggested to be a phenomenon independent of the transforming dimension of “people power,” I mean the “thinking” (or the “liberating” in the Gramscian tradition, thanks, Jojo) and not the “hooting” aspect of it. I think the saga of the Garci tapes and the buffooneries, the anger, all the rhetoric surrounding them, have converged in the social checks and balances that we now call “people power.” This power is equivocating today because it is thinking. Evidence of this thinking nature (and process) is the proliferation of blogging. As Mario has noted, this is what was absent in the “coalition” (although the CPP has always been ready with its prayer book) that produced EDSA I and the rather extemporaneous “uprising” (downgraded to “speechifying” by the SC to “force a constitutional succession”) of EDSA II.

What I’m hearing from Mario is that GMA is basically a lame duck now because of her “illegitimation” by the Hello Garci controversy so that even if real reforms were pursued, including certain specific salutary goals and initiatives (e.g., federalism) of Bobi’s Strong Republic, she would not only be politically hamstrung but economically as well because having lost her political bargaining position, the “marginal cost” could be prohibitive, meaning consensus (or “aregluhan,” in the Filipino fashion as suggested by Jojo) will require more uneven trade-offs. But “elite consensus” (of the peninsulares and the insulares of the Erap diatribes) is perceived as part of the problem, is it not? So, I agree with Mario that collaboration the Dodong [Nemenzo]’s way as the starting strategic vision - which implies “experimentation” - offers a better systemic as well as creative alternative to Abueva’s customized plans.

Given the sovereign-tampering (or, in fact, polity-shattering) implications of the Garci tapes . . ., Mario’s argument against John [Nery]’s disdain of the “unelected” won’t look like an overstretch anymore. It may even go past the “idealism” hurdle . . .

Apparently avoiding to confront the foregoing, Bobi had decided to post his Witches’ Brew piece as his next reply as to which I posted my own rejoinder wherein I have summarized the rather “technical” [hence, subversive of the substantive] grounds upon which GMA’s refusal to go forward is anchored:

1. The other complaints violate the one-year bar rule on initiating impeachment proceedings;

2. The impeachable offenses (prominently, the ones based on the “Garci Tapes”) were committed during GMA’s first term (referring to the unexpired term of Joseph “Erap” Estrada, who was deemed “constructively resigned” by the Supreme Court);

3. The supposed impeachable offense, the “election fraud” in particular, is a matter that only the Supreme Court, sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) can try and decide on;

4. The “Garci Tapes,” even if true, are inadmissible in evidence because the phone conversations between the President and a COMELEC commissioner about altering election results are private conversations;

5. If at all, only the original complaint should be entertained because the other complaints were filed without the permission of the “court”.

“Is Arroyo really interested in the Rule of Law?” was the title of my rejoinder; and pertaining specifically to ground 4, I have argued:

It is claimed in the FOURTH argument that the “Garci Tapes” even if true, are inadmissible in evidence because the phone conversations between the President and a COMELEC commissioner about altering election results are private conversations.

The president talking to a COMELEC commissioner about elections a private conversation? Private as a frog, maybe. Besides, if GMA is really interested in the truth [or proof about the truth], it is her high duty to waive her supposed right to privacy at this crucial juncture. GMA owes it to herself to prove her innocence once and for all and then, if successful, resume forthwith her governance responsibility. To say the very least, it is not very pretty for her to hide behind some technicalities while the nation is in crisis.

Okay, Geo, we have not seen proof. But WHY not?