The “Alabang boys” controversy: WHO BRIBED WHOM?
By Edsel Van DT. Dura
THE MEDIA coverage of the suspected bribery of government officials for the release of three drug suspects lacked the critical information needed to help the public form a tentative but intelligent opinion on the allegations.
PJR Reports monitored media coverage from Dec. 23 until Jan. 10, three days after the first two sessions of the House of Representatives probe on the controversy. It covered the three major newspapers (Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star); three major television news programs (TV Patrol World of ABS-CBN 2 and 24 Oras of GMA-7 as well as Teledyaryo of the government-run NBN-4); and online news organizations (abs-cbnNEWS.com, GMANews.tv, Inquirer.net, Newsbreak, The Daily PCIJ of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, and VERA Files).
The monitor showed that the press merely depended on statements from the parties involved in the issue and did not investigate the charges on its own. The coverage thus became a heated battle for credibility and public sympathy, with the press basically taking a bystander stance.
Media hype
The Star reported the bribery attempt in its Dec. 23 story “Drug suspects’ kin offer Department of Justice (DOJ) P50-M bribe” (Metro section, p. 14) The press soon followed up on the issue. When the Inquirer bannered the story last Dec. 28 (“P50-M drug bribe bared: DoJ drops raps vs 3 rich kids in buy-bust”), the controversy became front-page news.
Last Sept. 20, Richard Brodett, Jorge Joseph, and Joseph Tecson—reportedly the sons of rich and influential families—were arrested for drug trafficking through buy-bust operations in Quezon City and Ayala Alabang Village by the agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
Using anonymous sources, the Dec. 23 Star article reported that the Brodett family allegedly offered P50 million to prosecutors to immediately dismiss the case against the three suspects. But the Star’s “reliable source” said he was not sure if the prosecutors accepted the bribe.
Two PDEA officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, also confirmed the bribery allegations. The PDEA officials also alleged that PDEA director general Dionisio Santiago was offered a gold Rolex watch to drop the complaint.
Santiago denied the allegation, but said the families of the suspects were determined to exhaust all possible means to secure their release. He said in the Star report that some people close to one of the suspects had offered a bribe of P20 million.
The controversy proved an opportunity for the press to review flaws in the justice system. But the press was predominantly hooked on the drama and personalities involved in the issue. The exchanges of accusations and the word war between government officials gained more prominence while discussions on the merits of the case were buried in the inside pages.
Inquirer headlines like “Brodetts vs Brodetts” (front-page, Jan. 8 ) and “PDEA chief, ‘Alabang boys’ lawyer face off on noontime TV” (p. A4, Jan. 6) are among the examples. The latter (revised Inquirer.net headline “On noontime TV: PDEA chief, ‘Alabang boys’ lawyer tangle”) article’s lead went: “It was a phone-patch showdown that fired up noontime news like the climax of a soap opera.”
Another Inquirer article, “DOJ lawyer says he’s been having sleepless nights” (Jan. 6, p. A4) was also an example of the way the press appeared to be competing for the best defense story for each camp.
As of press time, the alleged pay-off had not yet been substantiated. Neither did the Senate hearings turn up any clear evidence confirming that the bribery attempt indeed happened.
Major Ferdinand Marcelino of PDEA, did not name to the media his supposed classmate at the Philippine Military Academy who acted as emissary for one of the suspects’ family. He named the person, but during a closed-door hearing after the first public hearing conducted by the House oversight committee on dangerous drugs.
Marcelino disclosed three bribe offers made to him ranging from P3 million to P20 million. Marcelino, a Marines officer, currently heads the PDEA’s Special Enforcement Service which conducted the buy-bust operation.
DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez said he had “reservations” about the alleged bribery attempts by adverting to the Court of Appeals (CA) bribery scandal late last year.
“It’s incredible. It seems these people are wealthier than Meralco,” Gonzalez said in a Dec. 30 Inquirer report.
CA Justice Jose Sabio claimed that businessman Francis de Borja offered him P10 million in behalf of Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) in the GSIS-Meralco case.
Crucial issues
The allegations, though still doubtful due to the refusal of the supposed whistleblowers to divulge more information, have also caused the weaknesses in the government’s battle against illegal drugs to surface.
The news media were able to touch on them when they reported on other dismissed drug cases and alleged DOJ intervention on other cases. But the press has not been very thorough and particularly enlightening by comprehensively addressing it.
To begin with, there was already a media furor even when the Dec. 2 resolution signed by the DOJ prosecutors was leaked. The decision was not yet final.
Gonzalez cited Memorandum Circular No. 46 which requires an “automatic review of dismissed cases involving violations of RA No. 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act.” He said suspects in drugs and smuggling cases, which are capital offenses, should be kept under detention while their cases are pending or under review.
The decision should not have been circulated without his imprimatur, Gonzalez said.
But both Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño and John Resado said the circular had been ignored by the DOJ for years. The press should have checked if this was indeed the case, but did not.
Resado authored the resolution dismissing the case. Zuño, who has been with the DOJ for 15 years, signed the resolution along with state prosecutors Philip Quimpo and Misael Ladaga.
More importantly, the press should have also made its own assessment of the processes involved in the proper conduct of buy-bust operations or in the handling of drug cases in particular.
Gonzalez claimed that the appointment of Marcelino was unconstitutional. Citing Article 16, Section 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, he said military officers are prevented from holding civilian positions in government.
Does this mean that any drug case filed by the PDEA can easily be junked via a technicality since some PDEA officers, like Marcelino, are also serving in the military?
In this context, the press, as public educator and watchdog of government, should provide more analyses to help expand any discussion on the govern-ment’s drug enforcement policies. After all the Philippines has become a major hub of the drug trade in Asia, which makes drug trafficking and all its complexities the stuff of which news is made.
[…] The “Alabang Boys” Controversy Who Bribed Whom? by Edsel Van DT. Dura […]