Enrile’s own words contradict his pork defense

Exclusive by Raïssa Robles

Veteran lawyer Estelito Mendoza has a simple argument for getting his client, former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, off the hook in his pork barrel theft case.

Mendoza told the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan last Friday that not one of the whistle-blowers ever witnessed Enrile accepting any kickback coming from Janet Lim Napoles.

Not one.

Not Benhur Luy. Not Ruby Tuazon. Not Merlina Sunas. And not even Janet Lim Napoles.

The only possible witness who could pin Erile to the deed has refused to come forward. Enrile’s girl friday – Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes – has not turned state witness. And probably never will.

It must be a demonstration of that old saying: either they hang together or they hang separately.

Mendoza argued in court on June 20:

“Enrile’s role is merely to recommend the projects to be funded under the PDAF appropriation. It is the Executive Department, through various implementing agencies, together with their partner-organizations, that should be held accountable for the PDAF’s use, and the implementation of projects funded by the PDAF, including the liquidation of the PDAF used for the projects.”

Mendoza also said:

“The evidence shows that Enrile was not entrusted with any PDAF allocation, nor tasked to handle the PDAF, or to participate in the implementation of any government project funded by it.”

A week before that, Enrile had filed a 53-page “urgent omnibus motion” to dismiss the case because there was no evidence to link him to to theft of pork barrel funds.

He also argued that his role in PDAF was “merely to recommend the projects to be funded under the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) appropriation.”

In short, Mendoza (a former colleague of Enrile in the cabinet of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos) argued that Enrile didn’t really pay attention to how his pork barrel was used, that he just made general recommendations and nobody could say otherwise – there are no witnesses.

This is what sets Enrile’s case apart from that of Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla. There are eyewitnesses to pin both down. There are none against Enrile.

None – except Enrile himself.

You see, Enrile in his memoirs published in 2012 discusses how he used his pork barrel, which used to be called the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) and which is now called the Priority Development Assistance Fund or PDAF.

But first, let’s review what Enrile and his lawyer Mendoza have said on why Enrile should not be held accountable for the fact that tax money ended up in the pockets of Janet Lim Napoles and certain government officials.

First, Enrile “merely” recommends projects. Such a statement would imply that Enrile has little say on whether a project funded with his PDAF pushes through or not.

Second, the only ones accountable for the use of PDAF and the project implementation (as a result of PDAF use) is the Executive branch of government “through various implementing agencies, together with their partner-organizations” (like the fake NGOs of Janet Lim Napoles.

This means, Enrile is conceding his PDAF was stolen. But he is asserting he has nothing at all to do with the theft because he is not responsible or accountable for the use of PDAF and the project implementation.

His role in the entire thing is merely recommendatory – meaning, the executive branch officials can take his recommendation or not. In fact, Mendoza also said,“The evidence shows that Enrile was not entrusted with any PDAF allocation, nor tasked to handle the PDAF, or to participate in the implementation of any government project funded by it.”

This means, Enrile and his lawyer Mendoza are saying, that he doesn’t have that much say in how his pork is used. The Executive branch of government has the last say.

However, Enrile’s book of memoirs says the exact opposite

On page 680 of Chapter 17 entitled “Lone Oppositionist” – where he narrated his accomplishments as a lawmaker – Enrile talked about his use of pork barrel, then called the Countrywide Development Fund.

Enrile said:

“It was during my term as Representative of the 1st District of Cagayan Province that I crafted the bill that created the Cagayan Special Economi Zone and Freeport. Republic Act No. 7922 was passed into law under the administration of President Ramos. The zone covers the entire town of Sta. Ana and the islands of Fuga, Barit and Mabbag in the Municipality of Aparri, spanning more than 54,000 hectares of land and is being administered by a government corporation known as CEZA -the Cagayan Economic Zone Authority.”

“I must give much-deserved credit to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for she and her administration were very supportive of my efforts to help CEZA and she shared my vision of attracting investors to do business in and to develop the special economic zone, especially the improvement of the old and dilapidated port, Port Irene, which was named after President Marcos’ daughter, Irene.”

Notice that he cast Mrs Arroyo only in a supporting role in this project.

Then Enrile narrated his role in developing CEZA through the use of his pork:

“On my part, I had poured much of my countrywide development fund allocations to the road infrastructure needed there. CEZA is now finishing an international airport in the nearby town of Lal-lo so that there could be easier access by air travel to and from the area, instead of just the existing airport in Tuguegarao which is three hours away by land.”

“It had always been my dream to give back something to the place that nurtured me in my early years and to allow them the opportunity to taste the fruits of development. Opening the door for many opportunities for tourism, gaming, industry and other business enterprises in that corner of the archipelago which had heretofore remained backward and undeveloped is a legacy that I wish to leave my people and the people of Region II.”

From this narration, do you get the impression that Enrile’s participation in CEZA was only recommendatory? Or do you get the impression he had played a central role in making sure CEZA had good roads by pouring his pork into “road infrastructure needed there”?

Notice he said “I had poured”. He didn’t merely say “I recommended”.

In this example, Enrile holds himself personally accountable for the improvement of CEZA. This example implies he made sure his pork went to road-building and was not diverted into private pockets. He credited President Arroyo for “being very supportive” and sharing his vision. But he mainly gives himself the credit for its fruition, because as he said, “it had always been my dream to give back something to the place that nurtured me in my early years and to allow them the opportunity to taste the fruits of development.”

The use of the word “allow” is especially telling. Someone who “allows” has the presumption of authority to make the thing happen.

Finally, Enrile called the development of CEZA “a legacy that I wish to leave my people and the people of Region II.”

If his role in pork has always been merely recommendatory as his lawyer told the Sandiganbayan court last Friday, then he cannot credit himself for the development of CEZA and claim CEZA as his legacy.

Because after all, Mendoza had stressed to the court:

“The evidence shows that Enrile was not entrusted with any PDAF allocation, nor tasked to handle the PDAF, or to participate in the implementation of any government project funded by it.”

Notice that Mendoza used the qualifying adjective “any” which in this case gives the sentence the meaning that ALL pork allocation was NOT entrusted to Enrile. And that would include the pork that went to CEZA.

If what Mendoza said is true, then Enrile has no business claiming personal credit for what his pork does.

Unless, of course, his memoirs are unreliable.

Which is which, Senator Enrile and Atty. Mendoza?