In the eerily quiet and refrigerator-cold Constabulary morgue in Camp Crame, the mother of Rolando Galman, the accused killer of Benigno S. Aquino Jr., ‘wept hysterically’ as she identified her son’s bullet-riddled body.
This was according to The New York Times, in a Nov. 4, 1983 article about the first public hearing of the Agrava Commission held the previous day.
Ferdinand Marcos Sr. formed the body to investigate the assassination of Ninoy Aquino on Aug. 21, 1983, a shocking and bloody Sunday that would later change the course of the country’s history.
The Agrava Commission was led by retired Court of Appeals Justice Corazon Agrava as chair, with lawyer Luciano Salazar, entrepreneur Dante Santos, labor leader Ernesto Herrera and educator Amado Dizon as members.
The hearing ‘opened in an auditorium at Camp Crame and focused on testimony about an erasure in the logbook of the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory, where an autopsy was performed on the body of Mr. Galman about 10 hours after the shooting. His name was entered in a space where something else had been erased. All-civilian commission,’ the article said.
Clearly, the article shows that the public had access to the hearings, whether broadcast daily or open to everyone who wanted to be there.
Another New York Times article, published on Oct. 24, 1984, narrates:
‘At the beginning, the Agrava Commission raised some doubts as to its impartiality. The first session began with the five members singing the national anthem, hands over hearts, in front of a picture of the President.
‘But once the investigation got into full swing, it became clear that the board members were going about their task without restraint.
‘Soon, the hearings were broadcast daily on the radio, and the 400-seat auditorium in the government’s social security building in Manila, where the sessions were held, was often filled and sometimes overflowing.
‘In the 11-month investigation, the panel took testimony from 194 witnesses at 146 public hearings in Manila, Tokyo and Los Angeles. More than 1,400 photographic exhibits were examined.
‘The board’s efforts caught the imagination of the public and won the faith of many. One Communist witness said he had chosen to appear ‘because of what I have observed here – that justice still prevails in this small world.”
Credibility
I could barely read or write at the time Ninoy Aquino was assassinated or when the Agrava Commission was formed.
But now, decades later, I am able to go back to this period in our country’s history because the hearings were open to the public as captured in these newspaper records – The New York Times, Mr. and Ms. and many other publications.
I am writing about this now because the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) has announced – and has not changed its position as of this writing – that its hearings on the unprecedented flood control corruption scandal would not be livestreamed.
And here lies the big puzzle. An independent commission wants to conduct the hearings behind closed doors. But why?
This should not be the case. Keeping the proceedings away from the public eye diminishes the ICI’s credibility and goes against the principle of truth and accountability.
And in an angry nation seeking for answers, credibility is vital, now more than ever.
Trial by publicity, at this point, is already water under the bridge – ghost or not (oops, pun intended) – because the congressional inquiries are already aired live and social media is on overdrive, posting and reposting signs of ostentatious wealth of those implicated.
But it is exactly when the ICI hearings are made public that the respondents can refute the allegations against them and dish out their narratives. Anyway, they have all the best lawyers money can afford by their side.
On the other hand, it is when proceedings are shrouded in secrecy that suspicions abound.
Benjamin Magalong’s resignation
As it is now, the rumor mill is already abuzz with questions on why anti-corruption crusader and Baguio Mayor Benjamin Magalong resigned as special adviser to the ICI.
A source divulged that Magalong went to Laoag and talked to contractors. The next day, he resigned. Another tale alleges that the ICI was told to spare sacred cows.
For sure, his sudden departure from the ICI is already a big blow to the commission’s credibility.
In his resignation letter, Magalong said we must stand together for transparency, accountability and good governance and not allow corruption to steal our future.
Opening the hearings to the public, just as the Agrava Commission did, is precisely the first step needed to show that the ICI is indeed independent, sincere and transparent.
Anything less will surely lead to turmoil.
We must heed the lessons of history.
As reported by The STAR on Aug. 28, 2002, the Agrava Commission issued two different reports.
Agrava’s own report did not blame Ver for the death of Aquino, while the members’ report found him liable.
The then Tanodbayan court, the former name of the Office of the Ombudsman, acquitted Ver but convicted Gen. Luther Custodio and 15 other soldiers for the Aquino assassination.
‘The political turmoil that accompanied the Ver acquittal, the decision of Marcos to hold a snap presidential election, the claim of Aquino’s widow – Corazon – that she was robbed of the presidency were among the elements that culminated in the February 1986 people power revolt that ousted the strongman and propelled him into exile in Hawaii.’