FINAL REPORT - Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

B. Implementation of Electoral Fraud/
The Garci Tapes
The documentary and testimonial materials – and the “Garci Tapes” – reveal the
means and methods by which the electoral fraud was implemented.
While certain portions of the populace, specially officials of the incumbent
administration, are convinced that these alleged wiretapped conversations between
Garcillano and the President and many others should be ignored for the reason that
these would be inadmissible in a court of law under our legal system, available
evidentiary materials provide overwhelming logic and factual reason and basis to
consider the literal import and moral significance of their contents for the purpose of
having each Filipino determine for himself the common-sensical truth as to whether or
not, indeed, the incumbent President subverted the electoral process – for which act,
were it not for the peremptory, anti-people sabotage of the impeachment process by
her political allies in Congress, she would have been removed from office and, in due
course, prosecuted, imprisoned, and compelled to pay indemnification.
It will be noted, after all, that no person or entity has ever come forward to
claim violation of his/her/its right to privacy under the Anti-Wiretapping Law. Neither
President Arroyo nor Garcillano have cried foul. No one has dared file suit in court for
the recordation of his/her voice through wiretapping – not the ranking AFP generals,
not the ranking police officials, not even the “Gary” Ruado whom Bunye positively
identified as the House staff member (of Rep. Ignacio Arroyo) who was wiretapped, and
of course not any Comelec official or staff.
Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzalez did announce to the nation (through the
Manila Standard) that wiretapping charges will follow the filing of sedition charges
against former NBI Deputy Director Atty. Samuel Ong, declaring: “I’ll stake my
reputation here.” 5
Manila Standard Today continued its report:
“Gonzalez disputed opposition claims that there would be no
complainants, saying the government could take on this role.
‘The person who heard (Ong’s statements) can testify; the admission of
the person who is holding the tapes that that is the mother of all tapes –
as a declaration against interest – that can be used as evidence,’
Gonzalez said.”
He said Doble, too, could be charged with violating the Anti-Wiretapping
Law and inciting to sedition.” (“Sedition Charges Filed Against Ong,” Roy
Pelovello, Manila Standard Today, June 16, 2005, p. A1)
But he did not file any.
5
emphasis supplied
15