Monday, March 30, 2009

0 Tactics

If there is one odd thing about the administration of the hard-to-unseat Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, that would be the nonstop explosions of the bombshells brought by the contemporary newsmakers.

Among them are former police officer Cezar Mancao III, who linked Senator Panfilo Lacson and former President Joseph Estrada to the Dacer-Corbito double murder case; the Palace-freed 16 soldiers who are convicted of the murder of Ninoy and have left the public asking Who masterminded the sordid plot?; convicted child rapist Romeo Jalosjos, who is pardoned and still breathing after spending more than 16 years behind the bars; and lastly, no less than “Nicole”, the confused rape victim who confuses the public.

Among those four shockers, after all of the swarming of the media, Nicole’s case could be labeled as the undisputed most-talked-about talk of the town.

Nicole, who is already in her rapist’s territory—the United States—“staying for good”, retracted her testimony against Daniel Smith whom she had accused of raping her. She, from being ‘raped while intoxicated’, reverses her sworn testimony by stating on her newest affidavit—which was in itself written by her newest lawyer, and not by Nicole—that she could only remember that she was not forced to surrender to the lust of the accused American soldier who was stationed in the country under the Visiting Forces Agreement.

The issue on Nicole’s withdrawal of a piece under oath—which came out after the controversial phone call between Obama and Macapagal-Arroyo—has a long way to go. Questions with regards to this matter are yet unanswered:

Why in the first place did Nicole accept the sum of 100,000 pesos from Smith if the accused made it clear that the amount was not an admission of guilt? What is really behind her stay in the US and why let every Filipino feel the irony? Between her two statements which are both under oath, what should we believe? Will the future undefended rape victim suffer from the court’s skepticism because of what Nicole did? What will be the effect of Nicole’s recantation to the abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement? How will this take back affect the prosperity of the walks and talks against Balikatan? And who is that lawyer—definitely not Evalyn Ursua—who wrote Nicole’s recanting affidavit neatly and too well?

Let us just give the Court of Appeals the chance to ferret out the truth.

0 Feedback:

Post a Comment