The truth of the Bikoy videos

Jude Josue Sabio .

THE Bikoy affair reminds me of a similar controversy in Zambia, a country in Africa. The controversy began with the publication of the “Chiluba is a Thief” commentary in a critical newspaper. The piece was highly critical of the then Zambian President Chiluba who was portrayed as being involved in a web of massive corruption. President Chiluba charged the newspaper editor and writer with libel.

The court battle later spawned adverse political consequences that spinned out of control. During the court trial, the defense of truth was invoked — that is, President Chiluba is really, in truth and in fact, a “thief.” Fortunately for the accused, the truth was later uncovered in the form of an offshore account popularly called “Zamtrop.”

Explosive evidence in the form of bank documents emerged reliably showing that this Zamtrop account served as a financial devise utilized by President Chiluba to siphon off huge amounts from Zambia, forming the hub of a massive web of financial corruption directly involving him.  Zamtrop was used as an illegal conduit for the transfer of public funds from Zambia to high level public officials and private individuals identified in the account. The damning evidence about Zamtrop won the day for the accused who were acquitted. In turn, it resulted in a reversal of political fortune for President Chiluba.  

In the midst of the legal controversy, President Chiluba was succeeded by his handpicked successor President Mwanawansa, a lawyer, who was elected as president. A legal stalwart against corruption, President Mawanansa turned against Chiluba who had earlier plucked him from obscurity to become President.

In a momentous speech in Parliament denouncing Chiluba, President Mwanawansa presented in detail, like he was a lawyer arguing in court, the damning evidence of Zamtrop. He successfully secured a vote in Parliament in favor of the removal of immunity of President Chiluba who later faced legal action, ultimately suffering in utter national disgrace. 

In the Bikoy affair, the people behind the “Totoong Narcolist” videos stand to be charged  with cyberlibel, at the very least. Presently, Rodel Jayme has, in fact, been indicted in court with inciting to sedition. There is a strong likelihood that there will soon be an investigation in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as a prelude to legal charges in court.

Against this backdrop, the truth about the Bikoy videos is compelling. It is the only way that those behind the videos could vindicate and redeem themselves.  As of now, those videos mean nothing at all or do not have any probative value in the face of the destructive turnaround of Bikoy. Ironically, as the star witness on the narco videos, Bikoy himself demolished any credibility and belief in the videos. 

However, in his privilege speech, Sen. Trillanes offered a glimmer of hope. To a keen legal observer, what strikes particular attention was his statement that the “tara” documents came from two persons whose names he expressly cited. This implies that these so-called “tara” documents did not come from Bikoy himself. This was also confirmed by Bikoy when he said in his IBP presscon that people he knows from the drug syndicate supplied the documents.

If the documents were supplied by people other than Bikoy, I am just curious why Bikoy was the narrator in the videos as if the documents directly came from him. Come to think of it, Bikoy has no personal knowledge of the documents and therefore, he is not competent to say if the documents are really true or not. One thing is sure,  though: Bikoy cannot competently say that the documents are not true because those documents did not come from him or were not made by him at all.

Another interesting aspect is that, according to Sen. Trillanes, he referred the “tara” documents to reliable contacts for validation, although he did not reveal who these contacts are. Per Sen. Trillanes, the results of the validation would just be revealed by them later in public. It is also worthy to note that Sen. Trillanes told the priests that there was no other choice but to wait for the validation to be finished. This implies that the videos were produced against his advice.

One thing is just odd. There is a 2016 statement of Bikoy later revealed by Sen. Sotto. If Bikoy is to be believed, this statement was just given to him by a Bucor official sometime in 2016, for which reason Sen. Trillanes intended to do due diligence in August last year. In a later video, Bikoy claimed that his signature on the statement was forged and the purported statement was not notarized, implying that the supposed statement was a fabrication.

The 2016 statement is really intriguing. If it is juxtaposed with the narco videos, it could lead to just one conclusion: the purported drug syndicate is connected to whoever is in power.  But if the 2016 statement is fabricated, it could lead ultimately to Sen. Leila de Lima’s acquittal. In all likelihood, the other statements of Bilibid inmates against her could also have been fabricated by Bucor officials.  Furthermore, if the 2016 statement is fabricated, it could raise serious doubts about the credibility of the narco videos, especially if a common source for the 2016 statement and the 2019 “tara” documents could be shown.

But then again, it is still not at a dead end. Based on Sen. Trillanes’ privilege speech, there is still a need to wait for the truth to come out in an ongoing vetting of the “tara” documents. He has declared, in media, that he knows the truth and he has evidence to prove it. It is, therefore, imperative that the truth about the narco videos must be forthcoming, which means that the people who supplied the “tara” documents must be produced in order to tell the truth about the documents.

Or better still, the people actually involved in the alleged drug syndicate who had a direct hand in or personal knowledge of the preparation of those “tara” documents as part of their routine work in the syndicate should come out to tell the truth. For one thing, the documents, if indeed done as part of routine work, are admissible as part of the independently relevant statement of Sen. Trillanes that those documents were given to him.

But as to whether the contents of the “tara” documents are true would require independent competent evidence. Thus, it would be best if these documents would be authenticated by competent persons like the persons mentioned by Sen. Trillanes.  Unless and until that happens, the narco videos can, in no way, amount to truth. 

(Jude Josue L. Sabio is the lawyer from Misamis Oriental who submitted a complaint against President Duterte to the International Criminal Court.)