January 12, 2001, Sun Star, Editorial: Cebu: Tan expose not good for Erap,

Yasay, former Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman, and Almadro, former surveillance and investigation chief of the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE), are prosecution witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Estrada.

Both attest to "attempts" of the President to protect Tan against charges of illegal stock manipulations that brought huge profits for crony and allies.

Proving Yasay and Almadro received money and other assets from Tan can show the whistleblowers are themselves crooks and may not be believed.

Why then is the defense not too enthusiastic about putting Tan before the Senate tribunal as a witness?

The reason is the same one that affects the testimony of prosecution witness Luis Singson.

Singson even admitted he too is a crook, saying he is willing to go to jail as long as he is able to send the President to jail as well.

Assuming Yasay and Almadro can be proved to be dishonest, their testimonies may not necessarily be rejected.

On the contrary, it may even lend credibility to their testimony.

For example, Almadro and his boss, then PSE head Jose Yulo, testified that Mr. Estrada lamented that he thought Tan had already "fixed" Yasay, indicating with his fingers the use of money.

Now Tan publicly admits he bribed both Yasay and Almadro. That confirms the testimony about Mr. Estrada's lament and his knowledge of the bribery, which proves his complicity or, the least, the betrayal of public trust.

Putting the presidential crony on the stand may do more harm than good. That's why you see that the defense lawyers are not exactly ecstatic about Tan's accusations.

They are losing in the public forum. Tan's testimony could hurt them in the Senate tribunal too.

Can Cayetano still judge fairly?

Even before Renato Cayetano could finish his angry outburst over presidential crony Dante Tan's accusation that the senator-judge got four million shares of BW Resources stock, the question whether he should inhibit himself from the case assailed the public mind.

The defense must have seen the prospect of eliminating a perceived anti-Erap senator. Whether Estrada lawyers or sympathizers would seek Cayetano's inhibition is still to be seen (as of this writing, Day 16 of the impeachment trial was still to start).

But Cayetano himself opened the large hole in his armor of theoretical impartiality as a judge when last Wednesday he took on the President, castigating the respondent for waging the "black propaganda" against him.

True, other senator-judges may have also been wearing their hearts (for or against the respondent) on their sleeves, but Cayetano's tirade against Mr. Estrada the other day was direct and categorical.

How can he judge fairly now? It's an issue the impeachment court may have to tackle.