Custom Search

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Bribery in the Supreme Court

Congressional pork, the Executive's plunder, now, it's the Judiciary's grease. The country's top leaders are now dead-even. Everyone's a crook! I missed that series Jake Macasaet ran in Malaya until I read it in Ellen Tordesillas' blog. But I think something is terribly wrong. Of course, bribery IS wrong. What I meant was the manner which it was supposed to have been done.

I've had first-hand experience when you speak of high-profile kickbacks/bribery; this was around a decade ago. One person close to me in fact asked me to accompany him during one of his "deliveries" since I carried a licensed firearm and he didn't trust the security guards that the banks were lending him.

After withdrawing the 8-digit "payroll" from the bank, a bank clerk had divided the loot into small and big envelops per our list and a thick bundle of "loose change" in P100 denominations (ice cream money, he calls it, for merienda of clerks, even janitors, and other non-critical staff; he says the next time around, the processing of papers gets faster). We proceeded to the gov't office.

Everyone greeted us with smiles and "Good afternoon, boss!" Absolutely everyone, from messenger to Chief went home happy that day.

The person told me, that there are "5 Commandments" in grease:

1. Never, never issue a cheque. Neither should you insist that the recipient sign a voucher/receipt or risk being shot between the eyes, no one wants a paper trail.

2. Never hand it to underlings, some secretaries are authorized to open all incoming parcels and mails. Some accidents do happen.

3. Make sure everybody is happy with his share, prior agreement, even just implied or in passing, as to amount is extremely necessary. Noise is the last thing anyone would want after a successful deal. A postulate to this rule could be: never discuss with the others how much someone else is getting.

4. When speaking of percentages, always make sure you deliver to the last centavo, it's "professional".

5. Whenever possible, absolutely everyone gets a share. No one complains.

That's the reason I'm uncomfortable with believing this SC bribery story at the moment. People who are used to bribing do not just leave the evidence lying under the secretary's desk, much more with the guard who, on any kind of suspicion (bomb, drugs, etc.), may justify opening the box at any time!

Money this big (was it ten million per box?) are either delivered in neutral territory (restaurant, parking lot, blind alley, etc.) or directly to the recipient's house.

Thirdly, you are courting trouble when you do this under the very noses of the recipient's colleagues. Suspicion opens cans of worms, nay, sewage tanks!

If this bribery story is real, I can only think of the following reasons:

A. The bribe-giver intentionally wants a sting, especially if this was the last "installment" and he had already received the favors he sought for.

B. Justice YƱares-Santiago is so stupid and gullible she allowed the previous deliveries in the same mode.

C. The justices are so brazen they don't care who gets to know or see such activities as long as it didn't reach media.

D. Everybody else is part of it.

Would the last one, "D", be the most appropriate one, in this case?

3 Comments:

At 8:05 AM, September 26, 2007, Blogger mschumey07 said...

I suppose its letter D. But letter C cannot be dismissed outright.

 
At 4:35 PM, September 26, 2007, Blogger Tongue's Wrath said...

It certainly looks that way to me, too, schumey.

 
At 9:54 PM, September 05, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's D to the last centavo. Each one of them wanted that "let it be known" to 'everybody' in order to avoid onsehan. Ang gagaling nila...sa katarantaduhan!

chi

 

Post a Comment

Agree or disagree? Wanna add something? Let us know.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home