DON'T EXPECT NAPOLES TO TALK!

More than ever, DON'T EXPECT Janet Napoles to talk about the pork barrel scam, guys!

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales has just shielded Napoles, and for that matter the whole truth about the scam, from the people.

How? Morales has advised the Senate against inviting Napoles to the next hearing of the blue ribbon committee. 

Therefore, unanswered questions or details lacking in the Senate Blue Ribbon Committe's  probe of the scam which only Napoles could provide would be left HANGING IN THE AIR, INDEFINITELY.

Or until Morales allows the disclosure of these to the public, which only GOD KNOWS WHEN.

Morales said if Napoles testifies, despite the fact that she has publicly and consistently claimed that she is not involved in any pork barrel transaction, the objective of the Senate in summoning her would be an exercise in futility.

So for Morales, just because Napoles is claiming innocence in the pork barrel scam, it would be useless for the Senate to investigate her.

Therefore, Morales is giving MORE WEIGHT TO NAPOLES’ WORD than to the effort of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to come up with the COMPLETE PICTURE of the scam.

Which  CANNOT BE COMPLETED without Napoles’ version of the scam.

Morales said summoning Napoles would not produce “complete, nay reliable information that legislation intends to affect or change.”

Morales is NOT A MEMBER of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. She is NOT A SENATOR, or a congresswoman. So she has NO PROFESSIONAL and MORAL RIGHT to prejudge how the committee will find or evaluate Napoles’ testimony in relation to their investigation.

IT’S THE COMMITTEE WHO WILL JUDGE whether or not Napoles’ testimony will be complete, reliable and useful in aid of legislation. NOT MORALES.

If Morales, or her supporters, will say she knows the law being a retired Supreme Court justice, the issue at hand is NOT A QUESTION OF LAW, but a question of truth as basis in crafting a better law.

Besides, the Supreme Court DOES NOT WRITE THE LAW.  It would be tragic, to say the least, if Morales has forgotten this.  

Morales also said a testimony by Napoles “would, among other things, adversely affect public interest, prejudice the safety of witnesses or the disposition of cases against her and/or her co-respondents pending before this office, or unduly expose them to ridicule or public censure.

Public interest has ALREADY BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED by the billions of pesos stolen through the pork barrel scam. Keeping Napoles quiet would not correct these adversities.

Prejudice the safety of witnesses?

Morales should tell that to De Lima,who has been PARADING THE WITNESSES against Napoles all over town, especially in media, long before she was charged with plunder.

Morales should also EXPLAIN why she never raised any objection to De Lima’s publicity train. 30