SEA Games Probe Revival Faces Hurdles of Evidence and Timing

By Mark Joseph M. Sanchez THE reopening of investigations into alleged irregularities in the Philippines’ hosting of the 2019 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games underscores the legal and evidentiary hurdles authorities face when reviving years-old corruption cases, with legal experts saying fresh credible evidence is essential to justify renewed scrutiny. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has reopened its probe after obtaining new information and documents related to the Philippine Southeast Asian Games Organizing Committee, while the Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the retrieval of records from a complaint it dismissed in December 2021 for insufficiency of evidence. “This morning, I asked my staff to get the whole file from 2021 to see and to look at the possible violations of law,” Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla told reporters on July 17. “We’re opening it up again.” National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers President Ephraim B. Cortez said there is no fixed standard governing the reopening of long-dormant investigations. “Usually, an investigation is reopened because of new leads and new evidence that justify the reopening of the investigation,” he told BusinessWorld via Viber. NBI Director Melvin A. Matibag announced on July 14 that the bureau had reopened its inquiry after “incidentally” discovering documents related to the SEA Games project following the Bases Conversion and Development Authority’s turnover of land in New Clark City for the bureau’s planned academy. Mr. Cortez said the alleged irregularities involve procurement and fund disbursements that typically leave documentary records. “These can be easily investigated because there are paper trails that investigators can examine to determine whether anomalies warrant the filing of cases,” he said. Dennis C. Coronacion, chairman of the University of Santo Tomas Department of Political Science, said reopening a previously dismissed investigation should be based solely on legal merit. “Reopening a case must be driven purely by legal merit, not by changes in administration or political vendettas,” he told BusinessWorld via Facebook Messenger. “Investigations should only be reopened if new, substantial and material evidence emerges.” Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a senior research fellow at the Ateneo Policy Center, said investigators must determine whether newly obtained information could ultimately support proof beyond reasonable doubt. “The primary guideline is always proof beyond reasonable doubt,” he said. The renewed inquiry has drawn scrutiny because it coincides with the impeachment trial of Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio, where former Senator Alan Peter S. Cayetano, who was the organizing committee chairman, is serving as a senator-judge. Mr. Cayetano has questioned the timing of the NBI’s announcement, while Malacañang and the Department of Justice have maintained that the bureau’s actions are based on evidence gathered by investigators. Mr. Cortez said delays inevitably raise questions about investigators’ motives, particularly when cases are revived after a change in administration. “But the timing is off,” he said. “It is being initiated while there is an ongoing impeachment trial.” The passage of time also makes building a prosecutable case more difficult, the analysts said. “The evidentiary trail grows colder over time,” Mr. Cortez said. “The documents needed for the investigation, as well as witnesses, may no longer be available.” Mr. Yusingco said investigators must also ensure that newly obtained information remains reliable. “The biggest challenge is ensuring the reliability of newly obtained information,” he said. Mr. Coronacion said reopening dormant cases could either strengthen or undermine public confidence, depending on what drives the decision. “If it is driven by hard, newly discovered evidence, it can prove that no one is beyond the reach of the law, no matter how much time has passed,” he said. “However, if it is driven by politics, it can only deepen public cynicism. The public doesn’t want to see anti-corruption bodies turn into tools for selective justice.”