Sandro Marcos says ‘nothing to hide’ but his testimony at ICI remains secret

“I am not hiding anything,” said Ilocos Norte 1st District Representative and presidential son Sandro Marcos, fresh from an appearance before the Independent Commission for Infrastructure on Thursday, December 4.

But when he faced the very commission created by his own father to investigate multi-billion infrastructure corruption, Marcos requested that his testimony be held behind closed doors.

His counsel, Michelle Lazaro, explained that the congressman preferred an executive session because he supposedly wanted to speak “as candidly as possible.” She hinted that “critical information” might be revealed, details that could “jeopardize” the commission’s investigation.

Play Video

Of course, Sandro isn’t the first to ask for an executive session. Since the guidelines were released, only two resource persons — Land Bank of the Philippines officials and Laguna 4th District Representative Danny Domingo — have allowed their hearings to be livestreamed. 

The rest, including Marcos, chose the private route. Yet Marcos said that he self-invited himself at ICI to clear his name.

Still, after the hush-hush session, Marcos told the media that he was giving ICI “full authority” to release the video of his testimony if they deemed it wouldn’t affect the commission’s probe.

“I am happy for them to do so if they believe that there’s no information there that will jeopardize their investigation,” Marcos said. 

The media then asked for the video the following week, Tuesday, December 9. But it appears that Marcos and ICI are not on the same page. 

“Cong. Sandro Marcos declared under oath that he was not amenable to livestreaming or public broadcasting of his testimony. Thus, until the Commission receives a written authority from Cong. Marcos allowing the release, the commission is constrained from releasing the video recording of his testimony,” ICI Chairperson Andres Reyes said.

Reyes himself has repeatedly expressed discomfort with livestreaming, a position made clear in one of ICI’s rare public sessions.

So, was Sandro’s offer to release his testimony merely lip service, just barely enough transparency to sound good?

Is there something inside that recording that could actually “jeopardize” the probe? Because if there was really nothing to hide, why push for an executive session instead of acquiesce to a livestream?

Under ICI’s livestream guidelines, the testimony of other resource persons, before the guidelines were released, should also be accessible to the public.

“For the avoidance of doubt, the ICI Live Streaming Guidelines shall retroactively apply to the testimony of witnesses and/or resource persons, who previously appeared before the ICI, gave their consent to the audio-visual recording, including the documents, reports, presentations, and evidence that they identified, disclosed, shared, provided and/or submitted in the course of and as result of their participation in the hearings or proceedings before the ICI and gave their consent to public access thereto,” Section 5.1 of the guideline reads.

Would the video and other relevant materials also be accessible to the media and public for scrutiny?

Well, there have been a lot of questions about ICI’s power and independence. The Ombudsman said that ICI’s days are numbered. But now, the President wants Congress to pass a bill that would institutionalize a commission against corruption. – Rappler.com