Inconclusive Findings

Posted by Alecks Pabico 
PCIJ

AFTER a few weeks' absence from the political limelight, environment secretary Michael Defensor is back, though he is not going after environmental saboteurs.

The secretary has come out lashing at the political opponents of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, armed with his own commissioned authentication of the Paguia tape (so called as it was released by Alan Paguia, former lawyer of ousted president Joseph Estrada), alleging that they were spliced so as to incriminate the president to charges of rigging the elections in her favor.

Defensor cited the analysis done by a renowned American forensic sound expert, Barry Dickey, on the materials — two tracks of audio recordings from the Paguia tape — he submitted which was based on the audio examination done by Jonathan Tiongco. Defensor, who has contracted Tiongco with the help of a friend in the media for his "technical expertise," described him as a "veteran audio/voice technician steeped in the process of sound and voice recording." (Tiongco's background and credentials are however suspect. See our next post.)

Dickey's report, however, was not at all conclusive. Using waveform and spectrogaphic analysis, the forensic expert pointed to several "anomalies" that cast doubt on the integrity of the recordings. But these "anomalies," he said, could be the result of "several transfers, which involved the audio being recorded/encoded/decoded by different devices."

Dickey's findings were also only categorical as far as the track involving the time code 00:00:33.00 to 00:00:35.00 is concerned, which is associated with a male speech, as being "inconsistent with the rest of the recording." Anomalies associated with the track referring to the part where " yung dagdag" is mentioned (time code 00:00:29.00 to 00:00:36.00), he said, will require further analysis.

In fact, the analysis is actually silent on the issue that the "yung dagdag" portion is spliced. To make his case, Defensor had to rely on the examination done by Tiongco to discredit the "yung dagdag " allegations, which is by far the most damaging to Pres. Arroyo.

Defensor claimed that by enhancing and time-stretching the "yung dagdag, yung dagdag" portion, it was revealed that the phrase was merely inserted to replace "Galban, Binalbag." What the words "Galban" and "Binalbag" refer to, Defensor did not say. (We heard they are places in Lanao del Sur. We did our research but did not find any place named as such in the province. There is a barangay named Binalbag in Agdangan, Quezon Province though, while Galvan is a barangay in Guimba, Nueva Ecija.) Tiongco's audio analysis report also pointed to the missing "d" attributes in the syllables to produce the word " dagdag."

Acceding to repeated questions from the media if it was indeed the voice of Pres. Arroyo on the tape, Defensor said: "It is the voice of the president but that is not the president talking. It is an electronic and digital manipulation to link the president to cheating and rigging the elections."

However, an independent audio expert we consulted, and who has done his own analyses of all the versions of the recordings that have come out, said that the foreign analysis is expected to come out "positive" on the matter of splicing because the Paguia tape is known to be a spliced version.

But the only spliced portions in the Paguia tape are the annotations made by the agents of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP), which Paguia removed, and the introduction added by the lawyer himself. Our source said the actual conversations of the President were preserved, with no discontinuties found, particularly on the " yung dagdag" part.

In fact, the "yung dagdag" portion is also found in the versions released by Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye (both allegedly "original" and "spliced") and the three-hour recording in the possession of former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) deputy director Samuel Ong. A wave comparison of these versions can be found here. An FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) or spectrographic analysis will be made available in the next post.

It is also possible, our informant said, that the clip presented to the foreign expert was tampered, particularly the "yung dagdag" portion just to produce that "spliced summary result" presented by Defensor. Tampering, he said, is easily done by simply "deleting" a very small portion of the waveform particularly on the " yung dagdag" part which, graphically, will present an obvious discontinuity but will still "sound" identical with the three-hour-tape version when played.

Defensor, he said, should provide a copy of the exact clip submitted to the foreign analyst to the public. "But my guess is he wouldn't do that because that will be subjected to the same Bunye and Chavit tapes analysis. But if he will do that, we will simply wave "compare" his version with the rest — probably bringing forth a new version called the 'Defensor Z-tapes'," he said.

As to Tiongco, our source said he should be challenged to present an FFT analysis of the supposedly spliced "yung dagdag" and allow him to explain in public where the discontinuities are found and not just "play" it in public.

It would be better if he could do the same analysis on the three-hour-tape version, he said. "I bet, it will take him forever to find a single form of discontinuity on the three-hour-tape version unless he will do an analysis using his own version."

Untruth Commission

Separate Opinion : An expensive superfluity

Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service

SO many lies have been bandied around these days, so let me talk about the Truth Commission. It is another fiction.

It is intended to examine the charges against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the legislative investigations, and possibly in her impeachment trial, about the Garci tapes and the "jueteng" illegal lottery scandal. If the reports are accurate, it is she who will create the Truth Commission, or more believably, she is at least proposing its creation by Congress.

As I have been mentioned for membership in the body, let me say at the outset that I am not interested. I am complimented by the suggestion but, on the remote assumption that I will be invited to it, I will gratefully decline. I am proud to say that I am persona non grata to both the administration and the opposition and have no wish to be identified with either of them.

Some self-appointed constitutional experts have opined that the Truth Commission is unconstitutional, but I do not think so. If its only purpose is to seek the truth, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But it would be different if its purpose was to twist the truth for the benefit of certain parties, be it Ms Arroyo or her critics. That would make it unreliable although still not unconstitutional.

What would make it unconstitutional is if the law were to provide that its findings would be legally binding and conclusive on the legislative investigating committees and also on the impeachment trial by the Senate. I do not think, however, that Congress, for all its follies, would be so foolish as to call for such ridiculous effect. Such a law would be invalid on its face for being incredibly presumptuous.

What then will be the use of the Truth Commission? Nothing. It would simply be the instrument for the ventilation of more lies by the parties peddling them for their own purposes. The members of the body would be the ineffectual audience and, worse, the unwilling purveyors of such propaganda. And all this would have to be done at considerable public expense.

The parties pro and con in the Arroyo drama have their own machines to publicize their respective positions, such as they are. The media can announce their arguments as news without cost of the taxpayers' money. Both the administration and the opposition have enough funds for this purpose without leaning on the Truth Commission for the dissemination of their conflicting ideas. Ordinary taxpayers do not have to contribute to the charade that is intended to deceive them.

The best argument that will render the proposed Truth Commission hors de combat is that its members will be appointed by President Arroyo. No one else can exercise that power under the Constitution. So, even if she discharges that function with utmost impartiality, there will still be that doubt in the public mind about her motives. Given her alleged indiscretions in the principal subjects to be investigated by the body, the Truth Commission will be dead even before it is born.

We had similar commissions in the past that were essentially fact-finding and without any adjudicatory powers. The Davide Commission during the Fidel Ramos administration and the Feliciano Commission to investigate the Oakwood mutiny enjoyed their brief glory but did not usurp judicial functions. The Narvasa Commission ordered by President Joseph Estrada to study changes in the Constitution was practically ignored although it also cost plenty of public funds.

Instead of wasting money on the Truth Commission, the government could spend for the resolute search and apprehension of Virgilio Garcillano, whose presence and testimony are necessary for the investigation by the five committees of the House of Representatives of the alleged irregularities in the presidential elections last year. Public funds intended for the Truth Commission could be better used for the protection of witnesses afraid to testify in the jueteng probe being conducted by the Senate.

If these objectives are unwelcome to the government, the money that can be saved by not creating the Truth Commission can be devoted to the purchase of school equipment and supplies for the 30,000 classrooms established by President Arroyo, as announced in her State of the Nation Address, or the distribution of medicines to the poor, or the feeding of the street children, beggars, and other worthy projects. The Truth Commission is not one of them.

The investigation and resolution of public issues should be undertaken by the legislative committees or the courts of justice and not the Truth Commission. In the case of impeachment, the proper and exclusive venue is the Senate. The Truth Commission can only be an interloper exercising improper functions for no other purpose than to promote partisan ends and personal egotism. It can only be an expensive superfluity that should not be allowed to exist.