Here is the transcript of his early morning press conference held at LaSalle Greenhills. Details in abash*t: The backstage of Rock Ed Philippines, in the entry Tired Brave Heart. and a photo page, JUN LOZADA, witness.
A background briefing by Newsbreak: Lozada: Benjamin Abalos and Mike Arroyo Behind Broadband Deal Overprice. A profile in the Inquirer: Just a ‘probinsyanong Intsik’
Lozada’s early morning presscon derailed plans in place by Michael Defensor to have held an afternoon press conference in which Lozada would then be made to read the government-prepared affidavits that out to lie any previous affidavits. That same evening, the President;s husband was obvious informed the coast is clear. Which have been the case if government minders hadn’t let down their guards and which allowed Lozada to contact friends who came forward and made the early morning press con possible.
late morning to mid-afternoon yesterday I was in the office of Senator Allan Peter Cayetano where Jun Lozada is being kept preparatory to his appearance before the Senate. It’s the first time I’ve encountered the man. He looked tired, his eye-bags were already purplish, and he was, understandably, rather high-strung, at times breaking down and sobbing as he recounted the ordeal he’s undergone -and which is continuing- and he said he was too tense to sleep and keep down his food properly. He had a firm handshake but his hand was clammy.
He will testify before the Senate, today, under oath, and so concerning the details of his being sent to Hong Kong, his stay there, his decision to come back, and what happened to him from the time the plane landed and he finally had his early morning press conference, we’ll all know his version of events soon enough.
What I did ponder upon, as I heard him recount recent events, is that there are many kinds of pressure that can be applied on a person to bend them to one’s will, and not all of them require brute force or overt threats.
Watching him and talking to him, I recalled something my father told me when I a small boy. I once asked him, what is courage? And he replied by telling me a story about his own father when they were on Corregidor. In the midst of the tunnel being shelled, he said his father spotted him cringing and biting his lip in fear; and his father told him that the truly brave man is not the man who doesn’t feel fear, but rather, the man who is filled with terror but does his duty anyway.
I can appreciate Lozada’s courage. Make no mistakes, he has faced among the worst kinds of peril I can imagine: a combined crisis of conscience, fears for his own life and that of his loved ones, the end of a career, the hostility of some friends and the harsh judgment of powerful patrons, uncertainty whether his answering the cries of his own conscience aren’t a foolhardy exercise. Being in such a pressure-cooker situation, contemplating the prospects of a kind of not only professional and financial suicide but of embarking on a sacrifice the public won’t even recognize -or possibly even deserve- whether at the end of a chain of events one initiated or in which one was swept up… Well, it’s enough to destroy anyone. His is the dilemma of a proud, perhaps overconfident man who has had to realize he is nowhere as clever, nimble, and important as he thought he was.
Let me explain what I mean by this, and these are all impressions.
To me, Lozada is no saint, or put another way, he represents the kind of man who finds himself at the center of great events, yet who could never have expected he would gain fame in such a perilous manner. He is the kind of man who doesn’t hold the actual power but who has access to those who wield power -and more importantly, has done so because he’s proven himself competent at certain things, and who thus holds a certain amount of authority.
And so, he is the kind of Useful Man who then believes that his competence and limited authority allows him to pull a kind of fast one in that, he can both tolerate a certain level of official wrongdoing, and yet accomplish something beneficial, because his efforts somehow mitigates the wrongdoing around him. (One of his more quotable quotes was his being advised by Neri to attend meetings to “moderate the greed” or words to that effect). Operating in a perpetual moral twilight, thinking it’s ultimately for the common good, can’t that then start tricking the senses into confusing twilight with the dawn? At least until a ray of light reminds that person of what the light is truly like.
Most of the questions I addressed to him were along these lines: if your work in the government involved tolerating a certain amount of official corruption, then what finally made you decide that a line had been reached you could no longer cross? He tried to explain by means of a parable.
He said that his work takes him to forestry areas and in one such area, he encountered a Dumagat. He pointed out to the Dumagat that the trees were heavily laden with fruit; that the fruit should be sold in the lowland towns. And the Dumagat replied, but those fruits are there to feed the birds. Lozada says he recalled that story when he encountered an official who, not content with the 3 billion Pesos in overpricing he (Lozada) was willing to let the official have, then insisted no, he (the official) should get 7 billion Pesos. That was simply unacceptable.
And again, I had to return to my question -what was the line, then? Essentially, this, Lozada said: percentages -commissions- say, up to 25%- are par for the course in government projects but beyond that, officials insisting on more have simply gone too far: their pound of flesh becomes so large as to deny the public any possible advantages or gains from the project. (This is not a direct quote, I am paraphrasing our exchanges.)
As he was expressing these thoughts I recalled something I’d heard from a defender of Romulo Neri, which was that his attitude, say concerning the North Rail Project, was that a certain amount of corruption was acceptable, so long as the public obtained something beneficial in the end: in this case, a railroad that should be built, anyway, without incurring heavy government obligations.
I must say that I am uncomfortable with his explanation: it makes sense, and on a certain level, yet betrays a kind of hubris. What he said does go to the heart of a very basic line (ultimately, a fluid one) most Filipinos instinctively draw, which is, that there are certain things that are just too crass -too garapal– that once crossed, can’t be tolerated. It is this, more than his obvious intelligence, or his being stuck in a perilous situation, that will resonate with the public. We navigate between our own personal spheres and the official one always conscious of the grey areas, always factoring in a certain amount of official malfeasance, but there always comes a time, even if we aren’t directly affected, when something is too much -too crass to tolerate.
But I do find it troubling that an official relies on a line he himself drew, on a basis that by its very nature must be vague or at least arbitrary, compared to the lines that should be drawn, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by the law. This is the kind of discretion that can result in a line so erasable and movable, that it becomes meaningless. In Lozada’s case he obviously resisted the temptation to keep moving the line, though he stopped moving it quite late -a matter of mere nights ago, possibly? It’s just as well he seems firm, now; it’s too bad he has moved the line so often that any potential benefits arising from his testimony will be that much harder to achieve. I am also under the impression that his personal line also involved whether or not he would have to make statements in public.
So long as everything was in the realm of speculation, did not involve his personally having to testify under oath, he may have thought that prudence was the better part of valor -no sense in seeking some sort of martyrdom. But confronted with a summons he could not ignore, and facing pressure to avoid those summons; and furthermore, realizing that the ultimate response on the part of the administration was not to enable him to permanently avoid those summons, he wouldn’t go as far as perjuring himself, at least not at the point at which he’d personally have to raise his right hand and swear to the veracity of what he would say, before the public.
There are two things about Lozada that will go far, I think, in understanding the distinctions he’s tried to make, and his eventual decision to hold the line once he felt things had gone too far. The first is that he is proud of being a Thomasian, he quotes Thomas Aquinas widely. The second is he is a passionate student of Jose Rizal.
Some snippets from his remarks to people during the hours I was there, to illustrate. Again, these more along the lines of paraphrasing his conversation, as I was taking notes by means of sending text messages to myself.
“Thomas Aquinas said the worst form of corruption is the corruption of the best.”
“We’re a failing state. The obligation of a state is to provide basic services…. Self restraint isn’t there. Checks and balances do not work. Instead, influence peddling moderates the checks and balances.”
“Rizal asked his brother Paciano, did God makes us poor and silent, or we were so misgoverned we ended up that way? Paciano couldn’t answer. Two years later, Rizal wrote to Paciano, and said, in my travels abroad I have the answer: we didn’t get the right kind of government from our leaders.”
“Rizal said there are three requirements for a Just Revolution. First, there must be a great cause, and all peaceful means must be tried to achieve it, and still, all fail; second, prepare for imminent victory, this is why he rejected Bonifacio’s invitation to join the revolution, they’d left too much to chance without thinking of what would happen afterwards; third, we must have an educated population otherwise the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow.And also, you must be prepared to erase every shred of the system you overthrow.”
“We must make it too expensive for someone to screw up the country. Only then will the next person will have second, third, fourth thoughts about trying to mess the country up.”
“If you want to understand my moral compass, there’s this book I read in which this question was tackled: ‘Why is it that billions have walked the earth while only a few have stood the test of time. And yet those few lived at a time when there were many who were more powerful or famous than them?’ When a group of thinkers examined these people, they identified four polarities. First, they had a Transformative Vision, for example, Christ’s concept of love. Second, they had Courage, even if it meant going against the trend. Third, they had a Firm Grasp of Reality. Fourth, they had Unbending Ethics. The four things form a kind of diamond and with all sides present, you have a formidable leader. But if any side is lacking it’s enough to doom any leader. The book is ‘The Philosophy of Greatness.'”
(A note on how one’s recollection of another’s recollection works in a pressure cooker environment: as he was recounting this, a nun in the room asked him the name of the author of the book; he couldn’t recall; eventually, I tracked down this book: “Leadership: The Inner Side of Greatness, A Philosophy for Leaders, New and Revised” (Peter Koestenbaum) which has an Amazon page which boils down what he was trying to say:
Believing that leadership is a “mindset and a pattern of behaviors” that can be learned and taught, Koestenbaum presents and illustrates the meaning of his “Leadership Diamond.” This consists of “four strategies for greatness”: vision (thinking big and new), reality (having no illusions), ethics (providing service), and courage (acting with sustained initiative).
A reader’s review is even more illuminating, I think, in that it presents what Lozada probably thinks he’s tried to do, regardless of whether his peers or the facts bears it out:
Koestenbaum presents his approach in a didactic manner, yet never underestimating his audience, utlizing a model for Leadership values in the form of a four vertex diamond: Vision, at the top, encompassing the ability to think strategically, but also to understand others with different cultures and realities than our own; Courage at the bottom, which surprisingly represents not heroic, one-time achievements but rather sustained initiative, the ability to focus on an objective throughout life; Reality on the left, comprehending the ability to deal with hard facts, but also the understanding of the paradoxical nature of life; and, last but not least, Ethics, which beyond anything represents empathy and stewardship, service to others as the ultimate way of realizing greatness.
I also noticed that his recollection of the events surrounding his decision to testify in public, seem solid enough, in large part because they withstood constant re-telling).
Again: the person with little actual power but some authority, the person of superior intelligence but inferior social or political status, must either accept his condition as a servant or adorn his existence with the trappings of being a kind of philosopher-king in training; servitude is always an unpleasant existence for the person convinced he has a greater mind and a superior virtue to those he serves; it makes for what some would call a messianic complex and others a hero-in-the-making.
Personally, I believe he is motivated by patriotism, and that he subscribes to the notion that he’s reached a point he did not want to arrive at, but the challenges of which he must embrace. But part of the blame, part of the peril he faces, was the making of people like himself, who thought that he could somehow outwit those who may be dull of mind and insatiable in their appetites, but who have the means to hire brains to counter his and wield force which settles any possible debate with finality.
I do think he was treated very badly by a government that failed to recognize every man has his limit and that furthermore, which overestimated its capacity to be the master of events just as it thinks it has found the measure of every man. Because there are times when the threat of brute force, or the even more cunningly applied implications of dire consequences, stiffens instead of weakens a person’s resolve to obey a higher law.
Redemption is something every person should have an opportunity to achieve.
But let us see how he testifies under oath; and how he faces up to the cross-examination by the Senators allied with the administration.
As it is, for now, a new phrase has entered our political lexicon: Moderate their greed’ :Instruction refers to Mike Arroyo, Abalos.
For now, may I refer you to the Inquirer editorial for today, and the analysis of Mon Casiple in his blog:
What happened to JDV showed that the Arroyo family is prepared to ruthlessly discard even a top ally who may dissent from its position. It demonstrated the vulnerability of all friends and allies once they doubt or oppose the ruling family. Further, the JDV ouster can be seen as a major — if not a fatal — blow at the independence of the House of Representatives and the building of a genuine political party system.
What happened to Mr. Lozada was something else. It exposed the readiness of the Arroyo family to use the state instrumentalities — even if violative of laws and human rights — for purely political survival imperatives. Malacañang’s subsequent explanations and “evidences” to support an alleged “voluntary request” by Mr. Lozada for protection pale in the face of Lozada’s own story of forced abduction. The actual events support Lozada’s own version, such as the cloak and dagger operation, the denial by Lozada’s own family of such a request, the subsequent urgent motion for a writ of habeas corpus and writ of amparo before the Supreme Court, the contradictory stories of various government officials identified with the abduction, and the renewed Malacañang attack on the Senate investigation of the ZTE-NBN deal.
The panic, desperation, and tenseness evident in the sloppy decisions and executions in these incidents vie for supremacy with the arrogance, ruthlessness, and power-tripping evident in the mind-processes of the decision-makers.
And from Billie Princesa, niece of Lozada, an appeal for prayers.
mlq3,
the road to damascus is not paved in sanctity. why would i have any less reason to believe lozada if a whole nation even bought singson’s loadful of crap? i say, let lozada have a fair go if this will put plug to corruption.
“he who has no sin cast the first stone.”
“Rizal said there are three requirements for a Just Revolution. First, there must be a great cause, and all peaceful means must be tried to achieve it, and still, all fail; second, prepare for imminent victory, this is why he rejected Bonifacio’s invitation to join the revolution, they’d left too much to chance without thinking of what would happen afterwards; third, we must have an educated population otherwise the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow.And also, you must be prepared to erase every shred of the system you overthrow.”
I think all our so-called “revolutions” don’t meet any of the above criteria.
Even in the business of “revolution” Pinoys are still hopelessly mediocre. 😀
benign-zero,
and your proposed solutions to this malaise that affects us filipinos?
nash,
see what intellectual masturbation can do: all pleasures, no measures.
Benign0 wrote:
“Rizal said there are three requirements for a Just Revolution. First, there must be a great cause, and all peaceful means must be tried to achieve it, and still, all fail; second, prepare for imminent victory, this is why he rejected Bonifacio’s invitation to join the revolution, they’d left too much to chance without thinking of what would happen afterwards; third, we must have an educated population otherwise the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow.And also, you must be prepared to erase every shred of the system you overthrow.â€Â
——–
If we followed Rizal’s “perfect” route we would still be under Spanish rule till now. 🙂
Most of the time, in a social revolution, we have to move and struggle (not necessarily violently of course) so as we evolve into a better nation. Even this struggle with Gloria’s morally bankrupt administration, we have to move and struggle to improve.
As such we know that corrupt political vultures are around ready to pounce once we remove a corrupt government, henceforth this time we as a people should evolve our techniques when such an event occur to protect the ideals of good governance.
While we all struggle with the dark powers that be, in parallel we also properly educate our fellow citizens not only in the technical aspect but more importantly in the moral aspect as well.
Even in this current society, I’ve seen many brilliant minds but they are still geared in the immoral belief that it is okay to steal with the alleged purpose of helping the “poor” (Often they define themselves and their relatives as poor). This and many other dark beliefs were spawned as a result of people espousing a morally bankrupt society while currently condoned and promoted by a morally bankrupt government.
We just have to move and change for the better at the fastest way possible but also with the long term view in mind through pushing for a good technical and moral grounding and education.
Fight to change for a better and moral society (To remedy present ills); but we must also not forget to strengthen the foundations within (To insure a better evolved future.)
and [benign0’s] proposed solutions to this malaise that affects us filipinos?
Migrate and stay away from fellow Filipinos in your adopted country if you can help it. That is the gist of benny’s Get Real thesis.
MLQ3, that was an insightful take on the complexities faced by the middle level persons in government, especially the younger, more idealistic ones. All they can try to do is ‘moderate the greed.’
amfufu. nakakakilabot yung kwinento ni Lozada sa pagdukot sa kanya. sa tingin ko, kaya lang siya pinakawalan ay dahil sa mga sumusunod na rason:
1. nalaman ng gobyerno na may nauna na syang affidavit na iniwan exposing what he truly knows
2. natutukan ng media ang pagkawala nya
3. nagising ang senado sa katangahan nila (allowing to be co-opted) at nakita nilang GMA will not stop with this (di titigil ang gobyerno hanggang kay JDV lang)
at higit sa lahat
4. napulsuhan ng tama ng gobyernong ito na kapag di na lumabas si Lozada, sasambulat ang opinyon ng taumbayan laban sa kanila. parang yung sa cha-cha, faced with certain people power, aatras muna si GMA para mag regroup.
so ang tanong ngayon: hanggang kelan pa ba natin sya papabayaang mag regroup? kapag di na sya mapigilan? kapag ikaw na ang nakararanas ng naranasan ni Lozada?
complacency kills.
He! He! Ang kulit ng mga sagot ni Lozada. Sana lahat ng isalang sa senate hearing tulad niya – hindi boring 🙂
from the testimony, i do not see any abduction.
kahit abduction ng alien from outer space.Wala. Sheesh na mga speculations sa previous thread.
what i read was that he really sought the help of Atienza and he was sent to HK and was fetched at the MIAA upon coming home to be brought to LA Salle.
Tapos nagtago sa skirt ng mga madre.
DevilsAdvc8 :
“so ang tanong ngayon: hanggang kelan pa ba natin sya papabayaang mag regroup? kapag di na sya mapigilan? kapag ikaw na ang nakararanas ng naranasan ni Lozada?
complacency kills.”
Nadale mo, di yan sila titigil, ang pilosopiya nila, “attain absolute power and control at all cost”
Unang una plano sila ng kalokohan
Ikalawa pag may pinaplano silang kalokohan at mabisto, ide-deny muna nila at baka pumalpak ang plano.
Ikatatlo kakaibiganin at makikipagusap muna sila sa target nila
Ikaapat, sasaksakin nila sa likod ang target nila
Ikalima, sasaksakin nila uli at baka buhay pa
Ikaanim, ide-deny nila na sila ang may kasalanan sa pagsasaksak
Ikapito, balik uli sila sa pagpaplano ng kalokohan
Whoa, only two posts in the last couple of hours! Is everyone listening to Lozada? 😀
So Lozada is just like the rest of them after all…..
He has some questionable dealings of his own, which he admits to. His track record isn’t clean.
He won’t file kidnap or abduction charges.
Hearsay which won’t be substantiated and a refusal to take the accusatioons to the proper legal courts…we’ve seen this movie before. Another circus.
Geo,
Don’t matter if Lozada is a sinner just as long as he is a contrite and remorseful sinner. If all sinners in government start doing the same thing, to be remorseful, confess and change, then true change will come and our nation shall be blessed.
Currently many of the evilly corrupt still continue on their wayward ways, hence we are still cursed … as such the struggle continues.
If Lozada is really an ordinary Filipino, I think this country is OK.
What’s wrong with Madrigal. I assume rich-born people like her have grace. Naka promise nanga Senado na hangang 12:30 lang eh, tanong pa nang tanong.
This testimony by Lozada is a genuine must-see. This is the TV appearance of the year.
Many sinners are remorseful when they are caught. A true “rehabilitated” sinner should voluntarily confess his sins which are NOT known.
Plus he just said during the last few days that he “cannot lie; doesn’t know how to lie”.
He cries a lot, though. Not many tears come out, though.
Again: Why not file charges re kidnapping? That should be the easy way to hit the government.
I hope he is for real. And Ihope too that something good will come out of this.
Cat,
ironic nga eh. na Lozada was willing all along to “toe the govt line” (sinabi nya to ha) only to be spooked by that “whisking away” incident. obvious nga eh di kidnapping dahil may usapan sila ni atienza.
pero ang nangyari, nagkaron ng miscommunication. in the end, akala ni lozada, for liquidation na sya, or tinalikuran na sya ng malacanang – Cat, i wait while ikaw naman mapunta sa sitwasyon na ganyan, and then i wait kung san ka magtatagong saya.
what forced lozada to change his mind and go agst the “government line?”
unlike Neri, he saw that “this thing will never end.” sabi nya, “pag sumama ako sa kanila, kasali na ako sa kanila ng buong-buo (or to that effect)
Neri threw his lot with the govt and decided na sumali na ng buong-buo sa gobyerno, good, bad, and the ugly. Lozada refused to be tormented forever.
alam nyo ba kung bat DevilsAdvc8 handle ko? dahil dun sa pelikula, the theme revolved around the battle of good and evil for the conscience of one man.
and that battle never ends.
so, ano ngayon kung di malinis ang track record ni Lozada? ang punto, inadmit nya na may mga pagkakamali sya. pangalawa, totoo pa rin ang sinasabi nya. at pangatlo, pano siya magfa file ng abduction at kidnapping charges kung in between truth and lie ang charge na iyan.
nag request nga sya na magpasundo, ang kaso yung mga sumundo sa kanya di nya naman kilala.
between a mafia man who lies and a mafia man who tells the truth, which would you choose?
remember that mob bosses were sent to jail on the testimonies of their once colleagues.
did it matter that the witnesses had less than clean records or even conscience? no, what mattered was that the statement they were bringing was the truth.
and watching lozada speak, i can say he’s telling the truth. makita mo pa lng kung pano sya mag recount nung kwento nya, he’s recounting from memory. halata mo pag fabricated eh.
and besides as mlq3 put it, his story withstood re-telling. kahit pabali-baligtarin mo sya, pareho pa rin ang kwento nya.
eh ang malacanang, simula nung mawala si lozada, mismong sila eh nawindang sa mga pinagsasasabi nila. si Razon parang may pigsa sa puwet na di mapakali sa mga presscon nya. ganyan ba ang mga nagsasabi ng totoo?
Should I say, Welcome to America?
Geo,
Better wait until Lozada has fully come to his senses and said his piece to the senate. Don’t jump into a conclusion when you don’t have a handle of how things will unfold.
Geo,
Lozada did not get caught, he surrendered to the Senate because he does not trust the goons which Praetor Razon sent to “escort” him (Listen to Lozada’s statement if what they did even qualifies as being an “escort”.) He fears the touch of death of this administration.
As for validity of crying with many tears coming out, that does not even really deserve an answer; that is if you believe that crying actors “tortured” in movies are experiencing real pain.
Relax Geo, one step at a time, there was just too much crime being exposed and they can only handle a piece at a time.
Guys, why overburden the fact – ehm, impression that Lozada’s is a very believable statement. It’s not as good as that Hello Garci tape as far as being evidence but for emotional effect, this is definitely a nuclear blast.
I’ll withhold final judgement until this latest chapter is complete…that’s fair, Hawaiian. But so far, he has added little solid evidence on anything.
Kabayan — I was referring to his admitted (now; once caught) anomalous activities in The Forest Corp. That wasn’t volunteered and runs counter to his recent emotional outpouring for “the love of the country”.
kahit naman siguro ako mag sa-sign din ng antedated na affidavit when under threat. kung wala talagang dapat ikatakot ang malacanang sa mga bagay na ito bakit di nila hayaan ang senado to do what they are suppose to do. Bakit kailanagan pang pigilan ang mga opisyal ng gobyerno na mag testify. kung may espekulasyon man ang mga tao laban sa kanila lasalanan din nila.
Kabayan,
Between a crying Lozada with less tears coming out (or shedding crocodile tears as Cat said) and an apolgetic Gloria who pretended to look terribly sad as she spoke on TV with her well rehearsed, scripted “I’m sorry,” I give my vote to the the guy. He speaks spontaneously as he tells his “truth”.
At least, he is not an incorrigible liar and cheat. As we can sense, Lozada admitted playing rough and thought he would be ok like Neri. One big mistake of Atienza, or Razon, is to get some unknown “henchmen” pick up Lozada from NAIA. That’s why Lozada was not crying “kidnap,” but it scared him no end.
Without the writ, the nuns, media people and other concerned parties, Lozada might have been a dead meat by now. Their timely confluence saved him.
Abangan!
Now the question is had it been approved (the commission being cut in half) and the project went underway would Lozada act differently?
If Lozada had even half of the commission will it also be considered as “moderated greed†or “Greed Controlled: Mission Success� Would it add to his resume of doing something moderately right for the Filipinos?
Expect the following:
1)The Abduction of Jun Lozada shows that PIDAL INC. will not hesitate to employ the massive resources of government to intimidate our citizens.
The TRUTH will will be suppressed at all costs!
2)Orchestrated Demolition Job on Jun Lozada:Senator Miriam,as expected,has started questioning the credibility of Lozada by exposing “his sins” in his Philippine Forest Corporation job ,grilling Lozada even on the purchase of “mestizo goats” in his projects.
Expect more demolition from Senator Enrile,Senator Joker Arroyo ,Secretary Ronnie Puno and Secretary Lito Atienza.Of course,Secretary Bunye .
Expect the spin doctors to peddle LIES and,HALF-TRUTHS about Lozada to destroy his credibility.
3)The Massive “cover-up job” on the ZTE project.Romy Neri,initially a whistle-blower,is now part of the cover-up job.
A conspiracy of silence.Scapegoats (like Abalos) will be sacrificed to protect the Pidal Inc.
4)ZTE-NBN is just the tip of the iceberg.Watch out for the expose on the South Rail,Cyber-Ed,etc.
5)EO464 will be used to block more vital witnesses from the Senate hearings.
6)”Moderate the greed” means put a ceiling on the bribes but still allow Pidal Inc. to rake it in.
Every project apparently has at least a 22% margin for the First Greed (FG).
7)The public ,as expected, will forget the bravery of Jun Lozada.Pinoys are a people with short memory!This story will grab a few headlines.
Will we remember it,say, by next month?
8)The show will go on.
The Pidals will exhort the public “Let’s Move On!” and accuse everybody else of destabilizing!
9)The Church will take a more assertive stance if something happens to Jun Lozada in the future.
Watch out the nuns and priests in the streets again.
10)We will remain apathetic.(Yawn)
We all hope this provides the effective spark which will initiate the overdue change we have been longing for so long. True courage should not go to waste.
tingin ko kay lozada hindi tactful. banggit ng banggit ng pangalan kahit hindi connected sa zte.
baka pangalan ko madamay pa!
The Ca t :
“from the testimony, i do not see any abduction.
kahit abduction ng alien from outer space.Wala. Sheesh na mga speculations sa previous thread.”
I do not know what abduction meant to you. Eh klarong klaro yung ginawa ng mga tao ni Atienza. He was prevented from meeting his family, his movement and calls were monitored, and he did not know where he was taking them.
Tapos pina pirma pa siya ng mga affidavits. These affidavits were the ones presented by Atienza in their press con. So the dots are now connected.
i like this new actor. the tears and the quotations and all.
but unless he starts giving out hard facts, his time on stage may be cut short.
why is ANC wasting time showing the liars?
go back to the senate
Sabi ni Atienza they are fetching Lozada to protect him? to protect him from whom?
Eh kung nag pro protect sila kay Lozada ba’t ayaw nila itong makausap ang pamilya. Ba’t pinasyal pa nila hanggang Cavite.
At bakit pina pirma ng mga affidavits na naghingi siya ng tulong. Eh klarong klaro they want to legitimize their acts.
….mga opportunists nag-aabang lang ng panahon.
wala rin eh.
sana makagawa sila ng mga batas hinggil sa ginagawa ng senado.
does he have documents to prove his allegations?
or will we just take it like religion?
….wala rin kayang mga kick”bucks” sa senado o congress?
sana may lumantad na witness….hehehehe para maimbestigahan nila.
tingnan mo nga naman, sabi niya nagpunta sya kay atienza humihingi ng tulong na ayaw nyang sumipot sa senado kaya sya ginawan ng travel papers. ngayon iba na ang tuno. hindi na nya inaako na kaparte sya sa panloloko ng travel papers nya.
I have just realized that accusations without hard facts and evidence is just like the afternoon tsismis programs on our local tv by lolit solis or christy fermin..
many believe it because its controversial.. because certain circumstances fit in.. not because they have proof or evidence..
if there is one sad part of this story it is that more and more educated and conversant Filipinos are accepting statements and making conclusions without need for proof or evidence..
i myself have made the same errors whether i was doing it in defense or against something..
boy.. how wrong was i..
MALABO TALAGA ANG KINASADLAKAN NI LOSADA.
hinay-hinay lang sa pagdaldal….
According to his testimony, he approached Atienza because he does not want to testify. Tapos nagyon pinalalabas ni Lacson na he’s doing it for the country. Phlease, tell that to marines. I hate seeing man crying. So many tears have been shed in so many investigations by COngress. Nasaan na yong mga umiyak na yon?
Liam:
His testimony has to be viewed against the other pieces of evidence, including (but not limited to):
1. His position, acknowledged by Neri, as NEDA consultant involved in the project
2. The circumstances of his abduction (that IS what it was, Ca T)
3. The questionable transformation of the NBN project from B-O-T to loan
He’s not just some guy. He’s like Frankie Pentangeli testifying (before the Senate!) that Michael Corleone is the Godfather of the Corleone Mafia clan. Pentangeli’s evidence was his own word as a credible witness.
Liam Tinio,
Paano mo kaya lalagyan ng kasulatan ang kickback na 130m usd. Kung maisusulat nga lang sa contract na out of theprice of 329m usd 132m kay Abalos di wala na sanang imbestigasyon. Siguro naman hindi kailangan pa ang hard evidence dyan sapat na na nag corraborate ang statement nina JDV3 at saka Lozada about the deal. And just look at how malacanang is handling this issue. Kung talagang wlang anomalya bakit ki-nansel ang contrata.
alaskadora,
well.. formoso on anc has answered your question about the alleged overprice of 130m USD..
that is because the 260m USD only covers 30% of the estimated range of the project.. and to cover the entire philippines for a true ‘national’ broadband network the additional 130m USD has to be added..
i have yet to receive the data by which they are taking the government’s assumption.. but at least, they have public documents that can be actionable if proven to be incorrect, wrong or just crafted..
from how i see it, lozada and devenecia only has their words as proof.. while the govt have papers and documents duly signed..
but i will not make a conclusion until i get the hard data published.. i am now asking you to do the same..
LET US GET HARD EVIDENCE FIRST BEFORE COMING UP WITH HILARIOUS STATEMENTS
so anong gagawin natin ngayon?
as usual di na naman papalag ang pilipino.
habang buhay tayong nakatuwad.
Ca T,
He may not have wanted to testify at first, but the behavior of his “protectors” (preventing him from seeing and contacting his family, bringing him to Cavite) probably convinced him that turning himself over to the Senate was the better way to save his life.
MALABO TALAGA!!
Mike,
in the case of the Mafiosi in the US, they resorted to relying on testimony because the there is no available documents which would support his allegations.
and in this case, THERE ARE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE that can be scrutinized and examined and can be taken to the courts.
his word vs evidence? i would take evidence anytime
PARANG OKEY LANG SA KANYA KUNG BALATO!
OH MY!