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.
What proof is needed to prove Lozada’s allegations? What proof did the banker that saw Erap sign as Velarde?
Clarissa Ocampo’s testimony was accepted. Why shouldn’t Lozada’s testimony be accepted?
I was asking Geo.
rice —
The concept of objective proof/evidence is well-known.
The process of establishing such is well-defined.
Anonymous —
I take it you know what proof/evidence/legal process means. But, for the record, I did not think that EDSA 2 was a justifiable action…for these very reasons.
Laws are the foundation of society.
The Opposition should get Scotland Yard to investigate. See below — Pakistan Bhutto investigation.
——
Associated Press
MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Friday Feb 8, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Scotland Yard said in a report released Friday that Pakistan’s opposition leader Benazir Bhutto died as a result of a suicide bomb blast, not a gunshot  findings that support the Pakistani government’s version of the events.
Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party immediately rejected the British conclusion and repeated its demand for a U.N. investigation.
The British probe also found that a single attacker both fired the shots at Bhutto and detonated the blast by blowing himself up moments later.
Sometimes, the government version stands up to investigation. 😉
Medyo malaking mali ang sinasabing hindi na kailangan ng mga bagong datacenters. Mukhang malaking insulto sa aking simpleng utak pag sinabing 262 million usd can only cover 30% at another 130+ million to cover 70%?
Base sa aking simpleng kaalaman. kung ang ginastos mo e kaya lang ng 300 user e 1000 users pala gagamit syempre KAILANGAN MO DIN DAGDAGAN ANG MGA GAMIT. pang 300 users lang pala yun eh. Wag mong idahilan ang andun na ang infra dahil yung design lang ang andun hindi mga gamit mismo. para din yan karinderya pag mag eexpand ka kunwari ng 70% more capacity kailangan mo din mag dadagdag ng 70% na improvement.
at masyado namang ginawa akong pinanganak kahapon pag sinabing 30% lang e 262 million na ang aabutin. tapos another 130 million na lang para maging 100%.
at isa pa hinding hindi mag ra ride ang military sa civilian networks. tanga na lang ang gagawa nun.
[quote]
nd juancho, the data center will not just be a commercial or financial data center.. it will also be used for telephony, fax, video conferencing.. as well as become a repository of government documents forms and basically the national archives.. and add military intranet as well as the dbm, dof and the bot network backbone.. imagine the dedicated SC and hardware for the logs alone..
[unquote]
medyo mali ang definition mo ng data center dahil data centers ang nag hohost ng mga gamit na binanggit mo 🙂 eg. the pbxs na gagamitin for telephonies 🙂 at super duper dami ng mga back up datacenters ang kailangan din so basically kailangan mag triple ang presyo.
I hear so many here talking about filing charges to the court, but for all I know only the Prosecutors can file charges before the court on the evidence gathered by the Police Authorities upon suspicion of a crime , (this one is very, very, very OBVIOUS) or in the absence upon complaints of victims..but so far the Police is the one that needed to be investigated in this case and the supposed good guys, now it is just getting much more confusing…better clear the mountain of snow outside…
Geo,
Like I said a while ago, evidence is not merely a smoking gun or documents saying, “Abalos Commission – $130 million.” Testimony of a credible witness can also be evidence. As Anonymous points out, if Clarissa Ocampo’s testimony was accepted, why not Lozada’s? No one’s questioning that he was involved. What motivation does he have to lie? Not to mention, this whole abduction episode (yes, that’s what it was, Ca T) and the government’s inability to get its story straight raises the question: why are they trying so desperately to suppress his story?
Here another good suggestion: why not pressure ( I meant encourage,for the sake of being annointed as the Moral Leader of New Order of Nations) the Chinese Government to do the investigation in their Side to perhaps clear these matters once and for all, because in this side, things just getting so muddled it is even making the grown up man cry…
vic,
I was expecting Lozada to file kidnapping/abduction charges. Why didn’t he? He said he was taken against his will and also forced to sign documents. Based on his info, he can take the police et al to court.
He could of, he still can, and can even do it tomorrow.
Let’s see…..
Mike,
No arguments against your point — testimony is part of the legal process. OTOH (and I’m no lawyer), words alone are not considered as hard evidence either.
I believe that’s a typical reason that two parties go to court — a disagreement about what facts are facts.
My question is: Why isn’t Lozada pressing kidnap charges? According to his testimony, this is a no-brainer.
saksak mo ang ebidensyang hinaharang ng malacanang sa pukeng inang executive privilege na yan.
asan ang yo depotang public document na yan?
i available mo sarili mo sa mental, mamimilosopo ka pa!
‘abduction
Noun 1. abduction – the criminal act of capturing and carrying away by force a family member; if a man’s wife is abducted it is a crime against the family relationship and against the wife
seizure, capture – the act of taking of a person by force’
Ano sa Pilipinas ang definition ng abduction?
Geo & Kamoteboy: With the information you have, there is no way you can determine what is reasonable pricing. “Datacenter” means diddly-squat if you don’t know what is in it. And then, there is the network.
You need specifics, at least get a copy of the topology so you identify the POPs (points-of-presence), the Hubs, the bandwidth requirements, the routers and switches proposed, the digging-up-the-trenches for lines, the footprint-requirements, etcetera.
If you already know what conclusion you want, nothing being mentioned in this blogthread will convince you to change your mind, you might as well be happy that you have convinced yourself that you are right.
Now everyone seems to have accepted the $262Mil value? Why? Why could this not have been $186mil?
[ Actually, a reason why is that the number ends in 2. $262 is much more believable than $260 or $300 even if there is no paperwork detalya to back up the number.]
presumption of innocence EVAPORATED the moment malacanang started hiding behind executive privilege
Geo,
The laws as we know have specific penalties for specific crimes. There are rules that govern them. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Preponderance of evidence. And so on.
But there are penalties or punishments beyond the pale of law. Loss of confidence. Loss of trust. Loss of empathy, of love, of compassion… there are no laws that prevent me from losing them on someone. Nor are there laws, if it be possible, to compel anybody to keep them on one which he used to grant them. I need not consult a lawyer what I think. I react on my own counsel– as do most. What was lost? In the case of the President– those! It may be asking for the moon to wish her prison for these alone, so that evidence beyond reasonable doubt should be demanded… but loss of confidence and doubt about legitimacy are her punishments– by undermining her rule. The relationship of the governor and the governed is in ruin and peril, and as President, she suffers day and night for it. She must come clean, if he cares about leading effectively. In the same manner a husband suspected by his wife of marital infidelity could invoke all his legal rights if it’s all the legal consequences he cares about, but if he wishes to preserve the relationship, he must come clean and not say ” where’s your evidence!”
i hink lozada was abducted because first, the abductors didn’t alow him to see his family, second, the abductors didn’t tell him where they’re gonna take him, and third they stopped him from using his phone. They aborted their plan only when somebody called them up and told them that they have to bring lozada back because of the media.
Geo, kidnapping and abduction charges are criminal charges and can only be filed by prosecutors upon complaints by the victims. and here is the process (in our jurisdiction at least) Mr. Lozada will summarize his complaints to the proper Police authorities and the Police will conduct investigation for Probable cause and if the Police has enough evidence to secure conviction, they can go the prosecutors and recommend filing the charges, if not then Mr. Lozada may has the choice of filing a civil suit which demand a lesser weight of evidence.. that just a layman way of interpreting the Justice process…
hoy tonio, nasaan na yang available na documents na yan na pinagsasasabi mo? hingin mo na kay neri ang addendum nung contract. available pala eh.
public document my pwet!
an honest man hides nothing, a dishonest man uses all means within him to hide the truth.
napakasimple nang solusyon sa problema ng malacanang. kung gusto nila tumigil na ang iskandalong ito, eh di wag na silang magtago sa likod ng executive privilege. inosente pala sila eh, bat sila nagtatago!
ha? ha? ha?
eh kung ako yung akusado at INOSENTE ako matagal ko nang binuksan lahat ng baul ko, buong bahay ko, maghubad pa ako – kung inosente talaga ako, HAHAHARAP AKO!
YAN ang pukeng inang di ginagawa ng mga guilty. kaya mabulok kayo sa kangkungan kakasigaw ng procedural etse buretse nyo!
anong rason daw kung bat pinatalsik si JDV? vote of no confidence?
hala, mag botohan nga tayo ngayon kung meron pa nyan si GMA, ampotah nyo!
geo,
‘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.’
Ang ibig mong sabihin kung sinampal ka at hindi ka gumanti hindi ka talaga sinampal.
you’re a clown!
Actually there is no need for complaints, any incident suspected as abduction or kidnapping, even tips coming from anonymous tips line, is subject for Police investigation and if warranted by evidence, Kidnapping and Abduction charges be filed against perpetrators. that’s why we have 222 tips and we also get rewards anonymously…
Heroes are compelled by circumstances. Lozada could have chosen the other way if offered the right price at the right time. Everyone has a price– that is true! Price does not just come in the form of money; freedom from threat too. He was just much too expensive. If one said ‘your truth is equivalent to the life of your wife’, that’d be his selling price perhaps.
“But there are penalties or punishments beyond the pale of law.”
–ricelander
Yikes! Who gets to make the decisions about all of this? Can XYZ decide that so-and-so is “good/bad”? Heil Hitler!
————————————————-
vic,
I still don’t get it — why no charges?
supremo,
Hi. Have a nice day.
geo, in the of Mr. Lozada, the Police has not initiated any investigation yet regarding his alleged kidnapping, have they? That is the most important step for them to file charges of kidnapping on behalf of Mr. Lozada..even then the prosecutors may reject the filing if the evidence is not suficient enough to secure conviction as it will be just a waste of taxpayers money, that is assuming the state prosecutors are impartial…but they have to explain that to Mr. Lozada…
Geo,
Lozada is no saint and he admits that. Whatever permissible level he had doesn’t make it right.
Britain was no saint either. They celebrated when they achieved “Peace in our time” as they permitted Hitler to take this and that. Their PM even mediated it. But Hitler went too far and even Britain couldn’t stomach it anymore.
And as to any reluctance of Lozada in filing charges, I’m only surmising that Razon will still be head of the PNP and that Sec. Gonzales will still be head of the DOJ (which has jurisdiction over the NBI) and that might be weighing heavily on any immediate decision.
I guess most of the bloggers here are too concentrated on Geo’s “why no charges?” question rather than the real issue at hand; Mike Arroyo and Abalos’ involvement in the ZTE corruption fiasco. Also if we would remember, Gloria rushed the Northrail transit transaction. Why? Likely scenario: Brinraso at kailangan ang komisyon, kaya ano mang mangyari eh tuloy ang ligaya sa Northrail?
Now Lozada mentions that the corrupt powers that be wants ZTE to be a Northrail “clone” of sorts.(i.e. Dapat yung ZTE tulad ng Northrail contract)
What is it with these rushed transactions with Red China anyway? Another issue that escaped the notice of most Filipinos, is when the Dept of Agriculture decided to lease to China’s Jilin Fuhua Agricultural Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Fuhua Co.) some one million hectares of Philippine land under vague terms, an area which covers about a tenth of all Philippine agricultural land. If it were not for the ZTE controversy, this too would have been rammed right down our throats. This administration trust the Chinese to handle our agriculture, but do not trust our landless farmers to utilize the nation’s land. Why? I leave that for fellow bloggers to answer.
Utterly disgusting. But in another way that is also ordinarily expected of this administration, utterly corrupt. The sad thing is that if we Filipinos think that corruption are “ordinary” and “expected”, it shows the severity of the social cancer we are in now. When people think that it is okay to accept bribes just as long as they allegedly give it to the poor, we have begun our spiral towards a morally bankrupt society.
Hahahaha! Nicely put. I mean, even just through their actions and reactions, napaka-obvious naman na guilty ang Malacanang. Puro cover-up, puro kasinungalingan. May mga nagtatanga-tangahan lang talaga, maybe because napasubo na sila masyado sa pagsuporta sa administrasyon, na kahit na kagatin na sila sa pwet ng mga ebidensya, eh magbubulag-bulagan pa din.
why is this kind of remark allowed by the moderator.
Nababoy ang usapan.
Gustong magmumog para luminis ang bunganga mo?
clarrisa did not shed a tear. walang drama. Buti pa ang babae walang kadramahan. her life was endangered but she did not surround herself with nuns.
if it is fake, he could not have used it. He’s using red passport. He expected that the department is going to shoulder his expenses in Hk. His fare must have been shouldered by the government agency. He was with the cover-up all the time for fear of his life and now he’s crying abduction. sheesh.
I could sympathize with Harion, his main message is that every administration hack and apologist wants this document and that document when exposes of their corruption are brought out but in the end Gloria’s administration simply would run back to E.O. 464 when they cannot properly answer anymore or are threatened with a good witness or evidence. To add they also have their Congressional goons block all investigations and have their Praetorian guard giving the third degree to the witness or their family. Without the strong words and emotions Harion’s statement rings true.
ang alam ko sa kinidnap ay yong against his will.
pumayag siyang pumunta sa hk. ayaw niyang magtestify. binigyan siya ng protection pag-uwi niya para sundin ang kaniyang hiling na ayaw niyang magtestify dahil baka masabi niya ang di dapat sabihin.
Takot niyang baka ma-dacer siya kaya nagtetext siya sa kapatid niya’t asawa para malaman kung nasaan siya dinala ng escort niya (which for me is natural for someone who does not know who is dealing with). the wife and the relatives made noise for his safety (na normal pa rin para sa kamag-anak na takot para sa buhay ng mahal sa buhay).
ngayon what am i drivig at. yong pagkatapos niyang humingi ng tulong kay atienza para hindi siya mapilit magtestify
ay nasa harap siya ng kamera at sinasabi niyang GINAGAWA NIYA ITO PRA SA BAYAN AT PARA SA PILIPINO. aNO SIYA NABABALIW.
pati naman ang amo ng dalawang pulis na sinususpetsah sa murder ni dacer –ping lacson ay sinasabi rin na ginagawa nia ito para sa bayan. SUS tumigil nga sila.
and the only way that they can impress that was to make it appear that he was abducted because he wanted to testify in his own volition.
sorry, sa akin. drama queen siya.
mlq3 has been talking about “bastusang pambansa”. how about “tsismisang senado’? lozada’s testimony consists of 99.9% tsismis, and 0.9% irrelevant melodrama. most of the questions violate all known civilized rules of fairness and truth-seeking. with possibly one or two exceptions (senators santiago and enrile), most of the others focus on what the witness thinks, not what he knows. often lozada has to preface his answers with “this is just my assumption”, or “this is my understanding”. what kind of “truth” does that produce? other times, the questioners supply the answers they want in the question and then force or confuse the witness into affirming it, or, at least, make it difficult to contradict it. too bad, both the questions and answers are not tested in the crucible of established evidentiary rules as in a court of law.
if senate investigations were meant to seek “truth” in aid of legislation, it’s a wonder how it can pass good laws based on “truth”. in a body full of joseph mccarthy wannabees, aided by a partisan media that has no concern for fairness, and which pays mere lip service to “truth”, it is easy to subject anyone to public lynching and scorn or even topple a government.
Ca t,
Their supposed endangerment weren’t exactly similar. Lozada supposedly felt what Dacer was supposed to have experienced.
But are in fact admitting the cover-up?
Kabayan,
Geo seems to be using the credibility of one idea against the other and that he is coming across that both ideas are not real for him.
“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.”
I am amazed, amazed mlq3 by how you seemed to focus too much on your personal estimation of Lozada’s attitude in working for the government and tried to view him in a very “moralistic lense”. Pardon me but you seem to display naivete of how corruption in our country should be seen in reality.
There is no such thing as zero corruption in governments — even in first world countries. For us developing countries, with a political system that is dysfuntional in a lot of ways — the realistic standard should be less in how government leaders practice strict morality, but how they must always practice national interest above everything else.
This may tick off a lot of people: but a certain level of corruption in a developing country such as ours, facilitates development (oh when I was a pol sci major in college I didn’t get this at all and was mightily ticked off when a prof raised this as a hypothesis)– but only if the greater part of the equation is partial to the national interest. The trouble really starts when the level of corruption in big ticket projects is aimed not to facilitate or fast-track development that will be beneficial to the country over the long-run but to enrich a few, powerful people people such as what happened to NBN-ZTE deal. This is in fact what is problematic with the Arroyo administration — massive corruption and incompetence with governance.
In any case, I find Lozada a very credible witness during the Senate hearing. He seems to me a realist through and through, and yes a man with a very firm ethical grounding.
And mlq3, why begrudge him the fact that he only decided to become a witness lately? It makes sense, that loyalty oath — “if you work for a man, in heaven’s name, work for him and stand by the institution which he represents..” he did not want to speak out because he worked for the government and cannot be disloyal to his superiors — well until he resigned, which was the right thing to do first.. “and when you are on the outside, damn to your heart’s content.”
But bravo, this Lozada guy, he didn’t even speak out against his friend, Neri… now, how one values one’s friendships at a particularly difficult time where battle lines are clear — that speaks in greatest measure about the character of a person.
True justice league, a poor attempt of a few to muddle the real issue. Mike Arroyo and Abalos in the thick of it with the passive (or is it secret) acquiescence of Gloria. Let’s add the Praetor guards at work to nicely top off their sherbet of corruption and complicity.
Controversy aside, what is the net result?
Republic of the Philippines
a “subsidiary” of the People’s Republic of China
Ladies and Gentlemen, that is the BIG & ONLY PICTURE!
fisball, i also realize from the experience of other countries that corruption (even massive corruption) does not preclude economic development. however, the problem with granting a ‘permissible zone’ is that it tends to grow over time. in contrast, an attitude of zero-tolerance towards corruption, although it would not realistically eliminate such practices, would at least prevent things from deteriorating over time in the form of expanding the zone of permissibility (as it has in our case).
The other thing to consider is that other countries follow some sort of Spartan code in that once corruption is revealed, the perpetrator is subjected to severe penalties either by the State or by his/her own hand. That code is non-existent over here, most specially among the political and business elite.
That being said, i agree that Lozada is an authentic hero and a man of courage. Even a former military man like Senator Honasan has recognized this.
Whatever happened to the hard-hitting TV journalist who exposed corruption and helped the poor back when he had a weekend TV show?
NOLI de CASTRO.
Where is he? Did he vanish? Shall we send out a search party 😀 😀
justice league and kabayan,
‘Geo seems to be using the credibility of one idea against the other and that he is coming across that both ideas are not real for him.’
Which Geo? Geo the cynical or Geo the optimist.
“clarrisa did not shed a tear. walang drama. Buti pa ang babae walang kadramahan. her life was endangered but she did not surround herself with nuns.”
Eh? What’s this got to do with witness testimony?
fisball:
“In any case, I find Lozada a very credible witness during the Senate hearing. He seems to me a realist through and through, and yes a man with a very firm ethical grounding. ”
I vote with you. Despite his shortcomings and possible involvements in what would become a mega-corruption deal, he has decided to veer the other way. Neri chose to go through and through, to protect the Arroyo govt, esp. Gloria and Mike.
“this Lozada guy, he didn’t even speak out against his friend, Neri… now, how one values one’s friendships at a particularly difficult time where battle lines are clear”
That’s part of the imperfection of a man, esp. a Filipino. Attribute it to “pakikisama.” In any case, he said his piece clearly and its message, Neri uses him to “moderate greed” if possible. Both of them must have realized later that they were in against a giant who would not budge. And Gloria knows that.
“Guys, why overburden the fact – ehm, impression that Lozada’s is a very believable statement.”
Sorry, I meant belabor.
make no mistake about it. the whole lozada affair is part, or manifestation, of a “state of war” that exists between the executive branch and the senate. the senate was compelling lozada to testify and had issued a warrant for his arrest. the executive had reasons to believe that the investigation and compelled attendance were not “in aid of legislation” as claimed, but to embarrass the president and her family through unfair publicity, put them to public loathing and hatred, “destabilize” her government, and, ultimately, force her to resign.
lozada was an officer of the executive department. it was just natural for that co-equal branch to protect one of its own using as basis its own interpretation of the constitution which, pending a ruling by the supreme court, is, i think, a valid exercise of power. it appears to me that the executive branch’s effort to protect lozada from the moment he arrived at the airport was justified, with or without his request or that of his family.
Bencard, protecting lozada from what or whom? In your last paragraph, where you say ‘lozada’, don’t you actually mean ‘Arroyo’?
After hearing Lozada on TV, the picture has become clearer to me now. He is telling the “truth” about this big-time NBN-ZTE project, with the Arroyo govt dipping its dirty hands into it through its operators like Abalos. Hindi lang “pambayad sa utang na loob,” kurakutan galore pa!
Wow! 40% of the project cost goes to “commission.” Unbelievable, only in the Philipines. Hindi pa pala kuntento sa 22%, gusto doblehen pa. Mga buwaya talaga!
Of course, the Arroyo legalists and apologists will throw a monkey wrench in this thing. The cover up, participation, and attempts to sweep it under the rug are evident. In a decent, democratic country elsewhere, these actions amount to obstruction of justice, abetting corruption. In others, they’re enough for a leader to resign or commit harakiri. What a shame!
cvj, there you again with your penchant for mouthing off first and reading later. didn’t i say lozada (not arroyo) was the one being “arrested” (hunted) by the senate operatives? who do you think needs protection from the hunters, huh? think bubby dacer!
Geo,
“I hate being/sounding so cynical (I’m an optimist, actually), but was today just a big waste of time? Bunch of hot air signifying nothing? Kinda seems like it”
in one sense its a waste because the end-product is new legislation (whatever that will be) and a mere committee report.
any prosecution of wrongdoing lies with the executive branch, which gloria heads!
what the Lozada episode can accomplish is the further tarnishing of gloria’s and FG’s reputation
If tomorrow, Gloria will suddenly appear with a pair of wings, the same group will ask: “oh, what a specie of devil is she”??? but if she shows up with pair of horns sticking up her forehead the other group will say: “we just want to let you know that scientists just published that there is a new illness with exactly similar symptom, just a million dollar surgery and they’re gone”…you guys are all predictable…hehe just to break the monotony..