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.
Bencard, do you mean that the Executive believed that Lozada was in danger of suffering a fate similar to Bubby Dacer which is why you said (at 1:40am above) 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.“?
American Heritage Dictionary
kid·nap (kÄÂd’nÄÂp’) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.
Merriam-Webster
kid·nap : to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom
pinoy talaga. nakuha pang tumawa sa pag-amin na corrupt din siya. pare-pareho lang sila.
you got to talk to a lawyer or to a photo journalist . When presenting witnesses or the accused, they got to psyche themselves to project an image that would create impression for pity and sympathy, Cry, kahit na maglagay ka pa ng sibuyas.
If you still do not understand it, then we are not in te same page, read more para makahabol ka.
Upon the advice of lawyers former President Bill Clinton testified under oath in his grand jury testimony, “I did not have sex with that woman.”
His lawyers decided to take the perspective that since no penile penetration into a vagina occurred therefore no sex occurred. Fellatio is not having sex. Inserting his cigar into Monica’s vagina was also not having sex.
He had also gotten some of his people in government to give her a job away from the White House.
The issue being vented in the press and in the Senate is not about legalities. It is about the workings of the political system. Theoretically the idea of three separate but equal branches that in certain cases will bring them into a state of war. Armed conflict being the breakdown of political discourse but for some the extension of political discourse brought to the battlefield. Evolved political systems have brought conflict into institutional forums.
The arbitration and mediation of power and wealth lies with the state. “Moderating greed” in more modern states have institutional safeguards. Free markets and free trade is not about fairness and equality.
Lozada participated with the executive in avoiding the Senate at first. He said this whole “abduction” was miscommunication. But he had raised expectations that he was returning but unfortunately for the executive department they had not prepared the documentation for him prior to his return. Get real guys, cell phones, internet and instant communication through media, what were these guys thinking? In this very clear attempt at spin they government screwed themselves. Lozada’s picture appears in the Financial Times.
Historically for the Philippines greeting someone at the tarmac of NAIA raises connotations. The scenario that the executive had prepared for him was not yet complete. It was so obvious they did not want him to testify in the Senate and he was not seasoned unlike his friend Neri who has been in government longer and is used to spinning words and playing the game.
In an analogous sense the government has now created the perception that they do have something to hide and Esperon and Razon are looking so much more like Luca Brazzi and Clemenza and when these two men ask anyone to go for a ride the perception of disappearances and killings become so real. The consiglieres around GMA are doing what they have been paid to do.
What is simply exhilarating is to see that almost the entire machinery of the executive is being used to prevent testimony in a Senate hearing. They created their own monsters for all to see.
Being pragmatic about corruption and trying to rationalize it to protect ones professional credentials is par for the course in the private sector.
But in the public sector it is dangerous as it destroys all notions of civilized behavior. That is why the theory behind the division of labor in an but separate system of government. They are not independent but are interdependent. Having an imbalance in power will almost surely result in disequilibrium.
The writer of the Lucifer Effect points to the idea of absolute power given to groups in society. You saw it in the actions of Atienza, Defensor and Razon. The Queen has to protected by all the means of the State.
It is ironic that the World Bank has just chosen a Chinese gentleman to be their chief economist. He speaks of a developmental state. We have criminal syndicates running the state under the guise of political families.
“By contrast, Lin has written that the government is the most important institution, and the quality of a government determines the success or failure of development. That, in itself, represents a sea change, and it will be fascinating to watch the degree to which the international financial institutions absorb this new thinking.”
cvj, don’t be naive. in the philippines, anything goes. that’s why, making hasty conclusions is dangerous. as both the npa rebels and the military are both capable of mischiefs, i.e., extra-legal killings, so are both the pro and anti- “gloria” fanatics and their leaders. neither side has a monopoly of holiness or evil, therefore, neither trusts the other.
it happened many times before, e.g., bubby dacer, it could happen again. either side could do it and try to incriminate the other through false propaganda and media campaigns. a gullible public, fed by a massive dose of false information, is easy prey.
it all boils down to evidence, evidence, evidence, and not opinions, speculations, surmises or conjectures. the fact that many in this blog are already drawing conclusions as to the first couple’s culpability is proof of how easy it is to manipulate certain minds.
national interest? eh ,paano yung inamin ni lozada na mga ‘permissible zone’ na siya ang nag umpisa? hero my ass, insurance deal na pabor para sa asawa niya, deal na pabor sa company he owned. i wouldn’t be surprised kung marami pang lalabas. pare-pareho kasi silang magnanakaw. kung ang nakararami ay ‘ayos’ lang ang 20% ‘permissible zone’, sa kangkungan nga pupulutin ang pilipinas. gusto ba ninyo na ang mga ank ninyo ay ganitong ‘moral standard’ ang matutunan?
Bencard, while he was being driven around, Jun Lozada did say he was reminded of Bubby Dacer. That’s when he was in the custody of the Administration elements.
ayos lang sa iyo ang ‘moderate greed’?
cvj, good question. assuming that what lozada said was true, how can we know whether or not the “custody” was for the purpose of ensuring that a similar tragic fate would not happen to him in the hands of the “hunters”?
btw, cvj, weren’t the people supposed to be “escorting” dacer also killed? or am i confusing that sordid episode with the kuratong baleleng massacre?
hindi naman si singson o si clarissa ang nagpatalsik kay erap. grupo ni erap ang dahilan – AYAW PA-BUKSAN ANG ENVELOPE!
ang pagkakaiba naman ni clarissa kay lozada, ang kay lozada ay matatawag na ‘hearsay’ compared to clarissa na first-person account. she was physically present when the document was signed: harap-harapan. smart kasi si erap.
Dinapinoy: “ayos lang sa iyo ang ‘moderate greed’?”
Hindi. Maski na ung 1% na sinabi ni Lozada, di pa rin ako ayon.
Bencard,
I don’t see a “state of war” here. In a way, it’s a palabas, another show. Wasn’t pro-admin Enrile who moved to issue that arrest warrant for Lozada? Why? (Then he tried to demolish Lozada’s credibility during the hearing, in concert with Mirriam.)
Meanwhile, Atienza and company are trying to delay, divert and hide Lozada as part of the show, hoping that the senate committee would end its hearing even without Lozada’s and Neri’s testimonies. (Cayetano had previously announced this, didn’t he?).
But something fouled up along the line, when Lozada was allowed to come back from his pre-arranged trip abroad (courtesy of Atienza), under the protective arm of this govt he was, uh – how shall we say it? – also trying to “protect” earlier.
That “kidnap†episode has something to do with it, among other explanations. (I think Devils said it more clearly, Feb 8, 12:51pm.) Kaya nga ayaw ni Lozada sabihin na kidnap, kasi usapan na nila para hindi siya maaresto ng senado sa airport pa lang. But between dying for this corrupt govt and saving his ass (at the expense of telling all), he chose the latter.
Now that Lozada has told his story, let the axe fall where it chops. We’ll see how Abalos defends himself, and what will Big Mike do.
Dinapinoy, it is not hearsay on Lozada’s part as he was present when Abalos requested to ‘protect’ 130 million of the contract price, when Abalos called Mike Arroyo to push for the Loan arrangement, as well as when Abalos threatened to kill him.
cvj, lozada said he was present when abalos made a phone call, but he did not know (of his own knowledge) who the person abalos called, or talked to at the other end.
cvj, i thought what lozada said was that he was there when abalos made a phone call, but he did not know (of his own knowledge) who the person abalos was calling or talking to at the opposite end.
cvj,
you are right. first-person account kay abalos. pero hindi si abalos ang gusto nating mahuli. sabi nga ni bencard, evidence. as in documents in an envelope.
Dinapinoy: “pero hindi si abalos ang gusto nating mahuli. sabi nga ni bencard, evidence. as in documents in an envelope.”
Simulan kay Abalos, tapos ang iba pang kasabwat. Lalabas din ang documents, tulad ng ante-dated travel documents ni Lozada. Para lang mapagtakpan at hindi sumabulat ang baho.
Ipag-pasensya na natin mga tol. The old man is blind, blind, blind. He only sees what he wants to see.
Let me focus a bit on the title of this thread: “The Witness.”
I heard during Erap’s impeachment trial someone pointing to a “Mr. Wetness,” a govt prosecutor, who is now a govt protector. The same guy, I believe, was shown on TV, quoted by Shazam2003 “…Apostol, in display of arrogance,said that †intsik pala siya, dapat i deport,†or something of that nature.
Wondering how the Filipino Chinese community, or tsinoy bloggers, react to this remark by Apostol?
@ cat
“When presenting witnesses or the accused, they got to psyche themselves to project an image that would create impression for pity and sympathy, Cry, kahit na maglagay ka pa ng sibuyas.”
I agree with you that this is a sad reality of our system perhaps. The point I was making was that these are irrelevant. Dahil in a good court, good judges are not interested in IMAGE.
Siempre, I don’t expect those senators to be high calibre judges. Baka nga madaan sa iyak. Who knows. Sana hindi.
Parang Philippine Idol, dinadaan nalang sa paiyak-iyak para manalo.
wala rin yan. hindi si FG or GMA ang nakapirma. sayang, noong jose pidal pwede pa sana. malakas-lakas ang ebidensya.
as part of government, J LO toed the government line…
as part of the norm in government, J LO tolerated (even owned up some) corruption…
afraid of broadcasting a brazen lie in public, J LO avoided (even up to the last minute “in custody” with atienza’s boys) the senate…
afraid of death and harm to family, J LO continued to be part of the government’s lies and deceptions…
BUT this was up to a certain extent. He drew the line yesterday…
and look at HOW RELIEVED he was at the senate!
a guy overwhelmed by the greed of some…a guy overburdened by fear…would certainly be relieved.
si lozada ay parang si singson – mula sa loob, insider ika nga. kaya kung walang lalabas na clarissa ocampo na magbibigay ng first-person account supported by documents, ang magyayari dito ay he said/she said at ang sambayanan ay manonood na naman ng isang soap opera.
paikot-ikot.
True. While I can’t say that I quite agree with the premise (“certain level of corruption is acceptable”), the stark reality is that will always be SOME corruption in government, maybe any government. But when exposed, it shouldn’t be condoned and the persons concerned should be made accountable (I’ll grant that there may exist some gray areas in this regard.) The general objective though is to minimize it and to ensure that the mechanisms for accountability and checks and balances are in order.
But not only is there an obscene level of corruption in the GMA adminstration, the Arroyo mafia has arrogantly and deviously brushed aside attempts at accountability. They use any means fair and foul –mostly foul– to get away with their crimes: lie through their teeth, neutralize investigations (EO 464), payoff people (right inside Malacanang, even), abduct and intimidate (Rashma Hali, etc), fabricate “evidence” (Garci’s fake passport, and Malacanang’s crude attempt to splice their own “Hello Garci” tape to make it appear that GMA was actually talking to a certain Gary Ruado), even outright murder (political killings, and Musa Dimasidsing, witness to electoral fraud in Maguindanao.) Ilan sa mga yan ang na-resolba at nabigyan ng hustisya?
When it comes to the culture of impunity, the Arroyo regime has pushed to envelope to soul-numbing levels. Kelan pa kaya gigising ang Pilipino. Not only have we lost out moral bearing, we’ve also lost our minds (at least the die-hard Arroyo fans, and of course Miriam Defensor Santiago) and our balls too. Jun Lozada seems to have recovered his moral compass and his balls. I salute and support him.
I find Lozada to be a very credible witness. This Arroyo of administration, instead of straightening up its act after escaping numerous scandals has only become bolder in committing corruption in a scale that we have never seen before. In the past, I would say pagbigyan na para walang gulo, but this time I no longer care kung magkagulo as long as this GMA government is replaced NOW!
99.9% + 0.9% = 100.8%
Overpricing din si Bencard. May kumisyon ba si Gloria na 0.8%?
DinaPinoy: “wala rin yan. hindi si FG or GMA ang nakapirma. sayang, noong jose pidal pwede pa sana. malakas-lakas ang ebidensya.”
Hwag ka mag alala, maglalabasan ang mga iyan pag hinalungkat na. Isang example lang ung ante-dated TO ni Lozada.
ang ‘culture of impunity’ ay hindi pansin ng pinoy (maybe asia too. just look at thailand). noong panahon ni marcos, corruption was rampant too. hindi lang bulgar dahil walang makapalag sa media. nasaan ngayon ang mga marcos? nasaan ngayon ang mga estrada? replace GMA with reasonable corruption, ‘moderate greed’? erap and JDV are already ‘talking’, ready for 2010 (maybe sooner?).
ok, tongue twisted. my mistake. pardon my music, i meant 0.1%.
sabi ko nga, si J LO ay insider. si JDV3 ay insider din. he said/she said ang mangyayari. kahit ngayon, pwedeng gumawa si J Lo ng kahit na anong document at lagyan pa niya ng kahit na anong date. unlike clarissa’s document na may pirma ni jose vilarde. at inamin pa ng pumirma.
Tongue:
Galing ng aritmetek mo, ah. Parang dag-dag bawas ang dating! (joc joc lang, ok?)
ang nagtatago sa ilalim ng mga saya ng mga babae, eh walang bait sa sarili…
…parang mali-mali yata ang pagkadugtong ng salawikain ko..
sorry mgs tsong!
Ikaw naman Dinapinoy, inaapura mo. Hintayin natin ang sunod na kabanata. Kung kelan babanat si JdV, magde- defensa si Abalos, Mike, at iba pa sa gang. Tapos, dun na sa huling hantungan, purgatoryo ba o langit.
Tingnan mo, tila kumakalog na ang tuhod ng mga nakapalibot kay ma’am. Kung ano-ano ang pinagsasabi.
Ano kaya sa tingin mo, nakakatulog kaya ng mahimbing si Gloria mula noong nag presscon si Lozada?
tongue,
overpricing…LOL…
Again again again.
Marcos and Erap were overthrown. Marcos died in exile, and some of his ill-gotten wealth have been recovered. Erap was arrested, tried, and found guilty (nabigyan nga lang agad ng pardon.) So hindi natin masasabi na “‘culture of impunity’ ay hindi pansin ng pinoy.†Medyo mahaba lang ang pasensya ng pinoy, pero nauubos din. Kelan kaya tayo dadating ulit sa “sobra na, tama na, palitan na�
(Now about the infamous short memories of pinoys, that’s another matter.)
hindi ako nag-aapora. ikaw nga dyan ang sa tingin ko eh atat na atat na. maganda nga ang nangyayari dahil sila-sila naglalabas na ng baho. JDV, JDV3, J Lo? kasali yang mga yan.
nakakatulog ng mahimbing? you bet. kasi tulad noong panahon ni marcos at erap, pera-pera lang ang laban ng admin/oposition kuno. ang mga affidavit ni lozada kahit pa lagyan mo ng date na 1900 (pwede niyang gawin yun di ba?) ay isang ‘he said’ lamang. kung pinatay nila si J Lo, yun ang talagang sabit sila.
sobra na, meaning above the 20% threshold. ayos lang ang ‘moderate greed’.
“palitan na! now na!”
don’t worry, nag-uusap na si erap at JDV kung sino ang papalit.
DinaPinoy wrote:
“…hindi naman si singson o si clarissa ang nagpatalsik kay erap. grupo ni erap ang dahilan – AYAW PA-BUKSAN ANG ENVELOPE!…”
—
Oo nga eh, di ba tulad ng mga Tongressmen, ayaw buksan ang mga questionable ballot boxes sa mga “severe vote anomaly tainted areas”. Sa sobrang pressure kay Gloria yan tuloy gumawa ng E.O. 464. Nung natikman ang masarap na E.O. 464 dinagdagan pa ng E.O. 1017, mmm sarap talaga. Oo nga pala – Ayaw rin BUKSAN ang Hello Garci investigation (salamat sa mga Tongressman at bago nilang sinaksak na JDV)at ayaw BUKSAN ang imbestagasyon sa Lanao cheating arrangement; kaya kawawang General Gudani at Colonel Balutan, walang puwang ang nagsisiwalat ng katotohanan sa dating magiting na military, dapat lahat sundan nilang ehemplo ay ang mga Praetor ni Gloria, ang pinakabago ay sina Praetor Esperon at Praetor Razon. Tapos ngayon nagtataka sila bakit maraming galit na Junior officers at rank and file sa kanila. Salamat ito sa PMA Class of World Class Corruption na kasama ni Gloriang tumitimpla ng Lutong Makoy.
Tsk tsk, mahirap talagang maraming tinatagong baho ano?
wala silang pakialam sa baho.
ang bantot ni marcos at bantot ni erap noon, pabango na ngayon. si loi, naging senador pa! si jinggoy, VP na ang inaasinta!
Solita Monsod is now a fierce administration critic? Will wonders never cease?
opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080209-117751/Obvious
Ayan kasi, dapat simula pa lang hindi na tinolerate at ginawan ng excuses ang mga kabalastugan at kawalangyaan ng Arroyo misrule. Lalo pa tuloy naging garapal at gahaman. Still, better late than never. Welcome aboard, Mareng Winnie.
DinaPinoy,
Why are you so fascinated with the term “moderate greed” when the mother term came from Romulo Neri (Neri has admitted that, though he claims that is was colorful language)?
Don’t worry, even after Estrada was convicted many of his “believers” still were not convinced that he was a plunderer and until today, the same believe that Macoy still had the best Interest of the Country in his Greedy Heart..the same with Gloria supporters..to the end they will be demanding ‘concrete’ evidence but even if they see them, still be demanding irrefutable ‘concrete evidence’…And FG Arroyo never meddle in Government…and they believe it too…and they call the oppositions naive and some other names they should call themselves…
greed is greed, right? “mea culpa” is colorful too.
Naive?
jinggoy is the son of erap
escodero is the son of marcos’ escodero
alan is the son of kumpanyero
ping is the son of military martial law
they’re all son of a ………..
“The Ca t :
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.”
She was lucky, she was not kidnapped. She wasnt send outside the country. She didnt receive any death threats.
C’mon others are stronger thant the rest but that doesnt mean those who shed tears are not credible.
Bencard,
Res Gestae is what they call Lozada’s account of his kidnapping. It is given more weight that anything he or anyone else says after. Abogado ka, alam mo yan. Lozada gave a first hand account of his experience and he stated very clearly that he was taken and held against his will.