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.
CaT, bec, first & foremost, my cussing was not directed to any of the posters here. my posts were not a personal attack, or threat to any poster.
read back, and you’d realize that my cussing was directed at that “pukeng inang executive privilege” at “ampotah nyo” referring to the admin. in which case, manolo says, is fair game.
mine is a display of righteous indignation (maybe the right term is rigteous anger), as opposed to some squalid argumentation.
magmumumog ako, kung magpapa lobotomy ka. baka sakaling maalis yang moral relativism mo.
eh kung pagsisipain ko kaya sila palabas ng solar system?
ang tapang ng apog nyo! sino nagbigay sainyo right para maging king-makers? ang ginagawa nyong backroom deals ang syang katulad na deals na nagluklok sa pwesto kay GMA. kaya please lang, wag nyo nang hijackin ang pagbabagong ito. matulog na lang kayo dyan sa sagingan.
sa masang pilipino, wag na kayo pumayag na half-assed na naman at half-baked ang pagbabago. ika nga ni rizal, “you must be prepared to destroy all shred of the existing system…”
sana naman ngayon, mag resonate na ang RESIGN ALL movt. snap elections po. di sya unconstitutional. mas pinapalakas pa nga nito ang demokrasya. at saka, wag sana nating makalimutan yung mga bumoto, yung mga di bumoto, at yung mga nag abstain sa huling botohan sa kongreso. nasa newsbreak ang lista.
turuan natin ang mga hayop na ito na buhay ang accountability sa bansa.
manuelbuencamino,
OK…but then why isn’t he pressing charges? I don’t think anyone has answered that yet (forgive me if I missed a post which did).
I would also think that the opposition would jump on this chance to pin down the government.
The problem with all of Lozada’s words re ZTE is that he was not a witness to any crime. But in the case of the alleged abduction, he is the actual victim!
It still seems to me that yesterday was a waste unless something concrete comes out of it. And this abduction case seems to offer the best chance to get a real result.
So why no formal complaints/charges? This seems so strange.
these people should know that without corroborating evidence, even the testimony of an eyewitness will not be accepted by the court as conclusive. lalo walang body at walang weapon.
Ito kahit boses hindi narinig.
Sus ginoo, kadali namang sabihin na ito kausap ko si ano pero huwag ka, dinayal pala ay ibang telepono.
Chineck ba nila ang phone call?
The reason why Lozada is singing a different tune as being abducted is to avoid jail time. He had a warrant of arrest and if the law is going to be enforced, he can be jailed on sight.
Plain and simple. SOmeone nust have advised him.
Kaya tigilan ninyo na ako sa hero effect. Wala ng hero ngayon. Mga duwag meron.
mb, res gestae is one exception to hearsay rule which includes spontaneous statement made immediately after the occurrence of the alleged crime. it just means that this type of evidence may be admitted (despite being hearsay), but you’re wrong to think that they are special and entitled to more weight than other admitted evidence. res gestae evidence is still subject to other tests of truth, e.g., competency, relevancy, materiality, credibility or witnesses’ ability to comprehend. a court may consider it but is not compelled to believe it.
btw, you’ll get my bill in the mail (lol).
“So why no formal complaints/charges? This seems so strange.” – Geo
First things first, there a writ of amparo hearing next week and the lawyer/s of Lozada are preparing for it. I think protection is their first priority and then maybe file the appropriate charges against the perpetrators later.
“The Ca t :
The reason why Lozada is singing a different tune as being abducted is to avoid jail time. He had a warrant of arrest and if the law is going to be enforced, he can be jailed on sight.
Plain and simple. SOmeone nust have advised him.
Kaya tigilan ninyo na ako sa hero effect. Wala ng hero ngayon. Mga duwag meron.”
What a spin! Please wag nyo nang baligtarin ang usapan. Sino ba ang nag issue ng warrant of arrest. Ang alam ko, the Senate does not issue warrant of arrest to any witness to imprison him but make him testify.
Jailed on sight? Is that your government is practicing now with the absence of due process?
If the government wants to jail him, it should have assisted the Senate in arresting him. Why the government to be the one protecting him by carrying him around to escape Senate apperance?
Ang labo!
Opps, I meant,”Why the government appears to be the one protecting him…”
i think the critics of lozada are underestimating the effects such a situation has on someone who once was at the center or near the center of things, and who then discovers he is not only a pawn, but one doomed to be sacrificed. also, consider that there are many kinds of pressure, many forms of intimidation, they can be implied or overt but equally terrifying. and that finally coming forward is such a momentous step to take that pursuing the legal process is something not only premature to consider at a time when one’s safety is far from assured, but also secondary compared to the task at hand.
the point of my entry above is to propose that this is a man with very definite flaws but considerable courage and it doesn’t matter whether it took him months or moments to arrive at where he is now. it is a better place than most other people can ever hope to be, because he has achieved a kind of redemption.
A — In sum, Lozada says he actually was a party/witness to the following events before the ZTE deal was finalized:
1. Abalos told him he wanted to protect his $130m “comission”.
2. Neri told Lozada to mediate between JDV3 and Abalos and reduce the amount. Lozada recommended that the amount be reduced to $65m.
3. JDV3 and Abalos could not agree with each other and were very mad. Abalos spoke into a phone, purportedly with the FG.
4. The FG briefly joined a dinner once and said little.
5. Abalos told him there was some money for Neri which maybe Lozada could share in. Abalos wanted them to agree to not recommend Joey’s BOT approach.
Lozada resigned and the deal eventually went G2G.
B — Other issues:
1. He was abducted, but won’t press charges.
2. He admits to entering anomalous deals while being a government employee.
3. He thinks there is a “permissible level” of kickbacks…the going rate being around 22%.
4. Admin types have tried to keep him from saying any of the above.
—————————————————-
Is that right? Did I catch the key points? If so, what actionable evidence is there?
balatucan, cat,
The arrest warrant was issued, upon motion of Enrile. And during the hearing, what did Enrile do?
Who asked Lozada to sign the prepared affidavit while he is being “held captive/kidnapped,” or simply whisked away. A certain Bautista, who is a partner of Enrile’s law firm. Wanna check it out? http://www.uniffors.com/
Connect the dots.
mlq3, given all that…the guy should get a hold of himself because it really is hurting his testimony. there’s already a disconnect with his first press con and his senate testimony regarding the “abduction” – he first called it a “misunderstanding” – which is a totally different scenario. Who is not going to say then that his whole testimony is all a “misunderstanding”?
don’t get me wrong, I believe the guy but he is muddling things by his inability to get a hold of himself.
mita, i don’t know if he is. we’d all react different ways to such a dilemma, i guess. he’s doing it by being unable to sleep, bursting into dry heaves and tears and not wanting to say any more against people he’s been close to than he has to -all very typical of our culture, i guess.
the consensus from the lawyers i talked to who watched the goings-on in the senate is that he’s a pretty devastating witness.
mlq3, yes it is very typical of our culture and it is very sad. anyone of us can be in his shoes, done the dirty but relatively minor deeds without much thought then wake up one day to ask – “how did I get here? i want my soul back.”
i hope someone gives him a valium over the weekend so he can get his rest before the next hearing.
Pag-aralan mo muna ang bench warrant at warrant of arrest, bago ka makipag-usap sa akin.
In the meantime, ignore mode ko. Kakapagod mag-explain.
Is something being lost in all of these debates about what is evidence and what is not, and what is acceptable in court and what is not?
Here is my premise. Neri claims Abalos offered him a bribe. Lozada claims Abalos threatened him (with help from FG). Joey De Venecia claims Abalos threatened him too (and FG).
First hypothesis: These three individuals — one of them a Cabinet-level secretary — are all making this up. Assuming they did, why did they do so, and are they are being manipulated by some puppetmaster?
Second hypotheses: These three individuals are all telling parts of one big and real story.
But people say: These are all accusations, without evidence.
But don’t most criminal cases start with an accusation, and then the police investigate?
Where is the ombudsman in all this? Where are the institutions that are supposed to do the proper investigation?
Even at the start of the discussion of the ZTE NBN deal, I already wrote that Neri’s explanation of the project made me conclude that he was not the one who made the analysis.
JPE’s questions proved that Lozada was the guy and he did not do it in any official capacity as consultant. Just a mere “colleague”. He’s not being paid for it. Just lunch.
A practice of most execs who do not know howo to do things , so they have somebody do for them not in official capacity, para hindi halatang hindi niya gawa.
If you are keen enough to follow JPE’s manner of questioning starting with the number of years that Lozada had known Neri…
You will THINK Why such a question. Kung ako yan susundan ko ng bakit ka isinubo sa bunganga ng buwaya?
In the end, Lozada is admitting that he and Neri were massaging JDViii bid although condemned as technically unacceptable by DOTC. And both resorted proposing to split the supply and installation/maintenance service to ZTE and Amd respectively.
Neri, Lozada and JDV3 can be charged already for corruption. Neri testified that he want JDV3 proposal but it is not acceptable by DOTC. It means that he should not open the commercial bid of Amsterdam and discard any further commercial evaluation of the bid.
I want to believe that he knows the anomaly. But telling the media that he’s doing it as a payback to the country which gave him means of livelihood, I should like to refer him to his statement that he was whining because he used his credit cards when he was in HK. He expected the government agency to foot his bill. Ano gagastusan ang pagtago niya at pag-avoid sa arrest warrant?
OT: Does anyone know where I can watch the famous “I’m sorry” video and the “I will not run” speech?
thanks
What’s devastating about his testimony when all you hear are the raw and the daw. Cayetano, the lady asked a leading question.
Another senator supplied the answer. Even a dumb lawyer could have objected on these questions.
The knight was protected by sacrificing a pawn and the spectators of the game of chess, cheered. Sheesh.
ay_naku,
Perhaps finally Solita Monsod has seen through the Potemkin illusion that Gloria’s administration has been trying to prop up through the years. Well, better late than never.
Yeah Cat, nothing devastating about Lozada’s testimony at all. nothing at all. Kaya pala the full might of the government’s resources were exhausted in an attempt to stop his testimony.
“sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.”
P.S. dont speak about legal procedures, nabubuking ka na walang alam. If youre a lawyer, take your MCLE! Mag remedial ka muna.
P.S. dont speak about legal procedures, nabubuking ka na walang alam. If youre a lawyer, take your MCLE! Mag remedial ka muna.
A, b.vodka, hindi po siya lawyer — feeling lang minsan. Minsan feeling din na economista sya. Sheesh, what feelings can to do to a person talaga — mainly feelings of malice.
I think Cat should free us with her non sequiturs. His arguments have no rhyme or reason. He says Lozada felt guilty that the government foot his bill in Hong Kong. In the first place, Lozada will not go to Hong Kong if not for the intimidation he got. When Lozada said he does not want to appear in the Senate, its not because he does not want to but because of the consequence he will face if he will do so.
All Cat is doing is to destroy Lozada.
Why cant he present evidence to refute Lozadas testimony instead of concentraqting on the peripherals that do not have anything to do with what he is saying about the NBN deal.
Tama na po ang paninira kay Lozada. Naisiwalat na niya ang gusto nyang sabihin, paniwalaan mo man o hindi.
Besides who do you want to win on your side. Definitely, not the bloggers here because we made up our minds about the truth of what Lozada is saying and his credibility as a person.
ALL
You’ll probably think I’m too emotional but Filipinos are capable of ignoring incontestable proof like the Hello Garci tape but I doubt if they can ignore a testimony like Lozada’s. It’s one thing to compartmentalize cold facts, it’s quite another to turn a blind eye on a human being who has opened up his soul to you… not to mention risked both his life and his family.
What kind of government is this ??!! They deserve to be lynched ! Who do they think they are ???!!! They have taunted & spat at the faces of the people by CHEATING, LYING & STEALING. This has gone too far ! It is time for people to fight & take back the dignity Gloria & her lapdogs have taken away from the people. If the people do not react, then they simply have not self respect !
I am also appalled at the racial slur of Muchacho Apostol on Mr Lozada ! Palibhasa, wala na ma sabe dahil buko na !
BrianB,
I TOTALLY agree with what you say, “It’s one thing to compartmentalize cold facts, it’s quite another to turn a blind eye on a human being who has opened up his soul to you… not to mention risked both his life and his family.”
Duck Vader,
If you want some more potential theories, look at mlwnag’s 12:38pm post:
“In the end, Lozada is admitting that he and Neri were massaging JDViii bid although condemned as technically unacceptable by DOTC. And both resorted proposing to split the supply and installation/maintenance service to ZTE and Amd respectively.
Neri, Lozada and JDV3 can be charged already for corruption.”
And remember that JDV himself had written an endorsement letter for Mendoza to sign. And he had arranged meetings amongst the players and his son.
I don’t know if that’s the true story either. That’s why we resort to facts, courts of law, etc. rather than trials via media, using accusations, innuendos and hearsay, in a circus of a senate led by presidential wannabes. The whole idea is to avoid witchhunts.
DinaPinoy,
So now we’re down to one word.
But that one word is still carved from the mother term which came from Neri.
Geo,
I think you missed a post of mine for you earlier.
Supremo,
I’d rather not guess.
Did any of you guys wonder why not a whimper from any senator being told by Lozada that he could hear the senator’s conversations from the abductor’s radio while being driven around? They are bugged, and don’t mind it. Gives me the feeling that kind of thing is now a normal occurence, is it? I’m dizzy, where am I?
Dispute whatever I wrote about the legal procedure that you do not agree on.
Hindi ako feeling economist. I would not dare anyone debate with me if i do not know a thing about the subject.
“The knight was protected by sacrificing a pawn and the spectators of the game of chess, cheered. Sheesh.”-cat
And when the queen is mated by the pawn the feline cry? heheh.
Naintinidihan mo ang sulat ko o emotional ka lang.
I said he was whining that he used his own credit cards and spent for his short stay in HK. He was EXPECTING that the government agency should have foot the bill since he was “supposed to be on an official travel”. That alone would tell you that he is a party to whatever attempt there was to prevent him from testifying.
AND HE SPOKE ABOUT DOING IT FOR HIS COUNTRY. Pinautang na loob pa ang mga Filipino. Sheesh.
Naintindihan ang ibig sabihin ko?
And he admitted that offered a commission, he would accept a balato. This guy who is professing that he is just a simple man would accept a balato. Even a balato from a commission would still come from the cost of the project. Knowing how much money is involved, the bslato could run to millions.
The pawn has hardly reached the middle of the chessboard and the people in the gallery are already cheering.
If you’re playing the chess, even with the loss of the queen, the game continues. It is the king which should be checkmated before the game is over. You associate the queen for a lady. The king is a woman.
Whatever Lozada’s failings, if he exposes those leeches (i.e. the Gang of Mike et al) sucking the economic and moral lifeblood of the Filipino people (even down through the generations as our grandchildren would be paying for the loan) that in itself is an achievement worthy of praise. An expose that even some of our spunkiest bloggers would think many times before doing and something that pro-administration spin-doctors would ignore and downplay to the utmost of their ability (or up to the ability the Palace is willing to pay for services)
I think somebody should picket the ZTE local office or the Chinese embassy for them to present their knowledge of the matter, like how did the project end up in their table. (who solicited who, why was the coverage increase, why didn’t they find a partner to do a BOT, who propose that it be a govt to govt loan, when did the Chinese govt decide that a loan would be available etc.) (Mao ZeDong and Deng XiaoPIng must be turning on their graves),( Makes you wonder if ZTE also did a similar deals with Sudan and Burma )
Lozada told the truth. The entire Pidal regime is lying. Period.
If what is happening starts a chain reaction of uncovering shady deals and encourages others to come forward and spill the beans, then that is good.
But it needs to be understood that whatever corruption is being exposed today has been around and INSTITUTIONALISED over periods that transcend any one administration. After Arroyo goes, others will come (most probably elected by the same voters) who will continue this deeply-ingrained culture of crime of Filipinos.
So if we are to cheer on these things, lets cheer them on not as anti-Glorias or pro-Glorias or whatever but as people who want deep systemic change.
Whatever “cheating” or “lying” is attributed to the current administration has always been inherent to the society and the administrations and their politicians that merely reflect this society.
“If you’re playing the chess, even with the loss of the queen, the game continues. It is the king which should be checkmated before the game is over. You associate the queen for a lady. The king is a woman.”
Exactly what I meant, the pawn mating the queen, who is also the king. I hope that’s clear enough.
Benign0 (at 8:10pm), i agree. Uncovering the corruption of the Arroyos is by no means the be-all and end-all, but it’s a necessary start.
“The pawn has hardly reached the middle of the chessboard and the people in the gallery are already cheering.”
The people in the gallery cheered because one of the rook was captured, and the opponent panicked.
There is no harder evidence of guilt than the abduction of Lozada and the full court press this government is doing to control the damage – including dispatching an Internet brigade to spread lies and toe the government line in the blogoshpere. 20% kickbacks from corruption can do and buy a lot indeed.
galit si CaT kay lozada dahil may messianic complex ito. it’s one of lozada’s misgivings. his assessment of himself being a little too high. it’s human nature i guess. caught between the limelight of the press, one just can’t help presenting oneself in a better light. so what if he can’t admit to himself that he’s only doing this to save his ass? the fact still stands that his testimony is the truth.
zero in on all his wrong motivations, assassinate his character, but CaT and all the admin apologists left his testimony standing untouched. as if they know demolishing it would be very hard.
cmon! akala ko ba magaling ka sa debate? so why don’t you stop the ad hominems and focus on lozada’s testimony alone. so, oo na, demonyo na si lozada. pero totoo ba ang sinasabi nya?
corruption history lesson 10l..when sponsorship scandal in the admministration of PM Chretien was first questioned by a reporter from Globe and Mail, every government supporters including the PM were questioning what corruption?? But the opposition kept badgering the Govt. with the questions during the daily “question period” that finally the PM asked the Auditor General to take a look at the allegation..the AG did and she found out what there were indeed systemic patronage and kickbacks, and assigning of government contracts to Government friendly firms without services or goods in return and some monies found their way back to the Liberal party funds that the AG ask the Mounties to take a look themselves..and after, it Took a Judicial Inquiry Two Years to dig deep and detailed the events from millions of pages of transcripts, lies, half truth, facts, truth and testemonies of all parties of interest including of the ex PM and the sitting PM..now there no freaking chance that anyone can ascertain the the truth from the confusion just now…what is clear is something amiss here and it is for the best Interest of the 90 Million Filipinos the clear these mess up maybe in TWO years or Less, but clear up it should…
The Cat will defend the Arroyos to death. Parang PR officer nila 🙂