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.
Just observe in the PDI that Senator Biazon has an open invitation to all, including those who were issuing PR left and right refuting Lozada and his family claims that he was abducted, to do it Under Oath in Senate and so far only the PNP chief said that he is willing to do it…now there is a chance for the “fair judges” in this forum to listen and bring down their own impartial verdicts…or should I say, predictable as always….
Bencard,
As Sen. Biazon explained in his introductory remarks, Congress has both a legislative function and an OVERSIGHT (over the Executive) function. Seems the government and its allies want people to forget about the latter.
malicious cat, malicious cat…ang alam ko walang malisyoso/malisyosang pusa sa mundong ito. wow, zeroing on something as a remark as “doing it for one’s country” — so what that affected you so much? Di mo siguro ma-imagine sarili mo na feeling that way. And Lozada did not “whine” about using his credit card when in Hong Kong – he merely stated as a fact.Listen to yourself, you’re the one whining. Sheesh. And a chess game metaphor for this latest bruhaha? So you want to descredit this guy as if he was part of another demolition job by the opposition against the government? Won’t stick though if you listen (alam mo ba kung ano ibig sabihin nun? in Tagalog, makinig ineng) look at all the facts and connect the dots (or are you pretty stupid?). This was just a guy telling the simple truth. If you can’t handle that, ewan ko, dahil isa lang ang conclusion ko sa yo — isa kang malisyosang tao or die-hard ni Gloria Arroyo. Take your pick.
“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 to these questions.” the c’at.
you’re right on the money, c’at. as far as the first family is concerned, nothing i heard from lozada’s testimony can stand up in a court of law, or even in a prosecutor’s office. the gullible commenters in this blog don’t even know the hogwash they are being fed to condemn the first couple on nothing but innuendoes and haka-haka. see the usually premature cheering, jerring and high-fiving? the likes of cayetano, escudero, jinggoy, jamby, pimentel, lacson, et al. are visibly salivating, while the bias media is on another frenzy doing its part of the witch hunt.
this illustrates the insidiousness of this “in aid of legislation” inquisitions. woe unto him who gets to be the subject of it. virtually every rule of fairness in a civilized society goes out of the window, and must give way to the inquisitor’s personal agenda.
as a tool for propaganda, lozada’s testimony and tears may succeed in generating more negative perceptions about this administration. i doubt very much if it has any value in a court of law except, maybe, as against himself, abalos and neri.
btw, no lawyer (including a dumb lawyer) can object for his client in a senate investigation. they can observe, and counsel in private, but not participate. fair, isn’t it?
The Equalizer did a “quick and dirty ” research to get feedbacks from the general public regarding Jun Lozada,the Star Witness (or WETNESS per Sergio Apostol)in the the ZTE-NBN Scandal:
1)A Shell gas attendant: “Bilib na bilib ako kay Lozada,itinaya ang buhay para magsabi ng katotohanan”
2)A young businessman: “I admire him for his guts.But knowing the current administration,I fear for his life.I think Jun Lozada is a walking deadman!”
3)A young housewife: ” I just wonder what HER (mastermind’s) real intention in ordering the abduction of Lozada from the airport”
4)A cashier in Shell Select:”Galit na galit ako noong kinidnap si Lozada ng mga tao
ni Arroyo.
5)A lola: “Kailan kaya magagalit talaga ang tao?”
EQUALIZER COMMENT:” To the palace gang: DON’T DO ANYTHING TO JUN LOZADA WHICH YOU DON’T WANT GOD AND THE FILIPINO PEOPLE TO KNOW LATER ON!!
Corruption History Lesson 102: When the opposition and the Media kept badgering PM Chretien about the involvement of his trusted Underlings to the Sponsorship Scandal, he countered that the COPs are investigating and if they were guilty to Jail they go and to Jail they went and also sued for the money corrupted…Now why not order a Police Investigation to this Allegations..might indeed something in it..really???
T
sharpen your brain and browse the archives if i have ever defended the arroyos.
I just hate incompetence of the opposition in pursuing the cases.
nothing happened except for media mileage of grandstanding politicians.
And people giving verdict according to hearsay.
As a forensic would define hearsay; even a witness’ testimony is a hearsay if it can not be substantiated with hard evidences.
true, otherwise we are going back to the dark ages when witchhunting was a way of people to exact revenge on their enemies.
bakit ang anti-gma pikon? mwehehe
“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?”–Duck Vader
Iyan ang hirap, sabi nga nila bulag, walang bayag,tuta ng kung sino, walang silbi ang ombudsman. Kaya iyan, walang nangyayari maski iyong mga kurakot noon pang martial law nalimutan nang lahat.
if our system of government was the true, democratic parliamentary form, as the british model, things could be different. perception, as opposed to legal “truth” could be a basis of “lack of confidence”, which could, in turn be the basis of a peaceful change of government. perhaps, there would be less need for “people power” marches, coup d’etat, self-inflicted economic disasters, washing dirty linens before the eyes of the international community, protracted political vendettas, and fears of dictatorship.
when people are told that a “moderate” amount of corruption is o.k. as an inevitable fact of life, that’s when i think our current system, on the whole, is broken. i think it’s time the country takes a long, hard look on the benefits of the parliamentary system. i believe the advantages far outweigh the potential problems.
pilipinoparin, contrary to conventional (layman’s) belief, prosecutors don’t go around investigating and filing cases whenever a suggestion of wrongdoing is made. when a prosecutor decides to litigate a case, he must be convinced that he has a viable case, strong enough evidence, good witnesses, and jurisprudential basis, to overcome the inherent advantages of the defense, and win. a prosecutor is not tasked to prosecute blindly. he has to uphold justice for or against the accused.
Hmmm….laying the predicate for a parliamentary system… Bencard, i remember you saying before that you are opposed to Arroyo staying beyond 2010…hmmm…interesting change…
@Bert
Bert. Obviously they weren’t listening. If yu watched the hearing last Friday you’ll notice many Senators asking the same questions or asking questions already answered in Lozada’s statement.
“when people are told that a “moderate†amount of corruption is o.k. as an inevitable fact of life, that’s when i think our current system, on the whole, is broken. i think it’s time the country takes a long, hard look on the benefits of the parliamentary system. i believe the advantages far outweigh the potential problems.–Bencard
Well now, that, I think, completes the cycle, the link…from the defender of the person to advocacy of the objective of the person. Perpetual rule, Bencard here waiting for you, what advantages have ye got?
Parliamentary?
Ito ngang hiwalay ang Congress (esp. Lower House) sa Executive nagkakandaleche-leche na ang Pillipinas. Paano pa kaya sa Parliamentary system? Eh di lalo nang maghahasik ng lagim ang mga “Tongressmen”/MP’s.
Pilipinoparin, that’s possible too, especially if the Government is in Majority, that is Scary, that could be the making of another Zimbabwe..
All these talks about shift to parliamentary govt, if done during this regime, are bound to fail. The people don’t like it now, because it lends to Gloria’s power obsession.
Bencard, you know what happened during the old Batasang Pambansa, you were still there in RP. I remember you said the situation in the Philippines were the reasons why you left our country. What do you think will happen kung mabuhay na mag-uli ang Parliament? Well, it may not matter to you, you are now safe in your adopted country. However, I am sure that hundreds of your relatives are still there.
However much the other side tries to push Lozada’s unquestionably damaging testimony to “downgrade” it, the more the truth flies high. Because the assailants are merely biting off at the insignificant and the absurd fringes pathetically, the core of the testimony is fortified. Their arguments are not helped by an uncoordinated script in their own presscons either.
Manolo, if you could review the tapes on ANC on the Malacañang presscon aired while the Senate was having its 45-minute break, with former CICT chief Sales, Telof Asec. Formoso and DOTC Sec. Mendoza (because I’m sure you wouldn’t have seen it since you were in the Senate), you would have heard another revelation that totally startled me but escaped everyone in media. I say this because I’ve not read or heard anyone talk about it.
Sales, who says he is no longer in gov’t, spoke to repeat their claims that ZTE was the superior proposal, that they were not remiss, etc. Just to debunk Lozada’s earlier statements regarding “supplier-driven” contracts and the “government’s dysfunctional procurement system”. He gave an example wherein he said he asked his people that they do actual testing of the claimed benefits of ZTE’s WiMax protocol. He said they constructed a few WiMax stations “from an order that has already been paid but not yet delivered” and the ZTE claim of its system’s technical soundness was proved.
Whaaaat? An order paid but not yet delivered? That’s a big no-no in government, not even in Marcos’ time! Even downpayments or Letters of Credit are not allowed, how much more prepaid orders! The paid yet undelivered equipment may have been ZTE/NBN or CyberEd, or another project that fits the theory I raised in an earlier thread, could have been for Abalos’ Microwave Transmission of Election Returns part of the computerization deal.
There it is. Abalos’ connection to ZTE goes back farther than NBN. The deal was partly prepaid (via Northrail?), commissions advanced, they needed an NBN and/or CyberEd to consumate it.
Vic, I think most of the time, the Majority in Parliamentary system holds the Government.
It is very easy to buy the votes of, say 500 MP’s vs 30 million Filipino voters.
Ben, you maybe right, prosecutors are very selective in filing cases. I am just wondering about the filed cases in our courts, especially in the Ombudsman. Man, these cases have been filed for ages, marami nang nangamatay na kasangkot, inaamag na ang mga documento, marami nang naglaho na parang bula.May apo na sa tuhod si Lolo, wala pang makitang hustisya. Maybe CJ Puno may start the changes in the justice system, afterall, he is an Arellanite.
Pilipinoparin, I was thinking on the line of the Strong Party System of Parliamentary Form of more than Two parties where there could be a chance of minority government..
Anyways, I’m getting a lot of chatter from national HQ that we may have an election called anytime..and our party is ready, just forwarded my “election ready” donation….
cvj, bert, not so fast guys. a change to parliamentary system could be had without “gloria” being allowed to circumvent the present constitution. a transitory provision on the amended charter could take care of that. of course, that would depend on the people who would re-write it, and those who would vote for it in the plebiscite that follows.
why should “gloria’s” perceived design to perpetuate herself in power automatically follows every mention of change? are the filipinos so irredeemably helpless that it cannot even chart its own destiny? are we just going to consign ourselves to a “culture” of venality shackled by a belief that “there’s nothing we can do anyway”?
i’m not here making a judgment on “gloria” – that she or her government is corrupt. i am for the rule of law. and the present law does not allow that kind of conclusion. i am making a judgment on the kind of system we have, where there is hardly anyone you can trust, or put your faith upon. we have to make a fast and peaceful change in governance possible, whoever maybe the incumbent. otherwise, these turmoil we are having now will be re-played over and over again beyond gma’s presidency against her successors.
pilipinoparin, if i remember right the “batasang pambansa” parliament kuno was constituted under marcos’ dictatorship by a captive “constitutional convention”. i have already left when that happened.
as far as i can see, the present (1987) constitution is still working. so are the agencies, instrumentalities and offices of the democratic government. marcos’ powers then are not comparable to gma’s now, regardless of spins to the contrary. therefore, i think your fears are unfounded.
To complete Bencard’s convenient half-truth about how a prosecutor begins investigating, the Ombudsman, in its mandate, does not need a complaint, or a complainant for that matter, before it begins investigating. Ex proprio motu. Same with the police.
The inaction of these two agencies simply highlight their complicity in this charade of conflicting scripts – the travesty of justice.
@Pilipinoparin :
So how much do opposition congressmen sell their votes for? 👿 And the votes are needed about three times a year, right?
The middle-class voter, of course, do not sell his/her vote. 😉 And the Filipino-voter who can be bought sells for no more than P200 a vote. Plus the vote lasts for 3 years or even 6 years.
So it is possible that the sentence “500 MP’s versus 30 million voters” proves faulty.
ahh. not yet.
only up to the point it becomes fulfilled.
and then, debating it is inconsequential.
bencard, how can you be so intelligent and so dumb at the same time? is your mind convoluted with legalese? your memory of marcos must be faulty, bec from my pov, we are today at the point of marcos’ first term as president.
gma is gathering her forces as we speak. just as marcos did. review your history. how marcos destroyed the opposition in his time, and how he consolidated his power.
and then you go back to me and tell me if my fears are unfounded.
Bencard wrote:
“as a tool for propaganda, lozada’s testimony and tears may succeed in generating more negative perceptions about this administration. i doubt very much if it has any value in a court of law except, maybe, as against himself, abalos and neri.”
So why are we not pursuing Abalos, Neri and Lozda in court cases?
I think the problem in this blog is that we are already making decisions as to whether evidence is admissible or enough to convict.
In this case, I do agree with Benigno. We already had a Cabinet-level secretary accuse a very high public official of attempting to bribe him. And of two other witnesses who say that this same official tried to broker the deal.
Were there ethical violations? Were there violations of law?
Isn’t it up to the Ombudsman to determine whether their testimonies are enough to START building a case? As we all know, not all the evidence used to convict is found at the start. The initial evidence is only used to build the larger case. After all, they are the ones who know how to do so not us.
SO why is the Ombudsman not telling us whether or not they are doing so, and what their reasons are?
Imagine this: You come upon a street corner. One guy shouts at another: “He killed my child.” But it is not the scene of the crime.
Police come on the scene and say: “Well, since it’s only your word against his right now and you don’t have any evidence, we conclude that you don’t have a case.”
Shouldn’t the police investigate. Because if the police don’t, then at some point confidence in the institution of law enforcement will disappear.
ironic really, that GMA models her philosophy of power on the one man who defeated her father. daddy must be so proud. if he weren’t so dead.
Every single politician and high-level bureaucrat in the Philippines should be shot. Or jailed. Or both. They are all magnanakaw. All kurakot. All greedy pigs feeding at the people’s trough. Down to a man, they’re all leeches. The only difference is in their degrees of thievery.
Jone,
Take it easy, that’s not the way we do it here, we “Moderate their greed” and “Move on”. Heheheh!
Whatever system of government we have it won’t work if the culture of corruption is so deeply ingrained in society and in INDIVIDUALS. Lozada is now being praised for coming out and speaking the truth when he is nothing more than a self-confessed thief himself.
Is this the only kind of hero we can come up with?
Going further, I’ll point out – how many more individuals among ordinary citizens will do the same crooked deals Lozada did if they had an opportunity to serve in government?
The honest individual will turn down a job in government if he wanted to stay true to himself, as was the case with my uncle years ago…and myself just last year. Let’s not kid ourselves, we know corruption happens..moderation doesn’t make any less of a CRIME.
I hope I’m not the only one who realizes how deep in shit our country is really in.
“Is this the only kind of hero we can come up with?”
As people who prioritize OURSELVES, we listen to the message. We do not have to put this messenger up on a pedestal, though he needs to be protected… for our own good.
Every election time, poor simple people ask the offices of politicians for whatever they need. I was talking to a “government consultant”, and the requests are varied — money, t-shirts, medicine for a sick loved one, “kubeta”, and other construction materials. Every time someone dies, politicians are also expected to fork out “abuloy”, and even provide the coffin in some instances. I can go on and on and on — even when it is not election time, the typical receiving office of a politician is lined up with all kinds of people expecting help in some way, shape or form.
These are the benefits of the typical Filipino voter from the Philippine politics of patronage. Within this context, corruption is inevitable, even necessary for a typical Filipino politician’s survival. In my opinion, this is a self-supporting and self-perpetuating cycle which ensures the relevance of corruption in Philippine government.
In my opinion, this implies two (2) things —
1.) Unless and until there is an institutional channel which Juan de la Cruz can turn to during his time of legitimate need, he will continue standing in line outside his local politico’s office, election or no election.
2.) Many ordinary simple barrio folk or squatter dweller have yet to learn the value of relying on their own strength in resolving their own problems. All of us who are in a position to mould and manage these people’s values, aspirations, needs and productivity share common blame in this. Those “corrupt politicians” are not the only leaders of this land.
Mita,
There are many heroes working out in the field, in civil society and NGOs who are working out in city slums and provincial barrios — it’s just that they don’t speak in the Senate, nor featured a lot in print, radio or television.
Some of them are subjected to opposing police and military operations, which ironically is taken seriously by foreign governments (see Alston report) but given short shrift by media here.
My guess is that the political drama unfolding on TV right now is more entertaining than boring notices from foreign governments and institutions.
Inquirer Editorial today cuts deep.
I am schoolmate with one of the sons but I never really noticed any “Castillan” pretensions. I’ve always thought he and the men in his family acted like probinsyanos and are proud of it.
Many mestizos from Negros are said to be part “black” or pygmy, the original natives of Negros. This makes sense as the mestizos there are quite short. Either that or they killed off most of the original inhabitants, so you can see how preferable it is to believe you have ati blood, even if it is your wont to look racially at the many races that comprise this country.
Still calling the Arroyos pretentious must hurt.
Yeah I’ve also wondered about this. Pati sa mga news items parang di nabigyan ng pansin. Weird. Maybe the senators were afraid that if they asked Lozada about it, i-share din ni Lozada kung ano yung mga narinig nyang usapan, and the overheard conversations might not be flattering to the senators? Hehe.
Duck & Tongue,
Good points you raised on the Ombudsman. I’ll bet my ass, this Ombudsgirl would take Lozada to court first rather than Abalos or Neri. Right now, Malacanan attack dogs are demanding for his blood, urging the Ombudsgirl to run after Lozada’s neck.
Mita, “The honest individual will turn down a job in government if he wanted to stay true to himself, as was the case with my uncle years ago…and myself just last year. Let’s not kid ourselves, we know corruption happens..moderation doesn’t make any less of a CRIME.”
Lucky you are and your uncle.
How about the cadre of unemployed, average young graduates, esp. teachers, who can’t find jobs in the private sector? As they have nothing to turn down in the first place, would they rather not seek govt jobs even as casuals? Going the path of corruption is far from their minds, it’s survival first.
greenblooded :
i just noticed that there had been a resurrection of pro-GMA forces in the blogging world, not just in this site..
probably using palace computers…
been a blog lurker for years, and it just fascinates me how the orcs resurfaces everytime the dark goddess is in hot water..
or i might be wrong. im just a lowly, innocent student who likes observing blogs.
=========================================================
this kind of observation did not work before and will never ever work now and in the future. like it or not there will always be comments in the blog world that will favor Gloria the same that there will always be comment that is very destructive about her. Deal with it!
tongue-twisted, i don’t know what your problem is but when you use fancy words to sound smart, please check their implications and meaning in common usage. “convenient half-truth”? to educate you a bit about half truth, it means false, or a lie. what false remark or lie did i make in my comment that you are criticizing?
i did not mean to give a full lecture on the job of a prosecutor. i was giving philipinoparin some reasons why every SUGGESTION of wrongdoing is not being investigated and brought to court. of course the ideal is for the law enforcers to investigate all suspicions, complaint or no complaint. but is that practical or realistic? do you know how many staff prosecutors the ombudsman has and their ratio to the actual complaints already pending, let alone mere suspected cases? do you know how much funding and resources his office has?
UPN,
I’m not going to say that you don’t have a point but the story of Wily Brandt (former head of West Germany) might be interesting.
Greed..Insatiable Greed..once possessed a man, destroys his being…makes him a liar, a devil unto himself…
devilsadvoc8, unlike you, who must have connections with some preternatural forces, i’m just a normal person observing things as they happen. gma has been president for more than 8 years and i have yet to see any hint of dictatorship in her governance. the last i check, the courts, the media (often abusive), the clergy, the “civil society”, the “left”, the “right”, congress and senate, the businessmen, the military, and all the people opposed to her, are alive and well, plying their respective trades and usual activities.
i still think your prognostications are unfounded.
Bencard,
In your answer to Pilinoparin; you mentioned that his fears seem unfounded based on the powers of ex-president Marcos and PGMA as referred to the Charter.
In the decision on PP1017; the SC declared parts of it unconstitutional including the part of PGMA promulgating decrees which the Charter does not empower a President to have.
If Pilipinoparin was talking about the Charter, then your answer should suffice, if he was however referring to the mindset of people in power (at least to the ones he seems to be referring); then I don’t think your answer would allay his fear or maybe even devils advoc8 but I’ll leave devil to clarify his stance since I’ve indulged so much with someone else’s at this time.
The Philippines under the regime of GMA is not yet a dictatorship as strictly defined, just without the usual Checks, so the results just about the same as they people in power can dictates the innards of the Government’s functions, while allowing the facades of normalcy. how can it pull off consistently the alleged huge percentage of “kickbacks” if it can not Dictates the Terms? How can the PNP, the military, as in the case of the supposed abduction, Lie the same Lies and tell another story the next day if they are not Dictated from the Top? Dictate is the Key Word..not yet there, close.
“gma has been president for more than 8 years and i have yet to see any hint of dictatorship in her governance.”
This is what happens when people exaggerrate and they have no imagination to think of other evils besides that witnessed by Filipinos during Martial Law. Obviously, GMA is not a dictator. Dictators don’t have to bribe people. She uses the savvy of her political operatives to get away with obvious crimes like Hello Garci. She uses coercion, bribery and she lies to the public, a public so powerless and desperate they have no choice but believe.
No, not a dictator but a criminal, the highest public official of the land and one of the least trusted… not because she is president but because of her lies.
Maybe dictatorship will improve her chances of coming out of her regime free from persecution. I doubt if she’ll to be a dictator, being a woman and being that dictatorships are frowned upon internationally, which because all the support she has come from favoritism in the military and political favors, would put her in a precarious position.
If that is the definition of dictatorship then we can also say that Bush is a dictator as well as majority of the heads of state aroun the world…. Maybe we should stop addressing the head of state as President or Prime minister. Just plain Dictator Aroyo, Dictator Bush ………
Bencard:
The participants involved in this affair are smart enough to make sure that they leave only the most minimal traces of evidence in terms of physical objects or documentary materials, items which can become exhibits in a court of law or an administrative proceeding. That’s why every corruption case in my personal memory boil down to testimonies by whistle-blowers.
In my opinion, virtually all of the evidence in the ZTE broadband deal will probably be testimonies made official in affidavit form.
Faced with this dilemma, how do you propose we resolve this?
brianb, your comments usually are worth responding to but not this one. anyway, i just want to say, i believe this time you are thinking with your gut, not with your brain. i’m not warning you but your use of words like “criminal”, “bribe people”, “lies”, “coercion”, directed at the sitting president of the republic may not be very prudent. hope you have something to back them up and good luck. freedom of expression is not unlimited, you know.