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,
Britain’s parliament appears to be functioning well so your endorsement of the British model seem appropriate (Unfortunately I am terribly unfamilar with it so my view might change should I be able to read more on it).
However, I think everyone in favor of a parliamentary government should look at the kind of parliamentary form of government that our politicians proposed/endorsed (this is in reference to your view on the possible kind of people who would re-write it).
AFAIU; they took some of the good features of some (they unfortunately left out one very important part) parliamentary models and molded it into a proposed Philippine parliamentary government.
The product wasn’t so pretty and it stinks like “kaning baboy”.
Fit for pigs but not for humans.
They incorporated in it ideas like prevention of turncoatism, proportional representation of parties in lieu of our present party system, replacement of the Prime Minister ONLY when a successor has been elected, etc….
In some combinations or even individually, the ideas certainly had merit.
But ALL of such as included the proposed Charter made that proposed Charter unfit for human consumption.
I even termed it as a “Constitutional Oligarchy”.
The pro parliamentary bloggers in other forums didn’t put up much of a fight of ideas so I don’t really know if my conclusion on it could really withstand a discussion of ideas.
If you wish, I can always indulge you with a discussion on the merits of that proposed charter.
In reference to the kind of people who would vote for it in a plebiscite; if the politicians proposing such a change will be using the public’s money (and they surely will)and will be proposing such a lousy change in the first place; shouldn’t we be rejecting the idea already even before they use again the public’s money on a plebiscite?
JMCastro, very hard indeed…I recall a Scandal in our City which was detailed in a ‘blameless inquiry’ but the criminal part investigations before the inquiry, can not produced enough acceptable evidence that the Crown refused to file charges against the perpetrators..but of course the Principals were shamed and disgraced and faded and all the public employees involved noted in the inquiry reports either resigned or fired, but most importantly the enactment of guidelines to prevent municipal officials and public servants to do the same..but one thing I find amusing in the head of the Inquiry reports: Madame Justice Belamey, about the Principal suspect..’his nose is gettin longer as he lied about the lies’, something to that effect..
But recently, the Federal Government in order to streghtened the Accountability Act, amended and give more Protection to the Whistle Blowers, especially for Government employees especially on the retaliation part..and also suspended lobbying for 5 years to study what best to deal with it..but the best part is the maximum limit to political contribution is also scaled down, and donation from corportate and labour unions banned, now only from individual citizen with strict limits, including politicians..
Bencard,
I seem to have forgotten to state what they left out.
What they left out in the proposal was the power of the people to “RECALL” members of parliament that other parliaments in the world empower their people to do.
“freedom of expression is not unlimited, you know.”
Damn, I wonder what happened to Manolo’s “libel detector.”
Bencard I exaggerrate, talking to a Comelec officer during election is not a crime. It is, however, very very bad.
Ooooooppppsss.
“… proportional representation of parties in lieu of our present party system,” should have been stated as
“proportional representation of parties in lieu of our present PARTY LIST system”.
I mean the “Palace.” I think lawyering should be taught in school. Nakakalito mga palusot na to.
Hi Bencard,
Listen to what my future cell mate says about GMA:
“President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a hardened criminal. She and her armed group will not cease attacking the rights of the people notwithstanding the international condemnation her government is getting,“ said Gabriela secretary general Emmi de Jesus.
BTW, I don’t really fear legal intimidation so don’t bother with the warnings. I’ve been accused before of “attempted murder.” He, this is true, I am not joking. The case never passed the investigative prosecutor but I had to deal with it for several months, almost a year. The only thing that guides me really is ethics. If I feel it is not right calling someone a name, I won’t do it no matter how annoyed I am of the person. I believe this is a country ruled by criminals, and this criminality trickles down. Even good people do illegal things because they believe they have to do. Lozada isn’t the only witness to this “tolerable crimes” in government.
“gma has been president for more than 8 years and i have yet to see any hint of dictatorship in her governance” – Bencard
Maybe you meant “proof of dictatorship”.
Bencard, to settle the question, let’s ask Manolo to give us the links to historical accounts of what marcos did months before he declared martial law, and then counter-check it with what gloria is doing today.
i’ve always trusted my memory that when i read something, i really read it. it’s buried somewhere in this blog, but my inference in comparing gma to marcos lies in what i’ve read.
mlq3, bencard and i need your help. i know there is a historical account here somewhere that details marcos’ actions before he declared martial law. if it isn’t too much to ask, could you kindly provide us the link?
Clearly, what we have here is Lozada vs The Mob.
A situation that deserves a plug on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkIoJNxVJVc
Enjoy!
btw rego, Bush is indeed a dictator. the actions and decisions he made as president of the US have harmed the executive’s other 2 co-equal branch. he has over reached executive power and is not yet finished destroying the ideals which made america great.
rumors have floated that if Obama wins the nomination, he will be assassinated. comparisons with JFK will then be complete.
Allow me to show some parallels between Marcos and Arroyo, re “Martial Law” and “Emergency Rule”:
Witness their strikingly correlated language, an almost perfect isomorph:
Proclamation 1081 (Marcos)
“NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph (’2) of the Constitution, …, in my capacity as their commander-in-chief, do hereby command the armed forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.â€Â
Proclamation 1017 (Macapagal-Arroyo)
“NOW, THEREFORE, I Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution … in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.â€Â
Yesterday, Ferdinand Marcos. Now, Gloria Arroyo?
DevilsAdvc8, hawaiianguy:
Just an observation —
Invoking Marcos and Martial law in an argument is like Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies (see this link — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).
Lemme paraphrase it — “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Marcos or Martial Law approaches one.”
Lol.
hawaiianguy, yes I am lucky in a way, but that wasn’t always the case. I’ve always believed man – any man – always has a choice. Also, the situation for young graduates today is not as dire as it was for me during our time. There are so many options today that were not available to us. Back then, sobra pa yung preference for “exclusive” school grads – mas kawawa mga bata nun.
JMCastro, I hope one hero will surface before 2010 who is not a Trapo participating in this whole zarzuela, not a member of the opposition who is incapable of providing the people a better alternative, not overly-religious who will kill every attempt at population control – just one well-meaning person who can LEAD and turn things around for the country at this important juncture in our history. whatever criicisms against this government, there IS progress in the economy and we owe it to ourselves to make sure the gains of the past years are not wasted.
I wonder if the people can find another Panlilio like the Capampangans did?
If my reading of events proves right, Lozada’s testimony will not matter in the long run. This is not the tipping point for this administration so many have been waiting for. UNLESS, a paper trail can be provided to back his pronouncements in the Senate – or another witness steps forward (Neri?) to corroborate.
This is the big difference for EDSA 2 and Erap’s case…
“i’ve always trusted my memory that when i read something, i really read it. it’s buried somewhere in this blog, but my inference in comparing gma to marcos lies in what i’ve read.”
Oh sorry but I have to go with Bencard on this! ( again? but what can I do, this aging lawyer’s mind is just so sharp……..)
Kailangan ba talaga mag pa kampi kay Manolo????????????
Allow me to show some parallels between Marcos and Arroyo, re “Martial Law†and “Emergency Ruleâ€Â
Susginoo!!!!!!!!!!!!! di pa ba halatang obvious ang pag kakaiba sa pangalan pa lang. Hay naku tigilan ako !!!!!!!
qwert :
“gma has been president for more than 8 years and i have yet to see any hint of dictatorship in her governance†– Bencard
Maybe you meant “proof of dictatorshipâ€Â.
==========================================
Alright so where’s the proof????????????
BrianB :
Hi Bencard,
Listen to what my future cell mate says about GMA:
“President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a hardened criminal. She and her armed group will not cease attacking the rights of the people notwithstanding the international condemnation her government is getting,“ said Gabriela secretary general Emmi de Jesus.
BTW, I don’t really fear legal intimidation so don’t bother with the warnings. I’ve been accused before of “attempted murder.†He, this is true, I am not joking. The case never passed the investigative prosecutor but I had to deal with it for several months, almost a year. The only thing that guides me really is ethics. If I feel it is not right calling someone a name, I won’t do it no matter how annoyed I am of the person. I believe this is a country ruled by criminals, and this criminality trickles down. Even good people do illegal things because they believe they have to do. Lozada isn’t the only witness to this “tolerable crimes†in government.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I rally realy think you’re joking! And you are a writer at that?????????
btw rego, Bush is indeed a dictator. the actions and decisions he made as president of the US have harmed the executive’s other 2 co-equal branch. he has over reached executive power and is not yet finished destroying the ideals which made america great.
===============================================
thats what im saying………………
lol!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rego:”Susginoo!!!!!!!!!!!!! di pa ba halatang obvious ang pag kakaiba sa pangalan pa lang. Hay naku tigilan ako !!!!!!!”
Ay, oo nga pala, tama ka. Magkaiba nga ng spelling eh. Galing-galing mo pare ko! Bilib talaga ako sayo. Meron ka 200 dito.
asan?????? I’ll take it ! pakimail pls. I really really need additional cash para sa sprint bill ko!
sige bay (day?), paghulat diha.
“rumors have floated that if Obama wins the nomination, he will be assassinated. comparisons with JFK will then be complete.”
ayyy tsismoso ka ! bagay na bagay ka sa senado!!!!!!!!
I mean the “Palace.†I think lawyering should be taught in school. Nakakalito mga palusot na to.
oo nga obviously nakakalito ka brian! maybe you take a break from writing. try other profession, maybe???
sige bay (day?), paghulat diha.
di ko masyadong well versed sa cebuano o ilongo pero pahulat means hantayan mo, right? I really need it bai, migo. so ill anxiously wait for it!
Invoking Marcos and Martial law in an argument is like Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies (see this link  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law).
=======================================================
whats with this link???????? kalowkaHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
If my reading of events proves right, Lozada’s testimony will not matter in the long run. This is not the tipping point for this administration so many have been waiting for. UNLESS, a paper trail can be provided to back his pronouncements in the Senate – or another witness steps forward (Neri?) to corroborate.
I agree with you Mita. I do not think these “prosecutors” are really doing their job. Their obvious goal is to incite the people to rise just like Edsa 2.
They saw what the impeachment trial of GMA had brought shining moments to the members of the Senate who were seeking reelection.
They’re leaving it to the people to finish the job.
The difference between the impeachment of Erap and the investigations conducted by the current legislative body was that there so many paper trails in the first. The prosecutors did their research and Erap was so confident that his corruption will never be checked so that he was transparent even in his personal lives and justified influence peddling of his relatives and mistresses.
Amen amen, Mita!!!!!!!!!
He is just a hero because these people would like to bring down GMA.
For me he’s a party to the corruption that he’s talking about.
He’s coming out was just that he fears for his life and the chance to get a balato was also botched. Remember when he was interrogated by Honasan? He’s willing to receive commission or balato.
Remember when Neri asked him to moderate the greed which to me means ADJUST the project cost and hide commission somewhere.
Remember when I commented about the inability of Neri to explain how he was able to come up with the costing?
BECAUSE, it appears that the project cost was computed by Lozada himself . Kasama ang commission and possibly the balato if the project is going to be implemented.
Remember when he was interrogated by Pimentel about his travel to attend a conference in HK, the travel of papers of which was personally prepared by him? Pimentel’s inquiry showed that he was never a delegate to that conference. Meaning, he lied.
Okay, granting that he had a change of heart because his father reminded him to pay back his adoptive country but phulease, it pissed me off when he presented himself to be a witness because he cares for the Philippines and the Filipino people complete with dysfunctional tear duct. I hate teleserye.
(canned boos from the cats) meow.
And many of the people here would like me to stop discrediting him?
I do not have to. He is discrediting himself in the testimony. If the people here who are blinded by their hate to GMA would just read the NBN transcripts, they could find that the person is nothing but as you have a said, a thief himself given the chance.
The current crop of craps are smarter than the past ones for doing their crafts as they already had seen what happened to those with so much confidence that they will never get caught, Estrada as an example. Not only that there are no Paper Trails, but the layers of operators were thick by the time it gets to the active parties, they are all unaware of the Masters and if exposed DENY and that’s about it..a very well-planned by people who learned much from experienced and legalities..as for Lozada,there is a very Few High Government Officials, or maybe none that are not tainted with corruption and he is not a willing Hero.
He did his best not to appear before the Senate and even asking the Help of His boss named Atienza to avoid testifying under oath, because HE IS many skeletons to undug himself, but as the events developed, there were very few options left for a small fry against the pack of Sharks who were already feasting on the limited resources of the sea by their sheer brute force and insatiable appetite for more…that I OBSERVE…
“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.–Bencard
The people who will re-write it will be invited to malacanang, when they leave, glossy paper bag will be the item of the day.
“Okay, granting that he had a change of heart because his father reminded him to pay back his adoptive country but phulease, it pissed me off when he presented himself to be a witness because he cares for the Philippines and the Filipino people complete with dysfunctional tear duct. I hate teleserye.”
============================================
More so I really really hate hypocites….
Thank you so much to Ca T for really taking your precious time out to really unmask and condemn (?) this latest act of hypocrisy in our dear native land! Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!
Additional Observations: that is why in the past a max of 20% “kickbacks” will not raise an eyebrow, but as the Witness Lozada testimonies revealed, it has to be raised to the amount that even Him, a very smooth facilitator had a hard time working out. One of the reasons for this I believe is the number of Layers of operators to cover the Trails, hence a large sum to make them all happy. And of course the other one, the expensive cost of maintaining the experts, mostly the “after the facts” people to work as shield in case. like the people to spin, with never ending PR. correct the other inconsistencies. and some to attack directly at the “enemies”. More OBSERVATION As the saga develops…
And before the Oberver goes to sleep, Mr. Lozada has the MEDIA to thank, one of the most despised institutions in the country for his new lease of life. We just don’t want to speculate what would “have been”,what could have been, it not for the Media making such a ruckus. Long live the Media People, you still have a long way to go yourselves, but at least this One for You…
obserer, don’t forget the big one, the one who has the biggest cut of all, who can influence the queen anytime of day or night.
that one to observer, heheh.
Bert, To allay all fears that GMA may use the Charter to perpetuate herself to power, the best thing to do, is to give a grace period of say a year or two after her term expires before the Charter takes effect.
A Charter is not just good for a set period of time. It is lasting documents. Pierre Trudeau was scored, until today and was compared (to you know who?) when he, in one of his speech stated that the l982 Charter will last a Thousand Years. The problem is not that it is defective, but some worries that Trudeau made it hard for Future amendments or revision. but that just Trudeau
there’s a troller on the loose.
and i dnt think you’re the real rego who used to post in this blog. i’ve ready many of his posts, and it simply doesn’t have the troller quality you eminently display.
btw, it’s so much easier to simply ask for the link from manolo rather than digging in thousands of link posted in this blog, don’t you think?
magpakampi? lols. bencard can settle the question for himself once he reads the article im talking abt.
JMCastro, thank you for the condescending education. but now, let me wipe that smug smile from your face, by leading you back to your own link (na mali pa. the correct link is posted below) here are some things you should ponder upon
yes JM, your invocation is such an exception.
kaya i-lol mo ang sarili mo, dahil you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
Nope! Im the same rego you ve privately emailed using the name J…is that enough proof? The thing is devils, I just dont agree with you this time. What is a troll ba?
Nagtaaon lang that i dont have much time visting this blog these days kaya sinagadsagad ko na ang mga comments ko. Kaw naman compare that to the number of comments youve posted since Jan mas marami a rin yung comments mo!
God know when will I ever have the chance to visit this blog again. So pag bigayan nyo na ako. Hayaan nyo I will be finished with this drawing/arch. plan that Im doing by 8 am and this blog will be all yours again.
rego,
ok. my bad. you’ve proved your identity. but i still can’t believe you’d resort so low as to flamebaiting.
i know you better than that.
and btw, i missed some of your more “sober” posts.
so, kindly accept my apology for the accusation.
but in no way, is this blog mine, you know that.
i’m just a reader and poster, same as you.
Indeed an increase in number of baiters. I am glad that most bloggers can see through the ruse, best to ignore, mostly hot air anyway. We have to understand, they have to earn their pay.
Keeping emotion out of the equation has become too much to ask for, I guess. Logic thus suffers. Herd mentality arises, bordering on a witch hunt.
Hopefully, irrational behavior will not ensue…..
rego,
How was your project, natapos na ba? You seem so aggressive with your blogs, very different from the rego that we know, baka pati si Bencard manibago sa iyo.
DevilsAdvc8:
I really don’t know how to link properly, just copied and pasted the link from Wikipedia. If I hit a raw nerve, then I apologize.
Still, I honestly think that simply invoking Martial Law and Marcos is a definite dead-ender to any Philippine political discussion, and that was my opinion when I made my earlier post. If it strikes you as irreverent or lacking in humility, again I apologize.
Rego,
Your particular issue with Hawaiianguy is actually answerable within the quoted segment that you used.
“some parallels”- clearly indicates that there are “some” similarities but it does not mean that they are totally the same.
Your observation on the difference/s of the two therefore clearly lies outside the “some”.
BTW, this is at least the second time I’ve seen you put (what I believe to be) undue pressure on Bencard. But then, he might have a different view of it altogether.
Anyway, if you are going to finish your drawing/architectural plans by 8 AM; why does it come across that you’ll be having difficulty coming to this blog when it seems you won’t be working after 8 AM?
Mita:
If by hero you mean a viable presidential candidate who can radically turn the Philippine political system upside down within two years, I kinda doubt it.
I wish it is possible for the Philippines to gain a certain measure of, I dunno, political peace (for lack of a better term) necessary for people to just be productive, and to grow. For all his faults, I actually liked JDV Sr. for his capability to reach political accommodation if only because that is, in my opinion, the primary essential requirement for any growth, be it economic, political, social, or whatever.
GMA is pretty much lacking in this regard, any fight Madame gets into escalates to the point where the battles get ugly, and people stop working to take stock of the body count.
And I refuse to believe that “economic growth” for the past couple of years, fueled primarily by OFW remittances, is true growth, since it is at the expense of spending people capital, the most precious capital in the wealth of nations.
Lastly, I think Lozada’s testimony, which I think sounds true, warts and all, matters in the short and long run. No avalanche of counter-affidavits can knock a single affidavit supported by testimony that is truthfully delivered. If all it achieves is an education to the Filipino people about how corruption is done in the highest positions of government, then Lozada’s sacrifice is worth it.
“Bert, To allay all fears that GMA may use the Charter to perpetuate herself to power, the best thing to do, is to give a grace period of say a year or two after her term expires before the Charter takes effect.–vic
I cannot disagree with you on that, vic. All safeguards, and all good points of parliamentary form had been been discussed already and pointed out in various fora and in different guises, some sincere, some to misled. However it’s not the point. Your suggestion is easier said than done. I will repeat my previous statement(at 7:02 pm), anyone (or everyone) who will re-write a new charter will be invited to malacanan….
And you know how it is, if you won’t disregard our current history you will see that everything gloria wants gloria gets…by hook, or by other means.