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.
JMCastro, it is I who should apologize. i am being sucked into emotional arguments this last couple of posts. i know my reply to you is uncivil. i should’ve lessened my tone. im sorry.
but u must understand why i pointed out the limitation of invoking godwin’s law. it only applies when comparisons of nazi (or marcos) are drawn agst an opponent (or poster) and cannot hold true when valid comparisons are drawn (well, i believe them valid anyway. bencards disputes so)
eg. we are debating on a certain topic, perhaps democracy vs benevolent dictatorship. running out of arguments, i called you a nazi-loving pig for espousing benevolent dictatorship. that is an instant invitation to fall in the jaws of godwin’s law.
meanwhile, your instant invocation of godwin’s law fell to quirk’s exception. bec it is fallacious to invoke godwin’s law purely as a tool to rebut an opponent’s arguments, without proving why that opponent’s arguments fall into godwin’s law.
in short, you got lazy.
anywhoo, this is as close as i can get to a marcos in retrospect article (and boy, upon re-reading this thread, i discovered a lot of golden posts)
https://www.quezon.ph/?p=1515
i know there’s a phil free press article i read(am not sure), an interview with locsin maybe or someone i can’t remember enumerating marcos’ steps in demolishing the opposition and then finally declaring martial law.
that’s the one i can’t find.
And the heightened shrillness in the baiting too. They can “hijack the agenda” and try to change the focus of the discussions, and yeah some bloggers are willing to indulge them, however pointless, malicious, intellectually dishonest, or just plain stupid their arguments might be.
I used to pay some attention to them, but no more. If in my best judgment I gauge that the comments are intellectually dishonest, or coming from people na patuloy na nagtatanga-tangahan (o talagang tanga) then I mostly just ignore them. I mean, we have to accept that some people are just hopeless cases. My time is too precious to waste.
Ca T,
Though she didn’t proclaim herself to be one, Acsa Ramirez
is a hero (at least afaik).
But the government initially didn’t view her that way.
She came forward to the authorities to complain about the misdeeds of her boss.
And what did the government do?
PGMA along with NBI director Wycoco presented her before the media as a suspect in the very same crime that she came forward to divulge.
She later recounted that she (Acsa) wanted to die right there and then.
Bereft of protection that the government should have afforded her in the first place, the government not only humiliated her before the nation but actually endangered her life as well as her family’s by practically telling the actual individuals involved in misdeeds that it was she who is responsible as for whatever charges that will fall on them.
You had there a person who the government certainly didn’t view as a hero. The governmnent not only tried to portray her as a criminal but they seriously tried to charge her as one as well.
Nevertheless they did act on her claims.
Later on, some people were charged based on the claims Acsa made. Fortunately she wasn’t one of them.
Maybe Lozada is a hero, maybe he isn’t. He might indeed be a self confessed criminal.
But why does it seem that acting (by the authorities) on the claims of a self confessed criminal (given his government status and supposed involvement) would be different from acting (by the authorities) on the claims of someone whom the authorities seriously wanted to make out as a criminal?
Authorities acted on the claims of someone they considered as a criminal. Shouldn’t they act also on the claims of someone who could be a self confessed criminal (hopefully on issues that could incriminate more people than just the particular guy)?
If so; then whether one is considered a hero or not doesn’t really matter that much, does it.
Oooopppssss.
Heroine pala dapat.
Thanks, Justice, for pointing out the problem to Rego.
Also thanks Devils, for your explanation of that Goodwin law which, by itself, makes comparison too farfetched, even invalid.
Haven’t responded yet to JMCastro, but I hope your query is now settled. For a while, I thought I got an instant online education there. Maybe we can talk over a cup of coffee sometime? Ditto for Rego, promise, ako ang bangka. Hindi ka pala Bisaya, kasi nag asusginoo ka eh!
Ayu-aku’s post is sobering.
DevilsAdvc8:
The edginess and passion that you apply to your arguments are quite refreshing.
Right from the get go, it has never been my intent to dwell within the niceties of Godwin’s law (which I don’t consider a law, more like a social observation). That you want to run it down to the bitter end is really something else.
I have no doubts about the strength of emotion in your convictions. I will definitely aim for less levity in my future posts.
Ay_naku pala. Damned keyboard!
Hawaiianguy,
You’re welcome.
Self-crimination 13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Justice League, above is the Section 13 of our Charter dealing with self-crimination which I believe you will also find somewhere in the Philippines Charter..It states plainly like in the case of Lozada, as long as he does not perjure or contradict himself, the evidence that may incriminate him in his own testimonies may not be used against him..it is a mechanism to make sure that witnesses are not going to commit perjury so as to pervert justice for fear of getting into big trouble themselves in account of their testimonies..
Ingenuity, innovation and entreprenuership. The pinoy is really a marvel at it. The former Head Gatekeeper of the Electoral process became a de facto investment banker organizing and packaging a multibillion peso project on behalf of it seems Big Mike and GMA.
His capital became the power to grant electoral positions to his patrons.
The chief executive of the country is given the keys to the treasury.
A lot of people still do not see the serious implications of the present crisis in the country. For a predominantly landlord/comprador based economy trying to find a place in a world of financial capitalism coming apart. Financial markets are somewhat integrated but economies are still predominantly national. Modern societies are undergoing the shift from industrial capitalism to financial capitalism (industrialization to financialization)and emerging market economies are having the painful process of undergoing birth pangs in trying to safely integrate the coupling of financial markets into their weak underdeveloped economies.
The fight between the two proponents were the mode of paying for the project. The privatiation process would entail a little more transparency. The ODA loan package could be loaded with goodies. Keeping the technical parameters cloudy would give perosns concerned with oversight at bay. Even Neri himself had to call in his expert consultant in Lozada. Then it became simply a matter of how much would the boys share in the commission.
The one defining component of the industrialization process is the emergence and development of effective states. From the U.S. (soft intensity state capitalism)to the PRC (semi-hard intensity state capitalism)the state was a pro-active player in the developmental process. When the gold standard was abolished the power to create credit without limit by nation states (fiat currency) became the norm. GMA has started signing the present crop of Philippine currency notes. She signs on our behalf. She reigns with the consent of the governed (theoretically)and unfortunately it seems she is more concerned for her own families self-interest
In the context of the Philippine state it is still wrapped around the singular personality of autocrats. Big Mike and GMA and family believe themselves to be the state and the state is them.
The treasury is for them to use as they see fit. The Chinese government probably had no problem dealing with the government of Big Mike and GMA. They were dealing with the “Deciders.” Working in a semi-command autocratic system they were right at home in dealing with the Head Gatekeeper who was enabled not only by the royal couple but by key cabinet ministers and included the Speaker of the Congress.
For some minimizing this as a simple case of law enforcement is minimizing the the utter lack of the foundations that are necessary for the rule of law to operate. In a recent forum where a speech was delivered for Chief Justice Puno, he related the critical differnece between having a country governed under the rule of laws to one ruled by laws.
Under Big Mike and GMA the government is ruling by laws. They are the police, prosecutor, judge and executioner.
Low intensity facism that is simmering under the surface that could burst out in the open.
There is no credible opposition apart from the same type of outsiders to the gears of power supported by a still predominantly moribund Catholic heirarchy that still supports the idea of a neo-theocratic state.
The ugly vestige of the country’s colonial past.
Vic,
Is that automatic or does the person have to invoke a privilege or something?
Justice league, it’s a constitutional right, its automatic and can not be infringed.
A case right now, Guy Lafleur, the former biggest star of Hockey was charged of giving Contradictory Evidence during the testimony for his son (charged of sex offences) when he stated that he is making sure that his son was complying with the court bail conditions, when he was seen driving his son to meet his 16 year girlfriend..
Sorry the girl has nothing to do with son charges..among the bail condition that before the resolution of the case, the son is prohibited to have any meetings with girls…
JL, you may look at Charter of Rights and Freedoms Canada and go to legal rights. Actually the whole charter just 33 sections, very short, less than 20 pages. that is the basis of all challenges now and the reference to which new laws are drafted before they are enacted. because once the court dismissed the case on the challenge of the law constitutionality, then automatically that law has no longer any force and back to the drawing board..
Vic,
Just to clarify your claim; what if for instance while testifying on the case of his son, Guy Lafleur suddenly declares that he stole 10 million Dollars from some company or murdered someone; is that kind of information no longer usable on him?
But I’ll try to see your Charter tonight. Saw your post on the new thread but I just scanned that thread. I’ll read more of it tonight.
Ca T,
So if Lozada is not treated a hero and just given a deal to lessen his would be sentence so long as he provides information for the conviction of other guilty parties; would that be fine with you now?
Justice league, I believe the intention of the provision is for the testimonies to the Proceedings or the one that is being heard..in your scenario Guy would be confessing to a crime unrelated to the case of his son which he was a witness…never heard a case yet in your example..
Anyways Lafleur surrendered already as warrant was issued for his arrest. a minor cover-up of father to his very spoiled son that just didn’t escape the eyes of the law..
Vic,
THis is definitely my last post for the morning.
The nearest thing approximating your idea is the one on our Bill of rights wherein
“Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
With emphasis on “compelled”.
We invoke the privilege against self incrimination here. Not exactly as seemingly automatic as yours.
But this hero treatment is just a hype to make him a credible witness. It’s all in the package–the presence of the nuns, the crying “moments” and the abduction scenario.
Unfortunately, I am not convinced.
So who’s preventing him to stop testifying. He’s already in the Senate. Is this the kind of witness that claim he’s doing it for the country. When further asked about the conversation between Neri and Arroyo, he refused to divulge what he knew because it was given in confidence to him by who else–Neri. Therefore, he’s much concerned about Neri than the Filipino people who’s seeking for the truth.
Read the transcript:
Ano siya pari na hindi puwedeng sabihin ang ikinumpisal?
JL, Thanks and goodnight..and the beauty of our Charter once violated even the authorities are subject of being sued..
Re: “Ano siya pari na hindi puwedeng sabihin ang ikinumpisal?”
Agree with the Cat!
Put up or shut up is what I say. These dithering tactics are not gonna advance his cause.
Ano siya pari na hindi puwedeng sabihin ang ikinumpisal?
— Ayon naman po ang malisyosang interpretasyon ng isang taong di marunong umintindi. Di nya maintindihan na ang dahilan ni Lozada ay dahil si Neri ay nagsabing confidential ito at sila po ay magkaibigian. Sheesh, wala siguro syang kaibigan kasi kaya di nya maintindihan ito.
At MBW, these are not “dithering tactics”. If you saw the testimony of Lozada when he was being asked about NEri, he felt very discomfited. So what tactics? I mean give the guy some space and some pity! We are asking too much of this guy who has almost given up everything! In the first place, it is other people who are treating him as if he is a hero.
Sabi niya ginagawa niya para sa Bayan at sa Pilipino.
Bakit tameme siya noong tinanong siya na ang sagot pwedeng magpahamak kay Neri?
Ano ba una? Bayan o kaibigan. Para sa sinasabing hero?
Nakuha mo? hindi kailangan yan ng interpretasyon o napakalim para saiyong intindihin?
Ikaw ang sagsasabing hero sya — hindi sya. Sheesh. The pressure must be placed on Neri — not him, because Lozada obviously reached a point na he values his friendship with Neri. O ano — have you not ever reached a point that you want to protect a friend or a family member? Sheesh! You lack humanity in your accusations — shows in how much you want to discredit a person who spoke out the truth!
Cat,
I think you dont get it. Nagreklamo sya na ginamit nya ang credit card nya dun sa trip nya sa Hong Kong kasi he was sent there by Atienza on the pretext of attending a seminar on forstry pero hindi naman pala naka registro as one of the participants ang Pilipinas.
Bakit ginugulo pa natin ang issue bakit hindi natin aminin na cover up ang lahat.Kung talagang walang anomalya ang NBN-ZTE deal bakit hindi ipinagpatuloy ang programa. Anong ebidensya pa ba ang kailangan? Of course, hindi naman pwedeng ilagay sa contrata na may kickback si Abalos at FG ng 132 m USD. Only a die hard malacanang lackey will try to muddle the testimony of Lozada by raising irrelevant detail like- he cried.
Cat,
Sorry, i dont have time to check previous posts for your errors. Pero there you go again, nagpapakafeeling lawyer with your new post (see below)–
“As a forensic would define hearsay; even a witness’ testimony is a hearsay if it can not be substantiated with hard evidences.”
haha saang law book galing definition mo? magconsult ka naman minsan sa lawyer before shooting your mouth of. libre naman sa PAO (in city hall) if you cant afford one eh. and while youre at it consult an english teacher too.
“Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh”, as you are wont to say 😉
Nagmagaling ka naman, baka di mo pa naintindihan ang forensic experts.
Kilala mo lang siguro yong mga notaryo publiko sa city hall ninyo. Hindi lahat trial lawyer, gets mo.
Palagay ko ikaw may kailangang magkonsulta sa English teacher.
if you <cant afford one eh. and while youre at it consult an english teacher too.
We’ll in the first place, he knew why he was being sent.
He was communicating with Atienza until he panicked and changed his mind.
PANIC lang yon sa kaniya kaya siya sumigaw ng ABDUCTION. Otherwise, he was being treated like a VIP for his protection.
b. vodka,
A forensic expert is not necesarily a lawyer. In fact, most of them are anthropologists, criminologists, chemists, biologists. In the Philippines, anthropologist Jerome Baylon (hope I spelled his name right) from UP is an example.
Yes, he knew why he was being sent kaya nga he should not foot the bill. Hindi nya kagustuhan pumunta ng Hong Kong. I could imagine his dilemna between facing the senate investgation and spill all that he knew that will expose himself and his loved ones to peril or pehaps doing a jocjoc volante.
Ikaw kaya malagay sa kalagayan nya magsasalita ka ba o po-protektahan mo si GMA?
ang nag pa-panic ang administration because of Jun Lozada’s testimony they wouldn’t know where to bury their faces. Yan kung hindi pa gaanong makapal ang mukha nila
again, Cat, irrelevant na kung nag panic sya o hindi ang punto rito na expose nya kabahuan ng Malacanang at mga nasa likod ng contrata. Kung ako kay jocjoc volante, i will also do a Lozada kesa habang buhay syang nagtatago. kung talagang wala syang gnawa he can face any investgation
His expose is no longer news. It has already been exposed by Neri. What additional material evidences did he present to strengthen the accusations hurled to Abalos and FG?
He was still pointing to Neri as the last person who can
really link Malacanan to the NBN fiasco.
Again accusations will remain accusations without the evidences. Even a confession can still be excluded as evidence if it was obtained in an unlawful manner. Sad but true but that is how the law operates and how it is interpreted.
bakit niya pinoprotectahan si Neri? Why is he withholding information if he’s really sincere in exposing the corruption in the government?
And why are you asking me? In the first place, I would not be in his predicament because if I hate corruption, I will not involve myself in any transaction where I will be tempted to commit one. Nabasa mo ba ang blog ko entitled Keep the Change?
alam nyo sa totoo lang itong mga last statement ni lozada nag sisinungaling na sya para bang na brief na sya ng mga opposition na nasa senado. halata kasing nabubuko sya nitong mga huling statement ng mga tao na sangkot din sa pag dukot kay lozada. sila-sila rin ang maghahati-hati ng kick-back ng mga iyan kaya tumahimik nalang kayo sa kaka alaskador puro pariho lang kayo mag trabaho na ngalang kayo at wag na kayong maki sali sa gulo ng gobyerno lalo lang gugulo baka mamaya kunin pa kayong witness hala patay kayo sa ka popost nyo ng mga walang kwentang comento.
Kung nagsisinungaling si Lozada, ipakulong! Kung hindi, ipakulong ang mga magnanakaw na kanyang itinuro!
sabi ni j-lo hindi daw sila nag-uusap ni lacson, ngayon si lacson na mismo ang nagsabi kinausap niya si j-lo!
hayyyyyyy naku!
ang gulo ni j-lo!
From the Cat-what his expose is no longer news.
Well we know for a fact that Neri in the initial investigation by the Senate revealed only the 200 million promised to him by Abalos should the contract pushed through. But Lozada said that the entire price was overpriced by so much (132 m usd)supposedly as kickback of Abalos and FG. This one is something new.
just consider it another chismis session in the senate..
Liam Tinio, why don’t you answer this challenge to you by ricelander in the above thread –
“So you think the project is aboveboard and therefore defensible. If you were the President how would you react to this “scandalâ€Â?
As for me, if I were the President I would assemble experts who will defend the project, gather all those involved in every step, get all the documents, and challenge all and everyone to a debate. Number for number. Technology for technology.
What did the government do to defend the project: cancel the project, make part of the documents disappear, invoke executive privilege, and so on and so forth. Looks counterintuitive to me, but it’s probably just me and the few among here.
Anyway, if you were the President, and your bastard enemies are insinuating you are a thief, how would you do it?”
[b]So you think the project is aboveboard and therefore defensible. If you were the President how would you react to this “scandal�[/b]
if i were the president and this really was my pet project, i would do it exactly as ricelander said it.
ricelander: “As for me, if I were the President I would assemble experts who will defend the project, gather all those involved in every step, get all the documents, and challenge all and everyone to a debate. Number for number. Technology for technology.”
but as far as i know, this project wasn’t one of her priorities.. it was one of the MANY proposals that went through because of influential backing, which i think is not bad, since almost all projects start this way..
she just scrapped it because its irritating.. and its ruining the momentum.. plus its non essential.. there are other things that needs her urgent attention..
[b]Anyway, if you were the President, and your bastard enemies are insinuating you are a thief, how would you do it?â€Â[/b]
she’s receiving the same allegations day-in day-out. but unless they come up with evidence STRONG ENOUGH TO OUST HER, let them do and say whatever they want for she is preoccupied with other things she thinks will be good for the country..
UNLESS THE EVIDENCE(THERE ISNT EVEN EVIDENCE) IS STRONG AND COMPELLING ENOUGH THIS ISSUE DOES NOT DESERVE A SINGLE WORD FROM HER MOUTH..
only evidence would spring her into action
nash wrote:
“Whatever happened to the hard-hitting TV journalist who exposed corruption and helped the poor back when he had a weekend TV show?
NOLI de CASTRO.
Where is he? Did he vanish? Shall we send out a search party”
—
No need to send out a search party, he wants to be lost. He’s been lost for some time now. Somewhere along the way he lost his b*lls.
the project was supposed to give the poor citizens access to infomation. if you listen to her minions defend this project at the onset of Lozada’s testimony, the project seemed to do the citizens so much good that’s why the price. And if this is not her priority at all why bother negotiate with the chinese.
Let face there were and are corruptions going on, the only problem most of them, even the Senators pretending to expose them are all in the Game, otherwise Estrada would have not been convicted for Plunder..Marcos would have not been designated as the Top Ten among the Most Corrupt Leaders of the World and Joc-Joc is still somewhere in the U.S. and nobody wants him home, because he too knows too much and those that had already put their shares in some safe places would rather see rot somewhere and by the Way somehow was really Indebted to Mr. Abalos for a very coveted Post of the Land and people still wondering why he was involved in the NBN deal..just circumstantial evidence that means squat in the Philippines that even a rock solid “hard” evidence easily melted by a handful of brown envelop or boxes of milk cartoons..saw that picture of Mike D. getting back his 50 grand..El Chepo…If it’s 50 millions he won’t be seeing it back..
i think the faa downgrade with regards to the state of our airport is very laudable. they have a foresight that our airports are not safe. so countries who care for their citizens quickly issued travel advisories, not only our airports are poorly equipped, people can get kidnapped even in the tube. i think this govenment wont make such advisories, very improbable!
serkastic,
If this administration really wants to, you can get kidnapped anywhere.
Ca T,
Before the likes of Clarisa Ocampo surfaced in the impeachment of then President Estrada; the major witness against him was Chavit Singson.
Like Lozada; somehow some people regarded Singson as a hero.
Like Lozada, Singson somehow feared for his life; on a supposed assassination attempt brought about by an alleged traffic violation wherein policemen tried to pull over his vehicle. Afterwards he made the revelation on the scams then president Estrada was supposed to have been involved in.
Unlike Lozada however, Singson chose not to surround himself with nuns. Instead he chose to hide behind Cardinal Sin.
And infront of the good Cardinal; Singson unabashedly cried. I can’t remember if there were tears though but I’ll just guess that there were.
And instead of pronouncing that he was denouncing the scams because of his love for the country; he stated that he was doing it as his penance, as his moral crusade, that he was doing it for the future of the Filipino children, etc……
When a bribery ledger was brought forward in the impeachment trial, a bribery ledger that came from Singson; Singson was asked the real identity of some of the codenames contained.
Singson obliged.
AS stood for Asiong Salonga and referred to President Estrada and then so forth.
But pressed for the identities of CERTAIN codenames like RC etc… , Singson appeared reluctant. He gave excuses after excuses but the real identities couldn’t be extracted from him.
Could it be that the identites of certain individuals were more important than the future of the Filipino children?
And then came the likes of Clarissa Ocampo.
Maybe if the claims of Lozada are pursued; someone with the credibility of the likes of A Clarissa Ocampo might just come along. Or then maybe not.
But are YOU willing to give the Lozada claim a chance?
The presence with Cardinal Sin, the crying moment, the supposed assassination attempt; in the end, it didn’t adversely affect the claims of Singson.
So does the supposed “packaging” of Lozada affect you that much?
Vic,
Sorry but I just can’t read the Canadian Charter tonight.
Maybe next time.
Oooopppss.
I meant impeachment trial of then President Estrada.