Good night, Louie Liwanag

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Good night, Louie Liwanag
Sunday, 04 26, 2009

They say that when the heart is full, the mouth could not speak. Especially when what fills the heart is grief, when an unspeakable sorrow burdens the heart, no words are adequate to express this grief.

At best, albeit with great disbelief, one could only surrender to the infinite will and wisdom of the Almighty, and running out of words to say, simply cry out: “God’s finger touched Louie last night, and he slept.”

As what Consul General Eduardo de Vega did, when he roused me from my sleep last Wednesday morning with that e-mail all the way from Barcelona, Spain, informing everyone in the Sigma Rho Fraternity that Luis C. Liwanag II, undersecretary in the Department of Budget and Management, is dead at 61.

I am in the middle of a dreadful dream, I told myself. Or the recipient of a cruel prank.

How could Louie Liwanag be dead, when it was not long ago when I saw him in the pink of health, his infectious laughter resonating at the Edsa Shangri-La during the platinum fraternity ball of the Sigma Rho? He was with his son Lean, and we talked a lot about our sons whom we hoped would turn out to be better Sigma Rhoans than we have been or could ever be.

How could Louie venture into that undiscovered bourne from which no traveller would ever return, when he has yet to finish the second revision of a book he was writing which would have enlightened us about the management styles of the five presidents he had served? The chapter on Arroyo’s “experimental conjugal management” would have made for an interesting reading.

How could we lose this magnificent specimen of manhood who played low-handicap golf, drove a mean backhand volley at tennis, ran the full course of marathons and, without even trying, could beat Rene Saguisag in his prime at ballroom dancing?

How we wish we could divert that unalterable move of the Divine Finger so that, by the sheer force of our faith, we could tempt it to rouse Louie from that deep sleep of peace!

Here was a man who, it seemed to us, could not — would not — stop for death… because he was too engrossed in the business of living. And what a life it was! Louie was the crowning glory of the Sigma Rho in his generation. He convened the Inter-Fraternity Council to stem the violence and mayhem that often erupted as a result of juvenile exuberance on campus. To provide healthy outlets for the brawn, he spearheaded the Olympics of Fraternities. To channel the combative urges of the brain, he sponsored debates between student groups. His erstwhile mentor, lawyer Domingo Pauig of Cagayan, recalls that during Louie’s term as grand archon of the Sigma Rho, membership reached an all-time high, and members of the fraternity, inspired by his leadership, rose to supremacy by grabbing the helm of practically all campus organizations.

So it was not by mere whimsy or fanciful notion that the then UP Law dean Irene Cortes described Louie as “Mr. Management Man.” Dean Cortes saw how Louie managed the fraternity in a fashion no different from what a skillful CEO does with his organization. As grand archon of the Sigma Rho, Louie saw to it that its resources — its resident members and alumni — were fully harnessed for effectual activities.

UP Law professor Bartolome Carale had nothing but praises for Louie, thus: “Grand Archon Liwanag leaves behind him a fraternity that will cherish a legacy of intellectual craftsmanship, political acumen and a warm and genial leadership.”

This warm and genial leadership, to say the least of Louie’s attributes, had been very much in evidence as Louie, starting from the administration of Ferdinand Marcos down to that of Gloria Arroyo, went the rounds of executive positions in the Public Estates Authority, Marina, LRTA, NHA, BIR, and Malacañang as senior deputy executive secretary.

With all his accomplishments at a very young age, and the network he had built, he was being enticed to enter politics. But Louie demurred, preferring to work in silence within the confines of the executive branch.

The general public will remember Louie very well in a TV footage and in news photos of him lazing at the swimming pool of President Fidel Ramos, together with El Tabaco himself, right after Ramos relinquished the presidency to his successor, former President Joseph Estrada. That intimate photo showed the trust and the camaraderie that Ramos placed in, and enjoyed with, Louie, who, despite his outer bonhomie and affable persona, was a competent, dedicated and serious public servant.

On Sundays, a smaller section of the public saw Louie in yet another light of his multifaceted personality: As lay minister at mass at the Malate Church — near where he grew up and went to school at UP Prep and La Salle. A still smaller section of the congregation were privy to the knowledge that Louie was an active member of the Opus Dei, a piety that Louie never flaunted up to his dying day.

And on a personal level that involved the members of his immediate family, he even kept the secret of his surgical operation at the UST Hospital away from his wife and children in order to shield them from needless grief and distress.

Louie was a beautiful soul whose life should teach us not to grieve in the face of death. Truly, Louie died of having passionately lived a life of cheerful radiance, quiet steadfastness, dedication to duty, and familial devotion. He lives on through his wife Ena, children Lean, Trix and Louise, and his fraternal comrades in the Sigma Rho led by lawyer Rey Regalado.

We will miss his friendship, his infectious laughter. We will miss his leadership. We will miss the type of public service that only he could render.

Good night, Louie.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2009

Aching for due process (Lacson vs.Villar)

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Aching for due process
Sunday, 04 19, 2009

I had a long talk over the weekend with my good friend Rolex Suplico, vice-governor of Iloilo, regarding the Order of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges (CET) declaring the complaint of Senator Jamby Madrigal against former Senate president Manuel Villar as sufficient in form and substance.

The complaint of Madrigal has to do with the alleged use by Villar of his position and influence to relocate or reroute a road extension project in such a way that the road, seemingly by happenstance, would now cut across his properties, and to negotiate the overpriced road rights-of-way through such properties.

Suplico and I are in agreement on one thing: the Order betrays the lack of impartiality on the part of the CET – or, at least, those who signed the Order. [Senators Loren Legarda and Mar Roxas refused to sign the Order]. And I may add: the premature release of the Order - before it could be deliberated by the entire membership of the committee and signed by those who agree with its contents - is a trial balloon to test which way the winds of public reaction blow.

Whoever released the resolution was either deliberately careless or ill-advised, and deserves to reap the scorn and derision of the public for such recklessness. Rather than build up a case against Villar, the Order – or what its contents purport to convey – has weakened the case against Villar and effectively ousted the CET of its jurisdiction to investigate the complaint of Madrigal.

Section 17 of the Rules governing investigations by the CET clearly states that “After the Committee receives a sworn or verified complaint against any Member of the Senate, it shall give notice to the respondent that it will determine within five days form receipt of the complaint whether the complaint has complied both in form and substance...”

Simply put, the determination of sufficiency in form and substance of a complaint can be made only after deliberations by the CET. Absent such deliberations, absolutely no resolution or order can be validly adopted, much less released.

As it now stands, the Order signed and released without the benefit of the entire membership of the CET discussing the merits and demerits of the complaint of Madrigal, is already a pre-judgment of Villar’s guilt, and effectively denies Villar of his right to adduce evidence to prevent a full-blown hearing before the CET. Suplico is right when he insists on “deliberations first before a decision, and not the other way around.”

Before the CET, Villar does not stand a ghost of a chance of expecting any dose of impartiality. Its chairman already has delivered a privilege speech on the matter (or one closely related to it). Four of the five regular members of the CET are themselves presidential wannabes like Villar. So, what verdict could Villar expect but crucifixion, in order that he shall have lost all credibility to stand for election in 2010?

Until now, I still wonder why the rule in many parliaments disqualifying a member (of an ethics committee) from participating in the initial review or investigation of any complaint filed or initiated by him, is not being observed at the Senate. The Senate Rules could be silent on this disqualification rule, but there is always this unwritten rule nonetheless: a member may disqualify himself, at his discretion, e.g., out of a sense of delicadeza.

It could even be conjectured that the CET, as presently constituted, will milk the issue as far as it possibly could, and leave it twisting in the wind, without any final resolution, even until Congress adjourns in February next year for the national campaign period.

These days at the Senate, knowing nods and mischievous winks are exchanged among staffers and cognoscenti every time they note that Proposed Senate Resolution No. 706 was filed way back on October 8, 2008 - yet it is only now that the CET is moving on the complaint of Madrigal! Translation: through this delay, Villar’s presumptive opponents in 2010 sitting in the CET can possibly serialize the hearings, keep the issue alive in the public’s mind without necessarily resolving it, to the point that Villar will be hard-pressed to defend himself against the accusation of graft, corruption and impropriety.

Suplico, who is counsel for Villar, should pursue another tack. He should counsel Villar to himself propose in plenary that he is willing to submit himself to the judgment of his peers, before a special committee created for the purpose of investigating the complaint of Madrigal. The special committee should not include among its members any one of those perceived to be running for the presidency in the 2010 elections. And the special committee should be given a deadline to finish its work, say, 30 days from its constitution and well before November 30, 2009, which the Commission on Elections has fixed as the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy.

It is Villar’s right to boycott the proceedings before the CET. After all, he cannot expect to be heard and tried by an impartial body. Being a committee that has been ousted of its jurisdiction for not being impartial, the CET should not expect Villar to submit his Answer to the complaint of Madrigal.

Impartiality is at the root of due process. As my students in law school introduced to the precise application of the Bill of Rights very well know, due process is “nothing more and nothing less than the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.”

Due process can only be observed and honored by unbiased minds, by senators shorn of arbitrariness, who will not benefit whichever way the special committee will resolve the complaint of Madrigal against Villar.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2009

Mar Roxas and the lawyers

ENQUIRY

DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Mar Roxas and the lawyers
Sunday, 04 05, 2009

The other week I was in Bacolod for the national convention of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). At one point in the swirling bonhomie that invariably ensues whenever lawyers congregate, a compañero (Mengdu Pauig of Cagayan) took me aside, and in a mock-whisper said: “Whoever managed to get Mar Roxas to speak should be haled to the Commission on Bar Discipline, there to explain why a non-lawyer must be foisted on lawyers like us who are simply out to comply with the requirement that one must attend a convention to be certified as a member in good standing of the Philippine Bar. After all, a lawyer is expected to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues.”

I could see what Mengdu meant, or, in the strangely un-legalese lingo of colleagues fresh out of law school, where he was coming from.

And where I’m coming from, it does seem that Mar’s participation in the convention was downright “discourteous” to the lawyers present. Because Mar’s wit and wisdom on things legal was a marvel, and I’d be damned if it didn’t emphasize the obvious: That one need not be a lawyer to be able to speak well on legal matters.

Mar’s presence was very “unfair” to some, because it distracted the very serious few in that convention away from the serious business outlined in the agenda. Just imagine the controlled chaos in the photo-ops that ensued after his much applauded speech.

And Mengdu, it seemed, thought that whoever invited Mar was less than “candid,” not forthright about one’s intentions. Mar was brought to Bacolod ostensibly to speak on Upholding the Rule of Law, but, truly, he was brought to be presented as someone to consider among the choices for the presidency of the land.

Mar’s introduction by law professor Abe Estrada, governor of IBP Northern Luzon, was a work of art that relied on a lot of not so subtle titillations. Abe did say that Mar will be the “next President of the Philippines,” but he was cautious enough to say that it all depends on the integrity of the automated elections come May 2010. Abe was profuse with details about the achievements of Mar as a legislator, which was a nice way of saying that if one is an anti-corruption advocate, then he is clean, and therefore the exact opposite of the incumbent president; if one can protect the consumer and the market vendor, the small-time depositor, or the mother who bought a dream for her son, then he can make a good president, very much unlike the incumbent whose protection extends only to choice liars and crooks.

You got to hand it to Abe — he knew how to situate Mar. For his performance, Abe could be a shoo-in for a Cabinet post under a Roxas presidency, not the least of which should be in the Justice department where he and Mar could wage battle for justice for all, an advocacy Abe is very much familiar with in his work at the IBP.

Abe and his delegation — lawyers Richard Tumaneng of Laoag and Mia Cawed of Baguio, among them — had bragging rights to have their pictures taken with Mar after his speech. I stayed away, under my erroneous impression of what constitutes political activity. I have always thought that the IBP is strictly non-political, and that every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized. But, then again, what is politics but public service in disguise, as Tony Blair may have proposed as a definition.

Mar’s performance brought the IBP down to earth. Here is a presidentiable who is not afraid to flirt with defeat rather than go all-out for victory by bending the law at every turn. His speech must have tugged at the heartstrings of some lawyers and politicians then present, who seek victory even by foul means. Anyway, I’m sure the lawyers aspiring to lead the IBP in a national election year learned about decency from Mar.

Mar’s speech — including how he dealt with the handiwork of politicians in the Legacy Group who obviously know how to use the law to plunder depositors’ monies and smother pre-need beneficiaries’ dreams — exhibited the remarkable intelligence required of a president who is a non-lawyer, the firm grasp by a non-lawyer of a true sense of fairness and justice, and the sincerity of a leader who must grapple with the niceties of the law even as he protects the rights of his constituents.

Here is Mar who is honest enough to admit before a throng of politicians - rather, before the academy of future politicians - that he is one of them; and that being a politician is an honorable calling for as long one adheres to the Rule of Law, be honest about it, and live it for others. I liked particularly that statement of Mar when he said “the presidency is a gift of the people that a politician deserves only if he earns it.”

Incensed that he was over the moves for Charter change — not because it will dash his hopes of ever running for president next year, but because it is an abhorrent path to power — Mar had some sobering words to the lawyers: You could be much more powerful and honorable if only you will advocate Charter change in accordance with the Constitution.

Should Mar get to that Palace by the murky river, I have only one request of him: Do away with the detritus in that river, the horrific and tragic scraps of the incumbent president’s failure to rely on her lawyers’ wise advice and her over-reliance on one lawyer’s bedroom advice.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2009

A grand deception

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

A grand deception
Sunday, 03 29, 2009

That is how former Senate President Frank Drilon of the Liberal Party describes the move to amend the Constitution through the resolution drafted by Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte.

The resolution calls “upon the members of Congress to convene for the purpose of considering proposals to amend or revise the Constitution, upon a vote of three-fourths of all the members of Congress.”

So whence lies the deception? The subterfuge lies in the seemingly innocent call for the convening of a Constituent Assembly (Con-ass) that would not extend the terms of office of the President and the Vice President and all other elective officials, the assurance that the term of the senators elected in 2007 would not be shortened, and the commitment that there will be elections in May 2010.

No one can argue with all these. But the devil lurks behind the motive and the details.

Here is the plan, as Drilon sees it: Gather the votes of at least 197 members of the House of Representatives to initiate Charter change (Cha-cha) through a Con-ass, bypass the Senate, thereby precipitating a justiceable controversy where the Supreme Court will eventually rule that “three-fourths vote of all members” means “the whole of the members of Congress or the entire or total thereof and not three-fourths of each House voting separately.” With the issue settled as to how a Con-ass can be convened and propose constitutional amendments, the House of Representatives in the 15th Congress, which at that time will have been dominated by former President-turned Rep. Gloria Arroyo of Pampanga and her minacious minions, will then convene as a Con-ass to author a shift to the parliamentary form of government so that she can now aspire to be prime minister and rule the country beside her now largely ceremonial President.

Of course, the Drilon scenario has to contend with many possibilities, not the least of which is the matter of the composition of the House of Representatives after the May 2010 elections. After all, given the current mood of the nation, Arroyo and her minions may not be able, in May 2010, to elect to the House the required number of 197 members who can ram Cha-cha down our throats via a Con-ass.

But it does make sense to foist, broadcast, upload and dump this scenario on the general populace to make the people vigilant and discerning in their choices for president, and for senators and representatives of the House. The ultimate question to be posed then to a candidate in the May 2010 elections is: Will you support a shift to a parliamentary form of government?

If a presidential candidate all too willingly supports a shift to a parliamentary form of government, then there is a great chance that this candidate, if he becomes president, would most likely be all too eager to become a ceremonial president to a Prime Minister Arroyo.

If a senatorial candidate, without batting an eyelid, says he is in favor of a shift to a parliamentary form of government, then there is a great chance that this candidate, if he becomes a senator, would most likely be all too willing to accept the proposition that the 197 votes of the House will suffice to initiate Cha-cha via a Con-ass.

If a candidate for a congressional seat publicly announces that he favors a shift to a parliamentary form of government, then there is a great chance that this candidate, if he gets elected as representative, would most likely be all too enthusiastic to enlist in the RAM — the “Retain Arroyo Movement” — in the House of Representatives which will conveniently ram through the constitutional amendment that will make a prime minister out of Arroyo.

So I say again at the risk of being prolix: It does make sense to foist, broadcast, upload and dump this scenario on the general populace, in order that the justiceable controversy that the Villafuerte resolution seeks to insidiously precipitate will never come within an arm’s length of the Supreme Court.

Right now, the resolution is short of 20 members needed to get past the threshold of 197 members voting in favor. We do not know who the deceitful 177 are. But we do know a few, most notable of which are Arroyo’s sons, the presumptive Speaker from Tacloban, and the proponent of the resolution. They have been flaunting the number 177 for many months now, which is transparent doublespeak and party-babble that betrays the fact there are actually many holdouts who refuse to enlist in the RAM. Possibly, the inability of Arroyo, et al. to get more converts for the RAM is a function of the stream of scandals in the administration: Anyone who wants to run in 2010 should keep his distance from the RAM, lest he be contaminated by the stench, swept away by the tide of public disgust and rejection, and thereby be consigned to the kangkungan of the elections. This RAM faces the very real possibility of being exposed as a helpless ewe.

Drilon and his Liberal Party are making the right choices this time. His presidential candidate, Mar Roxas, is also pursuing the right advocacies. (Roxas won a lot supporters, with a big help from IBP Gov. Abe Estrada of Northern Luzon, during the 18th IBP National Convention in Bacolod last Friday — and that’s an indication, if at all, that a lot of level-headed people are listening to him). Except for the LP, no other political party and its members have been consistent in this one issue on Cha-cha.

Now, if Drilon and Roxas can wrangle their herd, and prevail upon the (sheepish) party members in the House of Representatives to never affiliate with the RAM, then they can count on a grateful electorate who will not allow wool to be pulled over their eyes again in 2010.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2009

Nicole, look at what you’ve done (1)

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Nicole, look at what you’ve done (1)
Sunday, 03 22, 2009

I found this long letter slipped through the door to my office, with a note requesting that it be inserted (no pun intended) in my space in The Daily Tribune:

Dear Nicole,

I address you by your nom de plaisir because that is how the entire Philippines knew you, instead of the lady from Zamboanga who hogged the headlines three years ago (has it been that long already? - my, my, how time flies!) in a celebrated “rape” case committed by a Yankee serviceman who thought he was having a good time when he dumped you by the roadside, semen stains in parts of your body, your undergarments still around your legs, after he had his fun.

I would not know whether you still go by that name by now, as you savour your newfound freedom in anonymity somewhere in the land of the brave.

Our macho hearts cheered for you when you showed us how brave you were during the trial (you had wanted to see your “abuser” get the death penalty, don’t you remember?) and, sure enough, you secured a conviction. You were brave enough to stay within the country within three years after that conviction, and fight the appeal from the decision convicting your rapist. But, alas, you were not brave enough to carry on the fight until the very end.

Or, rather, you were brave enough to have executed an affidavit the contents, meanings, and intentions of which are as varied and numerous as the individuals who care to dissect it. And you are gone, possibly forever, nowhere to tell us what you really intend with the affidavit. If, by chance, you read this letter, do tell us:

Were you really raped or not? Did you recant or not? Were you paid to execute that affidavit? Do you think that affidavit is enough to acquit your alleged rapist? Do you realize that you may be monkeying around with the Philippine justice system? Are you really gone for good, never again to cause the furor you have inflicted on us all? Did you have the fate of the VFA in mind when you made a sudden change in tune? Did you sign the affidavit knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently? Are you sure you were not drunk when you signed the affidavit, like the same state you now claim you were in on that accursed and fateful night in Subic?

I’d like to ask many more questions and answer them myself, but I’m sure my answers would just be as speculative(?) as yours.

But what is certain is that your affidavit and your departure for the land of the brave has caused a lot of trouble to many.

For one, let us take the trouble that the lawyers in the law firm that prepared and notarized your affidavit will have to grapple with.

I heard your lawyer (or to be precise, your ex-lawyer) rightly say that the lawyers in the law firm that drafted your affidavit may possibly be haled to the disciplinary processes of the legal profession. She could be referring to the enforcement of this ethical canon decreeing thus: “A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of a controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel, and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law.” (Canon 9, Canons of Professional Ethics - ABA).

Lawyer Ursua probably had in mind Canon 8 of our own Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that “A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues,” or the sacrosanct phrase in the Lawyers’ Oath avowing “good fidelity” in one’s conduct as a lawyer.

I’m sorry if all these lawyerese seems to bewilder you, but then, you yourself showed an admirable ease with lawyerly lingo in that affidavit. My dear Nicole, you even came out like a lawyer for the defense!

The rule governing communicating with adverse parties has a reason, and it is a simple one. Let me quote this one from Professional Responsibility 1985 by Aronson, Devine & Fisch: “The rule is to prohibit lawyers form taking advantage of litigants who are presented by counsel. It has always been a recognized rule of conduct, regardless of any written rule, that a lawyer should avoid dealing with clients of other lawyers. This is for the protection of the client. A client who has selected counsel is entitled at all times to the advice and guidance of such counsel selected. If lawyers representing adverse interests seek to compromise or settle matters directly with litigants represented by counsel, then they are ignoring the relationship that exists for the protection of the litigants.”

Lawyer Ursua is to be commended for her valiant pro bono efforts at fighting for your rights. Never mind the shabby treatment she got when her services were terminated. Ursua has earned everyone’s respect and admiration.

But going after the lawyers who prepared and notarized your affidavit should already be beyond lawyer Ursua. It is a taxing exercise, if you ask me, to initiate and prosecute a charge against a fellow member of the legal profession. Let the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, motu proprio initiate and prosecute the proper charges against the erring lawyers.

Nicole, with all due respect, let me say that you probably had the best of intentions in executing the affidavit, and flee to where you think you can forget that “harrowing” experience. After all, who does not want to forget?

But the nation will not forget. (To be continued)

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2009

Disguised censorship (Right of reply)

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Disguised censorship
Sunday, 03 08, 2009

The critical provision in the Right of Reply Bill (RORB) reads: “All persons who are accused directly or indirectly of any offense or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behaviour in public or private shall have the right to reply to the charge published in newspapers and other publications or to criticisms aired over radio, television, website or through any electronic device.”

Right off, the absurdities spawned by this provision will be legion. Let us take the case of The Daily Tribune, and apply to it this ludicrous provision of the RoRB.

On any given day, this paper over its twelve pages minces no words - either by innuendo, suggestion, or outright accusation - in criticizing individuals and organizations for their indiscretions, corrupt acts, omissions, and lapses in behavior. With the enactment of the RoRB into law, could we still expect The Daily Tribune to retain on a daily basis its complexion as a fearless vehicle to lay bare the despicable acts or omissions of those deserving to be accused? What will happen would be, on alternate days, because the replies of those this paper and its writers have accused, criticized or denounced would have to be accommodated and given free space, The Daily Tribune would be fearless one day and generous the next. Unafraid and ballsy one day, and indulgent and obsequious the next. The public will be confused. Absurd and ludicrous, is it not?

This paper is a favorite venue for paid announcements critical of the administration. With the enactment of the RoRB into law, do we expect the administration to buy equal space for its reply to the critical announcement? Or expect it to demand equal space, for free this time because, after all, it has a legislated right to enforce? Either way - whether it pays or gets space for free - just imagine how confused the readers would be. The editors and the publisher of this paper will just have to grin and bear it, and accept that their editorial independence and discretion have been spiked and thrown to the dustbin.

This is disguised censorship, if you ask me. The Daily Tribune would no longer have the independence to report that crime, that dishonesty, that immoral or dishonourable conduct committed with impunity. There will no longer be consistency in its advocacy, as it must now allocate space to accommodate the replies - no matter how evasive, inexplicit, shifty and dilatory they are - which its editors and publisher cannot even edit. There will eventually be a restriction in its circulation, either in reduced number of printed copies, or simply that the copies available are no longer read, because the public will stop buying a fearless/generous, ballsy/obsequious paper.

Censorship takes many forms. One of them is undermining the financial independence of media. Imagine a newspaper like The Daily Tribune losing its readers who regularly buy the newspaper, who must now abstain from buying it on the expected day of the reply to the accusatory article (because they simply do not care to know the reply) or who will simply be turned off by the inconsistent handling of issues and articles. Then again, who would care putting in their advertisements in a newspaper that has lost its readership? On the day that RoRB is enacted into law, the independence of this paper shall have been compromised because of this disguised censorship.

Persons, whether private or public, and their acts and utterances, are legitimate subjects of comment or reporting when the interests of society require that their acts and utterances be subject to public awareness and discussion. To this extent, the rights of an individual about whom accusatory statements have been made are subordinated to the interests of the community. This is the object of the Freedom of Expression. The RoRB curtails that freedom. Once enacted into law, it would assume the role of arbiter of what must see print in this paper, its content and slant, and when. That is plain and simple censorship.

A final point. With the enactment of the RoRB into law, do we expect the replies to take the place of libel suits and recourse to damages? Presently, the person subject of a defamatory article can demand as a matter of right equal space to clear his name. That is without prejudice to his right to file a libel suit, with damages. With the RoRB under the proposed availment of only one remedy to the exclusion of the others, the other rights of the defamed are being legislated out. Hmmm, will His Immensity agree?

What to do then? Kill the RoRB now. The vigilance exhibited in exposing the evils of the RoRB must be vigorously replicated in getting the bill to be withdrawn by its authors, no matter in what stage it is now in the legislative mill. The vacuous promise of a veto by Malacanang should not lull media into complacency. We have heard so many promises before, the most galling one made in December 2002, using no less than our national hero as guarantor. After all, the RoRB once enacted into law could be a refuge of the administration to absolve itself of the misery, the corruption, and the thefts it has foisted on the nation.

000 --- 000

Erratum: The fifth paragraph of last Sunday’s article should have read as follows: “The accuser of Macasaet, et al. had included them as participants in an alleged break-in into the offices of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC), where vital documents, proving the multi-million plunder of PHC by a band of robbers labelled in a privilege speech by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as ‘Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves,’ were ‘liberated.’ ”


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2009

The perils of the pen

ENQUIRY

DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

.

The perils of the pen

Sunday, 03 01, 2009

,

Notwithstanding the controversy over the “Alabang Boys,” which put the reputation of a passel of prosecutors under a nasty cloud, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez can rest easy with the thought that a great many of his prosecutors are decent.

We single out in this column, for being decent, the following: Second Assistant City Prosecutor Hannibal Santillan, First Assistant City Prosecutor Romulo Nanola, and City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi, all of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City.

Santillan resolved to dismiss, upon a preliminary investigation, a criminal complaint for Robbery in Band against Amado Macasaet of Malaya, Federico Pascual of Philippine Star, Victor Agustin of Manila Standard Today, and this writer. Nanola recommended approval of the resolution of Santillan, and Aspi approved the resolution.

In one stroke — no, make that three — the four writers, who were simply doing their journalistic duty to expose wrongdoings in a corporation partly owned by the government, can finally tell their accuser straight to his face: “Nice try; now get that shyster out of your stable of lawyers.” (A bootleg copy of Webster’s in CM Recto defines shyster as a lawyer locked in with his proverbial bag of dishonest tricks, looking forever to cash in on his clients’ ignorance.)

The accuser of Macasaet, et al. had included them as participants in a break-in (by a band of robbers labeled in a privilege speech by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as “Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves”) into the offices of Philcomsat Holdings Corp., where vital documents, proving the multi-million plunder of PHC, were “liberated.”

The trouble with the accuser is that he failed to get get his facts straight, and relied too much on his shyster. He placed Macasaet, et al. right there at the scene of the crime, when the truth is not one of them was even within shouting distance from Gil Puyat Avenue where the PHC office was. In fact, one of them was in Kabul, Afghanistan, at the time the alleged robbery took place, suffering from a severe attack of homesickness.

What their accusers did not know was that Macasaet, et al. had simply gotten hold of copies of the documents exposed by Enrile at the Senate during a privilege speech. Through Enrile, the bank accounts and recipients of the filched monies were identified; the so-called PR money coursed through a fictitious Veronica Nepomuceno was made public; the shyster’s gargantuan fees were disclosed; the modus operandi for the plunder was detailed, and many more nasty doings.

The sworn duty of Macasaet, et al. to “tell it as it is” impelled them to write in their respective columns the sordid details of the methodology of the plunder of PHC.

Rightly so, Santillan concluded that the accuser of Macasaet, et al. “miserably failed to show any proof or assertion that they directly participated in the alleged physical taking of the personal belongings averred by the complainant, and this should cause the outright dismissal of the robbery charge against them.”

All’s well that ends well, indeed, but the filing of this baseless charge against Macasaet, et al. is symptomatic of the peril that the writer who tells the truth has to face. The writer writes the truth about a particular incident, or about a particular issue. The subject of the truthful writing, enraged by the bad publicity generated by such writing, goes to his lawyer for advice. The lawyer, especially if he is the shyster type and thinks of nothing but his fees, will advise the poor sap to go ahead with the filing of the criminal complaint, however, baseless.

Between and among them, Macasaet, et al. probably are facing a host of libel and journalism-related criminal cases. They are unperturbed, although the peril of being haled to the prosecutor’s office or, eventually, to a court of law is always there.

The peril is not so much being accused falsely, but the effects of being accused unfairly. The journalist will have to engage a lawyer, for a hefty fee most of the time; the journalist will have to appear for several hearings, leaving him no time enough to research, think and write well enough. And because of the opprobrium associated with a criminal case, a journalist who faces so many criminal suits, however, innocent and unfairly accused he is, loses some of his readers; a journalist also loses his friends who are friends of people about whom he has written the painful truth; etcetera. Plainly and simply, a charge against the writer who does not deserve it, is a vexation to the spirit.

Once in a little while, a journalist invariably treads on the toes of one who is undeniably corrupt — with too much tainted money, or power and influence to use to get back on that writer. Therein lies the peril: With truth as his only defense, the writer will have to contend with the money and power in the hands of the corrupt. He will just have to rely (read that as “have faith”) in the common decency of the investigating prosecutors — as what Santillan, Nanola and Aspi have exhibited. But what if by bad luck the writer’s case is lodged with a prosecutor with an uncommon reputation that makes Secretary Gonzalez utter unprintable invectives in the privacy of his office?

Writing, particularly journalism, is a profession where those who write truthfully and without malice must thrive without fear. The risk of their being slapped with a criminal charge is there alright, all the time. But despite that risk — and that ominous Right of Reply Bill in Congress — writing is still a beautiful, brave and ennobling calling.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2009