On Lozada: The perils of being a snitch

The way of the warrior says I have no desires; I make seizing the opportunity my desire.

The way of the warrior says I have no principles; I make adaptability my principle.

This is how I follow the way of the warrior: seize the opportunity and the power.

-Tokugawa Ieyasu, first Shogun

From time to time, partly to document my trying to understand Eastern attitudes towards governance in contrast to my own heavily-Western orientation, I like to quote extracts from the Analects of Confucius, most recently in entry The Mandate of Heaven. Recently I read this article on Tokugawa Neo-Confucianism and then this one on Intellectual currents in Tokugawa Japan. This is of more than antiquarian interest because Bushido was seriously examined by Filipinos prior to World War II (during and after which, of course, Bushido became tainted by its being used to justify Japanese atrocities) in the effort to instill a stronger sense of citizenship (in terms of both freedoms and responsibilities) in a country preparing for independence.

Bushido was held up by by various Filipino leaders before and during the war as something to emulate. You still find echoes of this in proposals by people like Jose Abueva to have a Bill of Rights and Obligations (which hews to the provisions of the 1943 Constitution of the Puppet Republic) instead of a Bill of Rights.

It’s a stretch to suggest that Japanese Neo-Confucianism or Confucianism itself is precisely the kind of thinking expressed by Romulo Neri, Jr. and his one-time acolyte and factotum, Jun Lozada.There are elements of these philosophies, however, in their public and private (then publicly-reported) view concerning governance and reforms.

But it brings me to this weekend’s entry. From my computer’s handy-dandy built-in dictionary:

snitch |sni ch | informal


1 [ trans. ] steal.

2 [ intrans. ] inform on someone : she wouldn’t tell who snitched on me.


an informer.

ORIGIN late 17th cent.: of unknown origin.

Jun Lozada, as I write this, is in Dagupan. The prelude to his visit was this: Lozada streamers torn down before his Pangasinan trip.

There’s scuttlebutt going around that the Palace has imposed a deadline for neutralizing Jun Lozada: the deadline is June, by which time students go back to school. The studentry, of course, prior to Lozada’s emerging as whistleblower, was safely thought of to be unengaged in the current political crisis.

Which leads to the question: Is Jun Lozada self-destructing, or is he being destroyed? if Jun Lozada is self-destructing, either he is not self-destructing quickly enough, or he isn’t really self-destructing at all -he’s just being worn down by the immense resources of the state.

In previous Masses held for him, it seems that the Palace has taken to distributing anti-Lozada Komiks; there is even talk that people are being organized to fill up the churches and then walk out on cue, both to disrupt the proceedings when Lozada begins his talk, and to promote the idea to the media that he is losing support.

Jun Lozada is at it again: writing, that is.

Read the latest products of Lozada’s pen for yourself.

He’s written two pieces, one primarily addressed to members of the clergy, the other, to the public-at-large.

In Telling the Truth.doc ver1.1[1].pdf , he goes into “The Diamond Principle,” in detail, but then again, this is something he has been talking about for some time.

In My reflections on my 2nd month of Calvary[1].pdf , he addresses the public, reiterating the circumstances surrounding his abduction and how nothing has really happened since then, except that the administration factotums originally in hot water have had time to sort out their stories.

Both pieces are surely a response to Lozada recently getting into hot water with some clerics and to media. And surely, a way for him to fight back.

First impressions count. But there are continuing impressions, too, and they add up. Jun Lozada makes some people teary-eyed and other people want to scream, still others want to vomit. It goes every which way: some public figure is sure to get someone foaming at the mouth, somewhere

.The Warrior Lawyer is upfront about his antipathy (based on personal interaction with Lozada) and makes more sense overall:

I never hid my dislike for Jun Lozada, based on his character and what I know of him as an operator when he was still with the DENR. This was a guy who’d arrogantly call for supposedly official meetings outside his office, in bars and restaurants, dine and drink his fill while behaving like a lout, then stick you with the bill. He has no sense of personal loyalty and has been politely described as a “man on the make” (and on the take, as he has admitted). As a whistle-blower, and civil-society “hero”, his whining self-righteousness is extremely irritating. He so obviously enjoys the limelight and his public statements during his recent “road tour” are characteristically pompous and overblown.

But I tried to separate the message from the messenger and gave him credit for speaking up, however reluctantly, on the ZTE broadband corruption scandal.

Now events have conspired to push him on a long slide to irrelevancy. First, the Supreme Court decision in Neri vs. Senate Committee has effectively stymied the Senate proceedings, his most effective platform. Worse, it has deprived the Senate of access to vital witnesses who would corroborate the allegations of Lozada and company, most notably Romulo Neri, as well as other Cabinet members and functionaries. Without a stage and most of the major players, this show can’t go on.

Then Cory Aquino, arguably the most popular opposition draw, and Lozada’s supposed patron and mentor on the path to rectitude, was stricken ill with cancer. No more Tita Cory to cuddle Jun and bring in the crowds.

Finally, there’s Lozada’s own big mouth. He could use some of the advise on self-examination and reflection he so blithely foists on others. His wiseass and bombastic manner has turned off a lot of people, even from among his initially steadfast supporters.

Similar views are in Jingoistic Lamentations.

In my column, The aesthetics of redemption, I stated my personal views about Lozada; in particular, that we should consider the effect of nearly being liquidated can have on someone: at the very least, it explains why someone already temperamentally inclined to be full of himself (as most fixers tend to be), would then become a zealot. Near-death experiences do that to people. So there is no objective reason why Lozada should be writing manifestos that may do him as much harm as good, but what he’s gone through certainly goes a long way to explain his compulsion to crank out manifestos.

While Clarissa Ocampo did state at the time that she feared for her life, she didn’t undergo an abduction and was given witness protection; allegations have been made that she received board appointment from the President but I can’t find any record of this (nor is any government largesse reported in Witnesses reap ‘rewards’ for role in Erap trial).

I also tried to point out that much of the skepticism that greets Lozada has to do with nothing more than questions of taste: in particular, he rubs upper class sensibilities raw and tends to irritate a subset of the middle class. It is the reason some Filipinos believe no funeral is complete without hysterics while others believe good taste demands that one should maintain a stiff upper lip in the face of adversity.

So it’s all a question of taste: the aesthetic element of politics. Just as I’ve argued that there are many who support the President because she upholds the primacy of outward appearances being more important than virtue itself, there are those who, finding Lozada to be grating on their nerves, will then lash out at him.

Typical of the visceral loathing some people who are purely observers (not having encountered him during his fixer days) have for Lozada, is the incoherent, but scathing, contempt of an Antonio Montalvan II for Jun Lozada. I had to ask someone what on earth Montalvan was trying to say: “he’s suggesting a stop to all the school hopping etc. what i like is that he’s implying (well, it’s explicit to me at least) that lozada’s still a crook by definition and must be charged – not really the figure to lead a ‘truth’ crusade of sorts.”

Fair enough.In janEe’s bLog, there’s email from someone present at the controversial Cebu forum Lozada attended, and who wrote,

The Senate investigation only confines itself to factual matters. As a political body, its primordial concern is to fulfill its constitutional mandate of conducting inquiry in aid of legislation. It does not delve into what is in the heart of a witness testifying before it. It cannot be concern about matters of the spirit; personal discernment and insights; and personal conversion and renewal.

These, I believe, is the higher pursuit of Jun Lozada’s journey, both in the physical and spiritual sense.

Despite his being not welcome here in Cebu, he braved the spurn knowing that the TRUTH will shield him against any forms off rebuke and rejections.

Jun was simply not rejected, he was harassed and slurred.

I, and many others, who attended the forum yesterday, had witnessed how Jun Lozada was humiliated & insulted by a man named Po, who claimed to be there in order to be “enlightened” on the issue.

See also, the open letter written by a priest in Cebu, Fr. Jesus Dumaual, as republished in Happy Faith:

You ask why? It is because you have answered (partly) a question they must have been asking all these years: Where have all our graduates gone, the product of Catholic Education, the minds and consciences that we have molded according to the values of the Gospels? Thousands, perhaps even a million of you have joined government service. What have become of you? Have you all become “team players”, swallowed by the system which is now considered the most corrupt in Asia? You are luckier, and I saw your great elation that late in the day, two priests were found (I was one of them) who were willing to say Mass for you. But the poor Sisters, so far, after all these years, have only found one: you. (You see, while we priests may have our Parishes, Sisters have only their Catholic Schools.) Of course, they want to hear your story, to know whatever happened to all the nurturing, the sacrifices they have made for all of you, including the scolding if you just forget to say your prayer, etc. But that can wait. All they want to show you is how grateful and appreciative they are you have returned. The rest will be history.

Which, combined with the letter from the lady in Cebu, gives a pretty good justification as to why Lozada should be making the rounds: to submit himself to the scrutiny of his countrymen.The best advice was given matter-of-factly by JC’s Anatomy. Answer the criticisms. Going back to his recent visit to Cebu, you can’t get fiercer than Fighting Tofu who expressed loathing for Lozada. I myself delved into the whole controversy in The interdiction of a witness, but much of it seemed to me a case of conservative shock on the part of those unused to questioning prelates, and more attuned to the old obediences. A marvelous demonstration of this is that the expression of disgust with Lozada currently making the rounds was a captive protest: watch “Gloria” (Dancing Inmates – Protest Dance). Ordering prison inmates to engage in an obviously far-from-spontaneous dance number… well, the irony is as rich as it gets.

Still: for every person still firmly convinced of his good intentions, like on to a new beginning who ran into him during a graduation ceremony in La Salle Greenhills; nut there are those, like the priest Per Agrum ad Sacrum, hostile to him:

But what then explains the anger? What explains all the zeal and passion and the fury? I would assume they want something else, on account of the fact that they have found common cause with interesting individuals who really have little interest, and thus, can boast of little love lost for the finer nuances of moral theological thinking ( no matter how much they quote and endlessly misquote the Lord’s words, “the truth will set you free.”). I assume they want more than just the moral truth they ought already to know. I assume they want heads to roll. What else explains the “non sequitur” slogans and name-calling directed against the devil woman and her cohorts?

I would also assume that it is not really so much moral truth they want, as “teachings” that would ride along with what they want. How else explain their vociferous rantings against the bishops, who they claim “are not in touch with reality,” or who “are playing deaf, dumb, and blind” to all the shenanigans being perpetrated by this administration? After the Bishops talked about the moral truth of a “culture of corruption” that is found in all levels of society, after the Bishops took to task the President and called for the dismantling of all obstacles to truth, these self-proclaimed “guardians of morality” now declare the Bishops as hopelessly blind, deaf, and dumb, for their taste? How about venting your ire against some media outfits who have already decided what is true for them? Didn’t the Bishops also call the mass media to task? Didn’t the Bishops also call the so-called oppositionist politicians to set aside their ill concealed ambitions and personal agenda? Weren’t we all cautioned against subverting this and many other issues to our own sinister agenda?

There is something seriously amiss in this highly engaging telenovela. Abetted and supported by the so-called “media moment,” a whistle blower who was part of the system of corruption just a few months ago, has suddenly been catapulted to near-divine status, called a “hero” for modesty’s sake (thank you!). Mobbed and adulated everywhere by the supposed guardians of truth and objectivity, the very people on whom millions of young people depend on for their education, the self-proclaimed “crusader for truth” now inflames the passions of the young, idealistic, and easily manipulable students, who are being doled out daily lessons on how to be a “responsible, “law-abiding,” and “democratic” citizen without really trying hard to respect rule of law. In a clear example of collusion pushed to the extreme, with no parallels in recent history, the guardians and teachers of moral truth, legislators, educators, mass media purveyors, and executives in and out of government, have suddenly decided to become accuser, judge, and executioner all rolled into one.

And there are concerned parents like Couch Potato Corner, who says Lozada is a menace and should be evicted by the school.

Lozada compared his own abduction to the abduction and murder of Dacer, and there’s a reason the comparison resonated with the public.

By all accounts, Dacer was an asshole; by comparison, in comparing himself to Dacer, Lozada was admitting he was an asshole, too; but no one has ever said Dacer deserved to be rubbed out.

Dacer knew something, and had to die. Lozada knew something, and had to die.

But Lozada lived to tell his tale.

And so, he has to be destroyed.

Because the longer he sticks around and remains a pest, the more time people have to let the lesson of the last few years finally sink in. She’s as bad, and even worse, than the previous guy who got kicked out.


Skip to comment form

    • XAX on April 5, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    It would again look silly for the Senate if after seeing that public interest in the Lozada spectacle had dimished, would drop ZTE/NBN and look for another scandal to investigate, in aid-of-legislation.

    This aspect of Philippine governance is one that many observers find dysfunctional, borrowing from Mr. Jun Lozada. It seems that there are no closure on many issues in our country. We don’t forgive, but we forget.

    “We’ve been had!” – the Filipino people

    • anthony scalia on April 5, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    UP n,

    Lozada is credible only on the following – (1) the overprice of the project, and (2) his abduction

    • XAX on April 5, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    I hate to say this, but I don’t believe we will get it right in this lifetime.

    A retelling of an old joke:

    During Genesis, there were already much lobbyists from the future inhabitants:

    When God was making Africa, the potential settlers there complained: “Why are you making our place so wild?” God replied: “Dont worry I’ll make you strong.”

    When God was drawing up the Middle East, the future settlers complained: ‘Why are you making our place so dry and arid?” Yahweh responded: “Don’t worry I’ll give you oil.”

    When God was creating the Philippines, everybody complained: “Why are you making that land so nice and beautiful?” The Almighty said: “Don’t worry, I’ll put the Filipinos there.”

    Filipinos R’us.

    • UP n student on April 6, 2008 at 3:34 am

    XaX: Ang sabi sa akin noong mga tiyahin kong taga California…. makatapos sa mga hilaw — Caucasians — at mga sunog — Africans — Pinoy ang best-of-the-best 😛 dahil tamang tama lang. Kaya nga lang, maraming medyo maliit. At ang Pinoy mabilis tumaba kapag umiiwas magbanat ng buto maski mag-aliw sa sarili. :mrgreen:

  1. “A problem with the sentence ” I heard about it ” is that if not a soul follows up on what has been heard, “IT” that was heard gets discarded because “IT”’s truthiness does not get verified.” – UP n

    This, I think, is one of the problems Lozada faced, that Chavit didn’t: someone with better credentials to back his statements up. Remember, Chavit was the catalyst, but it was Clarissa Ocampo who was the essential ingredient to the whole impeachment of Erap.

    Then, there is the… sheer murkiness of the whole situation. Aside from the usual reasons of apathy, some people HAVE wisened up to such powerplays among the elite. People may dislike Gloria, but the thinking, “pare-pareho din naman sila” and “People Power Fatigue” just might be more true than, say, the rabidly anti-Gloria would claim.

    There are some, like me, who are… kept back by our own personal experiences with those who seek Gloria’s ouster to side with the anti-Gloria crowd. I have always held people by their actions. As a Communications major myself, I know how easy it is to say something. But if your actions go against your words, something is wrong there. There is disconnect. I cannot join the anti-Gloria crowd knowing that (at least) a good portion of the politicians wanting her out lied, cheated and oppressed just to get a (supposed) liar, cheat and oppressor out.

    I forgot who said it up there that not everything negative getting thrown at Jun Lozada can be traced from the Palace. You have to allow for the reality that not everyone likes the guy, if not believing in him. What’s the proof? Because if a substantial number of people do, there would be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, shouting for Gloria to get the hell out of the Palace.

    And the PR professionals here – and maybe the lawyers too? – might have had an experience where being defensive isn’t a reliable gauge for guilt. Flight is, from what I heard in legal circles. But someone might go on and look defensive in his/her actions because the public that dictates policy can have a nasty habit of believing even something that’s plain hearsay.

    It’s like the Salem Witch Hunts eh: the weird person over there (i.e. has a bad level of credibility) gets accused for being a witch. Eh bad rep siya, whether for an imagined slight (the so-called “evil eye”) or simply because something in him or her rubs you the wrong way. Would you believe he/she is NOT a witch? Lalo na if he/she acts in a way that somehow reinforces your prejudices?

    The Tylenol response to deaths over its product is always taught to Comm students as an example of good PR handling. Yet so many companies and agencies still take the “defensive” and “denial” route, even if it would have been better not to do so. Why? Because of the way people react to negative press. It’s easier to believe someone’s evil, after all.

    Our courts might run on an “Innocent until proven otherwise” mode, but society is an unconsious adherent to Napoleonic Law, it seems.

    @ Dirk Pitt’s “post”

    Akala ko ako lang nakahalata na parang pache-pache ng various posts yung post niya, haha.

    • KG on April 6, 2008 at 7:23 am

    Particularly on the ZTE deal,mas priority pa ang motion for reconsideration sa SC. Aside from the deadline for filing one sa tingin nila hanggang di pa final ang decision, indefinitely postponed muna.

    Now on Lozada, di ba tuloy ang where ever you go, I go nila ni Atty Pamelo? recently I heeard Pamelo claiming that and he will not stop, until their version of truth is the real truth is finally realized(or something like that).

    Now on Investigations, sorry for name dropping
    naalala ko madalas sabihin ni Rego na wala namang kaso naipanalo ang blue ribbon commitee and justice antonin scalia saying wala namang batas na nalegislate from any blue ribbon committee investigation.
    They may be right or a bit exaggerated,but it is still not a reason to remove the function of oversight of the congress, as Madonna pointed out.

    Now on moving to other topics to investigate,like the spratleys. Matagal na nating kailangan ang baseline law,matagal na itong pending kala lang ng public bagong topic ito because of how it was presented to them.

    On other matters like the swine thing,as I have said too many can of worms. di nga naresolve ang fertilizer scam,,jueteng,pidal etc.Yung mga whistleblower nga nagtatayo na ng sariling organization nila eh.
    Kung madaming iinvestagahan ,dahil madami talagang kailangang iimbestigahan, and it cannot be blamed just on grandstanding or in aid of presidential election.

    • anthony scalia on April 6, 2008 at 8:46 am


    They may be right or a bit exaggerated,but it is still not a reason to remove the function of oversight of the congress

    ‘oversight’ is a lot different from ‘inquiries in aid of legislation’

    the ‘oversight’ function of Congress is on the implementation of laws, to check how the executive branch is faring in the implementation. there are many ‘oversight’ committees in Congress, and all of them are joint oversight commitees – equal representation from the House and the Senate

    Congress has the ‘power of the purse’ so it can grill the executive branch on everything that concerns the national budget

    but Congress cannot exercise ‘general oversight’ over the executive, as that would be encroaching on the separation of powers

    and no, its not an exaggeration to expect a new law to come out of the nonstop ‘inquiries’ in aid of legislation

    im still waiting for the new law that came out of the Jose Pidal hearings

    • santaclos on April 6, 2008 at 8:58 am

    Over exposure kasi si Jun Lozada, kaya madaling nagsawa ang mga tao. Kung naghinay hinay lamang siya ng pag aapear sa tv, for instance, mas masasabik ang mga tao sa kanyang sasabihin. At saka watak watak naman ang mga against kay Gloria. Sila sila nagsisiraan. Katulad ng magappear sina Erap at Cory sa stage, naging issue pa. They made a mountain out of molehill, when the mountain to conquer should be Gloria. Next time, be synchronized and seize the moment.

    • mlq3 on April 6, 2008 at 9:27 am

    scalia, i think woodrow wilson might have disagreed with you, re: general oversight. you may find this piece interesting:


    The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.

    And yet, the political scientist adds, Congress is too diligent about legislation and not diligent enough about its oversight and informing functions. The political scientist who penned those eloquent observations was Woodrow Wilson, writing in his classic doctoral treatise, Congressional Government, published in 1885. So charges of lax oversight by Congress are nothing new.

    It should seem obvious that Congress’s oversight authority is integral to and inherent in its constitutional powers to make laws and appropriate money for the operation of government. It asserted that right as early as 1792 in its inquiry into the Indian massacre of U.S. troops under General St. Clair. The Supreme Court affirmed Congress’s investigative powers in the 1927 case, McGrain v. Daugherty, when it said, and I quote: “The power of inquiry –with process to enforce it–is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function….A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting conditions the legislation is intended to affect or change….”

    So, why then was it necessary for the House and Senate after World War II to begin adopting oversight rules that only seem to reiterate the obvious? It seems to me there are two reasons a system oversight rules and laws began to develop in the mid-twentieth century. The first was to make clear to those who may be the subject of oversight, namely, the Executive Branch, just what to expect, both in terms of their rights and duties and Congress’s responsibilities. Keep in mind that during World War II, the Federal Government grew by leaps and bounds, and most of it was not dismantled at the end of the war. The challenge to Congress was how to get its arms around this vast new bureaucracy. It was a daunting task indeed. The new oversight rules were in effect a letter of intent, posted on a big oversight road sign, that read in big bold letters: “Yield, bureaucracy: here we come!” Or maybe it was intended to read quite simply: “Caution: Congress at Work.

    The second reason for such rules, quite frankly, was to remind Congress itself just what was now being expected of it. The rules were designed to push, prod, pull, and pummel the Congress into doing oversight. The rules were a directional road sign for Congress pointing down that road less traveled and urging members to take it if they wished to make a difference.

    I don’t care whether you read the reports of the Joint Committees on the Organization of Congress in 1945, 1965, or 1993, or any number of House or Senate select committees reform reports in between. They all say essentially the same thing: Congress has been doing a lousy job of overseeing the executive branch, it must do better, and so here are a few new rules, procedures, resources, and devices to help it do a better job.

    The first modern statutory formulation of oversight didn’t occur until the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act which charged each standing committee of Congress with exercising a “continuous watchfulness” over the execution of the laws by the executive.

    That was changed in the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act to what the Rules Committee report termed “a more appropriate concept” which was to “review and study on a continuing basis” the laws, agencies and entities of government charged with carrying them out. In other words, the emphasis was on a more pro-active rather than merely passive oversight role.

    This is the language currently contained in House rule X, clause 2 under “general oversight responsibilities” which I have included in your hand-out. The Senate has a similar rule from 1970.

    The 1970 Act also required for the first time that committees file biennial activity reports at the end of each Congress that summarized both their legislative and oversight activities.

    That was further enhanced in the 1974 House Committee Reform Amendments that required committees to discuss their oversight plans at the beginning of each Congress with the Government Operations Committee which would then publish them. That was deleted in 1987 because it had become a rather meaningless exercise in which the staff simply gave the chairman the same list of jurisdictional responsibilities rather than consciously develop a more selective oversight agenda.
    However, the idea was revived and strengthened at the beginning of the 104th Congress in 1995 by requiring that committees formally adopt their oversight plans at the beginning of the Congress and submit them to what are now the House Administration and Government Reform committees no later than February 15. The Government Reform Committee then publishes them by March 31st after consultation with the bipartisan leadership to ensure maximum coordination.

    Moreover, new requirements were included for making committees account for these plans in a separate section of their biennial activity reports at the end of each Congress, along with any additional oversight activities not listed on their original plans.

    The 1974 committee reform amendments also originally called for each committee to establish a separate oversight subcommittee; but that was watered down by a Democratic Caucus substitute that alternatively allowed committees to exercise oversight through existing legislative subcommittees. However, at the beginning of the 106th Congress, in 1999, committees were encouraged to create a separate oversight subcommittee by not counting it against their five-subcommitee limit.

    Yet, by my count today only four House committees have oversight subcommittees compared to 11 committees in the 103rd Congress. Part of the reason for the drop in oversight subcommittees was the new Republican majority’s mandatory one-third cut in committee staff in 1995, from 1,800 to less than 12-hundred. Part was due to the five subcommittee limit that eliminated 32 subcommittees, from 118 down to 86.

    The 1974 committee reform amendments also added special and additional oversight authorities and responsibilities for specified committees outside of their legislative jurisdiction. Moreover, the ‘74 resolution charged committees with reviewing tax policies that affect subjects within their jurisdiction.

    Summaries of Government Reform Committee oversight findings and recommendations are to be included in other committees’ reports if relevant to the bill involved. I have yet to see this happen, but I would be happy to stand corrected.

    Moreover, the 1974 amendments charged committees with conducting foresight as well as oversight. To date, though, I have not seen a committee foresight report. Something to look forward to, I guess…. at some distant point in the future.

    The permanent investigative authority for all committees contained at the beginning of House Rule XI was also added in the 1974 amendments. Prior to that, only Appropriations, Budget, Government Operations, Internal Security, and Standards had such investigative authority. What that meant was that other committees had to obtain special investigative authorities such as subpoena powers and travel authority through resolutions reported by the Rules Committee and adopted by the House at the beginning of each Congress.

    Moreover, in 1977 subpoena authority was extended to subcommittees and delegated to full committee chairmen if a committee’s rules provide for such delegation.

    The investigative committee hearing procedures, sometimes referred to as “the witness bill of rights,” and now contained in Rule XI, clause 2(k), were first adopted back in 1955 as a result of numerous abuses of witnesses that occurred during the McCarthy era. At the same time, the quorum requirement for hearings was set at not less than two members to avoid so-called one-member investigations–again something that had become an embarrassment to Congress.

    The right of the minority to call its own witnesses at any hearing, whether investigative, legislative or general oversight in nature, was part of the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act, as was the right of any committee member to file minority, additional or supplemental views on any committee report. It not only applies to legislative and oversight reports, but also to committee activity reports at the end of a Congress, and to a committee’s budget views and estimates submitted to the Budget Committee.

    Finally, a rule used only sparingly in recent times, but still important to individual members, is the rule governing resolutions of inquiry. These are simple House resolutions in which any Member may request factual information from the President or a cabinet department head.

    The rule dates back to 1820, though the right to request information from the executive goes back to the beginning of our government. Such resolutions should be worded so as to “request” information of the President; but they may “demand” it from a cabinet secretary.

    A committee is given 14 legislative days to report back to the House on the disposition of the request. If it has not gotten voluntary compliance from the President or cabinet officer, it reports the resolution and asks for a House vote on it. If it does not report within 14 days, then any House Member may offer a motion to discharge. The discharge motion is considered without debate. If it is adopted, then the House proceeds to one hour of debate on the resolution of inquiry.

    You will like the footnote on Woodrow Wilson’s “Congressional government”:

    While Woodrow Wilson was a great believer in general oversight of government entities and programs, he was not supportive of what he called Congress’s “exercise of semi-judicial powers of investigation” because “the limitations and insufficiency” of this authority “are manifest.” He explained that Congress launches these “special, irksome, ungracious investigations” from time to time, “in its spasmodic efforts to dispel or confirm suspicions of malfeasance or of wanton corruption.” However, the investigations “do not afford more than a glimpse of the inside of a small province of federal administration.” Besides, “Hostile or designing officials can always hold it [Congress] at arm’s length by devious evasions and concealments.” Such investigations can “violently disturb” but not often “fathom the waters of the sea in which the bigger fish of the civil service swim and feed.” (Congressional Government, 179-80).

    Wilson’s piece has been linked to often enough by me, but this extract, from here:


    is particularly apt:

    It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function. The argument is not only that discussed and interrogated administration is the only pure and efficient administration, but, more than that, that the only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration.

    • grd on April 6, 2008 at 11:22 am

    @ Dirk Pitt’s “post”

    Akala ko ako lang nakahalata na parang pache-pache ng various posts yung post niya, haha… Rob’ Ramos

    he’s the stalker of bencard. making fun of the guy by replacing some words from his previous post.

    and the strange thing is, nobody even cared to speak against it and some even defended him. it’s because he’s anti-gloria.

    it just shows that people are capable of tolerating a wrong act as long as you’re useful to them. apply it in our present situation where we are protesting wrongdoings. we say we want truth, accountability and justice. i think we need to be consistent with our convictions.

    • hvrds on April 6, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    “I just want to point out that the kind of bank reporting that you want seems to be covered under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.”

    Not quite. All deposits in any bank in the U.S. are subject to rules. First you have to have a social security number. If you are an alien or even an alien legal entity (corporation) you are required to get a non-resident social security number. No Jose Pidal or Jose Velardes allowed. There is no exceptions. Cash transactions are highly regulated. The IRS, Federal Reserve and all law enforcement authorities are allowed to access bank records even during the investigative process provided the inquiry is covered by a judges subpoena for probable cause.

    It is for that reason that private banking in the U.S. is not a major business.

    Please note that the orders for physical U.S. currency is actually a main export of the Federal Reserve as there is a larger demand for greenbacks abroad than in the U.S.

    The AMLC is a bad joke. The use of dummies here is prevalent. The reason why smuggling is such a problem is proof positive that the banking system is full of holes when it comes to monitoring payments. Casinos, the stock markets are a very easy vehicle for cleaning money.

    Under WTO rules the transactional value of importsd and exports are now being used. If one does not know what the word D/A, D/P means or a standby letter of credit then it would useless to dwell on this issues.

    Case in point; PAGCOR aanounced investors to a Las Vegas style entertainment complex. One of them is a British Virgin Island entity. The others will probably be layered corporations. Try looking for any company that is publicly listed in England or the U.S. and you will probably not find any.

    Look at Macau. The Sands a publicly listed compnay in the U.S. is in the process of investing $2-3 bilion dollars.

    Compare it to the bunch here and you will find opague companies coming in.

    Probably this is the golden parachute that the Pagcor heads had fashioned for themselves.

    The land is public land. How much rent will the state get. Who will be the Filipino partners as there are restrictions on ownership in retail establishments. Will Pagcor and the PEA (land owner) be the majority partner and the minority partner will manage no problem.

    Initially this will be a construction project and the buidling of casinos, hotels and amusement parks. It was announced that almost 40,000 square meters (4 hectares)will be devoted to the casino out of the total 90 hectares.

    In all this can anyone tell me if the funds that will come in thorugh equity and mostly loans will be sourced from formal or informal sources (dirty or not so dirty money)?

    The entire economy of Switzerland is based on private banking for the world. Short for money laundering.

    You expect that office in the BSP to monitor currency movemnts in and out of the Phillippines.

    Anyone who wants to move money out of the country provided you earned it in businesses not involved in drugs or prostitution you can sit with any banker in the Philippines who will asist you in how to send it out. Any amount you want. Fees are very competitive as apart from drugs being transhipped thorugh the Philippines the Philippines is also a small laundry.

    • cvj on April 6, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Regarding Bencard’s complaint, this may be relevant…

    Assisting Father Font in his aim to discredit the Noli was an Augustinian friar by the name of Jose Rodriguez. In a pamphlet entitled Caiingat Cayo (Beware). Fr. Rodriguez warned the people that in reading the book they “commit mortal sin,” considering that it was full of heresy.

    As far as Madrid, there was furor over the Noli, as evidenced by an article which bitterly criticized the novel published in a Madrid newspaper in January, 1890, and written by one Vicente Barrantes. In like manner, a member of the Senate in the Spanish Cortes assailed the novel as “anti-Catholic, Protestant, socialistic.”

    It is well to note that not detractors alone visibly reacted to the effects of the Noli. For if there were bitter critics, another group composed of staunch defenders found every reason to justify its publication and circulation to the greatest number of Filipinos. For instance, Marcelo H. Del Pilar, cleverly writing under an assumed name Dolores Manapat, successfully circulated a publication that negated the effect of Father Rodriguez’ Caiingat Cayo, Del Pilar’s piece was entitled Caiigat Cayo (Be Slippery as an Eel). Deceiving similar in format to Rodriguez’ Caiingat Cayo, the people were readily “misled” into getting not a copy o Rodriguez’ piece but Del Pillar’s.


    …in a way, Dark Pitt is just continuing in the tradition of M.H. del Pilar.

    • hvrds on April 6, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    In polirtics or in economics it is paramount and critical that transparency is the order of the day. When the light is shown the rat’s are forced to scurry away.

    Mark Penn was rowing upstream in two bancas. In politics he should have known that everything is timing. Huli siya.

    By Anne E. Kornblut
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, April 6, 2008; Page A09

    “EUGENE, Ore., April 5 — The Colombian government fired the public relations firm run by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief strategist on Saturday after he tried to distance himself from a meeting he held with the country’s ambassador to the United States.”

    “Mark Penn has walked a tricky tightrope throughout the presidential campaign, serving both as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller and as a top Clinton aide. The two roles collided last week when Penn met with Colombian officials to discuss a pending trade agreement that Colombia desires and the New York Democrat opposes.”

    “After the meeting was made public, Penn, already a controversial figure inside the Clinton campaign, came under attack from labor unions, with some officials calling for the candidate to fire him. Both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) have said they are against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.”

    • Madonna on April 6, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    “and the strange thing is, nobody even cared to speak against it and some even defended him. it’s because he’s anti-gloria.

    it just shows that people are capable of tolerating a wrong act as long as you’re useful to them. apply it in our present situation where we are protesting wrongdoings. we say we want truth, accountability and justice. i think we need to be consistent with our convictions.”


    Why don’t you discuss instead the sole merits of Bencard’s lament against Dirk Pitt? And not resort to a cheap shot as jumping into an outright conclusion against the anti-Gloria as “tolerating a wrong as long you’re useful to them”. If I read Bencard right, he is addressing his concerns directly to Manolo.

    You know we are all for logical and ethical merits here. For one, does it merit the attention of Manolo as our esteemed host, who, for all our differences of opinion is collectively acknowledged as fair-minded.

    I think our host is silent on the matter because he’s exercising his “blogger’s” executive privilege. If that is unjust, you could perhaps elevate it to the Supreme Court, no?

    Ah, justice. How lofty it sounds. When it is all about gravity — of things just holding their ground as they should. Otherwise, one is going against the law of physics (sabi nga ni DJB).

    • istambay_sakalye on April 6, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    he’s the stalker of bencard. making fun of the guy by replacing some words from his previous post.
    and the strange thing is, nobody even cared to speak against it and some even defended him. it’s because he’s anti-gloria.
    it just shows that people are capable of tolerating a wrong act as long as you’re useful to them. apply it in our present situation where we are protesting wrongdoings. we say we want truth, accountability and justice. i think we need to be consistent with our convictions.—

    aren’t we getting childish and can’t defend ourselves here? i assume we are all grown up and deal with it. and are you accusing manolo of taking sides here and tolerating dirk pitts because he is anti glo? that’s cheap!

    • KG on April 6, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Anthony Scalia,
    duly noted and thanks.

    by the way, sa pidal investigation nga pala yung right to privacy vs national interest.

    sa mga nangyayari, national interest only prevails if it is still interesting to the public.

    as to the laws that resulted to the unfinished pidal investigation ;di ko alam kung napalakas ba nito yung anti money laundering law, o naging interesting ulit yung jueteng ;na still has alot to do with money laundering.

    I think HVRDS answered this that our banks can’t be like the banks in the US where the money trail of of a sexcapading governor forced him to resign.

    Anthony, laws can be there ,but who ‘s there to monitor its enforcement,when the regulators and the enforcers cannot.

    re: on you advocacy of unicameralism;

    If unicameralism would lessen the investigations and instead just focus on legislastion, I think it will be like a legislation mill;unless it has its own functioning equalizer,I know you would not like to hear check and balance kaya equalizer na lang.

    just an opinion,thanks again.

    • magdiwang on April 6, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    In polirtics or in economics it is paramount and critical that transparency is the order of the day. When the light is shown the rat’s are forced to scurry away.

    while it is crucial to have transparency in the financial arena. the mechanism is not fool proof. what is important is the fiduciary responsibility of the government in reigning excesses. look what is happening in the US right now. greed took precedence despite full transparency. they loaned money to people who cant afford to pay, banks and investment firms leveraged 70 to 1, hedge funds making a killing shorting equities. all of these leading to the demise of the dollar, turmoil in the world financial markets and retail investors left holding the bag.

    for crying out loud, financial transactions in our country are so archaic in that moving money in and out are so cumbersome where it restricts the efficient flow of capital. They follow the anti money laundering law by heart but totally miss the spirit of the law.

  2. we really need some good leaders in this country. someone with no hidden agenda. the opposition leaders have their own agenda to

    • KG on April 6, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Re: Questioners of Dirk Pitt.

    Di lang naman kami nakikialam, I have been doing that before,it usually backfires.

    a few weeks ago a guy with the same first name as mine (Karl)even questioned the style of moderation of mlq3.He’s also been defending the neo nazi advocate at Inakala pa nga ni Devilsadvoc8 na ako yon,kahit na di ko gusto yung cussing (FU)ni Devils non di ako nakialam,baka mainit lang ang ulo nya nun.

    Tapos, I too received many admonitions like when I called HVRDS by what I presume his name was ,based on seeing his other comments somewhere else,na nagpupublish ng e-mail addresses.And in Ricky’s blog a few years back,madaming di nagandahan sa biro ko ke Carl Inting and many people admonished me. To say that we condone people just because he or she is anti gloria ay di naman yata tama,if what Dirk did was parody bencard,siguro kaya na ni Bencard yan,nasabi na nya ke MLQ3, lets just hope Dirk got the message.

    • KG on April 6, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    about the subprime crisis
    we also did that during the Masagana 99 days.

    the idea then was a collateral free,low interest and its creditor monitored. I don’t know how the creditors monitored it pero it failed because many people defaulted. I have friends who are in the microfinance bandwagon, naiiyak na sila dahil ayaw magbayad ng mga pinautang nila.

    Ngayon allowing land as collateral (as a solution to the rice problem) ,to be cynic about this;this is the best way to let more people to lose their lands,if the farmers can’t find ways to be more productive.

    • mlq3 on April 6, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    i believe i’ve addressed bencard’s concerns about what constitutes fair use or not of his posts before.

    just as i’ve addressed the minimal rules on commenting here before. essentially, no rules, unless you make death threats against private individuals.

    the commenter bencard objects to is obviously getting under bencard’s skin, which is unfortunate for bencard and possibly, a source of delight to the commenter in question.

    whether the commenter’s delight is shared by anyone else is about as pointless to explore as whether anyone else is delighted by bencard’s commentaries.

    in the end, i’ve appealed to everyone to bear into account the sad reality that there are many readers who don’t want to comment because regular commenters can be so passionate it frightens the newbies.

    we should be all for encouraging new voices to emerge and it makes sense to consider tempering our own voices.

    but i’m not about to play nanny to anyone here.

    • cvj on April 6, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    People like grd and Rob Ramos give Gloria Arroyo the benefit of the doubt in the big things but become self-righteous towards those who dare to oppose her. I guess that how they avoid having to defend her, and it’s been an effective tactic so far in part because we oblige them.

    • XAX on April 6, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Returning to Mr. Jun Lozada: if the Senate investigations on the ZTE/NBN are indeed archived, the star witness could have the following options:

    1. Stay in the country (undergound or under the protection of the Senate) and wait things out till 2010
    2. Be a visible member of the Hyatt 10 to avoid being “kidnapped”.
    3. Continue the masses for truth until the bishops get it right.
    4. Be a popular blogger like Mr. Gorrel until the powers that be are toppled.
    5. Flee with a “patriotic fund” courtesy of Senators Lacson and Madrigal.

    As for his former friend Romy Neri, it will be good to know how he behaves between now and 2010. Neri could very well decide to spill: “ZTE/NBN is the mother of all scams.” After PEA-Amari.

    • mang_kiko on April 6, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Neri could very well decide to spill: “ZTE/NBN is the mother of all scams.” After PEA-Amari.

    Dulo lang nang Iceberg yon ZTE/NBN scandal..marami pa yan at mas Malaki…Iceberg: nakalubog ang malaking bahagi..

    • Bert on April 6, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    “I’m damn well sure that these guys, I have learned, can take it as much as they can dish out.-nash of Bencard

    nash, my sympathy is with Bencard, but it seems you goffed this time, hehehe.

    • Bert on April 6, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    off topic: Latest news-USA forces near to attacking Iran by air attack and other means!

    • mindanaoan on April 6, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    1. if lozada was neri’s point-man, being the designated ‘greed moderator’, was neri in the ring, too? but why was he offered a bribe?
    2. if it’s china who designates contractors, why would zte need to bribe filipino brokers? why not their own government?

    • Bencard on April 6, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    bert, thanks for your support but i never “dish” out plagiarized comments. nash is correct, i can take what i dish out, but not what is stolen from me.

    mlq3, nobody is asking you to be a “nanny” for anyone but you have an implied invitation to everyone here to visit your blog. at least, you have a moral duty that “guests” are not abused by other invitees. i think your attitude is typical of the “oust gloria” gang and one of the chief reasons why you never succeed in your obsessive quest for ‘revenge’. i thought as a professional journalist, you would know what malicious plagiarism is when you see one.

    cvj, any idiot can see the difference between what del pilar did (change the title’s spelling) and what this s.o.b did to my post. you are overreaching, as usual, just to say something.

    • istambay_sakalye on April 6, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    but i’m not about to play nanny to anyone here.—-

    this little pig went to the market…this little pig went to the mall and this litle pig got lost and cried all the way…hu, hu, hu, i can’t find my way home. 🙁


    • Bencard on April 6, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    btw, your remark that many would-be commenters are “frightened” because of the “passionate” discussions here is truly unfortunate. people with sensible things to say and are ready to defend them need not be afraid. only those who rely solely on “passion”, not reason, can expect to be exposed for idiocy or, as benigno would put it, “vacuousness”. it’s a battle of ideas here, not insults, ad hominems, eloquence, or personalities. i think all of us here, including you, are judged more on what they say, and not so much on how they say it.

    • mlq3 on April 6, 2008 at 10:37 pm

    bencard, i agree it’s unfortunate. it’s what a hear. but it’s beyond your or my control.

    • mlq3 on April 6, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    bencard, you are free to read malice into what that commenter is doing and chances are others will too. but plagiarism? or is it satire? you and i disagree on satirical writing, too.

    what i am bound to do is enforce my rules. i’ve stated what they are. you know i have done my part to vouch for the integrity of commenters like you and others. i do not vouch for that other commenter. we can and should leave it at that.

    just as you should leave it at that and not drag in my political views -or yours, in determining this question.

    • mang_kiko on April 6, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    2. if it’s china who designates contractors, why would zte need to bribe filipino brokers? why not their own government?

    Ang gobyerno nang China ay diktador..puede nila gawin ang gusto nila at itago sa madla dahil controlado rin nila ang “media” kaya ang tanong mo, hindi puede masagot, liban nang kasalukuyan officials nang ZTE or Chinese Government, yon kung magsabi sila nang Tuto-o..

    • Bencard on April 6, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    mlq, i think it’s uncalled for on my part to drag your political views. now i’m becoming passionate. i apologize.
    i still think satire is meant to impart the author’s OWN expression through humor, not to infringe upon somebody else’s work product. then again, that’s just one of our major differences. when all is said and done, you are still the host here and we are all just voluntary drop-ins responsible for our own conduct/misconduct.

    • mlq3 on April 7, 2008 at 12:34 am

    bencard, that’s why i respect you. we may differ deeply on many matters but you are a gentleman of the old school.

    our opposing views on satirical writing may have as much to do with my being a professional writer -and so, i have a vested interest in supporting a style i try to use from time to time- as it does with your background being in the writing of legal briefs which leave no room for ambiguity, what we share is a love for, and respect, for words and ideas.

    as with all debates, there’s a larger audience judging both of us. i appreciate your kind efforts but there’s no “just.” i value your presence here just as i value the presence of those who take the time to comment or simply read.

    • UP n student on April 7, 2008 at 12:49 am


    India has a reputation as a nation of fluent English speakers, but by many estimates, only 5 percent of the population merits that description. Now, a five-year-long economic boom has triggered a rush to bring the reality into line with the lore. Once the preserve of big-city elites, English is spreading to the hinterlands.

    Bhopal, a provincial city of more than 1.5 million, is now thick with storefront schools that promise English proficiency.

    In the classroom at Uma’s English Academy, Srivastava (the subject of the news clip) sits alongside MBA and engineering students, computer salesmen and credit card executives. Some are locals, some are rural folk fresh in from the villages.

    They learn prepositions and sentence formation and baffling rules about when to say “a little” rather than “little,” “beside” rather than “besides,” and “from” rather than “of.”

    “In this classroom, nobody person is laughing on my English. I not afraid of mistakes, everybody is weak in English here,” Srivastava said, smiling and struggling to speak exclusively in the still-strange tongue.

    Helping to drive this trend is the sense that financial success isn’t enough; the perception lingers that social status comes only with true comfort in English.

    • justice league on April 7, 2008 at 1:32 am


    In your previous post; you mentioned

    “What do they think of the fact that in the U.S. banks are supposed to report to fiscal authorites unusual movements in monies to coporations in cash that led to the resignation of a powerful governor involved in prostitution. Imagine all the crooks that would fall if cash payments over a certain amount were all reported to the fiscal authorities in the Philippines?”

    Like I implied, I only wanted to point that there was a law that probably addressed your concern there. A main reason in why I just wanted to point it out is that I didn’t want to get bogged down discussing its success (or lack of it) in implementation.

    But in a discussion on a matter of “there ought to be a law”; in this instance is that there probably already is.

    The idea in your previous post just even centered on “cash” while the AMLC as a law covers more than cash.

    Now regarding your last paragraph on your post on April 6 1:10PM; if you bothered to read the AMLA, you’ll probably know that more than just the “business” involving drugs or prostitution are covered.

    That banker that you are referring to probably would assist in sending out that money but he/she is mandated under pain of penalty to report such a transaction (whether such transaction was succesful or not) if it involves the minimum amount required to be reported or even to report it if it even just appears as a “suspicious” transaction. (Which is essentially the idea that your quoted part imparts. BTW, this is the law that catapulted heroine Acsa Ramirez to prominence)

    As to the other issues that you brought up; I am not at this time interested in finding out if I agree with you or not.

    But regarding your assertion on ” … All deposits in any bank in the U.S. are subject to rules. First you have to have a social security number…”; well definitely it appears that the U.S. indeed is more strict than here.

    As a child, I had a kid’s account in a bank. They definitely didn’t need my social security number as I had none at the time and I certainly don’t think my case was an exception as I hardly think other kids with children’s accounts have a social security number. If U.S. banks require children to have a social security number for cash transactions in banks or to have a bank account; then very well.

    • justice league on April 7, 2008 at 1:39 am


    The idea in your previous post just even centered on “cash” while the AMLA as a law covers more than cash.

    (Instead of AMLC)

    • grd on April 7, 2008 at 3:50 am

    mlq3, thanks for the clarification and for your indulgence.

    i apologize to you and everyone here who were genuinely offended by my faulty inference. it was indeed a cheap shot.

    • nash on April 7, 2008 at 6:47 am


    “nash, my sympathy is with Bencard, but it seems you goffed this time, hehehe.”

    sorry, i’m lost.

    i hope you are not implying that i’m bencard’s stalker called dark pitt?

    in any case, i’m not exactly anonymous on this blog comments box.


    • mindanaoan on April 7, 2008 at 7:39 am

    mang_kiko, talaga bang mas madaling paniwalaan na nag-bribe ang zte, kahit hindi nila kailangang mag-bribe? at kung totoong nag advance na sila, seguro may mga ulong nang gumugulong ngayon?

    • mang_kiko on April 7, 2008 at 7:51 am

    mindanaoan, depende, kong ang ZTE nag deal sa manga Bansa na di ugali ang kickbacks para makakuha nang kontrata di na nila kailangan mag Bribe, pero sa Atin Bansa, iyan ang tinatawag na Step number 1 kaya mayro-on sila “implied” approval sa kanilang Gobyerno na gagawin and dapat gawin para sa Interest nang inang Bayan…

    Halimbawa sa manga Loans na na Extend sa Pilipinas: ang Bribes ay Patong ito sa total loans at pati manga opisyales nang ZTE at sa Mata-as na Gobyerno kasama na rin sa patong, kaya sa panig nang China “win-win” sila, dahil sa Kanila pa rin ang Materiales, pati manga Experts na Trabahadors at ang Principal ay Babalik pa kasama ang kaunting Interest…

    • mindanaoan on April 7, 2008 at 7:51 am

    Bencard, don’t worry too much. it’s easy to see who’s worth reading and who’s not.

    • mindanaoan on April 7, 2008 at 8:05 am

    mang_kiko, ibig mo sabihin pati mga opisyal ng zte at ng office na taga release ng loans may cut din? di ba estrikto ang gobyerno nila pag corruption? at saka, 130M ang commission ni abalos, magkano na lang sa kanila?

    • mang_kiko on April 7, 2008 at 8:28 am

    mindanaoan: ang kay abalos iyon ang hinihingi, ang final settlement di lang natin alam, pero di ba ang original contract di ba sa una di umabot sa 150 million dolyares, bat yong final contract lumampas sa 300?? Ang hinahabol lang manga corruptors sa China ay yong Local, at naexpose para ipakita sa madla na “no-nonsense” daw ang communist government, pero pag sa business international, di ba lately, lahat na kalokohan sa exports, mula sa tainted drugs heparin, pintura na may lead contents at pirated at imitations ay halos ini-export nang China, pa-ano nakalabas ito kong hindi kasabawat ang gobyerno?/

    • anthony scalia on April 7, 2008 at 8:44 am


    “…laws can be there ,but who ’s there to monitor its enforcement,when the regulators and the enforcers cannot”

    thats the role of the joint oversight committees, to see if the law/s is/are properly implemented

    we didnt see that in the NBN ZTE circus (in the first place, its just one chamber investigating)

    “If unicameralism would lessen the investigations and instead just focus on legislastion, I think it will be like a legislation mill;unless it has its own functioning equalizer,I know you would not like to hear check and balance kaya equalizer na lang”

    let me modify my stance on unicameralism – if neither chamber is elected nationally, then its okay.

    it turns out that the US model is acceptable – the lower house (435 members) is elected by district, and each state, regardless of population, sends two representatives to the senate (100 members)

    our 24 member senate just breeds arrogance and concentrates too much power in so few people

    • mindanaoan on April 7, 2008 at 8:46 am

    mang_kiko, $262 million nong una to cover 30%. pag expand to 100% coverage naging $329.4 million. yon nga ang sinasabi ko, sa scenario na pinapakita, may maging local movement ng bribe money from zte para kay abalos at sa mga taga import-export bank. hindi ba sila mahuli doon?

    • anthony scalia on April 7, 2008 at 9:09 am


    thanks for the woodrow wilson comment

    woodrow wilson the political scientist could also be referring to the present Philippine Senate (a prophecy!) when he said

    ” “special, irksome, ungracious investigations” from time to time, “in its spasmodic efforts to dispel or confirm suspicions of malfeasance or of wanton corruption.” ”


    ” Such investigations can “violently disturb” but not often “fathom the waters of the sea in which the bigger fish of the civil service swim and feed.” ” 🙂

    • KG on April 7, 2008 at 10:11 am


    Salamat ulit!!! 🙂

    I agree that you are a gentleman, I respect your thoughts ;
    that is why I don’t give much weight to the so called internet brigade and paid hack innuendos, accusations or estimations.

    although alaskador din ako paminsan minsan,(and did someother things as mentioned), you are correct that we should do a sort of self regulation and I also agree that we should have a passion thermometer,that is why I am trying my best not to be a rebel without a clue.

    GRD since ako yung nagvoiceout,please allow me to say Ok lang yun,maganda naman ang naging resulta eh.

    • anthony scalia on April 7, 2008 at 10:59 am


    “that is why I don’t give much weight to the so called internet brigade and paid hack innuendos, accusations or estimations”

    nice to hear that. its a good thing kokonti lang yung mga comments na internet brigade and paid hack innuendos etc, pero kahit kokonti lang, nakakaspoil din!

    napakagandang blog nga ito eh! millions of light years better than the mob blog at ellentordesillasdotcom.

    kaya nga kung meron mang magcomment sa akin na ang style eh pang ellentordesillasdotcom eh i wont hesitate to reply na ‘mahiya naman kay manolo’

Load more

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.