The Witness



Here is the transcript of his early morning press conference held at LaSalle Greenhills. Details in abash*t: The backstage of Rock Ed Philippines, in the entry Tired Brave Heart. and a photo page, JUN LOZADA, witness.

A background briefing by Newsbreak: Lozada: Benjamin Abalos and Mike Arroyo Behind Broadband Deal Overprice. A profile in the Inquirer: Just a ‘probinsyanong Intsik’

Lozada’s early morning presscon derailed plans in place by Michael Defensor to have held an afternoon press conference in which Lozada would then be made to read the government-prepared affidavits that out to lie any previous affidavits. That same evening, the President;s husband was obvious informed the coast is clear. Which have been the case if government minders hadn’t let down their guards and which allowed Lozada to contact friends who came forward and made the early morning press con possible.

late morning to mid-afternoon yesterday I was in the office of Senator Allan Peter Cayetano where Jun Lozada is being kept preparatory to his appearance before the Senate. It’s the first time I’ve encountered the man. He looked tired, his eye-bags were already purplish, and he was, understandably, rather high-strung, at times breaking down and sobbing as he recounted the ordeal he’s undergone -and which is continuing- and he said he was too tense to sleep and keep down his food properly. He had a firm handshake but his hand was clammy.

He will testify before the Senate, today, under oath, and so concerning the details of his being sent to Hong Kong, his stay there, his decision to come back, and what happened to him from the time the plane landed and he finally had his early morning press conference, we’ll all know his version of events soon enough.

What I did ponder upon, as I heard him recount recent events, is that there are many kinds of pressure that can be applied on a person to bend them to one’s will, and not all of them require brute force or overt threats.

Watching him and talking to him, I recalled something my father told me when I a small boy. I once asked him, what is courage? And he replied by telling me a story about his own father when they were on Corregidor. In the midst of the tunnel being shelled, he said his father spotted him cringing and biting his lip in fear; and his father told him that the truly brave man is not the man who doesn’t feel fear, but rather, the man who is filled with terror but does his duty anyway.

I can appreciate Lozada’s courage. Make no mistakes, he has faced among the worst kinds of peril I can imagine: a combined crisis of conscience, fears for his own life and that of his loved ones, the end of a career, the hostility of some friends and the harsh judgment of powerful patrons, uncertainty whether his answering the cries of his own conscience aren’t a foolhardy exercise. Being in such a pressure-cooker situation, contemplating the prospects of a kind of not only professional and financial suicide but of embarking on a sacrifice the public won’t even recognize -or possibly even deserve- whether at the end of a chain of events one initiated or in which one was swept up… Well, it’s enough to destroy anyone. His is the dilemma of a proud, perhaps overconfident man who has had to realize he is nowhere as clever, nimble, and important as he thought he was.

Let me explain what I mean by this, and these are all impressions.

To me, Lozada is no saint, or put another way, he represents the kind of man who finds himself at the center of great events, yet who could never have expected he would gain fame in such a perilous manner. He is the kind of man who doesn’t hold the actual power but who has access to those who wield power -and more importantly, has done so because he’s proven himself competent at certain things, and who thus holds a certain amount of authority.

And so, he is the kind of Useful Man who then believes that his competence and limited authority allows him to pull a kind of fast one in that, he can both tolerate a certain level of official wrongdoing, and yet accomplish something beneficial, because his efforts somehow mitigates the wrongdoing around him. (One of his more quotable quotes was his being advised by Neri to attend meetings to “moderate the greed” or words to that effect). Operating in a perpetual moral twilight, thinking it’s ultimately for the common good, can’t that then start tricking the senses into confusing twilight with the dawn? At least until a ray of light reminds that person of what the light is truly like.

Most of the questions I addressed to him were along these lines: if your work in the government involved tolerating a certain amount of official corruption, then what finally made you decide that a line had been reached you could no longer cross? He tried to explain by means of a parable.

He said that his work takes him to forestry areas and in one such area, he encountered a Dumagat. He pointed out to the Dumagat that the trees were heavily laden with fruit; that the fruit should be sold in the lowland towns. And the Dumagat replied, but those fruits are there to feed the birds. Lozada says he recalled that story when he encountered an official who, not content with the 3 billion Pesos in overpricing he (Lozada) was willing to let the official have, then insisted no, he (the official) should get 7 billion Pesos. That was simply unacceptable.

And again, I had to return to my question -what was the line, then? Essentially, this, Lozada said: percentages -commissions- say, up to 25%- are par for the course in government projects but beyond that, officials insisting on more have simply gone too far: their pound of flesh becomes so large as to deny the public any possible advantages or gains from the project. (This is not a direct quote, I am paraphrasing our exchanges.)

As he was expressing these thoughts I recalled something I’d heard from a defender of Romulo Neri, which was that his attitude, say concerning the North Rail Project, was that a certain amount of corruption was acceptable, so long as the public obtained something beneficial in the end: in this case, a railroad that should be built, anyway, without incurring heavy government obligations.

I must say that I am uncomfortable with his explanation: it makes sense, and on a certain level, yet betrays a kind of hubris. What he said does go to the heart of a very basic line (ultimately, a fluid one) most Filipinos instinctively draw, which is, that there are certain things that are just too crass -too garapal– that once crossed, can’t be tolerated. It is this, more than his obvious intelligence, or his being stuck in a perilous situation, that will resonate with the public. We navigate between our own personal spheres and the official one always conscious of the grey areas, always factoring in a certain amount of official malfeasance, but there always comes a time, even if we aren’t directly affected, when something is too much -too crass to tolerate.

But I do find it troubling that an official relies on a line he himself drew, on a basis that by its very nature must be vague or at least arbitrary, compared to the lines that should be drawn, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by the law. This is the kind of discretion that can result in a line so erasable and movable, that it becomes meaningless. In Lozada’s case he obviously resisted the temptation to keep moving the line, though he stopped moving it quite late -a matter of mere nights ago, possibly? It’s just as well he seems firm, now; it’s too bad he has moved the line so often that any potential benefits arising from his testimony will be that much harder to achieve. I am also under the impression that his personal line also involved whether or not he would have to make statements in public.

So long as everything was in the realm of speculation, did not involve his personally having to testify under oath, he may have thought that prudence was the better part of valor -no sense in seeking some sort of martyrdom. But confronted with a summons he could not ignore, and facing pressure to avoid those summons; and furthermore, realizing that the ultimate response on the part of the administration was not to enable him to permanently avoid those summons, he wouldn’t go as far as perjuring himself, at least not at the point at which he’d personally have to raise his right hand and swear to the veracity of what he would say, before the public.

There are two things about Lozada that will go far, I think, in understanding the distinctions he’s tried to make, and his eventual decision to hold the line once he felt things had gone too far. The first is that he is proud of being a Thomasian, he quotes Thomas Aquinas widely. The second is he is a passionate student of Jose Rizal.

Some snippets from his remarks to people during the hours I was there, to illustrate. Again, these more along the lines of paraphrasing his conversation, as I was taking notes by means of sending text messages to myself.

“Thomas Aquinas said the worst form of corruption is the corruption of the best.”

“We’re a failing state. The obligation of a state is to provide basic services…. Self restraint isn’t there. Checks and balances do not work. Instead, influence peddling moderates the checks and balances.”

“Rizal asked his brother Paciano, did God makes us poor and silent, or we were so misgoverned we ended up that way? Paciano couldn’t answer. Two years later, Rizal wrote to Paciano, and said, in my travels abroad I have the answer: we didn’t get the right kind of government from our leaders.”

“Rizal said there are three requirements for a Just Revolution. First, there must be a great cause, and all peaceful means must be tried to achieve it, and still, all fail; second, prepare for imminent victory, this is why he rejected Bonifacio’s invitation to join the revolution, they’d left too much to chance without thinking of what would happen afterwards; third, we must have an educated population otherwise the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow.And also, you must be prepared to erase every shred of the system you overthrow.”

“We must make it too expensive for someone to screw up the country. Only then will the next person will have second, third, fourth thoughts about trying to mess the country up.”

“If you want to understand my moral compass, there’s this book I read in which this question was tackled: ‘Why is it that billions have walked the earth while only a few have stood the test of time. And yet those few lived at a time when there were many who were more powerful or famous than them?’ When a group of thinkers examined these people, they identified four polarities. First, they had a Transformative Vision, for example, Christ’s concept of love. Second, they had Courage, even if it meant going against the trend. Third, they had a Firm Grasp of Reality. Fourth, they had Unbending Ethics. The four things form a kind of diamond and with all sides present, you have a formidable leader. But if any side is lacking it’s enough to doom any leader. The book is ‘The Philosophy of Greatness.'”

(A note on how one’s recollection of another’s recollection works in a pressure cooker environment: as he was recounting this, a nun in the room asked him the name of the author of the book; he couldn’t recall; eventually, I tracked down this book: “Leadership: The Inner Side of Greatness, A Philosophy for Leaders, New and Revised” (Peter Koestenbaum) which has an Amazon page which boils down what he was trying to say:

Believing that leadership is a “mindset and a pattern of behaviors” that can be learned and taught, Koestenbaum presents and illustrates the meaning of his “Leadership Diamond.” This consists of “four strategies for greatness”: vision (thinking big and new), reality (having no illusions), ethics (providing service), and courage (acting with sustained initiative).

A reader’s review is even more illuminating, I think, in that it presents what Lozada probably thinks he’s tried to do, regardless of whether his peers or the facts bears it out:

Koestenbaum presents his approach in a didactic manner, yet never underestimating his audience, utlizing a model for Leadership values in the form of a four vertex diamond: Vision, at the top, encompassing the ability to think strategically, but also to understand others with different cultures and realities than our own; Courage at the bottom, which surprisingly represents not heroic, one-time achievements but rather sustained initiative, the ability to focus on an objective throughout life; Reality on the left, comprehending the ability to deal with hard facts, but also the understanding of the paradoxical nature of life; and, last but not least, Ethics, which beyond anything represents empathy and stewardship, service to others as the ultimate way of realizing greatness.

I also noticed that his recollection of the events surrounding his decision to testify in public, seem solid enough, in large part because they withstood constant re-telling).

Again: the person with little actual power but some authority, the person of superior intelligence but inferior social or political status, must either accept his condition as a servant or adorn his existence with the trappings of being a kind of philosopher-king in training; servitude is always an unpleasant existence for the person convinced he has a greater mind and a superior virtue to those he serves; it makes for what some would call a messianic complex and others a hero-in-the-making.

Personally, I believe he is motivated by patriotism, and that he subscribes to the notion that he’s reached a point he did not want to arrive at, but the challenges of which he must embrace. But part of the blame, part of the peril he faces, was the making of people like himself, who thought that he could somehow outwit those who may be dull of mind and insatiable in their appetites, but who have the means to hire brains to counter his and wield force which settles any possible debate with finality.

I do think he was treated very badly by a government that failed to recognize every man has his limit and that furthermore, which overestimated its capacity to be the master of events just as it thinks it has found the measure of every man. Because there are times when the threat of brute force, or the even more cunningly applied implications of dire consequences, stiffens instead of weakens a person’s resolve to obey a higher law.

Redemption is something every person should have an opportunity to achieve.

But let us see how he testifies under oath; and how he faces up to the cross-examination by the Senators allied with the administration.

As it is, for now, a new phrase has entered our political lexicon: Moderate their greed’ :Instruction refers to Mike Arroyo, Abalos.

For now, may I refer you to the Inquirer editorial for today, and the analysis of Mon Casiple in his blog:

What happened to JDV showed that the Arroyo family is prepared to ruthlessly discard even a top ally who may dissent from its position. It demonstrated the vulnerability of all friends and allies once they doubt or oppose the ruling family. Further, the JDV ouster can be seen as a major — if not a fatal — blow at the independence of the House of Representatives and the building of a genuine political party system.

What happened to Mr. Lozada was something else. It exposed the readiness of the Arroyo family to use the state instrumentalities — even if violative of laws and human rights — for purely political survival imperatives. Malacañang’s subsequent explanations and “evidences” to support an alleged “voluntary request” by Mr. Lozada for protection pale in the face of Lozada’s own story of forced abduction. The actual events support Lozada’s own version, such as the cloak and dagger operation, the denial by Lozada’s own family of such a request, the subsequent urgent motion for a writ of habeas corpus and writ of amparo before the Supreme Court, the contradictory stories of various government officials identified with the abduction, and the renewed Malacañang attack on the Senate investigation of the ZTE-NBN deal.

The panic, desperation, and tenseness evident in the sloppy decisions and executions in these incidents vie for supremacy with the arrogance, ruthlessness, and power-tripping evident in the mind-processes of the decision-makers.

And from Billie Princesa, niece of Lozada, an appeal for prayers.

Manuel L. Quezon III.

467 thoughts on “The Witness

  1. ipokrits, sos! anong good example? ang hayaan na lang ang katiwalian sa gobyerno? mamuhay ng mapayapa? wala ba nangyari noong administrasyon ni makoy? namfrel palyed a big during the snap elections! maybe you should read your books! kung kagaya mo lng ang lahat na pilipino siguro si makoy pa rin ang nagpapatakbo ng bansa! mga kagaya nyo na ayaw kumilos para sa bayan ang dahilan na bakit wala patutunguhan ang ating bayan! good example is to do nothing? hay, if you read your history lahat na pagbabago nagsisimula sa kilos protesta at being pro-active.
    kung wala kagaya ng mga bayani na sina bonifacio, rizal at lahat na mga bayani ano kaya tayo ngayon? may pilipinas kaya? pagtapon ng basura sa basurahan? you leave in a world of make believe! maybe you should live in disney world! wake up and smell the coffee!

  2. sunny, hahahaha…nakakatawa ang sunny disposition mo sa buhay! cge you and ipokrits belong to same world…the disney world that is! “it’s a small world after all…it’s a small, small world” too bad hindi ganun ang totoong mundo! lets all get together and be happy being robbed blind by our so called leaders and tell our children that is the good example to follow. God helps those who help themselves!

  3. istambay,
    pasensiya ka na, hindi ka makaintindi. pero sige magprotesta ka hangang gusto mo baka nga yan and solution sa problema ng bayang pilipinas. Anyway, this is only the Nth time protest movement has been done in our country against whomever is in the administration. mag volunteer ka sa lahat ng mga protest movements maybe it will hasten the change that we are all looking for. maybe this will work magic and suddenly everything in RP will be fine and dandy. just like what happened after February 1986. REMEMBER

  4. sunny, sunny, ako pa nag di nakakaintindi!sus! ganyan talaga ang iba sa atin dyan! kesyo wala daw nangayayari sa mga kilos protesta ng mga taong kalye ay hayaan na lang natin ang mga kurakot sa gobyerno. pagod na pagod at wala na man nangyayari sa atin. cguro insulto yan sa mga taong nagmamalasakit sa bayan! young mga nagbuwis ng buhay nila alang alang sa buong bayan at sa mga tao na katulad nyo na gusto na lang maghintay ng biyaya mula sa langit habang ang iba ay nakikipaglaban ng walang pagod!
    cguro nga, we do deserve nga ang mga nangyayari sa atin.

  5. istambay,
    walang insultohan dito, totohanan yang sinasabi ko. kung ang approach mo ay protesta at yan ang sa tingin mo makakapagbigay daan sa pagbabago ay i encourage you to continue. hindi ko sinasabi na pabayaan ang mga nagnanakaw o mga kurakot sa gobyerno dapat silang sugpuin, bitayin, ibitin ng patiwarik,ipalunok sa kanila ang pera na ninakw nila in coins.
    sana maintindihan mo na iba iba tayo ng pamamaraan, hindi ibig sabihin na naniniwala pa ako sa batas, passive ako at walang ginagawa para sa bayan. at laong hindi ako naghihintay ng biyaya. pero salamat sa paglait mo sa akin, magandang example ka nga.

  6. sunny,sunny,sunny, paglait ba ang tawag dun? ang ikayat ang mga mamamayan para lumaban sa katiwalian laban sa bayan? isang tanong sa lahat na nagsusulat dito, mayron ba kayong alam na mga magulang na di nagturo ng tama sa mga anak nila? cguro lahat naman tayo dito tinuruan ng tamang asal, ugali at pinagsabihan na masama magnakaw at sundin ang mga batas. kahit na mga magulang nina gma, fg, ermita, neri et al. pinag-aral sa magandang paaralan, assumption, ateneo, up at iba pa.
    pero ang pagturo ng tama sa mga bata at magiging anak nila ay hindi lamang hanggang doon. we also must lead by example. ano sa tingin mo ang iisipin ng bata kung ang makikita nila ay puro katiwalian ng mga so called leaders natin at tayo ay kontento na lang na walang ginagawa? hindi sapat ang turuan lamang ng basic etiquette and right manners ang mga bata. dapat ipakita din sa kanila na bilang myembro ng sosyodad ay may responsibilidad din silang ipagtanggol ang karapatan ng bawat tao. ipaglaban ang tama dahil kung di tayo kumilos lahat na tinuturo natin ay maging walang saysay.
    magsalita kung tinatapakan na ang karapatan ng mga mamamayan. magpakita ng di pagsang-ayon sa mga katiwiliang ginagawa. paano malalaman na sumasakit na pala ang tiyan mo kung si ka magsalita. kahit ang aso ang nangangagat na kung inaapakan!
    passive ka pala pero nagagalit ka rin pagnanasaktan na! ganyan nga lang, ano pa na ang dami ng namatay at ninanakaw. k pa rin sa yo? basat turuan lang ng tama ang mga anak natin ay maayos na ang problema ng bayan? kung di mo pa makuha ang aking punto at mag-insist ka pin na ang tamang approach sa surilanin ng bayan natin ay manitili sa bahay at turuan na lang tama ang mga anak natin dahil ang mga nagdaang sakripisyo na mga nakipaglaban ay walang narating sa tingin mo, ang masasabi ko lang God help us all filipino!

  7. istambay,
    ang paghikayat na magprotesta ay hindi ko sinabing panlalait – sabi ko nga sa yo kung yan ang sa tingin mo ay tama karapatan mo yan. please do exercise your right.
    ang sinasabi kung panglalait ay ang iyong mga lines.. i live in disneyworld…naghihintay ng biyaya..
    hindi ko rin sinabi na PASSIVE ako, ang sabi ko hindi dahil sa hindi ako sumasama sa kilos protesta passive ako.
    hindi ko rin sinabi na para malutas ang problema ng ating bayan – tayo ay manatili sa bahay. ang sinasabi ko para malutas ang problema ng bayan sisimulan ang pagtuturo ng tama sa ating mga anak – sa bahay. gets mo na?

  8. sunny, bakit ngayon o sa nakaraan hindi ba tinturuan ng tama ang bata. tayo, di ba tayong lahat ay tinuruan ng tama ng mga magulang natin? sina gma, fg at mga taga gobyerno? sabi ko nga lahat naman na mga magulang tinuturuan ng tama ang mga anak nila. pero hindi yon sapat para sa ikabubuti ng ating bayan dahil responsibilidad din natin bilang mga magulang at mabuting mamamayan ang turuan ang mga bata na kasama tayo sa lipunan at may repsobilidad ang ipagtanggol ang mga karapatan laban sa mga katiwalian at huwag payagan abusuhin ng mga nasa pwesto ang kapangyarihan na dapat gamitan sa ikabubuti ng kalahatan. ang sinasabi mong turuan ang mga bata ng tama ay ginagawa ng lahat na mga magulang. mayroon lang talagang mga tao na kahit na anong pangaral ay gagawin pa rin ang mali. hindi na yan kasalanan ng magulang kayat respondibilidad natin bilang mamamayan na huwag payagan mnangyari ang nangyayari ngayon at kung kailangan ilang ulit na ulitin natin ang pagprotesta o pagsigaw sa langsangan para makamtam ang katarungan at hustisya ay dapat gawin! kahit bata ay dapat pagsabihan mo ng ilang beses bago ka sundin. ganyan din ang responsibilidad natin bilang myembro ng sosyodad. lahat tayo ay may pananagutan. mula pa sa kpanahonan ni kupong kupong lahat na magulang ay tama ang tinuturo sa mga anak nila. KULANG YON!

  9. …at hindi ako lang o sila ang dapat makipaglaban para sa ikabubuti ng lipunan dahil para sa lahat ang ipinaglalaban! para lahat ni mamamayan bata man o matanda at sa mga anak ng mga anak at sa apo sa darating pang panahon! RESPONSIBILDAD NATIN LAHAT! HINDI PWEDE NA SILA LANG! KAILANGAN LAHAT TAYO! TAYO AT TAYO!

  10. istambay,
    pasensiya ka na, hindi ko na alam kung papano ko maipaintindi sa yo kung ano ang stand ko dito sa isyung ito. for your sake, kung protesta and tingin mong sagot sa problema ng bayan at yan at tanging yan lang ang alam mong solusyon eh di gawin mo. sabi ko nga sa yo karapatan mo yon, walang makakapigil sa yo.
    meron akong nabasang biro na gusto kong i share sa yo and it goes like this… THE HUMAN BRAIN IS LIKE A PARACHUTE IT IS USELESS UNLESS IT IS OPEN…sana wag masyadong makitid and pag iisip para sa ikabubuti ng bayan.

  11. sunny,sunny,sunny….sana lahat na lang sunny ang disposition sa buhay para masaya na lang lahat kahit niloloko na! suko na ako. oo na makitid na ulo ko. maybe in need to see brain surgeon…open up my head a little bit…but then again it’s a small world after all. o gaya sa aladin theme song…i can show you the world…teka nga puro disney tunes pala lahat…am i in disneyland?
    nah it’s still pinas pala.
    people who don’t fight for their rights doesn’t deserve to get rights or freedom!

  12. As Manny Quezon said study your history. Is Lozada the making of a Hitler in Germany? One who can incite the Church, the students and place doubt on the rule of government? Let us go back to history and learn from the past. Something is amiss in searching for truth. The benchmark to judge is lost and has become relative. Take time. Its in the very front of your eyes.

  13. Some people don’t understand when they say “we want the truth, nothing but the truth”. Just like the mainstream issue in the country today, the NBN Scandal. People should know that if they seek for the truth, then you should not be one sided. If you believe that Jun Lozada is saying the truth, then therefore you have found the truth and the issue is closed for seeking for the truth. Then we could hear people still saying that “we want the truth”. Does this mean that they still doubt on the side that they believe in?

    We should also understand that no government is perfect because no person is perfect. But this does not excuse those who breaks the law. What law are we following? It is the law of man and specifically the law of the country. It is not the law of the church or to any religions. If you kill someone are you breaking the law? Yes! If your thinking of killing somebody do you break the law? No! But yes for the church, it is a sin.

    So what is the purpose of the church? It is to guide an individual to what is right or wrong. But it does not mean that any priests or bishops or cardinals and the like don’t get mistakes. You can point that to EDSA II, wherein some religious individuals had unleashed there support for President Arroyo. Then, we can see today that some religious individuals have to draw there support for the President. One clear example is the De La Salle Christian Brothers. So does this mean that priests, bishops, and the like does not make mistakes?

    So if we really want to find the truth we must not chose any sides but rather we should be neutral to events, understand on what both sides says, and finally make our own judgment without a doubt to what side we think is true. So from there on, you should stop saying that “we want the truth nothing, but the truth”. 🙂

  14. the truth is already out there. even gma already admitted herself that she knew before the signing of zte-nbn contract that it was “flawed”! very reminiscent of “i’m sorry”, “hello garci”. there is no gray area anymore, the cat is out of the bag. the truth we’re looking for is in very front of our eyes the whole time! so now do we do with truth is the question.

  15. It’s time that we as nation forgive each others fault and realize that we mortals have our own shortcomings and differences. To aggravate things our pa pogi politicians instead of focusing their attention in solving the problems like poverty alleviation wasted the chance by imploring to the excitement when they see these as an opportunity to gain political mileage. I say no matter how they try Kabayan Noli de Castro for sure will be the next President of the Republic of the Philippines not Lozada or anybody else for that matter. The survey of Pulse Asia and other reputable forecasting institutions points to that direction and a calculating politician like Kabayan is no match to the present crop of presidentiables. i am not a fan of Noli but that was how events presents us as it unfolds. The way I see this scandal its a win-win for gloria and noli. If they want Gloria to resign and Noli will take over he will of course do ala Gerald Ford pardon and story goes on and on…until another scandal sprouts again!

  16. since the issue of the zte investigation is about graft and corruption in gov’t, i am interested to know what other anomalies jun lozada is privy in, if he really is for the truth, he should take this opportunity to divulge all he knows concerning irregularities/grafts/corruptions in the years working for or dealing with the goverment. we need to hold ALL government officials past or present accountable for their actions, otherwise corruption would just go on. we are concentrating to hard on catching the one big fish that we are letting go of a lot of the small fries which in the end would grow up and become giant fishes.

    on another point, i’m so so dissapointed with corazon aquino, i was with edsa 1 and i used to consider her a hero, but now, she is but a worthless piece of shit, she did nothing during her presidency except play stage mother and play majong. and if arroyo is corrupt thru her husband, aquino was and is corrupt thru her brother. they’ve cheated the farmers of hacienda luisita and up to now, no justice has been given to all those massacred during the luisita demonstration

Leave a Reply

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