Gonzales backtracks, says Venable deal reversible

From the Tribune:

Feeling the pressure from the incessant criticisms bombarding his signing of a contract with a United States-based lobby firm Venable LLP to advance the cause of Charter change (Cha-cha) in the US and in the process secure a $800,000 loan for the Armed Forces of the Philippines through the US Defense Loan Guarantee Program, National Security Adviser Gonzales yesterday floated the possibility that the government's $900,000 a year contract with the US firm could still be terminated.

In a radio interview over dzMM, Gonzales yesterday admitted that the government is concerned over criticisms and is considering the possibility of terminating the contract as it has yet to be fully acceptable to the government.

“We are not 100 percent sure the contract would have a positive effect. We still have to see if there would be advantages so if things don't work out for the best. We can still terminate the contract,” Gonzales said.

He also said he does not know the identities of the P50M Cha-cha donors.

Malaya Editorial: What's wrong with lobby deal

RIGHT, there’s nothing wrong with the government lobbying in Washington to get more economic assistance and military aid. Philippines history, in fact, is replete with what we now call lobbying efforts.

Remember the Quezon and the Roxas-Osmena missions when the United States was trying to figure out what to do with these islands? During the heyday of the sugar quota, the Philippines had a full-time lobby office operating right from the Embassy. Even now, there is an official lobbyist looking for the interest of veterans.

In the old days, the country’s diplomatic mission was enough to push our interests in both the White House and Capitol. But with lobbying having evolved into high art in the US capital, tapping private sector lobbyists is now the norm.

So, indeed, there’s nothing wrong with hiring lobbyists. Having said that, there is, however, everything wrong with Malacañang’s hiring of the law firm Venable LLP for a monthly retainer of $70,000 a month.

First of all, it is wrong to seek funding from the United States for the proposed charter change. The United States even now is pushing for wider access for its troops in the global campaign terrorism. It’s not unthinkable that US-funded studies on constitutional reforms would call for the scrapping of the constitutional provision banning the presence of foreign troops and military facilities.

Second, while indeed it is true that the administration is not required to make public any or all agreements it signs, there are proper ways of hiring the services of foreign lawyers, consultants and what have you.

The Venable contract appeared to have been purposely kept under wraps. Why was national security adviser Norberto Gonzales designated as the signer for the government? Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita was incredulous when he first came to know about the deal. He even said the contract could not be authentic because nothing of that sort passed through his office. Merceditas Gutierrez said she was also not aware of the contract’s existence. Ditto the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Third, the secrecy of the source of funding and what is now emerging as a Palace cover-up. Gonzales said the private sector is picking up the tab. Asked to name names, Gonzales said he could not as he himself does not know them because they wanted to stay anonymous.

So was the money then sent to his home in a package with the note it was for payment to Venable? A taller story we have not heard since Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye claimed copies of the "Hello Garci" tapes and the doctored version were delivered to his house by persons unknown.

But why should we be surprised? Lying is contagious and is pandemic in Malacañang.

And Rep. Rolex Suplico wants to know who these "secret" donors are:

"Who are these private donors? Are they drug lords? Are they jueteng lords? Are they businessmen with interest to protect? Was dirty money contributed by shady characters?"