Monumental fuckup

One for the books.

Are we better off now than we were 8 years ago?

That is the question. That is all that matters.

And please, do not listen to the spinners of malacanang and it's stooges in the media when it comes to our economy.

Video of future GMA commercial with Bush

(link) (via) And she's been waiting to be invited to White House since 2005-- to do this sort of thing. If you watch the video, mapapansin mo na mine-memorize pa niya ang speech habang nagsasalita si Bush.

Cuz you can't afford to screw up this "once in a lifetime" opportunity.

Hillary: Help me pay off my debt

I guess Barack won't be helping her much in reducing her utang.



Dear John,

I made a promise to you, and I intend to keep it.

I told you that if you stood up for me, I would always stand up for you. You did more for me than I could have ever imagined, and I'm going to keep my end of the bargain and keep fighting for what we believe in -- in the Senate and on the campaign trail, helping to elect a new Democratic president and a bigger Democratic majority in Congress.

That relationship will endure thanks to the remarkable journey you and I have shared. But there's something else -- less endearing and I hope less enduring -- that our campaign has left behind: our substantial campaign debt.

I'm so grateful for all you've done for me -- all the ways you have given your time, energy, and financial resources. But today I am asking once again for your help ridding our campaign of debt so we can keep fighting together.

Contribute today to help us reduce our campaign debt.

As you know, I had to loan money to my campaign at critical moments. I'm not asking for anyone's help to pay that back. That was my investment and my commitment because I believe so deeply in our cause.

But I do need your help paying the debts we accrued to others over the course of this campaign. We put everything we had into winning this race, and we came just about as close as you can.

I will never regret the energy, effort, and passion we put into one of the closest and most expensive primary contests in history. But I need your help to move on to the next phase of our journey together.

Your contribution today will help us pay down our campaign debt.

You've done so much for me over the past 17 months, and I can never thank you enough. But I hope you know how much I appreciate everything you put into our campaign.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

P.S. Everywhere I go, people tell me what a big difference our campaign has made in their lives. Let's keep working together throughout 2008 and beyond to advance the causes we believe in and to advocate alongside people whose voices need to be heard.

MTRCB butchers "Serbis"

sabi ni Dino Manrique dapat i-sara na ang MTRCB dahil dito.

I disagree. We need the MTRCB to stop films like the Erap documentary from being shown to the public.

"BDS" ni DJB sa PDI

I think Tito Dean is has it. I don't what the hell he is talking about. I don't see what he sees.

I don't understand DJB's anger towards the PDI. Why is he slamming the Inquirer only now about it's "extreme leftwing", "pro-terrorist" views when we heard little or nothing from him during his years as Inquirer columnist from 1996-2004? Hindi ba matagal nang "leftwing" ang PDI? Since 1986 pa? (lol...)

Wag naman sana niyang gayahin si disgruntled ex PDI-columnist Vic Agustin, na napaka sour grapes.

Warrant of arrest for Jun Lozada's wife filed by PNP

From Ellen Tordesillas:

Sr Estrella Casteleone forwarded to me this text from Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, star witness in the NBN/ZTE scandal:

A warrant of arrest was issued for Violet from the Regional Trial Court in connection with the complaint filed by the PNP and Mascariñas.

We are posting bail. Violet is down.

They are trying to break me by hitting Violet.

The names of the prosecutors: John Erick Flordeliza, Joseph Guevarra, and Jessica Junsay-Ong.

Violet was charged by the PNP of perjury for filing a petition for habeas corpus for Lozada when her husband was kidnapped upon his arrival from Hongkong last Feb. 6.

Mascariñas is Police Senior Superintendent Paul Mascariñas whom Jun Lozada he met in a restaurant with lawyer Antonio Bautista when he was being given driven around. They even reached Laguna.

If you think just because the ZTE scandal has died down, the administration will let sleeping dogs lie, you're sadly mistaken. They are vindictive grudge-holding people who should have been thrown out of malacanang a long time ago after Hello Garci.

And this is their payback time.

Hope this serves as a warning and a lesson to ping lacson, jejomar binay and others, lalo na pag-election time na naman ulit sa 2010.

I'm glad the sisters are with Lozada, but the Bishops are with Arroyo. So talo pa rin si Lozada.

Billy Esposo slams Catholic Church Leaders

The Catholic flock is disillusioned when Church leaders support largely perceived evil rulers, when these Church leaders appear to be rationalizing and sanitizing evil. This is so reminiscent of Cardinal Richelieu, who effectively utilized his Church title to consolidate royal power as King Louis XIII's designated Chief Minister.

Read the whole thing.

DJB changes name of his blog

to Philippine-American Commentary.

And the reason for the change?

I'm tired of people accusing me of being PRO-AMERICAN when I've never denied it and have always proudly proclaimed it. You see, I've never had an identity crisis. I want everyone to know that to me nationalism as practiced by both the Left and the Right is mere tribalism. My nation is humanity. My republic is the whole world. My religion is Science and Reason. And I care more about the Future than I do the Past.

"This is a very clear intervention of God in your behalf. So be always grateful to Him and dedicate your life and your work for the glory of God."

(via) that's Bacolod Bishop Vicente Navarra, crediting divine intervention on Ces Drilon's release.

Ako naman, i would credit the ransom money that was paid for drilon and her crew's release.

UPDATE: Hah! i knew he would comment on this too.

AFI's 10 Top 10

America's Ten Greatest Films in 10 Classic Genres

Michelle Obama guest hosts on The View

Ann Althouse live-blogs it. (video link)

Ces Orena Drilon and crew finally free

Good News.

UPDATE: News Blackouts and Media Embargoes

It's more common than one thinks. In fact, it is gov't policy when it comes to "live" cases of kidnapping

Eniwey, ito Sabi ni MLQ3:

1. Coming at the heels of the Peninsula Caper, the embargo will inspire the network’s critics to reassert their resentments and antipathy against journalists.

2. Having asked for a favor, ABS-CBN now owes the other networks and media outfits. Not a good situation, pragmatically to say the least.

3. The embargo as I said above, is only acceptable if it is taken, industry-wide, as laying down a precedent for all future coverage of all future kidnappings. Otherwise, it will simply reinforce the contempt of the network’s critics.

The precedent has already been set by the media, in cooperation with this administration, when it comes to "unsolved" kidnapping case.

Manila, September 17, 2002 (STAR) By Christina Mendez and Eva De Leon - The Arroyo administration admitted yesterday that a fresh wave of kidnappings last week has set back the government’s campaign against organized crime.

Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye made the admission as President Arroyo appealed to journalists anew to impose a news blackout on unsolved kidnapping cases to avoid compromising ongoing police operations and endangering the victims’ lives.

But at that time, many thought the move had less to do with concern for the safety of the victims and more of a "damage control" PR move by the government to put a lid on the negative news on the front pages due to the increase in kidnapping cases against the Chinese on an almost weekly basis after January 2001.

More from the PDI:

Macapagal seeks news blackout on kidnapping
Posted: 11:57 PM (Manila Time) | Sep.. 13, 2002
By Alcuin Papa and Juliet Javellana and Carla P. Gomez
Inquirer News Service

Silence, please

Speaking by phone, President Macapagal-Arroyo said she was “meeting with a major (TV) network” later in the evening to air her request to observe media silence.

She noted that the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, the industry association, had signed a memorandum of agreement “with anti-crime NGOs (nongovernment organizations), the Teresita Ang Sees of the world,” not to report live cases.

Read this too (June 1, 2003)

‘Kill’ live kidnap
cases, cops ask
Posted: 0:39 AM (Manila Time) | Jun. 01, 2003
By TJ Burgonio
Inquirer News Service

OFFICIALS of the Philippine National Police and anti-crime groups Saturday appealed anew to the media to refrain from reporting on “live kidnapping cases” to ensure the safety of the victims.

In newspaper parlance, to “kill” a story is to have it not see print.

Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales' "Theology of Crumbs"?

From Asianews:

Manila (AsiaNews) – In four years Card Gaudencio Rosales’ “theology of crumbs” has enabled the Filipino Church to raise 161 million pesos (about US$ 3.5 million) for development projects in favour of the country’s poor. After collecting 25 centavos from parishioners and others, the archdiocese’s fundraising project is financing some 80 projects nationwide without government aid....

While some companies and individuals gave a lot of money, most of the donations were 25 centavos coins, said Henrietta de Villa, a Pondo ng Pinoy director.

Collections are growing each year and are not likely to slow down, like a “miracle.”

Theology of Crumbs eh? Pshhhh....! Ever heard of the "Theology of PAGCOR"?

Jinggoy Stuck on Stupid

When you have Opposition senators like this, who needs enemies?

How it Happened

After reading some of the old articles and studying the timeline of events on the ninez case, here's what i think happened.

1) the tribune and ninez published articles that had the FRAPORT people accusing influential lawyer Villaraza, Climaco and others within the Arroyo admin of extortion and harassment. One of the evidence that Ninez had was a tape that contains "illegally recorded" conversations between Fraport and their lawyers.

2) Villaraza protested and claimed that the Tribune articles were lies. He presented two letters of apology, one from Bender and one from Stiller, to disprove the tribune article's claims about FRAPORT extortion complaints.

More here:

But while Malacanang Thursday hailed Villaraza for coming out of paid advertisements that published Fraport lawyer, Dietrich Stiller's carefully worded denial letter to Villaraza, which was no categorical denial of either the taped Fraport conversations at the Shangrila offices of Fraport, or a categorical denial of his not ever having stated that Villaraza had demanded $20 million, paid offshore to an entity in Hong Kong, for legal and political services to be rendered in the background.

3) Since the Tribune refused then to back down from their reports, and FRAPORT's statements and letters at that time seemed to contradict the tribune, it looked like a "slam dunk" for villaraza when he went after ninez cacho olivares by filing all these libel cases agaisnt her.

4) But on Oct 2003, everything the Tribune had been reporting 5 months ahead of other papers re FRAPORT's ahem... "misgivings" with Villaraza were confirmed when the contents of the FRAPORT arbitration request was made public. ninez was ahead of the curve in what FRAPORT's intentions were. her newspaper was reporting in advance what we would all later find out--FRAPORT was serious with it's allegations, that the "letters of apology" were just a way to keep the influential wolves at bay until the complaint has been filed.

So is this libel?

Erap praises CBCP for "admitting mistake" on Edsa Dos

From Ellen Tordesillas:

Former President Estrada yesterday commended the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines for admitting that their supporting a power grab against him in January 2001 that installed Gloria Arroyo in Malacañang was a mistake.

“I commend the CBCP in displaying humility and admitting their error in supporting my ouster. At least now people are beginning to admit the truth that Edsa Dos was a conspiracy, a power grab. Former Chief Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma was right when she said that Edsa Dos was an instance when the rule of law was thrown out and the rule of force prevailed.”

Last Saturday, after more than seven years, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) acknowledged the error of the “Sin era” in supporting the second people’s uprising on EDSA, and wants to “make up” for it, GMA-7 online reported.

Manila archdiocese vice chancellor Fr. Sid Marinay said the current direction of the CBCP is now to strengthen political institutions that EDSA 2 had weakened.

but the joke is on erap. the only reason they are changing their emphasis from let's get rid of erap "by any means necessary" to "let's follow the constitution" on Arroyo is simple--they want their president arroyo to stay and finish her unelected term in 2010.

(They don't want to "people power" arroyo. They don't support the impeachment process vs Arroyo, calling it an "unproductive exercise" (way to undermine the system/process you've advocated, bishops). And they don't want to call for her resignation.

Get the drift, mr erap?)

And the reason why they chose to disregard the rule of law in 2001? because they knew they couldn't remove a democratically elected president without breaking the law themselves and supporting a civilian/military coup.

If Arroyo wasn't so corrupt and venal, Edsa dos would still be celebrated to this day by the likes of dean jorge bocobo, the CBCP, civil society, and arroyo herself.

And Erap would still be rotting in jail with no chance at pardon. Arroyo only released erap (with blessings from the bishops) to save herself from ending up like Estrada.


Related Posts:
- "Calling for Arroyo’s resignation could weaken the country’s democratic institutions."
- CBCP in 2006: Impeachment an "unproductive" exercise
- "Cannot demand her resignation” or “do not demand her resignation”?
- Rina Jimenez David takes a look at the latest Pastoral letter
- "An amazing pastoral statement from the CBCP"
- "Everybody Cheats Anyway"
- Dishonesty at the CBCP
- LOL at Francisco Claver

Hindi kaya maging raket ito?

yung bagong pakulo ni Maam GMA.

Tim Russert will be missed

the moderator of Meet the Press died at the age of 58 yesterday of a heart attack.

Wayback Machine: Nixing Pancho's $20-M demand led to GMA, SC Piatco voiding

Nixing Pancho's $20-M demand led to GMA, SC Piatco voiding

FRAPORT-GLORIA GOV'T ACCORDS COLLAPSED DUE TO REFUSAL TO "DELIVER" GOODS TO "FIXER"

By Ninez Cacho-Olivares
Editor in-Chief
Monday, 06 09, 2003

EXCLUSIVE ��������������

A second tape-recorded conversation between officials and lawyers of Frankfurt AG, the German partner with a 30-percent stake in the controversial Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. contract, obtained by the Tribune recently, disclosed that the nullification of the Piatco contract, announced by President Arroyo last Nov. 30, 2002, during her Rizal Day speech, which was upheld by the Supreme Court (SC), following its decision to declare the contract null and void, stemmed from Fraport's �reluctance� to accede to Mrs. Arroyo's personal lawyer, F. Arthur �Pancho� Villaraza's alleged demand of $20 million for his �in the background� legal and governmental services, to be paid offshore to an entity in Hong Kong.

It was also disclosed in the second taped conversation that Fraport officials, including their chairman, Robert Koch, were also dealing directly with Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo, presidential legal counsel and former law partner of Villaraza, Avelino �Nonong� Cruz and Presidential Adviser for Strategic Projects Gloria Tan-Climaco, strongly intimating as well that Mrs. Arroyo was aware of all these nego-tiations between Fra-port representatives and Malaca�ang officials.

Several letters from Koch, the prime minister of Hesse and Fraport chairman of the Supervisory Board, to President Arroyo, confirmed, in a guarded manner, the agreements earlier reached � until the collapse of these agreements due, from the conversation, to Fraport's refusal to give in to due, from the conversation, to Fraport's refusal to give in to Villaraza's demand of $20 million in offshore payment.

Fraport lawyer Dietrich Stiller was recorded as saying, �There are letters from our Prime Minister who is the chairman of the Supervisory Board (Koch) where he several times confirmed in a very cloudy way, 'Thank you very much. I am happy to announce that we now have an agreement. And there are the announcements that we are, more or less, happy with the nullification of the concession and we have to change this direction first before we have any chance to sue anybody in the government, because the government will tell us, we did exactly what you wanted.'�

The Palace offer at the time, was for Fraport to sell out its shares to the Arroyo administration, to effect a government takeover of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 project, but at the same time, keep the door open to Fraport to operate and manage the terminal, with a side contract.

From the taped conversation, it was made evident that the �official� government representatives made up of the trio in the Arroyo administration and the �unofficial� Arroyo representative, Villaraza, known as Mrs. Arrroyo's �troubleshooter� and �fixer,� that the Malaca�ang representatives were then questioning the contract, �not because somebody really had a problem with the (Piatco) contract or had a problem with the clauses in there� but that it was a good opportunity for the Arroyo government officials to �raise� money and �screw Fraport.�

Fraport representative Peter Henkel was quoted in the tape as saying Fraport �was really convinced that they (Malaca�ang officials) were looking for some possibilities to raise money. They thought it was a good opportunity to screw Fraport and they were looking into the contract under which circumstances they could do it.�

The conversation also touched on Climaco �discovering� 28 allegedly �onerous provisions� in the Piatco contract, then adding 40 more �in order to put pressure on Piatco and on Fraport.�

The Palace panel, which was supposedly ordered by Mrs. Arroyo to review the Piatco contract, based its recommendations solely on the papers submitted by Climaco.

The Senate blue ribbon committee, headed by administration Sen. Joker Arroyo, was said to have relied solely on Climaco's �review of the Piatco contract.�

The SC, in its ruling declaring the Piatco contract null and void, also followed the arguments raised by Climaco, lawyers pointed out.

Some $50-$60 million, apart from the Villaraza demand of $20 million paid offshore to an unnamed entity in Hong Kong, was reportedly offered by presidential cronies to pay off the majority Piatco shareholders, Vic Cheng Yong and his family members, $20 million for his shares, with $40 million going to certain Malaca�ang officials, one of whom was distinctly identified as the presidential legal adviser Cruz, which money would be used to buy off �influential� and �powerful� government officials, to fix up the government, legal and judicial problems as this would effect the �magical disappearance� of the Fraport-Piatco problems.

In the second tape, Henkel went on to say there was already an agreement of sorts with Climaco, Romulo and Cruz that the Arroyo government would compensate Fraport in the event of the Piatco contract being declared null and void.

�I wanted a reconfirmation letter (from the Palace) that we would receive the attendant liabilities or any other compensation. Then when we asked them (Palace officials) about this letter, she (Tan-Climaco) always said, �Okay, we didn't give them (letters promised) because you did not deliver, and 'You did not deliver' refers to Villaraza,� Henkel was quoted in the tape as saying.

A Fraport lawyer, in the same tape cut, is heard saying: �Our response was, she asked us to take this, to hire this thief, to pay $20 million on our contract and when we told her (Tan-Climaco), 'The man's a thief and we won't do it,' she came back and told us again to do it. And then later, when we needed things to be done in order to proceed with the commercial operation of this terminal, she said, 'You didn't deliver! We're not gonna do it 'cause you didn't deliver!'�

Climaco had insisted too many times on Fraport's hiring of Villaraza for $20 million under Mrs. Arroyo's personal lawyers' conditions and was alleged to have threatened the Fraport representatives with a lot of problems if they did not do what she, acting on the authority of Mrs. Arroyo, as her appointment papers as presidential adviser claimed, demanded of Fraport.

===========

GMA "aide" asked Fraport to invent evidence

PALACE "FIXER" BRINGS UP "ANTI-DUMMY LAW" TO GET $20 MILLION

By Ninez Cacho-Olivares
Editor in-Chief
Tuesday, 06 10, 2003

Presidential aide Gloria Tan-Climaco and President Arroyo's personal lawyer, F. Arthur "Pancho" Villaraza, used threat and intimidation on Frankfurt AG (Fraport) officials, to force the German investors to pay them off and to provide them with the opening to get the "right partners" in to replace the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (Piatco) majority stockholder Vic Cheng Yong and son Jeffrey, where the presidential aide could again cash in through more commissions for brokering the deal.

This was disclosed in the second tape of the Fraport conversations obtained recently by the Tribune which also suggested that Mrs. Arroyo was in on the $20 million offshore payment deal.

Fraport officials, the tape disclosed, were threatened by the presidential aides on being charged with violations of the Anti-Dummy Law, claiming this has been breached.

At the same time, Climaco wanted Fraport to manufacture evidence against the Chengs, and against then Transportation Secretary Pantaleon Alvarez, in the form of testimony from Fraport officials on "corrupt" practices that went on between Piatco and Alvarez.

Alvarez earlier stood pat on his claims that the Piatco contract was aboveboard.

Insiders told the Tribune that this stand of Alvarez was a barrier to the plans of Climaco and Villaraza in their scheme to extort money from Fraport through threats and intimidation, and the continued warning of a government takeover of the Terminal 3 project.

The conversation also suggested heavily that Climaco was into corrupt practices while screaming �corruption� publicly.

In a meeting, Villaraza's �opening statement� to Fraport officials was that the Arroyo lawyer never saw such an agreement as �scandalous as the Piatco contract� and that in his view, the Arroyo administration �could take over the project by declaring that Fraport and the other shareholders are in breach of the Anti-Dummy Law.�

Dr. Dietrich Stiller, Fraport lawyer, was quoted as saying: �He (Villaraza) said one possible window for government to take over was to declare the Anti-Dummy Law had been breached. We told him, 'Mr. Villaraza, with all due respect, we have received legal opinions that the structure is in order. I know these (corporate) layered structures from other investments and your good office, for example, represented Deutsche Telekom and I worked day and night with your partner Sylvette Tankiang Ferrer on the Telekon deal' and saying it had a similar structure.�

Stiller went on to say that Villaraza had told him in no uncertain terms that the Piatco �project will never be politically solved. It will always be politically in deep s�t. It will always be challenged but that the damage could be controlled, and the risks are reduced,� adding Villaraza had told him (Stiller) that with the risks controlled, this will �enable Fraport to somehow get through just to survive.�

A Fraport lawyer is heard on tape asking Stiller if it was at this meeting �where he (Villaraza) said 'You have to pay me offshore.'�

Stiller replies: �Yeah.�

Another lawyer says: �There was only one meeting. And he said in this meeting, damage control is the only option we have.�

Still another Fraport lawyer says: �And damage control consists of paying (Villaraza) money,� with yet another lawyer saying, �What he (Villaraza) said basically was 'You pay me offshore and I will work in the background and that's how we'll control the damage.'�

Stiller replies, �Yeah.�

There is also a suggestion that President Arroyo was in on the offshore payment deal with someone in alleging that �the President is a crook.�

Villaraza claimed, in his letter to the Tribune demanding a retraction and apology, that he had never discussed the Piatco project with Stiller and that there was only one meeting, where he claimed that he had to reject Fraport as a client, as he would not want to take on a case that was adverse to the Arroyo government.

The second tape also disclosed that Tan-Climaco wanted the Chengs out because she had �potential replacements� for them.

Stiller is heard to say: �She (Climaco) had certain ideas to bring in a corporation called the NDC (National Development Corporation...which seems to be a government agency.�

It was said on tape that what Climaco essentially wanted was to have the government take the stake in this terminal with Stiller affirming this, saying, �Right. For a certain period until it could be sold out to someone else. Because the problem is, if she had this cascade (corporate layering) and one shareholder, domestic shareholder dropped out, they need another domestic one to come in. They cannot be taken over by a foreigner.�

Climaco, from the taped conversation, really pushed Fraport to the limits, with Climaco always saying, �Well, if all the other issues are solved (evidence against the Chengs and Alvarez, as well as the $20 million payment offshore to an entity in Hong Kong) then, we probably can help you. We can help you here, or we can help you there, but we are not in a position to put this in writing.�

She had presented before Malaca�ang and the Senate blue ribbon committee meeting her review of the Piatco contract, which was the sole basis for Mrs. Arroyo, the Senate and the SC to nullify the contract. The side of Fraport and the Piatco partners was never taken into consideration.

Wayback Machine: Seize the day or be a wimp

Excerpts from "Seize the day or be a wimp" (apr 20, 2003) by Dante A. Ang:

One of the favorite moves of Viaje and his dogs is to bring the "recalcitrants" to court. They file suit after suit against those who refuse to do business with them. They hedge, stall, prevent the President from signing documents that have already passed the scrutiny of the independent legal eagles, look for loopholes and, when solutions are found, come up with new hurdles ad nauseam. The detractor is sued for every imaginable infraction of the law until he is broke or broken down into submission.

Does it sound familiar?

French Film Festival 2008 Schedule in Manila

(via) here's the list. free raw ang palabas.

I hear Roman de GAre is good.

A Dog Named "Viaje"

(Wayback Machine Apr 13 2003)

A Dog Named "Viaje"
by Dante Ang

I have long promised myself that as long as President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is Commander in Chief, I shall not comment on political events as they unfold. The reason is simple. My close personal association with the President makes me feel unsure if I can muster the courage to be critical of her and her policies when the occasion so demands.

I expect the �intrigeros,� the �intrigeras,� the �inggiteros� and the �inggiteras� in and out of the Palace to retail the canard that I have defected to, and am campaigning for, the opposition. I heard this �tsismis� being peddled by a �broadcaster-kuno� some weeks ago. This pretender is known in the industry as an insult to the profession, the best argument, according to the old joke, for birth control.

I�ve been maligned as a result of a series of black propaganda against me, not so much by some members of the opposition as by the very people I thought were my friends. I held my peace, rolled with the punches, and suffered in silence as I watched them sully my reputation. And in the few instances when I had to come out and defend myself in public, I had to weigh my words to prevent the issue from involving the Palace.

I try very hard not to be distracted by the credit-grabbing �crabs� in and out of government. I believe in the adage that �if you stop before every dog that barks, you will never get to your destination.�

But this time I have to make an exemption. There�s this dog �Viaje,� named after �viajeng Hapon� or �lagareng Hapon,� that moved into a sprawling apartment complex when his master, by Divine intervention, was appointed by the owners to manage the company as its president/CEO. Viaje brought along with him some of the dogs from the same kennel where he came from and assigned them to guard the units in the complex.

With his dogs guarding every unit, nothing would happen without Viaje�s knowledge. They reported to him meetings between the tenants and the President. Soon, he put on airs. His bark became louder and more menacing, and his bite deadlier as the days wore on.

Dogs in the neighborhood kowtowed to him. They regularly brought him bones and a piece of their daily rations. But Viaje was insatiable. He settled for nothing less than the whole cow. So he ordered his dogs to harass the tenants until they came across. And woe to those who ignored him; worse to those who refused to cooperate.

His bullying paid off handsomely. Some tenants appeased Viaje and his dogs grudgingly. Cows, by the thousands, were sent to his pasture in Hong Kong and elsewhere outside the country.

Having tasted the delivery of the first cows, he went for the jugular. One tenant, for example, is being milked of US$20 million worth of imported cows; the other, P300 million worth of local cows. There were other equally mind-boggling shakedowns, not to mention his attempt to corner the transportation insurance business and to put the heat on two feuding telecoms firms so they would hire him as their �court general.�

Viaje has obviously become a pain in the ass. He acts like a feudal lord whose word is law to his vassals. What he wants, he gets. He growls at every conceivable sign of disapproval by the tenants. He harasses them until they toe the line and do his bidding. He expects every deal, every business transaction in the complex to pass through him and his kennel or the tenants will forever be harassed.

As a result, the tenants started packing up one by one, leaving the apartment complex almost empty. Still, Viaje would blame the �compadres and comadres� of the President for the decline in the occupancy rate, misleading the President and blaming everybody but himself and his kennel.

On many occasions, he has blamed the President�s husband for the sudden drop in the apartment complex�s occupancy rates. The tenants dislike her husband, so goes Viaje�s argument. The husband must therefore be banished from the complex, the farther, the better. It was a good thing the President listened to her heart.

Meanwhile, conditions at the apartment complex went from bad to worse. Its maintenance was terrible. Conditions were decrepit. Dirty. Disorderly. Tenants were scarce. Business declined.

The President started to worry. She knew that her job was on the line. She must do something fast. She organized a new team of advertising and public relations group to craft a new communications package for the complex. There were no takers. The occupancy rate remained low.

Next, she organized a marketing mission to sell the complex to foreign investors. She sent her finance manager to persuade the Asians to locate to her complex. Still no takers.

Finally, she turned to her Uncle Sam, who is living in the United States, for help. So far, Uncle Sam has sent her nothing but crumbs.

On the other hand, Viaje is laughing all the way to the bank, feeling secure about his future. He has stashed enough cows in foreign pastures to last him 10 lifetimes. He has become so powerful that he is no longer (afraid?) of his master whose contract, he knows, will run out in a few months. Besides, Viaje has hedged his bet. Unknown to the President, he and his dogs are already working for other candidates for President.

What a life. With a dog like Viaje, will the tenants ever get out of the doghouse? Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.

The Viaje Files

Here are the weekly front page articles of Dante Ang on Arthur "Pancho" Villaraza aka Viaje from April 13, 2003 to August 10, 2003.

A Dog Named "Viaje" (Apr 13 2003)

Seize the day or be a wimp (April 20, 2003)

If we can kick out presidents, so can we boot out Viaje (April 27, 2003)

Let’s not talk legal; let’s talk moral (May 11, 2003)

Viaje revisited (May 18, 2003)

Truth is superior to man's law (May 25, 2003)

Air "Piatcogate" tape to protect national interest (June 1, 2003)

Demolishing Viaje's latest ploy (June 8, 2003)

Uncovering Viaje's scheme, discovering a personal cause (June 22, 2003)

Thank you, Viaje (July 6, 2003)

"Go ahead, Viaje, make my day" (July 13, 2003)

Honor among thieves (August 10, 2003)

Meet Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau

No, not the Iron Man director.

the other Jon Favreau, who's just a 26-year old kid.

Why Obama is Not Like Other Democratic Presidential Nominees Past

Mark Halperin's take:

Obama and his campaign, in contrast to other Democratic presidential nominees:

1. Have as their default position to respond rapidly to the opposition’s errors.

2. Have no trouble reaching internal consensus about how to respond.

3. Have no reluctance to deviate from their planned message of the day to let the attack BECOME the message of the day (while still executing the planned message, at least for local coverage).

4. Have the tactical skill to leave most of the attacks to staff and surrogates — only involving the candidate as needed.

5. Have the ability to get allies at the DNC, in Congress and elsewhere to echo the attack message.

6. Have the dexterity to attack with perfect pitch — and not too harshly and without sounding whiny.

How the dam broke

From MLQ3:

My own understanding is that is that it was the government station, NBN-4, and not the wire services that broke the story. It was the government that forced an end to the embargo by reporting the kidnapping of Ces Drilon and Co. on its Monday evening news program. Since news on a government station has an official nature to it, it’s logical to assume that it was then that the wire services, which I understand had been unable to obtain a statement from ABS-CBN up to that point, could run with the story.

So let me say first of all that government appeals for “restraint” are pure, unadulterated bullshit. You have a rare instance where media exercised prudence (not altogether altruistically, as I’ll explore in a bit) but government, always eager to appeal for “restraint,” jumped the gun…

is there some malicious intent here?

UPDATE: From Amando Doronila:

Most of the Metro Manila news media knew of the abduction of TV journalist Ces Oreña Drilon and two of her crew in early Monday morning, a day after their abduction, allegedly by the Abu Sayyaf last Sunday afternoon in Sulu province.

The state-owned TV channel NBN-4 broke the story in its Monday evening news broadcast, making the abduction public knowledge. It was followed by a statement by Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye, who said, “We appeal for caution and restraint in media reportage (so) as not to unduly hamper efforts to rescue them.”

At the time of the statement, there were no rescue “efforts” under way. Government security forces were as stunned by the abduction as the public and the media, so much so that they were immobilized. In this state of paralysis, the government appeared to be trying to score points with the public over its impotence to make Sulu safe not only for journalists but more so for visitors.

The appeal to the media for “restraint” was superfluous. It was trumped by the fact that most of the media embargoed the story for a day to avert putting the lives of the hostages at risk because of premature reporting.

Why Sen. Lacson, Why?

Read Ping Lacson's Sponsorship Speech for Sec. Raul Gonzalez at the Commission on Appointments.

About that "letter of apology" by Fraport's Bender and Stiller

Somebody left this comment on my blog:

I find re-posting here the transcript of the “Fraport conversation” involving Pancho Villaraza’s alleged extortion attempt ridiculous.

If I recall correctly, after the first publication of the said transcript, Fraport Director and CEO Dr. Wilhelm Bender apologized in writing to Pancho Villaraza “for the misunderstandings concerning recent discussions in Manila” particularly referring to comments made by Messrs. Endler and Struck. Dr. Bender also advised Pancho Villaraza that: “neither Fraport nor its representatives did intend to discredite (sic) your law firm or you personally in any way. Since this has caused you unintended concern and grievance, we sincerely apologize.” Now, why on earth should the “offended” party ever apologize to the “offender”?

Earlier, Dr. Dietrich F. R. Stiller, Fraport’s German legal counsel, denied the alleged attempt to extort money from Fraport. Dr. Stiller confirmed that he attended only 1 single meeting with the law firm, which was arranged upon his request, and further confirmed “that no USDmn request or similar request was made by any member of [the law] firm in, or in the context of, that meeting.”

Huwag sana tayong magpa-uto!!!

yes, there was a letter of apology was dated May 17, 2002 to villaraza.

But after issuing the letter of apology, Fraport a year later (oct. 2003) included the same allegations and extortion claim in its submissions in the Icsid case, you know, the one that the previously "apologized for."

And yes, there was a "letter of apology" from Stiller to villaraza that did not hold much weight. Here's Newsbreak's account:

Following the stories published in Tribune in May, Fraport counsel Dr. Dietrich Stiller belied the extortion attempt in an apology letter to Villaraza. He stated that, “no USD20 mn request or similar request was made by any member of your firm in, or in the context of, that meeting.”

According to the Tribune stories, Villaraza tried to extort a total of US$70 million—$20 million for his services and $50 million to pay off certain government officials including then presidential adviser Avelino Cruz (a former partner in the law firm) and then presidential adviser on strategic projects Gloria Tan Climaco.

It is unclear why Fraport would claim the same allegations in its arbitration request inspite of Dietrich’s denial.

Stiller's apology did not address the tape issue (ie, he did not say the tapes were fake). Villaraza also did not claim that the tapes were fake, but that they were "inadmissible" in court.

My reading on why stiller made that apology: the conversation between him and the lawyers were "private conversations." or "off the record" conversations. he did not expect that their conversations were being recorded (by who? somebody from FRAPORT? the lawyers? ISAFP?).

Stiller would never publicly accuse the influential people he was dealing with of extortion or corruption. because he and his company will have to do business with these people again.

Wayback Archive: Fraport slams GMA-Pancho extort try before WB body

(from Tribune October 15, 2003)

Fraport slams GMA-Pancho extort try before WB body

GLORIA GOV�T WANTED CHENGS OUT, PRESIDENTIAL CRONIES IN ON PROJECT

By Angie M. Rosales
Wednesday, 10 15, 2003

The complaint lodged by Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Fraport) before the Word Bank arbitration body in Washington DC served to confirm the "tens of millions" extortion attempt made on the German investor by presidential aides, Gloria Tan-Climaco, presidential adviser on Strategic Projects; Presidential legal counsel Avelino "Nonong" Cruz; and his former partner and President Arroyo's personal lawyer, F. Arthur Pancho Villaraza.

Pressure was being brought to bear on Fraport by the presidential aides to kick out its Philippine partner in the Philipppine International Air Terminal Co. Inc. (Piatco) Terminal 3 project, the Cheng family, to ensure the takeover of the Cheng's shares by the presidential cronies of the project.

The German investor in the controversial multibillion-Piatco Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 confirmed the alleged extortion try by personal lawyer and aides of President Arroyo, whom it also charged of committing "unlawful acts."

The earlier reports on the Villaraza-Climaco-Cruz $70-million extortion try is the subject of numerous libel charges leveled against Tribune publisher and editor-in-chief Ninez Cacho-Olivares who wrote a series of articles on allegations involving at least three Palace personalities namely former Presidential Adviser on Strategic projects Gloria Tan-Climaco, presidential legal counsel Avelino "Nonong" Cruz and Mrs. Arroyo's personal lawyer F. Arthur "Pancho" Villaraza.

The reports were based on a taped conversation of Fraport officials and lawyers where millions of dollars were mentioned as the deal being brokered by Villaraza and others to Fraport, to ensure that the airport project, under certain conditions, one of which was the ouster of the majority shareholder and Filipino partners, the Cheng family, would not be messed around with by the Arroyo presidency.

The complaint from the German investors confirms the extortion attempt made by Vilaraza and the presidential aides.

In a copy of a request of arbitration filed by Fraport Ag Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Fraport) before the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) last Sept. 13 against the government, it cited as among the issues in dispute the allegations against Villaraza.

In their request complaint, Fraport cited among the issues the "government's insistence on the involvement of a politically well-connected lawyer," referring to Villaraza, without whom the project would not push through.

Fraport charged Climaco in its complaint, saying she had "stated over and over again that the government wanted Fraport to engage the services of the politically well-connected Manila lawyer Arthur L. 'Pancho' Villaraza."

Fraport noted that Villaraza is a presidential confidant and top fundraiser while Climaco played a prominent role in the alleged ouster of the Chengs with the intention to replace the Chengs with presidential cronies and the government-favored interests coming into the project.

"When Fraport first met with Villaraza... he stated he could work for Fraport only 'in the background' through other law firms without known ties with him," the complaint narrated.

"He also stated this requirement for representing Fraport likely would include that payments be made offshore to a bank account not in his law firm's name. When Fraport reported to Climaco it was not willing to engage Villaraza on such terms, she continued to insist that Fraport work with Villaraza.

"Climaco also made expressly clear to Fraport that the successful commercial operation of Naia Terminal 3 would not be allowed to occur unless Fraport engaged Mr. Villaraza," they said.

"Climaco continued to insist that Villaraza be hired. For example, she stressed during discussions with Fraport in early 2003 that Villaraza should be engaged to facilitate the ouster of the Cheng family from the Naia Terminal 3 investment. Villaraza told Fraport that he would be able to achieve this result upon payment for unspecified purposes of several tens of millions of US dollars," they added.

This issue, they said, started sometime late 2001 when the government told Fraport to look for dirt on the Chengs to kick them out of the project.

"The government's message to Fraport was clear, repeated and unlawful: Fraport was to facilitate by any means the ouster of the Cheng family with the goal that other government-favored interests would come into the project. The alternative was that Piatco would be prevented from operating the terminal, with the result that Fraport's investment would be destroyed," they said.

"In numerous oral communications, Climaco and (Nonong) Cruz made clear to Fraport that the government would not permit the Naia Terminal 3 investment to be successful as long as the Cheng family played a central role. She strongly suggested that the Cheng family should be forced to agree to a substantial reduction of its role in Piatco or to be totally replaced by other business interests," they said.

Fraport pinned Climaco, saying she even told them she had reason to believe that the Cheng family supposedly had been involved in high-level wrongdoing with another then member of the Cabinet regarding the clearing of the site for the project as well as other improper conduct.

"She pressed Fraport to provide the Philippines information damaging to the Cheng family," they said.

"Climaco also unlawfully demanded that Fraport take steps to pressure the Cheng family..at another point, she told Fraport to immediately commence civil legal proceedings against Piatco in connection with certain loan repayment obligations," the complaint said.

In return, Fraport said it was given repeated assurance that the "government would show its gratitude if Fraport assisted against the Cheng family and they were be rewarded for such assistance."

Among these alleged rewards was protection against exposure of the country's anti-dummy laws resulting from the corporate structure of Piatco.

"At other points, Climaco threatened that Fraport might find itself facing anti-dummy law problems if the Cheng family was not ousted," the complaint stated.

"When the government failed to achieve the ouster of the Cheng family or agreement to changes in the concession agreement, the administration responded by denouncing the project and by taking the position in the Philippine Supreme Court proceedings that the concession agreement should be declared null and void.

"The nullification of the concession agreement and the refusal to compensate Fraport are, in effect, Fraport's ultimate punishment for failing to abide the government's unlawful demands," they said in their complaint before the ICSID.

This formed part of the privilege speech delivered by opposition Sen. Panfilo Lacson last Monday.

The complaint carried more stinging accusations of corruption and dirty political play that Fraport said was exercised only under the presidency of Gloria Arroyo, stressing that none of these "unlawful acts" was performed in the previous administration of President Joseph Estrada.

"The reasons that an essentially complete, state of the art (airport) terminal has sat empty and idle for more than eight months are wholly political," the complaint said, adding the "Philippines' unlawful acts regarding Fraport's NAIA Terminal 3 investment did not begin until Fraport had, in reliance upon the Concession Agreement and the Philippine Government's Treaty undertaking to provide fair treatment to German investors, made essentially all its investments."

Fraport, in its complaint stated that "officials of the Macapagal-Arroyo adminsitration began insisting that Fraport take steps to assist with the ouster of the Cheng family, so that (the Arroyo) government-favored interests could participate instead."

It also stated that "when the government failed to achieve the ouster of the Cheng family or agreement to changes in the concession Agreement, the administration responded by denouncing the project and by taking the position in the Philippine Supreme Court proceedings that (the contract) should be declared null and void. The nullification of the Concession Agreement and the refusal to compensate Fraport, are in effect, Fraport's ultmate punishment for failing to abide by the (Arroyo) government's unlawful demands."

"This is Libel?"

Ricelander comments on Ninez Cacho Olivares' situation.

Getting the facts right

Getting the facts right

FRONTLINE

Ninez Cacho-Olivares

06/10/2008

One can expect Gloria’s mouthpiece, Toting Bunye, to revel in my libel conviction, which is on appeal and the harsh jail sentence, plus fine of P4 thousand, plus actual and moral damages in the amount of some P5 million and P33 thousand.

After all, he and Gloria jumped for joy when F. Arthur Villaraza filed 48 counts of libel that were rejected for consolidation by the state prosecutors and the lawyers of Villaraza. Besides, Bunye himself has close ties with the law firm, since his daughter works for that firm and in fact became the spokesman of the First Gentleman in the early days.

Besides, Bunye really had no call to pontificate about getting the facts right, considering that he not only gave out a completely false report and showed a clear and reckless disregard for the truth when he came up in a press conference on the “Hello Garci” tapes, but even also manufactured evidence! And he dares speak of getting the facts right relating to my case?

But for Chay Hofilena and a Newsbreak magazine writer to say that journalists must get their facts right and to verify the report, obviously referring to my report, perhaps shows just how they judge without getting all the facts right and without having clear grasp of what the law says on libel cases, as it takes the version of the Villaraza version, which was adopted by RTC judge Winlove Dumayas.

Chay Hofilena and Newsbreak, and on record described the Firm as “well-connected” and in an article entitled Firmly in Power: The Villaraza law firm’s tentacles extend to the judiciary and the executive. Critics are up in arms.” If she believes that one should be careful in writing about private persons why did she write about the firm? Obviously because they could not have been private but public figures.

What my article said about Villaraza was nothing compared to that Newsbreak article. In my piece, only once was Villaraza mentioned, and referred to as the President’s personal lawyer, which certainly was no defamatory at all. The other instance where the word Villaraza was mentioned was in the sentence saying: “With all eyes focused on the Carpio-Villaraza-Cruz combine and its hold on the Arroyo administraton’s legal arena, as well as its pervasive power and influence in the country’s judiciary.” This statement is libelous, malicious and defamatory?

As for the Newsbreak writer Carmela Fonbuena, she claimed I did not verify the report, saying that the deputy ombudsman in Luzon, Vic Fernandez did not work in the Firm.

In the first place, Newsbreak did not get my side of the story in that report. In the second place, if Fonbuena read the memorandum submitted by my lawyer, Alex Medina of Pecabar, copies of which were given to the media on the day of the conviction, or even got hold of the court transcript of my testimony, she would have found out that I had testified to the fact that I never said Vic Fernandez, the deputy Ombudsman, was a partner of the Villaraza law firm but I did write he was connected with the firm and clarified in court that being connected to the firm meant he was a satellite lawyer. This was not rebutted by the lawyers.

In truth, the firm does have satellite lawyers. Two counsels I had approached earlier to handle my libel case begged off, saying they can’t touch this case, as they also work from time to time with the Firm on certain cases.

It is also on record, something which Dumayas and the junior lawyers of the Firm seem to ignore is the fact that I had testified to all this and that my testimony was not rebutted, as the Firm’s lawyers did not cross-examine me.

On the matter of my not having verified the statements made in my report, why on earth should I bother to verify with Villaraza or his firm when the story was not about him, or the Firm but on the former lawyers of the firm who were now in the Ombudsman’s office and in the executive branch?

This is something that should be gotten right. The information lodged against me does not charge me of libel against the Villaraza and Angcangco law offices. The private complainant in this instance is Villaraza, not the firm. And that article was certainly not about Villaraza and the firm but about their former lawyers and how the AEDC complaint was being handled. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court were violated by the judge and the lawyers of the complainant.

No matter what Dumayas says in his decision, malice, actual and presumed, was never proved and we will prove that it was never established and proved.

Neal Cruz, this is for you: The high court has defined “actual malice” and malice in fact’ as an act that may be shown by proof of ill-will, hatred or “purpose to injure.” This was never proved by Villaraza.

I could not have been held liable civilly for actual and moral damages because the prosecution failed to adduce any admissible evidence to prove actual or compensatory damages.

The document shown by the prosecution was hearsay, given the fact that the person who prepared it (Villaraza) did not testify in court.

All this was brought out in court, but clearly ignored — for inexplicable reasons by Dumayas.

But that’s not the end of it because the case goes all the way to the appellate court and the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, I got my facts right, and those who bought the Villaraza lawyers spiel, should look at themselves first, before they judge and write.

Did Ninez knowingly lie about The Firm's role in FRAPORT?

did they made stuff up or just reported the news?

(via) Neal Cruz, who has read the decision on the libel case against Ninez Cacho-Olivares:

Failure to check on the truth of an allegation is interpreted by the courts as malice. And this is a common mistake of journalists in a hurry. Malice is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous item made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Failure to check on the veracity of an allegation is reckless disregard and is interpreted as malice.

Another common error is that public officials and public figures are fair game; the public has the right to know what they are doing. Public officials are those who are elected or appointed to public positions; public figures are those who voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye, such as movie stars, entertainers, society matrons, prominent businessmen, artists, athletes, etc. But it does not mean that anybody who attracts public attention is a public figure if he did not voluntarily thrust himself into the limelight. He is a private individual who has private rights and it is very risky to defame him.

Still another error is “fair comment.” Many believe that any column is fair comment.

But the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for a fair comment on matters of public interest:

“Comment which is true or which, if false, expresses the real opinion of the author, such opinion having been formed with a reasonable degree of care and on reasonable grounds.” An opinion must be based on fact. A columnist cannot make a false accusation and say “that is my opinion.”

As if Ninez and the Tribune made the stories up out of whole cloth. As if they invented all the FRAPORT allegations without evidence to back up what they said.

Here's what the inquirer reported on FRAPORT people back in Oct. 14, 2003:

Fraport heads say Macapagal
lawyer 'asked for millions'
Posted: 11:48 PM (Manila Time) | Oct. 14, 2003
By Juan V. Sarmiento Jr. and Gil Cabacungan Jr.
Inquirer News Service

Climaco, Cruz also linked

A PERSONAL lawyer of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had demanded "several tens of millions of US dollars" from the German airport operator Fraport AG to facilitate the ouster of its Filipino partner from the Terminal 3 project in Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport -- known as NAIA 3 -- so groups favored by Malaca?? could take part in the project, according to top officials of the German firm.

Fraport chairperson Wilhelm Bender and vice chairperson Manfred Schulch disclosed the demand of lawyer F. Arthur Villaraza in a letter to the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on Sept. 17, which they submitted through the Washington-based law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.

It was serious enough that FRAPORT went to court with this.

And in that arbitration request, according to the Bulletin, it sez:

Fraport, which has 30 percent shareholding in its partner, Philippine International Air Terminals Corp. (Piatco), has earlier sued the Philippine government before the WB arbitration panel to enable it to honor its contract to operate and manage the long-delayed NAIA 3 facility.

In its arbitration request, Fraport alleged that presidential adviser on strategic projects Gloria Tan Climaco, presidential legal counsel Avelino Cruz, and President Arroyo's lawyer, F. Arthur Pancho Villaraza, attempted to extort some $70 million in exchange of the operations of the NAIA 3 facility.

So was Ninez (and the Tribune) guilty of libel for reporting on FRAPORT's own statements against the ARroyo gov't and it's lawyers? More from the NYT.

From the pro-admin Manila Standard Today:

Fraport asked Icsid to arbitrate the dispute after Ms. Arroyo voided the contracts granted to the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. to build and operate Terminal-3 at Naia. Fraport and its local partner, the Cheng family, are the principal investors in the project.

The German firm also implicated former Presidential Adviser on Strategic Projects Gloria Tan-Climaco and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Avelino Cruz to the alleged extortion attempt.

According to Fraport’s letter-complaint, Tan-Climaco, now a consultant to the President, allegedly suggested to the company to tap the services of Villaraza to force the Cheng family to give up its stake in Naia-3 project. It said Cruz, on the other hand, exerted pressure on the company into ousting the Chang family from the project.

There was also a tape of the conversation between Fraport representatives and their lawyers talking about The Firm and Villaraza's efforts to extort money from them. The Transcript is here.

Senator Angara tried to start a probe based on the tapes, but was shut down by joker arroyo because the tapes were inadmissible (i.e. "illegally recorded").

Villaraza did not deny the tapes were fake, but agreed with Joker that they were "inadmissible" in court.

In his complaint, Villaraza said the articles – which included a transcript of a taped conversation between project officials and their lawyers – were based on "private conversations" that had been recorded illegally, and said they were "not only hearsay statements, but also inadmissible as evidence."

More from the Manila Times:

The law office of Villaraza had denied the alleged extortion attempt and claimed that it was the Fraport officials who sought their services.

Angara said he was not surprised by the denial.

“What else do you expect them to say? They cannot very well admit the allegation so they have to deny it. But they still have to disprove it because Fraport will try to prove what it alleges,” he explained.

And why just target Ninez when Dante Ang, Arroyo's former "personal publicist", has been saying pretty much the same thing about Pancho Villaraza. Dante Ang was a close confidant of the Arroyos, so if anybody should know about the corrupt practices of the people close to Arroyo if any--he should know.

When asked if Ang's threat to come out with an expose soon against alleged abuses of the influential law firm would hurt Malacañang, Bunye answered, "Of course, (it will) but just as we said before, we would prefer that the relationship between him and the other side (remain) cordial."

When pressed to comment on the strongly worded statements that Ang had
hurled at Villaraza, the presidential spokesman said, "That's his (Ang's)
personal view."

Ang also yesterday appealed to Mrs. Arroyo to kick out the
Villaraza-Angangco law firm from the Palace, a plea that apparently
betrayed the big role that the office actually plays in the Arroyo
administration.

"If we can kick out two presidents (Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 and Joseph
Estrada in 2001), certainly we can also boot out the likes of Viaje
(referring to Villaraza) out of this government...," he said.

Ang waxed poetic and warned that Villaraza will eventually be thrown out,
apparently by the same "civil society" that had seated Mrs. Arroyo in the
presidency.

"If Viaje thinks he has the situation under control and that the
businessmen he has milked dry and the people he has traduced will continue
to lick their wounds in silence, he has another think coming. Slowly but
surely, the whispers in the corridors of business and power are getting
louder, bolder, more descriptive, more pointed. The dam is about to burst.
The cascading waters will topple everything that stands in their path.
Viaje and his ilk will be the first to go. I've seen that before. And so it will be," he said, without elaborating.

Fel Marangay (a pro-Arroyo columinst for the manila standard today) agrees that the person Dante Ang refers to as "Viaje" was Pancho Villaraza.

Weeks ago, former presidential PR man and now Manila Times publisher Dante Ang dropped a bombshell about how an influential lawyer who he called only as Viaje, allegedly takes advantage of his Palace connection to engage in money-making deals.

Although Ang did not identify the lawyer, he was obviously referring to lawyer Arthur “Pancho” Villaraza of the Villaraza and Angcangco Law Office, which handles private legal matters of the First Couple.

Of course, any efforts at whistleblowing will always be subject to harassment by this administration.

I like the first paragraph of businessworld better:

DoJ says it's closing in on Dante Tan.

(From BusinessWorld (Philippines))

Byline: Bernardette S. Sto. Domingo

Fugitive businessman Dante T. Tan should enjoy his remaining days in hiding after the Department of Justice (DoJ) yesterday confirmed it is in talks with a country where he possibly sought refuge.

UPDATE: From Newsbreak:

The court also upheld that the law firm and Villaraza are private entities.

Sure, Just like Mike Arroyo?

PCIJ: Libel a ‘battering ram’ vs press freedom

Posted by: Avigail Olarte | March 8, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Filed under: In the News, Media Issues

THE arrest of Newsbreak online coordinator and writer Gemma Bagayaua over a P100-million libel suit is described as the latest of the series of attacks against press freedom under the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The New York-based media group Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) denounced the arrest and criticized “authorities in the Philippines” for “using criminal libel as a battering ram against press freedom.”

The libel suit of Ilocos Sur Governor and administration senatorial bet Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson against Bagayaua and four other Newsbreak editors and journalists follows the flurry of libel charges against journalists in the country today.

Arroyo’s husband, First Gentleman Jose Miguel ‘Mike’ Arroyo, has filed similar suits against 46 journalists, prompting media groups to call on Mr. Arroyo and the President to stop harassing journalists and using “an antiquated libel law as a tool to silence criticisms.” Mike Arroyo has sought a total of P141 million in damages.

“Government officials should not rush to a prosecutor every time a journalist writes critically about those in power,” CPJ executive director Joel Simon said.

Newsbreak staff and its other writers alone face two other libel suits. One stems from an article on the family’s alleged undisclosed properties in California. Another case was filed against Mia Gonzales for writing an article in the magazine about Mr. Arroyo’s “perceived crookedness and perceived influence in governance.”

“The message we’re getting is this: no matter how responsible journalists are, you can no longer seek protection in the law,” Newsbreak editor in chief Marites Dañguilan Vitug said in an earlier statement.

From NUJP: "Contrary to what his lawyers are saying, First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo is a public figure and will have to prove actual malice in order for his numerous libel suits against journalists to prosper.

This is what human rights lawyer Theodore Te said during a roundtable discussion this morning held at the University of the Philippines in Quezon City. Agreeing with him were more than 35 journalists, some of whom are defendants in Arroyo’s libel suits, as well several UP journalism students.

The activity was organized by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines after learning that 43 journalists are facing libel raps from the First Gentleman. His lawyers have been quoted in media as describing Arroyo as a private individual and therefore “not fair game” for media."

PCIJ: License to Libel:

LIBEL cases are becoming greater threats to journalists in the hands of First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, says lawyer Theodore Te of the Free Legal Assistance Group. Arroyo has studied the art of filing libel, because there is a “calculating aspect” on how he uses the loopholes in provisions on libel to make his suits more potent, according to Te.

Earlier libel cases filed by Arroyo singled out columnists such as Malaya’s Lito Banayo and inq7.net’s William Esposo. Now, he includes newspaper editors and publishers in his suits. This is a divisive tactic, as the defense of publishers consists of passing on the blame, according to Te.

But thanks gods Mike Arroyo dropped all the libel suits against the journalists out of the kindness of his heart ("gesture for peace"), after the 2007 midterm elections.

But STILL, Pidal still believes he is a "private citizen". (kaya ingat kayo mga media journalists.)

Funny reaction from Phil Jackson on the Gasol Trade

Wayback Archives: TRANSCRIPT OF GMA AIDES' DIRTY PLAY

Wayback Archive of the Daily Tribune article:

Excerpts of tapped Fraport conversation bared on
How to steal a private business

Wednesday, 05 14, 2003

Tired of all the Palace denials of the extortion racket of Arroyo officials and trouble shooters in Malaca񡮧's grand plan of taking over the Philippine International Air Terminal Co. Inc. (Piatco)'s Terminal 3 project, The Daily Tribune is reprinting the transcript of the tapped conversations between Frankfurt AG officials and their American lawyers.

Read about F. Arthur ?Pancho? Villaraza, President Arroyo's personal lawyer and trouble-shooter, demanding $20 million from the German firm Fraport in exchange for his background services to settle the problems of Piatco by effecting the buyout of the Chengs, Fraport's local partner and majority shareholders in the consortium Philippine International Air Terminals Co. (Piatco) that built Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.

Read about Villaraza's extortion attempt, among other revelations from Dr. Dietrich Stiller, Fraport's German legal counsel from Clifford Chance Punder, and Peter Henkel, head of a Fraport team in charge of the firm's investments in Terminal 3, and Fraport's two American lawyers.

Also in the tapped conversation, on which this paper in part based its exclusives on the Piatco controversy the past several days, Gloria Tan-Climaco, former presidential adviser for strategic projects, is unmasked as the operator apparently sent by Malacanang to work the Fraport and Villaraza sides.

At one point in the conversation, which took place apparently during a meeting among Stiller, Henkel and the two unidentified US counsels, Stiller can be heard saying,''Fraport, you need strong litigators who were well connected politically for otherwise you don't have a chance against the Chengs,'' quoting Climaco.

At another point, Stiller can also be heard saying, ''Hey, your friend (Villaraza) is a crook,'' this time quoting Mr. Endler, Fraport's chief financial officer.

Endler apparently called Mrs. Arroyo's lawyer-crony such upon learning of Villaraza's demand for $20 million, which, also according to the tapped conversation, he wants 'to be paid offshore via another entity in Hong Kong.''

Apparently, Villaraza has not kept his end of the bargain, that is, to put everything down in writing.

Fraport has brought its case against the Philippine government before a World Bank arbitration court.

Malacanang is asking the German firm to drop it, apparently fearful of the international backlash that would result from Fraport's laying bare allegedly massive graft and corruption in the Arroyo administration.

---

Dr. Dietrich Stiller is the German legal counsel of Fraport. He is from Clifford Chance P? Mr. Peter Henkel is, since early 2002, the head of the Fraport team in charge of Fraport's investments in NAIA Terminal 3.

US Lawyer 2: Let me just stay close to the facts there for a second. Now, the strong request from the (Gloria Tan) Climaco side, was this what was conveyed through (Joanne) De Asis or is this different?

Dr. Stiller: At the very beginning it was conveyed directly.

US Lawyer 2: Okay, so in February, which is before De Asis and Globe Capital is involved.

Dr. Stiller: They were not yet involved.

US Lawyer 2: At February, Climaco herself.

Dr. Stiller: Yeah.

US Lawyer 2: How...To whom did she speak? To whom did she deliver this message?

Dr. Stiller: At that time, to Endler (the chief financial officer of Fraport) and Struck (the executive vice president of Fraport).

US Lawyer 2: And what did she say? Why did she say she wants law firms changed?

Dr. Stiller: She told us that time, ?Fraport, you need strong litigators who were well connected politically for otherwise you don't have a chance against the Chengs.? And she suggested, there was a very strong suggestion from her side that Villaraza & Angangco are instructed by Fraport, because there is a very special relationship between the law firm of Villaraza, Angangco, Climaco and certain people in the government.

You know, Villaraza Angangco before it was renamed, had the name Carpio Villaraza Cruz. Carpio is very close to the President and who became a Supreme Court judge. He was the first Supreme Court judge to be appointed after Macapagal-Arroyo took over. And Villaraza, he stayed in the Firm, and Cruz became the presidential legal adviser. All of them are very close to Climaco. Carpio Villaraza and Cruz represented the Asian Emerging Dragons, the other project proponent who lost the bidding against Piatco.

US Lawyer 1: And Cruz became presidential adviser.

Dr. Stiller: Avelino, Avelino Cruz, and his nickname in the Philippines is ?Nonong,? so people always talk about Nonong.

US Lawyer 1: Nono?

Dr. Stiller: Nonong, ?Nonong? means Avelino Cruz.

US Lawyer 1: Okay, so the initial request conveyed directly to Endler and Struck was that ?Fraport, hire this firm.?

Dr. Stiller: Yeah.

US Lawyer 1: And Fraport's reaction was probably not conveyed immediately but some time later.

Dr. Stiller: Ah, Fraport, well because Fraport was not too much satisfied with QT (Quisumbing Torres) at that time, it was taken up. We had a meeting with Villaraza and, during that meeting, Villaraza...

US Lawyer 1: Asked for the money.

Dr. Stiller: ...Informed Fraport that he would be happy to do this but because of his special relations to the Palace, he would not be in a position to work for Fraport openly, so he would nominate other lawyers who would be the official adviser for Fraport and he would work on the background.

And he wanted to be paid offshore considerable amounts. How much was not exactly specified because this was not discussed until the very end.

And then Fraport made clear that Fraport is not willing to pay somebody in the background and some people in Fraport is not willing to make offshore payments to entities in Hong Kong, and, well, then there was a very controversial conversation between Endler and Climaco. Endler called Climaco and told Climaco, ?Hey, your friend (Villaraza) is a crook.?

This was repeated for several times and Climaco reported to Villaraza ?Endler called you a crook.? From that time there was an extremely hostile relationship between the law firm of Villaraza & Angangco on the one hand side and Fraport on the other side.

US Lawyer 1: Okay so how did Herrera, Teehankee and Faylona...

Dr. Stiller: Let me add something. Secretary Climaco's legal assistant, so to say, Atty. Nuval, formerly she's a freelancer but once upon a time she comes from Villaraza and Angangco and she left this firm to work for Climaco. Some people say that Villaraza had sent Nuval to make sure that Climaco does nothing which is not in line with the Firm's policies and she's expected one fine day to return to Villaraza Angangco.

US Lawyer 1: Where's Climaco now? She's no longer involved in this.

Dr. Stiller: She...it's not absolutely clear to us. At least, she resigned from her official position. She was appointed senior adviser as everybody who was a presidential adviser after having resigned from his or her office becomes a senior adviser, which is an honorary capacity without pay.

US Lawyer 2: That's after February, this is, so you had that discussion, Endler conveys his feelings about Villaraza. That's all, well, in the marginal frame, I guess. So Feb. 27 is the meeting next after that.

Dr. Stiller: The meetings continued and Climaco still pressed Fraport to take Villaraza & Angangco even after this event. It was at least indirectly conveyed to Endler and other shareholders. There were some negotiations between Fraport and Villaraza Angangco but not directly through Mr. Endler I think it was not cleared with Piatco, and he asked for something like $20 million or something like this and at a certain point these discussions were stopped.

US Lawyer 2: So it was after he asked for the $20 million that Endler called him a crook.

Dr. Stiller: No, it was a month before. It was a month before.

US Lawyer 2: So, Endler called him a crook before he asked for the 20 million.

Dr. Stiller: Yeah, and then the Philippine government asked Endler not to return to the Philippines, more or less.

US Lawyer 2: So, Endler called him a crook.

Dr. Stiller: Yes.

US Lawyer 2: Notwithstanding the fact that Endler called him a crook, there continued to be discussions indirectly through political advisers. Fraport continued to discuss the possibility of engaging...

Dr. Stiller: Probably for a period of one month or so there were no discussions at all.

Fraport Representative: Somehow in the end in all discussions with the decision what were we going to do from now on with the project and there the point then came up within the supervisory board, we talked about who can help us out here and who else could be helpful and then the name of Mrs. De Asis, for example, came up as one person who could be helpful. This was decision between Board and supervisory board of Fraport.

US Lawyer 1: On what... Villaraza asked for $20 million offshore through De Asis but presumably he had made this request in some way, maybe for less money, before and that was the basis on which Endler called him a crook.

Dr. Stiller: No, when Endler called him a crook, the amount was not yet specified. He was supposed to send Fraport an offer. But...

US Lawyer 1: A written offer.

Dr. Stiller: A written offer. But before this offer was sent, he was personally present, he already said that there should not be any direct instructions only indirect instructions. They would monitor and supervise other lawyers and they want to be paid offshore via another entity in Hong Kong.

US Lawyer 1: So there's no document.

Dr. Stiller: No document about this.

US Lawyer 2: Is it your sincere opinion that part of what was going on here was something which was as direct as hire Villaraza and this Angangco and he would participate in the $20 million offshore payment, or was it less than that. Was it simply this is somebody who is connected, who can do for you what you need?

Mr. Henkel: No, it was clearly indicated that this is a guy who should be utilized in order to make the necessary payments and then things would happen.

US Lawyer 2: She was, then, again, it was your sense that, although this was not ever expressly said, since things like these are not usually expressly said.

Mr. Henkel: I had my directions.

US Lawyer 2: Right.

Mr. Henkel: I just want to say, it was always said, 20 million for the Chengs and then the rest of the money, the 30 million would be the funds to distribute between different people and then there was that gentleman, he came from Villaraza's law office, his name is Nonong Cruz, and others, and other people who were backing the Chengs to be satisfied with this amount.

US Lawyer 1: Could we back up now when you say a portion for the Chengs. What's that story?

US Lawyer 2: Let's just back up a few, I've never heard the $50 million. We never heard that story. What is it? We got on this discussion because we asked Dr. Stiller, please explain all the lawyers involved and who they are. We've only gotten through the Firm.

Dr. Stiller: Only through Fraport's firms. We did not yet talk about who else is involved.

US Lawyer 1: But you mentioned something else, which is, apparently that there was a request for a payoff for something, for money to go to the Chengs. We haven't heard that before.

Mr. Henkel: To elaborate a little bit, we were always following different routes to solve our problems. The official route was to deal with the government. The official route was always to stay on the side of the government, do what the government says, and follow what they tell us to do.

So everything what we did, what we officially did, what we did, whether it was in Frankfurt, whether it was...were all in line with that agreement.

For that agreement, we had meetings with the Executive Secretary, with the legal adviser, with Gloria Tan-Climaco...

Gloria Tan-Climaco has an appointment letter in which she was not authorized to do what she did. And the appointment letter, as far as I'm told, seems personally what was only limited to different tasks but not to renegotiate with us the contracts.

But on the other side, we always, and I always here in Manila tried to find a way or to have an alternative ready in case that the way to discuss with the government would not show up as a dead-end road and would not lead to a favorable solution. I was, I was trying to build up an alternative on the basis of a private deal, and I was looking from the very beginning to find private investors.

Now, if you look here in the country for private investors that could take over the parts of the Chengs, the shares of the Chengs, and get in the project with the sufficient, that amount of money, there are not too many.

US Lawyer 1: Most of them are detractors in some way from the project right now.

Mr. Henkel: Yeah, so we found two.

US Lawyer 1: Who were they?

Mr. Henkel: The one is Ricky Razon. He is the operator of the harbor.

US Lawyer 1: Ricky Razon?

Mr. Henkel: Yes, he is the operator of the harbor. That's his company...Enrique Razon.

US Lawyer 2: R-A-S-O-N?

Mr. Henkel: No, R-A-Z-O-N.

Dr. Stiller: Romeo, alpha...

US Lawyer 1: Razon.

Mr. Henkel: Yes, and from him and then later on also from the second, the second source which is the information from Mr. Herrera Teehankee and Faylona, I heard that if they would get involved, they would only get involved after the Chengs were out of the project. And they told us that in order to get the Chengs out of the project, after they had familiarized themselves internally with the project, they told us that in order to get the Chengs out of this project, the 50 million would be necessary.

US Lawyer 1: To pay the Chengs?

Mr. Henkel: No, no, not to pay to the Chengs.

Mr. Henkel: 50 million would be necessary in order to get the Chengs out of the project.

US Lawyer 1: And that was Ricky Razon and who else told you that?

Mr. Henkel: This is Joseph Chua. He is the son-in-law of Lucio Tan and Lucio Tan is the owner of PAL.

US Lawyer 1: Uhu...Okay.

Mr. Henkel: So with both we are still in connection, we are still talking, we are talking again to find a solution.

US Lawyer 2: So, the $50 Million, those were two separate, Razon and the son-in-law of the PAL fellow.

Mr. Henkel: Chua.

US Lawyer 2: Chua. Those were two separate projects.

Mr. Henkel: To be very specific, the one said 40 and the other one said 60 and I always made 50 out of it.

(Laughter)

US Lawyer 2: Who said 40 and who said 60?

US Lawyer 1: Razon said 40.

Mr. Henkel: I think Razon said 40 and the other said 60.

US Lawyer 2: In fact, it's amazing how close they are, like a fishing market.

US Lawyer 1: So, but did they say that money was needed to be paid to who?

Mr. Henkel: To the, to the parties involved, let's say...

US Lawyer 1: What was the exact words? You had the discussion right?

Mr. Henkel: Yeah, something like this, but we never specifically talked about it because I didn't want to know who had to be paid out of this because the deal and the offer, the proposal was we bring in fresh money for this, to this company and, therefore, we did not, in the past, we did not discuss it in detail because they said, ?Okay, we make sure that the Chengs get out of this? and then we bring in 80 to 100 million more as fresh capital in order to finalize the building and to fund the start of operations, and this amount would be in either as shareholders' advances, and shareholder's capital increase or as a shareholder loans or something like this. It was never discussed in detail.

But they said, ?Okay, we take care...,? and this was in both cases, ?We take care of the Chengs.? So from some of the discussions, I learned that the Chengs, that payment to the Chengs would not be more than 20 million, even less. But they thought that, in this group, they had to pay, there would be paid people who would be able to convince the Chengs to get out of this.

Mr. Henkel: I believe if this 50 million had gone and was pumped into the different channels...

US Lawyer 2: Things will magically improve.

Mr. Henkel: The problems would be gone and we will have a chance to negotiate because, then, just for face-saving purposes, we have to amend the contract and the Concession Agreement.

US Lawyer 2: Given what your experience has been here over time and given the way in which you've been treated by people with whom you tried to reach business solutions, there'd be an awful lot of faith that you would make that $50-million payment. It would require, be an enormous aspect of faith on your part that $50 million is gonna get you where you need to go.

Mr. Henkel: We will not pay, the other guy has to pay it and I assume he knows the channels, he knows how to do this, he knows the environment.

US Lawyer 2: If your 50 million is gone...

Mr. Henkel: That's not what I'm saying. The hundred million are coming into the company. The 50 million is something that happens on his side. He pays 20 million maybe to the Chengs in order...as the purchase price for the shares and then there are 30 other million that he uses...

US Lawyer 1: For grease.

Mr. Henkel: For whatever, but, but then...

US Lawyer 1: Michael's point is that, that assumption,okay, if the Chengs are gone, 30 million or whatever is left over from what's paid to the Chengs goes to the appropriate channels here in Manila, things will magically improve.

US Lawyer 2: So they never really asked you to do things like what would you actually do. They don't respond in any rational way, causing you to believe, you don't know what they really want you to do.

Mr. Henkel: Yes.

US Lawyer 2: They ask you essentially to help them with respect to the Chengs in this way. When you do help them with respect to the Chengs in this way, they say, ?Don't bother me with this, it's your business!?

Mr. Henkel: Yes, and this was a real hell,although it was only a small amount because it's 5 pecent but, it's 10 or 5 percent, but they didn't...

US Lawyer 2: Your collection claim (Note: In December 2002, Fraport filed a collection lawsuit against Piatco), those are kind of steps to get somewhere.

Mr. Henkel: But in connection with this line of argumentation and this line of discussions, because these were the steps that the government requested from our side, in order to get into a position where they can take over this terminal and through this take over of the terminal, they say that they would be obliged to pay us and this was our understanding how we wanted to do it. We wanted to get out of this project and to get payment from the government.

US Lawyer 1: Is there a direct agreement with the senior lenders? Was there ever a direct agreement?

Dr. Stiller: No.

US Lawyer 1: There was never one negotiated?

US Lawyer 2: I think there's a draft but they refused to...

Dr. Stiller: No. There was a draft...

Dr. Stiller: The Palace itself. The first meeting at the Palace, there was a request from a Fraport board member, by Mr. Endler that, it was in front of five or 10 different people.

So, the request to the government was to impose all possible pressure on Piatco. There was a request, an oral request to the Philippine government not to negotiate with Piatco and, when Piatco asked for a meeting with the government, not to meet them.