e quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle

"We have legal luminaries but we don't have justice luminaries. We have a legal system but we don't have a justice system." - Jun Lozada

In any level, corruption is unacceptable. However, it is wishful thinking to believe that it does not exist. Albeit a desire for zero corruption exists, the stark reality shows itself and this is enough to take me away from my highly idealistic musings.

Corruption is present in all governments - be it from the developed or the developing world. In the ZTE-NBN deal, it was Jun Lozada who was "responsible" for curbing corruption to a more "tolerable" level. His job was to "moderate the greed" of money-hungry politicians. This was done to ensure that the advantages of the project would not be lost entirely because of kickbacks and bribes. However, moderation of greed didn't seem like a viable option for Abalos and his cohorts, thus, all hell broke loose and the ZTE-NBN project was revealed for all to see when Joe De Venecia III exposed the anomalous contract. For a couple of weeks, the scandal rocked the presidency because it involved no less than the name of the first gentleman.

The ZTE-NBN deal was almost shelved like all the other allegations against the administration, thanks to its well-oiled anti-truth mafia. However, even the veteran conspirators and collaborators of the administration were no match for the theatrics employed by Jun Lozada. Starting from his well-publicized abduction by administration ally Lito Atienza to crying on live television, Lozada's act was indestructible. I reckon that Jun Lozada's tears were more credible than the "I am sorry" uttered by a top official on national TV. Jun Lozada almost single-handedly brought back to life a dying issue.

I wasn't able to have an eagle's eye over the course of events because of some academic matters. That is why it took me a while sitting on the fence before I finally decided to jump into Lozada's plot. I don't believe that an opinion should be baseless, it should be based on knowledge - on facts, for it to be legitimate. Thus, I had to watch ANC's Harapan, featuring Jun Lozada debating against Abalos and his cohorts regarding the ZTE-NBN deal, before I sided with Jun Lozada. On the other hand, I believe I was predisposed to be biased towards Jun Lozada because as I have said in a text message: "it is a battle of credibility between him (Lozada) and abalos. it's choosing the lesser of two evils. it's a no-brainer." It is between Lozada who has "little" credibility against Abalos who has none at all. Upon watching Harapan, the following were my observations:

1) It seems as though Abalos was really insecure of Jun Lozada. He has brought a lawyer with him - I took it as a sign of doubt in his statements. He might need a lawyer when faced with a question that he has not yet encountered in the Senate inquiry.

2) The manner by which Abalos answered the allegations was through ad hominem arguments against Jun Lozada. He simply brushed aside the real issues/ questions, and diverted to off-topic allegations that Lozada was corrupt - which, I recall, he admitted in the Senate inquiry.

3) Abalos is more than a traditional politician. He is just too brazen and he is bereft of any morality. He is able to accuse Jun Lozada of his ad hominem remarks with his head high and a grin on his face. He looked like a fox conceptualizing what to do with his innocent prey.

4) Jun Lozada faced Abalos and his cohorts alone. Despite the obvious disadvantage, he was able to answer all inquiry and questions against him - including the ad hominem allegations - with consistency.

5) Jun Lozada seemed to be recalling events from memory - which is a hard thing to do when trying to remember events in a very complicated web of lies.

6) I was surprised to learn that the Makati Business Club supports Jun Lozada. They may have reason enough to believe in the credibility of Jun Lozada and that his statements are more than just political noise.

The administration shall be presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. However, its actions do not allow me to do so. The anti-truth mafia has scribbled so much manipulation of evidence, information, and facts that the presumption of innocence has been vaporized. Instead of testifying for the "truth" the co-conspirators of the anti-truth mafia has been hiding behind what they call "executive privilege." The administration has pushed the envelope too far. It is now at the edge of a cliff and is desperately holding on by trying to cover-up all pieces of evidence that may eventually lead to its demise.

Thanks to the anti-truth mafia's propaganda, Jun Lozada has been accused of harboring nothing but hearsay which they claim is inadmissible in courts. However, he does say these statements under oath, thus he has with him what is called testimonial evidence. "A woman who has been raped can send a man in jail just with her testimonies."(Escudero, 2008) In addition, he seems to be very consistent with his statements unlike some of the anti-truth mafia. Jun Lozada was also accused of being corrupt - which he admitted with a smile, and I think this makes him all the more credible - He was part of the project, he was an insider, he knew the goings-on of the ZTE-NBN deal.

Jun Lozada is neither a saint nor a hero but he has with him the truth. Whether he came out to tell the truth for the sake of truth or for some other ulterior motives - which is hard to think of considering that his testifying in the Senate has put him in a very precarious situation. If he were to lie, what motive was so great that he was willing to put himself out of the pan and into the fire almost voluntarily? Testifying has put Jun Lozada between the legendary monsters Scylla and Charybdis. He is currently between hell and the deep blue sea. In whatever perspective I try to view the course of events for Jun Lozada, I can't seem to find any advantage that he might gain in testifying. In fact, he was "forced" to do so - as with the summons, this implies that testifying is not advantageous for him. On the other hand, he might be thinking of a career in showbiz. If that is so, then he is making a good start. We are probably watching one of the best soap operas ever made.

It doesn't matter whether or not the bringer of truth has been tainted with wrongdoings in the past. What is more important is that he has the truth with him and so his voice shall be heard. The substance lie in the statements, not in the personality. An honest man will voluntarily take off his clothes to show that he has nothing to hide; while a thief would wear layers upon layers of clothes just to hide whatever it is that he has stolen.

---

PS. kaduda-dudang nawala ang unang artikulong isinulat ko hinggil kay Jun Lozada matapos ko itong ilathala dito sa multiply. napilitan tuloy akong gumawa ng ikalawang entry na aking minadali dahil sa nararamdamang antok. dahil dito, maaari lamang na pagpasensyahan ang ano mang pagkakamaling teknikal.