|
When
asked about his alleged abduction by police and security
personnel, Rodolfo Noel “Jun” Lozada Jr. said
immediately after he was ushered into that 2:30 a.m.
Thursday press conference at the La Salle, Greenhills,
that it was a case of “miscommunication” among people
and groups who were supposed to meet him at the airport.
His
answer was simple, straightforward and easily
believable. There was no hint in his voice or in his
demeanor that he considered his close to six hours’ ride
in and out of Metro Manila in the company of strangers,
as he recounted later, as an abduction or even
life-threatening. Although he did insinuate that he
signed some papers, some of whose contents he did not
entirely agree with, there was not a single sign that he
was pained or forced to do things against his will. That
was his tale then.
That he
offered a differently shaded and more dramatic
“abduction” story when he finally faced the Senate to
give his testimony on the aborted national broadband
network (NBN)-ZTE deal, a prospect he had all along been
telling friends he dreaded, opens not only his testimony
but the entire inquiry to question.
This is
not the only gap, if we may call it such, or should we
say inexplicable statement, in Lozada’s story of
intrigue, corruption and abuse in high places. He has
lobbed a number of intriguing tales (patikim in the
vernacular) which, to the untrained eye, could easily be
taken as gospel truth but are actually gray statements
calculated to gain public sympathy, if not outrage.
There
is, of course, the story of his role in the aborted
NBN-ZTE deal and why he offered his testimony almost a
year after he quit in disgust over the same. “Why only
now?” is not the only question begging for Lozada’s
answer. The differing, shaded and ultimately outrageous
answers need to be shown the light before it gets taken
at face value.
Lozada
claims he was introduced into the project by
then-National Economic and Development Authority (Neda)
Secretary Romy Neri to serve as a technical consultant.
That role later blossomed into a “moderator of greed,”
whatever that means, which by his recollection he was
about to do but for the insistence of then-Comelec
chairman Ben Abalos to have his “$130 million
commission” protected.
This is
where the alleged overprice by such a huge amount came
in, a statement which has since taken a ring of truth
among the critics of the administration and, sadly, even
among members of the clergy and other nonpartisan
groups, who are supposed to be less edgy and examine
these allegations with more circumspection and with a
fine-toothed comb.
But we
have to give it to Lozada, who was able to smile his way
through the six-hour testimony. The question is: If
Lozada is only a “technical consultant” to Neri, why did
he have such powers to arbitrate between Joey de Venecia,
presumably the losing party in this deal, and Abalos,
the alleged winning proponent? Was he also close to de
Venecia, and why?
He has
chosen not to say a word about his relationship with de
Venecia except to advise that he was able to formulate a
“win-win” solution to the impasse with the de Venecia
scion, as the build-operate-transfer proponent, and
Abalos, as supplier, an arrangement which he claimed the
latter sabotaged by insisting on protecting his
“commission.”
Had
Abalos agreed to “moderate” his greed, as Lozada puts
it, to say half of $130 million ($65 million), then the
parties would have breezed through this whole thing and
the public would not even be bothered with all of these
tales right now. If we believe this tale, then we should
start believing in the tooth fairy and the others out of
Hans Christian Andersen’s books.
But back
to Lozada’s testimony. In sum, he had these tales to
tell: a) he was in good company and enjoying the ride
before he decided to say he was actually abducted; b) he
dreaded going to the Senate and sought protection for
the purpose before he decided to lob off his tale and
swam in the limelight; and c) he was so appalled by the
greed and corruption in the dysfunctional procurement
system that he got upset his proposal to “moderate” the
$130 million “commission” got rejected.
The
problem with Lozada’s tales is it conflicts with his own
account of things, on the one hand, and conveniently
decoupled his accounts with the maneuverings he was
apparently a party to in the run-up to his testimony
before the Senate.
He says
his inability to meet with his well-wishers when he
arrived from Hong Kong was a “miscommunication,” yet
turns around and claims it was some kind of “abduction.”
He says
he did not or was not seeking police security, yet he
confided his concerns to his superior and requested his
assistance to evade the Senate inquiry, and even while
in Hong Kong reiterated the same request, prompting
Environment Secretary Lito Atienza to request the
Philippine National Police for such security detail.
Then, in
his testimony before the Senate, he forgot to advise
that as a result of Secretary Neri’s objections and
public uproar, the NBN-ZTE contract was already
abrogated and, therefore, his tale about the overpricing
may no longer be relevant, except to serve as basis for
an investigation either by the Ombudsman or the
Department of Justice or, if the senators so wish, as
input in an amendment to the Procurement Act.
He also
conveniently evaded advising the Senate that early as
October last year he and Joey de Venecia had been
meeting with opposition solons, including Sen. Panfilo
Lacson, purportedly working out a scheme to revive the
NBN-ZTE inquiry, which had heretofore been in the back
burners, with a bang.
Had he
said so at the start then the public would have better
appreciated why he had to spice up his story with such
lines as “grabbed against his will” when asked about his
airport experience, or insinuate a certain “Medi” in the
alleged Neri instruction for him to write Sen. Juan
Ponce Enrile to withdraw his arrest order while in Hong
Kong, or incorporate matter-of-factly a reference to
“Ma’am” in his alleged conversation with his superior,
Secretary Atienza, on how the latter can assist him in
evading the Senate’s arrest order and save him from
testifying about the aborted NBN-ZTE deal, a mystery
even to his closest associates.
That
said, it would also have been best for Lozada, since he
was already making a clean breast, not only of what he
knew about the NBN-ZTE deal but his very actuations as
both a public servant and as a “truth seeker,” to also
divulge from the very beginning his activities at
PhilForest which he had to divulge halfheartedly when
confronted by Sen. Miriam Santiago. There were also all
the other contracts and projects he dipped his hands
into while he enjoyed the trust and confidence of his
dear friend, Romy Neri.
He
should have told his advocates, in and out of the La
Salle Brotherhood, about what he knew of the
Chinese-funded projects and other high-value initiatives
being brokered, or should we say “moderated,” by him and
a select group of such operators in the power corridors.
A
Chinese contractor told us sometime last year that he
had to rush to see then-Speaker de Venecia about some
projects they were pursuing in the company of Lozada.
Whether this tale is true or not, I hope I will have
time to confer with Lozada soon after his testimony is
over. In the meantime, my only wish is, as last Sunday’s
sermon so succinctly noted, he remains true to himself.
Let him be the Jun Lozada that he really is and not any
other. |
