Did he resign on his own or did he, in fact, get “sacked” or fired? We’re talking about Jose “Ping” de Jesus, whose sudden “disengagement” from the service of the Aquino administration has puzzled the public.
This is a question that many people want a definitive answer to after Dante A. Ang, owner of the 5,000-circulation Manila Times daily, came out with a by-lined “exclusive” in the June 7 issue of his own paper about the “real story” behind Ping’s sudden departure.
Newspaper owners in this country are generally presumed to be in on what’s going on in the corridors of power. During the incumbency of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Dante A. Ang, in fact, walked those corridors by virtue of his close association with the diminutive Chief Executive.
Thus, at first blush, his first-person account about Ping’s resignation seemed authoritative enough. His behind-the-scenes “exclusive”—under the heading, “Why Ping de Jesus was sacked, the inside story”—gave the impression that he must have been talking to an unimpeachable source—possibly President Aquino himself.
He gave this impression when he said, “I have it on good authority that several questionable…etc., etc.” led to his unceremonious dismissal.
Ang’s story even had a subhead dramatizing Ping’s falling out from the President’s good graces as “an unfolding mystery.”
Now I happen to personally know both these gentlemen.
I first met Ping as a reporter (of The Manila Times that Chino tried to revive after Marcos was toppled from power) when he took office as Public Works secretary during the Cory Aquino era. That was more than 20 years ago. Since then, I had been keeping track of this man’s career path as a technocrat or professional manager in the private sector. His record of accomplishments is nothing less than impressive. And as a public servant, he has an unsullied reputation. Always soft-spoken (even when he is upset) Ping is an outstanding example of unflappability.
Ping is always affable, and a gentleman at all times. One thing about him is he can never tolerate incompetence, but he is known to deal with this problem without raising the roof. And if it were at all possible for any man to “ooze” decency from every pore, that man would be Ping de Jesus himself.
In the private sector, de Jesus was a major factor in turning around adverse public opinion of the monopoly that the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) used to be in the 1970s and ’80s. He was close to doing the same for Manila Electric Co. (Meralco), which has become the public’s pet peeve with its endless rate increases, but he was tapped once again for public service when President Aquino took over last year.
Remember the “Zero Backlog” program? That’s what turned around the public’s adverse opinion of PLDT. Ping was right on top of that program as PLDT’s head honcho.
Anyway, as for Dante Ang, I met him when he was still running a small, but flourishing public-relations outfit along with a small, obscure broadsheet that catered to a special type of readers. That was at least 18 years ago. Since then, I’ve only taken a mental note of his growing influence in the political and business scene. His spectacular rise happened during the incumbency of the Arroyo administration.
When Dante came out with his “exclusive” account of Ping’s allegedly unceremonious dismissal, I honestly didn’t know what to make of it exactly.
Who could have doubted his words when Dr. Dante A. Ang wrote, “I have it on good authority…that several questionable, if not dubious decisions [blah-blah-blah]…led to his [dismissal] by the President….”
He came across as an intrepid journalist quoting some unimpeachable source—if not the President himself.
What made Dante’s account of the resignation somehow believable was the fact that the Malacañang press office had waffled in making the official announcement of Ping’s resignation. First, it denied that there was such a resignation. After only one or two days, it issued the official announcement that he had, indeed, quit.
What really went on, I asked my puzzled self, in the light of Dr. Dante A. Ang’s exclusive Manila Times account. (Incidentally, I seem to have missed the part just when, exactly, Mr. Ang earned, or was conferred, a doctoral degree. True, he got a masteral degree in journalism from the Lyceum. As far as I knew, he has been a very successful spin “doctor” before he came to own Manila Times. Anyway, I was also pleasantly surprised that he could also write! Parenthetically, I’d like to add that there’s another fine writer in the Times. That’s Fred de la Rosa, editor in chief, a consummate grammarian.) Now back to the original question. Did Secretary de Jesus resign, or was he fired? What better way to find out than to ask the man himself, I thought to myself yesterday. And so I called him up.
Was I in luck when he answered my call yesterday. He said, in his usually calm and collected voice, that “no, Butch, I was not fired.” He also asked, just as evenly toned, how could anyone concoct such a thing.
“Mr. Dante Ang’s published story, I’m afraid, was far from authentic.” He added, quite charitably, that “he must have been misled by his source.” (In newsroom lingo, to be misled by a source is to be electrocuted, or nakuryente.
“In fact,” he said, “I just finished—about five minutes ago—composing a letter I am sending to Dr. Dante A. Ang. I just want to set the record straight.” Ever the gentleman, he also said, “I hope he uses it.”
And so, folks, here it is, hot off Ping’s personal computer, the full text of his letter to Dr. Dante A. Ang on June 7, 2011.
Dear Dr. Ang:
This refers to your article which appeared in the 7 June 2011 issue of the Manila Times.
First of all, you must know that I have voluntarily resigned as DOTC secretary, and the first person to know that is our President Benigno S. Aquino III. Second, my meeting with him was occasioned by my request to see him. I was not “summoned,” as your article said. That was last Monday, 30 May 2011, at 1:30 p.m. (not 10 a.m.) at the Premier Guest House, when I handed my letter of resignation. The exchange between the President and myself was subdued, both of us knowing that we have come a long way, dating back to when I worked for the President’s mother, the late former President Corazon Aquino. Subsequent statements of the President about my “sudden resignation” and his expression of surprise confirm what has been obvious to the vast majority of people, a fact your article sorely missed which insisted, against all evidence, that I was “fired.”
On the project called “Communication, Navigation and Surveillance/Air Traffic Management System (CNS/ATM), it is easy enough to brand a project good or bad depending on one’s point of view. This project, a spillover from the previous administration, was subjected to rigorous review by my technical and legal team. We concluded that the project would enhance the navigational and air safety of the country, not to mention that a soft loan was still available to get it going. Thus, we proceeded with the project.
As additional information, the Project is made up of Package 1 and Package 2. The bidding for Package 1 was actually conducted even before I became DOTC secretary. I immediately ordered the postponement of the award of contract, and tasked my technical team to review the procurement process, if it had complied with all relevant laws, rules and regulations, governing such procurement. Having determined that the procurement was compliant with all laws and procedures, and after consulting the Japanese funding agency, we proceeded with the processing of the project including awarding it to the winning contractor.
CNS/ATM Duplicating MACC? The claim that the CNS/ATM is a “duplication” of the Manila Air Traffic Control Center (MACC) is an extremely technical matter and so we sought the informed judgment and evaluation of technical experts from DOTC, the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippine (Caap)—aside from respected international consultants. The experts furnished the auditor with evaluations six times, but these were not accepted. The well-considered explanations of various experts have been furnished the distinguished members of Congress and, on the whole, they expressed satisfaction over our experts’ answers to their questions.
With regard to the disallowances by COA, DOTC submitted to COA all documents to pre-audit pertaining to the payment of DOTC’s obligations under the contract. Similarly, for some reason, COA did not pre-audit the payment and, again, raised the same issues it previously cited which had been answered several times in the past. These notwithstanding, DOTC in at least two more occasions responded to COA’s concerns, but our request for pre-audit was returned without action. Due to this delay in payment, the contractor/supplier sent notice to DOTC claiming penalties as provided for in the contract. Given this predicament, which could even cause a diplomatic issue—since the project is funded by a friendly government and covered by an international commitment (a loan under the Japan International Cooperation Agency)—DOTC had to order payment of its obligations under the contract or suffer more financial losses due to penalties and possible diplomatic repercussions.
The efforts toward privatizing both LRT 1 and MRT 3 have been discussed many times with the President’s Economic Cluster and with the President himself, and no objections have been raised. Suggestions to improve the privatization goals were raised but these were driven by the President’s desire to have a fail-safe and effective privatization mode.
Allow us to appraise you that the privatization of the operations and maintenance of the two rail systems is just Stage 1 of a three-stage process leading to the full privatization of the integrated rail system. After four years, we are looking and having a concession agreement with the winning contractor. The privatization scheme is available to anyone who wants to have a better understanding of a scheme that frees the government from burdensome operating expenses, while assuring seamless operations.
The O&M privatization mode is meant to take advantage of private- sector efficiency and makes for clearer accountability. It is a performance-based contract, which will be awarded through an open, transparent and competitive bidding environment—that will allow government to obtain the most advantageous and economic bid. The winning contractor will be paid on the basis of its performance under the contract and shall be assessed penalties and damages for nonperformance. To date, 16 firms bought bid documents at P500,000 each. We hope the aforementioned points will clarify matters raised in your article.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Jose P. De Jesus
Secretary
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
