Column: How Jun Lozada may lose his groove

Published on March 11, 2008

What happens now? The answer depends on our sense of the situation. It does not seem to me that it is the middle of February 1986 or the second week of January 2001 all over again.

The more I think about it, the more it strikes me: We are back in 1984 or 1985, when the outrage over the assassination of Ninoy Aquino had put the Marcos regime on the defensive—but people power was not even a dream.

To be sure, there are two crucial differences between then and now. The economy was in dire straits then; and Marcos moved around in a pharmacological fog, his instincts that of a dead man.

But the similarity is all-important: Then, as now, it is the opposition’s state of preparedness that will determine the outcome.

Rooting through my old books, I found, in Loyola Papers 15 — a 22-year-old collection of “interdisciplinary reflections” on “The ‘Miracle’ of the Philippine Revolution” — a reminder of the work that needed to be done then (and must be done now).

Here’s the late Fr. Jose Blanco (“Derps” to many who came to share the gospel of active non-violence): “I remember from November-December [1985], the pattern of my thoughts was that, in the words of St. Paul, our struggle is not with human beings but with principalities and powers. So, the discernment is to find out where evil is taking hold of people within the system and taking hold of the system to perpetuate the sinful condition … The ultimate explanation is the presence of a principle of evil, of powers, who make people work and fight among themselves and destroy themselves.”

And this: “Now I would like to enter the area of the non-violent aspect of the liberation effort … And here, I say there is a quality of preparedness but there is also the fact of, in a sense, unpreparedness—unscripted events.”

* * *

One of the many “points of preparation” Father Blanco remembered was “the campaign to get a million signatures” to convince Cory Aquino to run for President. If, as Pulse Asia tells us, only 16 percent of Filipinos are willing to join street protests today, perhaps a reverse signature campaign is in order?

* * *

The results of the Pulse Asia survey in Metro Manila last month found that Senate witness Jun Lozada, among the six “personalities involved in the NBN-ZTE issue who [were] trust-rated” in the poll, was the only one with a majority trust rating of 52 percent. In contrast, “public distrust is the most predominant sentiment among Metro Manilans” regarding four other personalities: Romulo Neri (57 percent “small or no trust” rating), Benjamin Abalos (69) and the First Couple (at 76 percent each). Voting-age Filipinos in the national capital region were ambivalent about Joey de Venecia, however, with 42 percent saying they could not tell whether they trusted or distrusted him.

This sounds about right. Moral ambiguity is De Venecia’s gift to the nation; Lozada, with the help of a phalanx of nuns, brings moral clarity to the discussion.

Or does he? Impassioned sources paint a vivid portrait of, not so much outright corruption, although there is that too, but of eminent corruptibility. Lozada, a source I have no reason to distrust told me the other day, is a man on the make, assisted in no small part by his considerable powers of rationalization. (My source called it his “gift of gab.”) That is why Lozada found himself in the middle of a hundred-million-dollar deal, with no official portfolio except that of facilitator. And that is why he was able to ask Sen. Panfilo Lacson to consider raising “patriotic money” for his principal and close friend, Romy Neri.

(Unlike political blogger John Marzan, who does me the honor of reading me, I continue to hold that in the resultant meeting Neri found Lacson and Sen. Jamby Madrigal wanting.)

As far as I can tell, Lozada’s current role as credible truth-teller (and Cory Aquino’s prayer partner) is based both on the details of his story (they have for many the ring of truth) and the circumstances of the telling: abducted from the airport, rescued by religious, overcome by great emotion, serene in the truth.

His credibility is that of a witness, not a philosopher. At one point in his first Senate appearance, he joined an ongoing discussion about corruption in government with the words, “May I share my experience?” He then proceeded to talk, not about his experience, but about his reflections on experience. His intervention, using the abstract language of reflection, was by far the least compelling part of his testimony.

Does it matter? It is his abduction from the airport by armed and unknown men which reveals the dangerous and duplicitous nature of the Arroyo administration—and allows us to evaluate the ZTE-NBN mess in the right light.

I’m afraid it does matter. Lozada is not only getting a free pass on his official indiscretions; he is pushing people away by pontificating on the issues, instead of re-telling his experience.

Consider, out of many possible examples, what he said at a “Mass for Truth” at his alma mater the other Sunday. Reacting to what he said a priest “close to the cardinals” had told him about the political conservatism of many bishops, he let loose with a confession of un-faith:

“I replied, Father, if you’re telling me now that the Church where I seek refuge is being indifferent to the truth and justice just because of your own geopolitical considerations, Father, you have to teach me to unlearn all the homilies, all the liturgical sharing, all these doctrines that you have [taught] me before, because I have to renounce my faith if that is how you will answer me.”

Obviously he got carried away. To renounce the same faith of the nuns who protect him requires an act, a leap, of rationalization.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Newsstand: Column

7 responses to “Column: How Jun Lozada may lose his groove

  1. Unlike political blogger John Marzan, who does me the honor of reading me,

    why not? you’re good enough to be included in the op ed section of pdi.

  2. Hi, John: PDI has already apologized for running the Mañalac banner headline last Sunday. But I’m curious as to what the real story was. Slanted headlines the PDI may be guilty of, but a boo-boo like this is just…huge. Did someone not check their sources? Did the source lie or retract?

  3. bf

    obvious ba bumaligtad siya.

  4. As far as I can tell, Lozada’s current role as credible truth-teller (and Cory Aquino’s prayer partner) is based both on the details of his story (they have for many the ring of truth)…

    what about you, john n.? do you believe he’s telling the truth?

  5. ozy

    “I replied, Father, if you’re telling me now that the Church where I seek refuge is being indifferent to the truth and justice just because of your own geopolitical considerations, Father, you have to teach me to unlearn all the homilies, all the liturgical sharing, all these doctrines that you have [taught] me before, because I have to renounce my faith if that is how you will answer me.”

    Amen.

  6. Unique and multi-talented’ priest marks silver jubilee
    By Josephine Darang
    Inquirer
    First Posted 06:41am (Mla time) 06/03/2007

    MANILA, Philippines – Tuguegarao Archbishop Diosdado Talamayan called Fr. Ranhilio Callangan-Aquino, who marked his silver jubilee as a priest, “unique and multi-talented.”

    In his homily during the May 27 Thanksgiving Mass at the Ermita de San Jacinto where Fr. Rannie is rector, Archbishop Talamayan said, “The Holy Spirit has been very generous to Fr. Rannie.”

    Fr. Rannie is no ordinary priest. He is dean of the Graduate School of Law in San Beda College and consultant for international law in the Office of the President in Malacanang.

    He was the first diocesan priest to become dean of the graduate school of the University of Santo Tomas.
    ————————————————————————————————-
    Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino
    Dean, Graduate School of Law
    San Beda College (Mendiola)

    Dear Mr.Aquino:

    Mr. Esposo ,in his popular Chair Wrecker column in Philippine Star, has asked whether San Beda College-Mendiola now suffers from its proximity to evil. San Beda College is Malacanang’s neighbor.

    The Chair Wrecker has reacted to your perceived role as a legal apologist of Gloria.

    While I don’t question your legal right to express your very strong position (and bias) against Jun Lozada in the ZTE -NBN mega scandal of Malacanang, I strongly believe that you need to make it very clear that:

    1) You are a Consultant for international law in the Office of the President in Malacanang (see above Inquirer article;6/03/07).

    2) Your public positions on the ZTE scandal do not reflect the position of the Benedictine community in Mendiola.

    The problem is that you always affix your academic position (“Dean, Graduate School of Law,San Beda College -Mendiola”)in all your press releases .

    The public goodwill for the much respected Benedictine Order, in particular, and San Beda College-Mendiola, in general, SUFFERS because of your public posturing.

    Firstly, you are NOT at all a member of the Benedictine Community. You are not a Benedictine priest or brother. You are a diocesan priest who just happens to work as a paid employee (ok, dean) in San Beda College(see Inquirer article). There is public confusion with your “Father” title and your employee status in San Beda College- Mendiola.

    Secondly, you are NOT even an alumnus of San Beda College.

    In the Wikipedia Post on “Notable San Beda College Alumni “, you are listed in the “Honorary Alumni and Notable Faculty” category and not as an alumnus of the College .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_San_Beda_College_alumni

    I suggest that you use the title:
    ” Ranhilio Callangan Aquino, Consultant for International Law,Office of the President, Malacanang” to better reflect YOUR legal positions against Jun Lozada in the ZTE -NBN Deal Mega Scandal.This will put a better perspective to your public declarations.

    Your legal defense of your Malacanang patron has NOTHING to do with your being the “Dean of the Graduate School of Law,San Beda Mendiola”.

    Atty(?) Ranhilio Aquino,if you want to be a “Custos morum “,be 100% transparent to the public.

    Companero,in Spanish, be “cuentas claras”!!!

    In all things may God be glorified.

    Pax

    EQ

  7. Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino

    (1) I used the title “Dean of the Graduate School of Law, San Beda College” because that, by appointment, is what I am.

    (2) I am not responsible for the titles Ms. Josephine Darang, in her goodwill ascribes to me. I have been consulted twice by Director (now Commissioner) Coco Quisumbing on issues of international law but I have never been an employee of Malacanan.

    (3) Other deans use their titles as deans when interviewed — Dean Amado Valdez, Dean Carlotta, Prof. Raul Pangalanan, etc. I see no reason why I should not use mine. After all the Constitution is itself the best guarantee that the views of the Dean are not necessarily the views of the institution. The rubric for this is “academic freedom”.

    (4) I didn’t find any intellectual wrestling with issues in this vitriolic tirade against me. What I found was an attack on my person. That is what ails this country — that we don’t seem to be able to deal with issues academically and so easily demonize proponents of ideas.

    I am Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino, a diocesan priest of the Archdioese of Tuguegarao, and yes, Dean of the Graduate School of Law of San Beda College, besides being Chair of the Department of Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy, Philippine Judicial Academy, Supreme Court of the Philippines.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s