There continues to be a growing stream of commentary on Roberto R. Romulo. PDI’s Conrad Banal in an article last week about Romulo’s role in the rift between GMA and the then Vice President Tito Guingona:
At one time, you see, new justice secretary and former Congressman Raul Gonzalez made noises about the reason for the rift between Gloriaetta and Guingona. Gonzalex was blaming the so-called Sikatuna group, which was trying to undermine Guingona with Gloriaetta, particularly regarding Guingona’s handling of the country’s relation with Washington.The so-called Sikatuna group, in case you are not a member of the Manila Polo Club, is said to be headed by Roberto Romulo.That is the same Romulo who was the foreign affairs secretary of Kuya Eddie, and who was unceremoniously fired over the Flor Contemplacion case.
While Gonzalez is now the secretary of justice, Romulo is still the Presidential Adviser for Foreign Affairs, with the rank of Cabinet secretary. Big shot, in other words. But then again, Gloriaetta also has a Cabinet-rank Presidential Adviser for Provincial Trips. In media groups, anyway, Romulo’s latest claim to fame is his ongoing media war with
The Philippine STAR publisher and columnist Max Soliven. If you believe Romulo, or at least the information he is peddling to publications abroad, such as the Singapore
Straits Times, the reason why Soliven got mad at him was petty. Supposedly, based on the Romulo version of it, Soliven was delisted as one of the guests to a White House gathering, during one of the visits of Gloriaetta to the United States.
And Romulo has been telling everybody, through strike-anywhere broadcast emails, that he actually had nothing to do with it. That, of course, implied that he had the power to do it. But he did not. And so to get back at Soliven, Romulo lodged a complaint with the Philippine Press Institute, launched a media campaign abroad and sued Soliven for libel. What for? Well, I really don’t know. Romulo is a government official, right? Public officials must not be onion-skinned, right?" Right.
| The Issue Of Right To Reply |
The issue of the right to reply has been made clear through the efforts of our Spy-ring legal research team. They pointed out that the issue had its precedent in the United States, when the Supreme Court decided in a 1974 ruling that the (Florida) "right to reply" statute violates the First Amendment guarantee of a free press. In this case, the Miami Herald Publishing Co. published a series of articles critical of a candidate for a state office. The Florida Circuit Court, in an earlier ruling, had likewise concluded that dictating what a newspaper must print is no different from dictating what it must not print. The Supreme Court ruling summed that the issue is compelling editors or publishers that which "reason" tells them should not be published. The clear implication being that any such a compulsion to publish that which reason tells them should not be published is unconstitutional. Likewise, the Florida statute of the "right to reply" is an intrusion into the function of the ditor. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to the limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials – whether fair or unfair – constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. Further sayeth none.
Dr. Strangelove, our reliable aqua business Ear-spy, reported something positive and reassuring. He said that a Taiwanese group is coming to start a prawn farm. They are now scouting around to take over existing fishponds and aquafarms, which are not operating or which owners are giving up. They will initially start with a hundred hectares. They are targeting the domestic market as they project to produce at least 2500 tons by their second year of operation. Prawntastic news indeed!
Join our ring of Eye-spies by sending your intelligence information, complaints, pictures, and comments to spybiz@spyring.com
All information will be strictly confidential