Aren’t lawyers liable, too?

A lot has been said about the bonanza that is the Liongson Consultancy Agreement with Piatco. Everybody is curious about who and where Mr. Alfonso "Pons" Liongson is, to take instructions perhaps on how to swing megadeals like the one he has with Piatco, or to shake his hand for balato. Sadly, though, while all eyes are on Liongson, others who may be just as culpable are going unnoticed and unpunished.

I speak of persons who advised or cooked up such enviable contract to begin with. I believe it only reasonable to look at the lawyers of Piatco.

Why the lawyers? Well, because the consultancy agreement is quite unique. It is difficult to see how a company, even as well placed as Piatco, could have entered into such a contract without consulting its counsel. A reading of the agreement would readily blare that it is not a mere PR deal as Piatco tries to make it sound. Unmistakably from the terms, the price tag and the milestones to be accomplished, Liongson had to peddle more than just charms. He had to convince well-placed people to deliver the various supplemental agreements he committed to. Without having to strain one’s eyes reading between the lines, it rings like a badly written contract for influence peddling.

Consider the "deliverables":

• $200,000 (P10 million) a month from June 2001-June 2002;

• $600,000 (P30 million) upon approval by the transportation office of a Piatco contractor for NAIA Terminal-3;

• $200,000 (P10 million) upon execution of a memo of agreement from the Philippine Tourism Authority allowing Piatco to operate duty-free shops at Terminal-3;

• $200,000 (P10 million) upon implementation of a third supplement to construct an access road from Terminal-2 to Terminal-3;

• $50,000 (P2.5 million) upon execution of a fourth supplement to the Piatco concession.

So what have the lawyers got to do with it? A lot. As I understand how legal ethics work, a lawyer worthy of his oath would not lend his expertise to perpetuate a wrong. Oh, but I can already hear lawyers ask, "What’s wrong with documenting a straightforward consulting deal?" True, under ordinary circumstances, a lawyer striving to capture the intentions of the parties to a contract and to reduce these in writing can hardly be faulted. This is true, however, only if the lawyer is not aware of what was going on or could not have otherwise discerned the mal-intent of the parties. Yet any freshman in law school would glean that the Liongson consultancy agreement is suspect, if not outright illegal.

Unless he can read minds, how could anyone commit to deliver government approvals if he doesn’t control the approving authorities? Why should anyone pay staggering fees for what amounts to lip service? These are but some of the questions that stare in the face of anyone who cares to read the contract. If a layman like me can note these things, how much more legal eagles such as those who may have written and now defend the contract.

Moises Tolentino, I understand, is Piatco’s in-house counsel and spokesman. Much as he probably would like to claim credit, I don’t think he crafted the contract. His principals probably tapped him to draft simple lease agreements. The Liongson deal is much too pricey for Piatco to have entrusted to him.

For something as valuable as the consultancy agreement, Piatco possibly could have turned to top-notch lawyers, such as its defenders in the Senate Blue-Ribbon committee – Dindo de los Angeles or Liway Chato. I don’t know, but I think it would be worth our while to find out.

De los Angeles is said to be a very good corporate lawyer. A former law school dean and president of the stock exchange, he can craft any kind of agreement with his eyes closed. He reportedly belongs to the law firm that endorsed Ani Desierto to the Supreme Court.

Liway Chato, on the other hand, is a tax expert. I hope so; she did run the BIR for a while. In one Senate hearing, she vigorously defended the validity of Liongson not having to pay taxes because it supposedly is Piatco’s responsibility. I am unclear how that works, but I would certainly want that for myself.

If either of these lawyers took part in drafting the contract, could they be held responsible if eventually it surfaces that the real reason for the payments made to Liongson is illegal? Can they be compelled to testify on the true intentions of the parties, or to disclose who the other interested parties might be? Can they be disbarred?

I wish so, regardless of who the real lawyers might be. It’s only right to expect of legal professionals fealty to their oath, not just their pockets.

* * *

It’s really disturbing, that newspaper ad that Antonio Calipjo Go had to take out just to expose some of the 540 errors he discovered in the new Basic Education Curriculum. Among the entries he cited: "salt, metals, chalk and glasses are elements," "fish breathe in air," "squid live in rivers and lakes." In the high-school English syllabus, Go spotted such strange instructions as "let us make graffiti of your ideas," "compute this map," "retell a story heard through pictures." And these exultations: "our public school system was established as a safeguard against the dangers of democratic government and democratic institutions" and "the singer considers all men and women his another sisters."

Go, of the Marian School of Quezon City, had earlier criticized the BEC for endorsing defective textbooks. Two such textbooks both entitled Asya, he says, have chapters in Chinese history. Both completely ignored the period from 206 BC to 589 AD, a span of 800 years encompassing the Han Dynasty (202 BC-221 AD), the age of Chinese expansion and cultural flourish. Isn’t that why most Chinese call themselves "people of the Han"?

Another textbook, he says, describes the mammal pangolin as langgam na may kaliskis.

* * *

Catch Linawin Natin, Mondays, 11:30 p.m., on IBC-13.

* * *

You can e-mail comments to Jariusbondoc@workmail.com.