Remember Jun Lozada, the supposed “whistle-blower” used by the Aquino government to chase down former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in connection with the aborted ZTE deal? Well, now that government has filed charges against Arroyo, there is little use for Lozada, is there?
So last Wednesday, the Office of the Ombudsman, headed by another Aquino chaser, charged Lozada with two counts of graft involving questionable land lease contracts while serving as head of the state-owned Philippine Forest Corporation.
Lozada’s involvement in these alleged anomalies are not newly-discovered. They were known as early as the time Aquino used him to chase down Arroyo. But because he was valuable in pinning down the former president, the government of Aquino chose to ignore his warts and blemishes.
In more mature and better civilized countries, a pot calling the kettle black would send alarm bells a-ringing and red flags a-flutter. But instead of taking the words of Lozada with a grain of salt, they were considered the gospel truth.
In fact, so enamored were Aquino’s fair-weathered allies (they now blast him on the RH bill, ha ha) with Lozada and what he can unburden from his chest against Arroyo that the nuns among them took Junior into their cloisters and pampered him 24/7.
It would be interesting to find out how the sisters would now treat Junior now that he has been charged with acts that the Ombudsman described as having been “unlawfully” undertaken and with “evident bad faith.”
The religious sector, by the way, lives mostly on charity. It is from this charity that the nuns fed, clothed, and comforted Junior, charity that could have found better use serving the poor and the sick, instead of being lavished on a man now criminally charged.
But beyond just a lot of holy red faces, the best lesson anyone can learn from this sick Lozada episode in our unfortunate national life is to be a little more circumspect in bestowing trust and to be less hypocritical in building relationships.
Lozada already stunk when he burst into the scene. But Aquino and his allies forced themselves to ignore how Lozada smelled because they had a great need for him. The testimony he can deliver against Arroyo sounded like the sermon on the mount to their hypocritical ears.
An additional lesson may as well be to rethink the way we appreciate so-called whistle-blowers. If it is possible this late in the game to reorient ourselves, whistle-blowers should only be those who never participated in the cases they expose.
Whistle-blowers must naturally be insiders, or direct observers. But they must never be direct participants whose only reason for exposing anything is either disgruntlement over their own personal stakes, or as a means to save their own skin.
Lozada, under this definition, is no better than that other so-called whistle-blower from the military who was up to his neck in the mess he accused his superior officers and yet whose words the nation eagerly lapped up until the time they eventually led to a general’s suicide.
Another whistle-blower we should shun is that who, while not necessarily involved in the alleged anomalies being exposed, has neither qualm nor compunction to resist and refuse rewards, like a posting in high government office.
The greatest lesson, however, is reserved for the leader in whose interest all these are being undertaken. This leader, in our case President Aquino, must understand that fate has a way of equalizing things, and that if he is not careful, karma is just around the corner.