Inaccurate

I would like to register my strong objections to the inaccurate and biased reporting of two articles that appeared in your newspaper, namely:

1. Lozada’s role in other anomalies bared in ZTE trial, p.2, Wednesday, May 18, 2011 by Michael Punongbayan

2. Lozada knew of anomalies in gov’t projects during term as NEDA adviser, p.2, Thursday, May 19,2011, by Non Alquitran

I with six other Sisters were at the Sandigan hearing on the case of Abalos the whole time for two days, May 16 and 17 and so I know exactly what went on during the hearing. Here are some inaccuracies:

1. Villareal did not ask Lozada about his pending case with the Ombudsman (Punongbayan) but regarding his testimony in the Senate about the 19 million allocation for an economic productivity program for a plantation project. That is why the document shown to him was from the Senate hearings not from the Ombudsman.

2. In Punongbayan’s article it is said that the P14 million was set aside for the brother of Romulo Neri. In Alquitran’s article the next day on the same topic, it was supposed to be set aside “for a disposition by a ‘friend of Secretary Neri’. Alquitran’s other inaccuracy is that he said Lozada admitted this. He did not! This was stated by Villareal.

3. Punongbayan reported that Lozada said he could not recall regarding the Southrail project.

Actually Lozada readily admitted that he knew of that transaction. No hesitation.

4. Regarding “permissible zone”, Lozada did not say that that was his permissible zone. (Alquitran) He did not say that it was ok for Abalos and GMA to get the $65 M. He said that Neri’s logic was that, that concession would save the country half of the commission demanded – what he meant by “moderating their greed.

5. Regarding “Lozada could not explain why he allowed multimillion peso anomalies...” (Alquitran). He was not asked to explain this and it is absurd for him to explain such a thing when he has no authority to “allow or not to allow” such things since he was only evaluating the projects.

6. Re: “Lozada admitting that he did nothing beyond reporting”. This is misleading. He said, he immediately reported it to Neri. That is all what he had to do.

7. Lozada was not a “proponent” of a ZTE-Joey de Venecia partnership” as Alquitran alleges.

He said he was asked by Romy Nery to bring Abalos and De Venecia together for them to reconcile their interests.

8. Alquitran cites a number of cases against Lozada as if they were mentioned in the hearing. Anyone who was present in the hearing will attest to the fact that these were not at all mentioned in the hearing.

With all these inaccuracies, one can wonder if these two writers were at all present at the hearing, at the entire two-day hearing. Another question is why two writers chose the same tack making the hearing look like a trial against Lozada rather than against Abalos. They did not even report about the more relevant statement of Lozada regarding the actuations and involvement of Abalos in the NBN-ZTE deal considering that that was what he was summoned to do. — Sr. MARY JOHN MANANZAN, OSB, National Co-Chairperson-AMRSP, Leon Guinto, Malate, Manila