The second senate hearing on the testimony of Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. and the government officials who were supposed to rebut him was most interesting, as it showed the biases of the senators. At the outset, Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Lito Atienza wanted the hearing to begin with his testimony, inasmuch as he felt the alleged ?kidnapping? was an offshoot of his request that Lozada be given protection.

Atienza pointed out that it was Lozada who had asked him for protection from unnamed threats. But Senate blue ribbon committee chair Alan Peter Cayetano wouldn?t flinch from his scheduling of speakers, which obviously wanted to zero in on what is now the more gripping issue for the public: the alleged kidnapping of Lozada.

When Atienza finally got to speak, he pointed out that Lozada, ex-head of the Philippine Forest Corp. under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, had informed him of his intention to take up an invitation to an environment conference in London and he acquiesced to his plan. Atienza?s motive was obviously to show that Lozada was not shipped out by the administration to escape the Senate?s grilling.

* * *

But the more interesting part of Atienza?s testimony was his thinly veiled hint that Lozada?s emotional testimony, first before the media and later in the Senate, could be part of an orchestrated plan of a group to destabilize the administration and oust President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Atienza found it curious that some senators were aware of Lozada?s failure to proceed to London and his decision to remain in Hong Kong and his decision to resign from office -- things that Atienza said he was not even aware of at the time.

Atienza did not say so, but obviously he was referring to Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who had released such details to the public way earlier. The inference was that Lacson and the opposition could be manipulating Lozada to bring down the government.

This is an inference that?s not easy to buy, especially since the witness? highly emotional appearance was quite touching and he looks believable. But in the minds of some people it?s not far-fetched that Lacson and his group could be manipulating things for the opposition; they are perceived as pros in that sort of thing. Lawyer Antonio Bautista pointed out that while Lozada said he had not talked to Lacson, he also said that it was his brother who was in touch with the senator.

Curiously, while Lozada said this, Lacson himself, in another part of the testimony, admitted he had been in touch with Lozada on the issue of the ZTE-national broadband network deal since last December. Atienza?s allegation should make people think.

* * *

Various groups led by some religious are now seeking organized action against the Arroyo administration on the basis of the testimony of Lozada on the ZTE deal. The problem, however, is that the whistleblower is himself accused of corruption and irregularities in his own sphere of influence, and Lozada did not even bother to deny it. He readily admitted to Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago that Philippine Forest Corp. had taken out a P5-million insurance policy with Insular Life with his wife acting as the agent and that it had leased out a 50-hectare property in Antipolo City to a company that he personally controlled.

In addition, Santiago rattled off a number of contracts entered into by Gabriel Multimedia Services, which is owned by Lozada?s brother and which did not go through a proper bidding. She also questioned Lozada?s purchase of expensive vehicles that the whistleblower insisted were for PhilForest?s use.

* * *

Lozada, when confronted by Santiago, aside from admitting to the narration of irregularities, ascribed them to his personal ?permissible zone? and how the senator had just blown that zone away. In other forums, Lozada said that considering that he has attacked a project involving billions of pesos, his own personal indiscretions were peanuts.

That is bothersome; comparing the billions of pesos in the ZTE project with the millions of pesos involved in his personal projects is indeed like comparing oranges and apples. But the fact is that in his area of jurisdiction, the irregularities were very serious and he can be charged with graft for them, and yet he pooh-poohs them. Does his record make him a credible witness in a grand corruption issue? What?s even more alarming is that the religious groups backing him up play blind to this double standard. No wonder people are so confused.

* * *

There was a funny moment during the first hearing when Lozada was asked why he became so afraid when driven around by men he didn?t know or recognize after he arrived from Hong Kong last Feb. 5. Lozada said he was afraid ?baka ma-Dacer ako.? The reference was to the disappearance of public relations man Bubby Dacer and his driver a few years ago.

The kidnapping and executions were never solved, but former henchmen of then-chief Panfilo Lacson of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, former military elements, were believed to have been behind them. There are those who would implicate Lacson himself. The cameras failed to pan to Lacson, who remained stone-faced, as always, in the light of that unexpected remark.

* * *

Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) general manager and chief executive officer Robert Dean Barbers was reported to have drawn some flak from residents and resort owners after his name appeared on the PTA seal etched in many sections of the walk marking the P140-million PTA drainage system project. A resort owner was quoted as saying that Barbers has no right to put his name on those seals because the funds came from taxpayers.

The fact is that this is a common practice of politicians and bureaucrats. One has only to travel in any part of the country, to see basketball courts, waiting sheds, schoolhouses and other public buildings named after politicians, making it appear as though they funded the projects. This is not right, but to pick on Barbers is quite unfair.

More Inquirer columns

Previous columns:
Politics of revenge ? 2/06/08
Crazy to junk De Venecia and his international network ? 1/30/08
Cities in uproar ? 1/29/08
Clearer rules of engagement ? 1/23/08
?Celestial musician? ? 1/22/08