For the past few months, I have noticed that the Inquirer has been referring to Rodolfo ?Jun? Lozada as the whistle-blower of the ZTE-NBN deal.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn?t Jose de Venecia III the true whistle-blower of the billion-peso scandal? Doesn?t ?whistle-blower? mean the first person to reveal a scandal? If so, then De Venecia rightly deserves the title.

It is not just a matter of semantics. Lozada was not the first to expose the scandal, he only supported all of De Venecia?s claims. Also, it was De Venecia who supplied the documents on the scam.

I believe that the correct description of Lozada is ?star witness? as he supported the allegations made by De Venecia regarding the huge kickbacks that were to be received by First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and Comelec Commissioner Benjamin Abalos.

Former NEDA Secretary General Romulo Neri can be considered a hostile witness, as he supported both the testimony of De Venecia and Lozada.

De Venecia and Lozada are both brave men who risked much to inform the public of the widespread corruption within the Arroyo administration. One is the ?whistle-blower,? the other is a ?star witness.?

Since the Inquirer is the country?s leading newspaper, other papers and even broadcast media organizations follow its lead. Both gentlemen deserve to be described correctly.

?JIANNE LEE,
4/F Piso Bldg.,
Pasay Road, Makati City