calling out cheche

so what’s winston garcia of gsis up to, doing a mike defensor and doing it worse, harassing bullying persecuting no less than the veteran journalist cheche lazaro, who is highly esteemed, widely loved, and multi-awarded for the excellence and relevance of her body of work in broadcast journalism and nation-building?   and don’t tell me that winston garcia is not calling the shots here, because that’s simply not to be believed in the context of either the public teachers’ gsis pension plight or the war between garcia and the lopezes over meralco, or both.

cheche lazaro is right, she did not break the anti-wiretapping law.    she wasn’t a sammy ong or a vidal doble wire-tapping gma’s phone conversations with garci without gma’s and garci’s knowledge.    she was just cheche of probe interviewing a gsis pr lady on her cellphone for a show she was putting together, and yes she recorded the conversation, in the course of which she informed the gsis lady that it was being recorded, and the gsis lady did not stop talking, did not get off the line in protest, so what’s the crime.   the complaint shouldnot have prospered.   there is no wiretapping case.

what there is however is a breach of journalistic ethics.   when cheche aired a part of the recorded conversation without the gsis pr lady’s consent, cheche gave the lady reason to ask,what about my individual right to privacy?

Are the media allowed to violate the individual rights of a person? I was asking the court if the media could simply call you up, record your conversation, and broadcast it for the entire world to hear; all these, without your knowledge, much less, your permission.

…”I am a believer of the significant role journalists play in a democratic system. They are the watchmen, protecting us from wrongdoings taking place both in government and private sectors. But even journalists are not infallible. They can have their share of wrongdoings. And when journalists do wrong, how can we – especially private individuals – protect ourselves from them?”

the gsis pr lady gave cheche tacit approval to record, but not to disclose.   “hindi po lalabas…” and cheche agreed, “no, no…” yet she did put out a part of it, on the convoluted ground that the gsis pr lady had insisted that it be explained to viewers that gsis refused to grant an interview because of biased reporting by lopez-owned media entities.   cheche could simply have shown the official letter refusing the invitation to air the gsis side, she could have highlighted, even read out the pertinent parts, and the message would have been sent as effectively.

given her long history in the business, it surprises that cheche chose to publicize what was clearly off-the-record.   of course journalists hate off-the-record, it usually denies them the satisfaction of scooping a juicy story, but it’s a short-sighted view.    some of the biggest stories of corporate scandals, i am told, have been broken based on information that off-the-record statements led to.    there’s value, too, in something said that you can’t write or broadcast but which you can follow up in private and which might lead to you more info you would otherwise have missed out on.

the question is, why did cheche do it?   freedom of the press?   maybe she thought she could get away with it because the larger issue of gsis’s lack of transparency or the teachers’ well-being is more important than any government official’s privacy?   maybe she thought that off-the-record was an outdated ethic, it doesn’t promote nation-building?   maybe she thought that public opinion would be with her given the low satisfaction ratings of government and its institutions?  but says bong austero:

Lazaro is of course a pillar in broadcast journalism in this country with a sterling reputation both in academe and in media. I am a fan of Lazaro; I think very highly of her work … Being dismayed that someone of her caliber has to go through something like this is a natural gut reaction.

But if we really come to think about it, who Lazaro is and what she stands for is important and relevant but is not a foolproof defense and justification. I dread the idea that anyone who feels wronged cannot file a case against anyone on account of that other person’s reputation. I dread the idea that people likeLazaro is deemed untouchable because of who she is.

Moreover, I think it’s a disservice to automatically rile against the whole case, scream suppression of freedom of the press, and make reckless generalizations about how the case is yet another proof of sinister political machination of the powers-that-be without considering the intrinsic value of the case … the whole case is potentially just as much a chance to validate press freedom given the opportunity it offers to vindicate Lazaro’s cause as it is an opportunity to stress the right to privacy of individuals against the often invasive posturing of media.

and says the daily tribune:

The local media community appears to be divided on the issue on whether the Lazaro case is a case of press freedom or a case of a journalist having violated the rules of journalism, as even an instance of a journalist airing or publishing agreed off-the-record statements of his source is already a breach of journalistic ethics.

It will be recalled that veteran US broadcaster Connie Chung was booted out of the major network in the US a decade ago for having aired an off the record comment made by the mother of then Rep. Newt Gringgich that then First Lady Hilary Clinton was a bitch. This was not regarded as a case of press freedom, but a violation of the rules of journalism.

and says alex magno:

The mass media could be intrusive. It could so easily break into anyone’s privacy and brazenly trample on rights to privacy. There needs to be a finer consensus in the journalistic community over the conduct of interviews and the use of phone conversations, outside the formal setting of an interview, for airing.

On this concern, there is public merit in hearing out the arguments in the case filed against Cheche. Ordinary citizens, not only journalists, have rights too.

a qualified yes.    there is public merit in hearing out the arguments in the case of cheche but only on the question of journalistic ethics, NOT on the bogus and ridiculous wiretapping charges which should be dropped, the arrest order withdrawn, and the bail money returned.   in fairness lang naman.

anthem angsts

the tempest over the national anthem in the wake of martin nievera’s relatively radical version is no small teacup thing.   this is one question that every pinoy who grew up memorizing and singing lupang hinirang feels qualified to weigh in on.   and i dare say that pinoys who hated it that martin played around with the beat and the endnotes outnumber pinoys who didn’t mind at all, whether they liked martin’s arrangement and/or rendition or not.

martin was warned:

If only Martin Nievera listened to the advice of maestro Ryan Cayabyab, he would not be embroiled in national controversy.

The renowned musician said here that he warned Nievera not to change the melody of the National Anthem at the opening of Sunday’s Pacquiao-Hatton bout in Las Vegas.

“Martin, papatayin ka ng tao. Huwag mong papalitan yung huling part kasi delikado ka. (Martin, you will be crucified for that. Don’t change the last part or you’ll be in trouble),” Cayabyab recalled telling Nievera.

He said Nievera sent him a copy of his nontraditional rendition of the Lupang Hinirang five days before the fight.

Cayabyab, who’s fondly called by his friends and singers as Mr C, said that the country’s concert king first confided to him about his plan to jazz up the national anthem during ASAP, ABS-CBN’s Sunday noontime variety show.

He urged Nievera to sing Lupang Hinirang the regular way because other Filipinos would join him in singing.

Nievera, however, told Cayabyab that he would push through with his plan because he’s “doing it for the country.”

Still, Cayabyab insisted that he should not change the last part.

… Cayabyab said he would be open to join the debate on how the National Anthem be sung.

“As a musician, I will stick to the original because that is how the composer meant it to be,” he said.

the latest news is that martin has sort of apologized in the face of very negative feedback from the national historical institute and the threat of criminal charges being filed against him by a cavite congressman for violation of Republic Act 8491, or the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines.

“I do apologize only to the people afraid of progress and change, of course, the lawmakers and to whomever took offense to my interpretation of probably the most beautiful song I’ve ever come across,” Nievera said in a text message.

fighting words, for an apology.    i suppose because martin has powerful backers from the palace right all the way to the partylist left, who are even hoping to amend the law to allow for freedom of expression and artistic license.   big mistake.

bottom line the question is:  do we hew to the traditional, the original, the classic, or do we bow to the the new, the fresh, the modern, the cool.

now i’m usually all for creativity and change, improvisation, breaking out of patterns, but in the matter of the national anthem i am all for the old-fashioned way.   i am all for hewing to the traditional, the original, specially on big occasions here and abroad.   because pinoys in the audience will be singing along.   whether quietly or out loud we will be singing along, we will want to sing along, and there can be no singing along if singers are allowed to sing it any “creative” way they please.    there can be no getting into the spirit of the anthem when the beat is unfamiliar, the phrasing unusual, the notes unpredictable, the singer self-indulgent.

Our anthem is march music borne out of a revolutionary struggle. It is the spirit of the anthem. Felipe composed the music as a march, commissioned by Emilio Aguinaldo for the proclamation of the Kawit Republic on June 12, 1898. It was originally titled “Marcha Filipina Magdalo,” and was first played by the San Francisco de Malabon Band. It was composed to fire up revolutionary spirit and resistance, to fight against all odds as the Kawit republic struggled for its life.

…Nievera said he was told by many, including Pacquiao, “not to sing it slow.” They wanted him “to sing it like a march, the way it was written.” Ignoring those warnings, Nievera interpreted the song the way he understood it. He said that “from the deepest part of my heart I sang for my country.” He explained that he tried “to inspire a nation-which was all I tried to do.”

Many Filipinos did not like what they heard. Many believed his tampering with or distortion of the arrangement of Felipe robbed the anthem of its martial context. The revolutionary spirit was lost in the alteration. It sounded as if the music was composed in a milieu of peace and tranquility when in reality it was composed amid one of the most turbulent periods of the Filipino people’s struggle for independence and national sovereignty. The period was the end of the Spanish empire and the advent of another colonial rule by the expansionist, imperial America.

Nievera’s explanations do not justify his alterations. Singers without a sense of history, who sing for their pleasure, strip historic musical themes of their meaning.

martin also said, to justify those radical end-notes:

“I have watched many of Manny’s fights, and whenever the national anthem is sung, I could never hear the most important line, ‘Ang mamatay nang dahil sa ‘yo (To die for you)!’ So I elected to end the song big, [the better to] be heard over the usual screams and boos, and … get the final message of the song across.”

hmm.   how was the anthem sung ba in previous pacquiao fights.   di ba’t iniba-iba rin ang interpretation every time?   di ba’t iniangal ng nhi every time dahil hindi ayon sa orihinal?   next time pacquiao should invite a singer who has nothing to prove except the ability to lead filipinos in song.   with pacquiao’s pinoys singing along, i have no doubt that that most important line will resound for all the world, and martin, to hear.

justice for jun?

totoo ba ito?    judge jorge emmanuel lorredo of the manila metropolitan trial court who first dismissed mike defensor’s complaint of perjury vs. jun lozada is the very same judge pala who issued the arrest warrant, and who yesterday issued an order setting the arraignment on may 7?   well, no wonder he is also ordering mike defensor to drop the charges or else!

ORDER

…. Defensor, on May 7, 2009, when I arraign your enemy, Lozada, you shall have the unique opportunity for cleansing, for healing, for regaining public sympathy. The Court suggests that you do what is right for your sake, for your kids’ sake, for your wife’s sake. I have not talked to Mrs. Defensor, but as an experienced trial judge who deals with human emotions and passions everyday in my courtroom, I am sure that Mrs. Defensor wants peace and good health for you.

Why this case is not to the best interest of the first couple-

Since Defensor is not a trial lawyer, he apparently has not seen the very explosive potential of this case: the first couple (Gloria and Mike Arroyo) may validly and legally be dragged into the proceedings by Lozada’s defense team. All that the defense team has to do is invoke certain provisions of the Rules of Court. As a fair and impartial judge, I shall have no reason not to grant such request.

It is true that evil, cruel and vindictive regimes can use the law to make their enemies suffer, but it is that very same set of laws that can enable the oppressed (to) fight back. Such is the beauty of the law: that is why many have fallen in love with the law and have become lawyers or judges. As a child, I have dreamed of one day becoming a judge, to apply the law not to destroy lives, but to make lives better. Now, I am in that position, with the help of God. I dispense justice everyday with the aid and guidance I always seek from our Lord.

When this case goes to trial, I will of course allow the prosecution every opportunity to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

When it is the turn of the defense to present evidence, I will also allow the defense every opportunity to raise reasonable doubt or to destroy each and every element of the felony of perjury.

Andif there is a motion to present president Gloria or first gentleman Mike Arroyo as hostile witnesses in order for accused Lozada to establish, I will not hesitate to issue the corresponding subpoena compelling the first couple to testify as hostile witness for the defense.

If Gloria and Mike refuse to obey the subpoena, I will not hesitate to issue the warrants of arrest against them because it is the constitutional right of Lozada to have the best possible defense. And it is my duty as trial judge to see to it that there is due process in my court.

If the police officers refuse to serve the arrest warrants because Gloria is their boss, then I will be forced to deputize other public officers to serve and implement the arrest warrants.

I need not search hard nor should I wait long, for Manila Mayor Lim and the many senators who wish to take Lozada into their custody may move that they be deputized. Some of these people are lawyers, some of them have extensive police experience, like Mayor Fred Lim and Senator Ping Lacson. They can arrest, handcuff and put behind bars any fugitive.

They are no match against the PSG, the Presidential Security Group? What if Sen. Trillanes and his comrades join the mission to arrest? Get the picture, Mr. Railroadman Defensor?

Defensor, just imagine how powerful a message that would (be) for our people and for the whole world. And just imagine how that would affect the first couple.

I now suggest to Mike Defensor not to think only of himself in his perjury case. The welfare of the first couple is also involved, as discussed above.

I invite everyone who may come across this order to pray for both Defensor and Lozada, so there may be peace between them.

Please pray also for me, so that I may always be a good, humble, God fearing and very wise Judge to those who seek justice in my courtroom; and so that I may be elevated from a Judge to a Justice (even though I do not have any political backers) for that would surely make my late father, Jorge Lorredo, Jr. (who is now with Jesus in heaven watching me with a smile on his face) and my mother, Mary Lorredo, very proud of their only child.

So ordered.

May 4, 2009.

JORGE EMMANUEL M. LORREDO
Presiding Judge

i expected, thought, that lozada would be tried by manila regional trial court judge cicero jurado jr. who reversed lorredo’s dismissal and ruled that lozada be taken into custody.   where is judge cicero jurado jr?   bakit nawala siya sa picture?   what’s going on?    alam ba ito ni defensor?    inilaglag na ba si defensor?   or are we being taken for a ride a la lozada?

proud pero medyo praning

what a show.    short and sweet and stunning.   mabuhay si manny pacquiao.   sana makarami pa siya.   sana pagyamanin pa niya ang galing niya sa boksing.   sana i-test pa niya ang limits of his unique body-mind-spirit now that he’s peaking and seemingly at the height of his powers.   sana saka na lang ang pulitika.

i hate boxing actually, too violent for me, can’t stand to see two people hurting each other physically, no matter what the provocation or the rationale.   it is enough that we hurt each other mentally, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, that is, with our minds and hearts and words.

but manny pacquiao on the world stage has been impossible to ignore, he’s one of us, and, yes, he’s doing a great job as boxing champ and ambassador of goodwill.   what spoils it for me lang is the political agenda, parlaying the popularity into political power.   already the system has got him by the balls.

the spin is on: pacquiao for president (actually he’ll settle for congressman).   a tribute to pacquiao as pop icon that reflects questionably on the pinoy electorate.   says ducky paredes in malaya:

When his promoter Bob Arum of Top Rank introduces Manny Pacquiao as “a future president of the Philippines,” is this an insult to the Filipino people? Are we to be regarded as a people who will vote for anyone with a little fame and with popularity? Are our elections nothing more than popularity contests?

Why should we feel insulted when Arum is only showing us what we really are? An electorate of fools who vote according to superficials but expect the highest order of public service. Why expect anything more than a handsome face when we vote the actor based on his image as he portrays himself on the silver screen? Why expect anything more from someone who buys our votes with his advertisements and even actual cash at the voting booth?

A congressman observed even before Pacquiao made mincemeat of the feared and highly regarded Ricky Hatton that Manny would be a cinch to be elected into Congress. In fact, if he were to run to represent athletes and boxers in our multifarious party list system wherein everything and everyone except gays are allowed representation, a Pacquiao Party would probably have the maximum allowable representation. I predict that it will have more votes than any other Party List.

Manny Pacquiao for President? Why not? As far as what we can expect of a Pacquiao presidency (ten or more years from now when he has become of age) Manny is probably more God-fearing and loves the Pinoy more than anyone else we have ever tried as president.

What is insulting from the Arum introduction of Manny Pacquiao is that Bob regards the rest of the Pinoys as being nothing more than adoring boxing fans who would take a Muhammad Ali or an Oscar de la Hoya or the latest unqualifiedly best boxer (for now) of all time who is today Manny Pacquiao as if they were God to be given the highest place in our history and present society.

Sadly for the Philippines, Bob Arum has hit the right button. Whatis our voting record? Whom have we been picking as our leaders if not the rich and the famous amongst us? And, for now, who is richer and more famous than Manny Pacquiao?

he’ll be even richer and more famous when he again enters the ring, maybe in october, against whoever, good for him.   pero sana sana sana naman ay magaw’an ng paraan ni pacquiao at ng gma 7 at solar sports na mapanood ng mas nakararaming pinoy ang laban in real-time.   say ni john nery sa inquirer:

The decision by the giant GMA network and long-timeblocktimer Solar Sports to delay the telecast of Manny Pacquiao’s Las Vegas fights to accommodate innumerable ads is creating a second class of TV viewers: those who cannot afford to watch pay-per-view TV or do not wish or know how to follow a boxing match on AM radio. Think about it: several million Filipinos saw or heard Ricky Hatton fall a third and final time just before noon last Sunday. The rest of the nation saw the perfectly leveraged left hook which knocked Hatton out even before he hit the canvas when it was already almost three in the afternoon.

I’ve read a statement from GMA, placing the burden squarely on the shoulders of Solar Sports. While it is true that Solar earns through the advertising, GMA cannot be entirely blameless; it sets the rate which Solar must pay.

Pacquiao’s many fans deserve to watch his fights live. Solar can make it happen by dramatically raising its ad rates and drastically reducing the number of advertisers. A company that picks up the entire tab-a San Miguel, say, or a PLDT, ponying up about as much as it does for an Olympic sponsorship-will reap a nation’s gratitude.

hear! hear!

as for martin nievera’s rendition of lupang hinirang, may pagka-OA ang delivery but it was, uh, interesting, even if it sounded to me a mite flat on that final sustained note.