Lawyer. vegetarian. ashtangi. Subscribe (it's free!) or click "Skip to Content" below
My notes on the video of the 11.2- billion-peso poll automation bidder allegedly being assisted by the Comelec bid chair in signing bid documents inside a Comelec toilet last May 6 during a recess in the bidding process: I embedded the video below without endorsing it and, since i do not know the source, without giving it any kind of credence, and shown here only for purposes of ease of explanation.
This is a 27-second video stretched (repeated or looped) to three minutes to give running time to certain factual allegations and conclusions shown as crawlers or chargen (computer-generated text, or simply running captions).
The factual allegations and conclusions seem to be two sets:
1) the first, by the uploader, alleging that one of the persons in the video is Comelec special bidding chair Atty. Rafanan; and
2) the second, by what seems to be the original producer of the video being quoted by the uploader, alleging that Comelec special bid chair Atty. Rafanan gave F.F. Cruz Co. time, or three hours, to look for their missing documents during the bidding process and that Comelec bid chair Atty. Rafanan waited for said bidder to comply, and to provide these documents, and that the video shows the bidder, F.F. Cruz, completing and signing those bid documents inside a Comelec toilet.
This video has not been authenticated, the scene or scenario has not been authenticated, Atty. Rafanan has denied; only the location, the Comelec restroom, was confirmed by Comelec Chair Jose Melo in an interview today, but he said that the person was not Atty. Rafanan.
The following need to be established, and are not established by the video alone: 1) identities of all the parties in the video; 2) what documents are being signed; 3) date; and 4) context: why were those persons signing the documents inside the toilet.
Without more, or by itself, what this video tells/ shows me are: 1)there are three individuals inside a Comelec toilet , holding carefully, sheaves of papers stapled together; 2)one of the individuals, a grey-haired man in barong, is initialling or signing every page of the documents; 3) he is being assisted by a man in blue shirt who has the same hair style as Comelec bid chair Atty. Rafanan, but persons who know him say it is not him. This person glances sideways so you have a one-second view of his face. You can slow-mo it then freeze frame, then light it up and sharpen it to see the face clearly. 3)They seem to be in a hurry. 4) They’re in such a hurry that they choose the nearest private place, which was the Comelec rest room. 5)Two of them are glancing sideways to check no one is looking. That’s it. It needs more. In any case, the second set of factual allegations is easily verifiable by the records: 1) Is it true that Comelec bid chair Atty. Rafanan gave F.F. Cruz Co. three hours to look for missing bid documents? 2) If there were other bidders who had the same deficiency, were they given the same treatment? 3) If those in the video were F.F. Cruz and staff members complying with said requirement, that establishes the context of the video; but was there preferential treatment; or undue influence; or switching of bid documents; or bribery; or falsification? 4)there would be an anomaly if Atty. Rafanan had given preferential treatment to F.F. Cruz and did not give the same kind of opportunity to bidders with deficiencies; or if there were falsification of records; or if there were switching of documents; etc. By the way, under the Rules on Electronic Evidence of the Rules of Court, streaming video and video tapes are admissible as evidence of the content of the video if the person who took the video could be presented as witness to authenticate the video.
[kyte.tv appKey=MarbachViewerEmbedded&uri=channels/48209/439503&tbid=k_16768&premium=false&height=445&width=425]
The judge presiding over Jun Lozada’s case (for perjury) said in his exclusive interview with ABS-CBN: “Kaya’t nananawagan ako kay Manny Pacquiao (“I am calling on Manny Pacquiao), …
“….na mag-attend sa hearing sa May 28 (“to attend the hearing on May 28)…
“….di ba kasi na-appoint syang ambassador for peace… (“because he was appointed ambassador for peace…)
“….para mapagkasundo nya si Mike Defensor at Jun Lozada (“so he can convince Mike Defensor and Jun Lozada to settle this case.”).
This was last night or yesterday afternoon, shown last night.
(i finally took the time to review the news items on this case: as i understand it now, this perjury case was previously dismissed, then the dismissal was reversed by a Regional Trial Court judge so it was sent back to the MTC judge (Metropolitan Trial Court judge) to be heard. If the case is dismissed again, it might be reversed again then sent to another judge. )
This judge, the MTC judge, (Judge Jorge Lorredo) does not want to try this case. He doesn’t want it, he wants the case to go away; but at the same time, he doesn’t want to inhibit himself because he feels that the case is better off in his sala than in any judge’s sala (though that’s not the reason he gives in the interview, he says he cares about the other judges and does not want to inflict this case on them) because at least, in his sala, he can independent-mindedly mock the parties to make them opt for settlement.
Settlement by mockery. If you cannot dismiss the case because it will be reversed again, but cannot inhibit yourself because you think the parties are better off in your sala, and you cannot appeal to the reason of the complainant to settle the case, what do you do?
Mock the parties to death. Until they settle the case.
Unorthodox? Very. I say “very”, because some judges can be unorthodox when they speak in open court, especially when they’re scolding the lawyers or the parties, some can be downright cranky, but they never put their eccentricities in writing, it’s most of the time off-the-record.
This judge does. He puts it in writing, then he gives a high-profile, nationally, globally televised interview on it.
Settlement by mockery. Unorthodox. Very. You’re actually courting a motion to be examined by a court-appointed psychiatrist. It’s a risk you take.
I finally took the time to read the order of the court (dated May 5) , here are excerpts:
ORDER
Accused having been arrested, his arraignment is set to May 7, 2009 at 8:30 in the morning.
XXX
Why is it safer for Defensor to settle the case—
XXX
Furthermore, I say that it may be very bad for his health and his family as well. If he gets sick like Mike Arroyo, would not that be bad for him and his family?
XXX
There are those who say that the serious heart disease is some kind of punishment for Atty. Mike Arroyo. I do not know if this is true, for I do not really know how our Lord works, for He does works in mysterious ways. But what I do know is that Lozada is being protected by the Church, by the priests and nuns. That must mean something. Defensor, take note: that must mean something.
XXX
Now, why are all these so important for Defensor to ponder on. Simple: if it is true that Mike Arroyo is being punished, Defensor may also be punished with some serious disease. I am sure his loved ones do not want that to happen to him.
XXX
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.
XXX
My notes: In an attempt to make the parties settle, the judge makes fun of Mike Defensor (the complainant) At the same time, if Mike Defensor is too oblivious to see what this means, here’s what the judge is trying to say (he doesn’t spell it out because he is not allowed to tell a party what will happen to him in court); but here’s what the judge is trying to tell Mike Defensor: “You will be creamed in court. On cross-examination. You will be forced to say things you don’t want to say, you will be stripped naked, i might even allow it, you will creamed like marshmallow, like pudding, like mashed potatioes, like mayonnaise. Settle this case.”
Of course, that’s not what he says in the order. Here’s the rest of the order. He says he will allow the issuance of subpoenas against the President and the First Gentleman and arrest warrants against them (the President and FG):
And if 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
