news flash: Lozada’s testimony corroborated by Neri’s negative pregnant

agnesarrelano.jpg

Agnes Arellano. Carcass Cornucopia/ above, Music for Making the Sun Rise, below. Sculpture installation: cold-cast marble, unhusked rice, crushed marble, wood. 1987. Fukuoka Asian Art Museum. Right-clicked from www.faam.city.fukuoka.jp searched thru www.artcyclopedia.com   

     This early, the evidence given by Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada on the ZTE negotiations has been corroborated, unwittingly, by no other than former NEDA secretary-general and now CHED chair Romy Neri himself.

    When asked for his reaction on the testimony of Jun Lozada that he (Romy Neri) instructed him to “Modify their greed.”, his response was: “oh, i just used colourful language, i just meant to make it cost-efficient.”     

        At the very least, Romy Neri had corroborated the following:    

         1.He knew Mr. Lozada .      

      2. He knew him enough to give him instructions.     

    3.He did give those instructions in those words: “Moderate their greed.”    

      4. The subject-matter of his instructions was the ZTE negotiations.    

       5.Both of them (Mr. Neri and Mr. Lozada) were involved in the contract-negotiations  as seen from the nature of the instructions, even within the purported belated meaning he gave to it.     

       6. He had asked and assigned Mr. Lozada to review the project and inform him of developments in the ZTE negotiations:  This is the import even within the context of the limited supposed meaning given by Mr. Neri.       

    7.Mr. Lozada was getting instructions from him on the ZTE negotiations and apprising him of its stages.     

           In other words, Romy Neri by not giving a general and specific denial  gave the public  (and now admissible in evidence as extra-judicial admission in the form of  negative pregnant) what in evidence and litigation is  called a  “negative pregnant”. Or, a denial that attempts to refute a specific qualification or quality and therefore  in effect admits the truth of the general statement that the event took place.   

        That’s a neat rule, isn’t it?  Lawyers always like to use it.    

         In other words (take a look at Number 7): by denying his meaning but not the event itself, Mr. Neri also established the context that indeed Mr. Lozada was being sent  by him to the contract negotiations in his (Mr. Neri’s) stead, to be his eyes and ears in the negotiations, and to report to him.    

       His negative pregnant is pregnant with the truth. Romy Neri  has unwittingly demolished all the demolition job and efforts of the Macapagal-Arroyo minions (his fellow minions) against Mr. Lozada.       

       I like that rule negative pregnant. It’s positive.

lawyers

 

Photo taken by Marco Paolo Z. Lambino

From Danielle:

Atty. Marichu,

     Jun Lozada says that he told Atty. Bautista that he had some reservations about the accuracy of the affadavit he prepared for him to sign. But the lawyer said for him to sign it anyway so that the Palace would be happy (or words to that effect). Can the courts censure him for this. Thank you  – Danielle         

  Dear Danielle,      

      Usually, lawyers try not to comment on other lawyer’s behaviour or practice of the profession unless they’re public officials or unless they’re opposing counsel and it has something to do with the case.  Maybe a general statement would do: the captors of Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada that day and all those who helped the captors hold the witness or make him do certain acts under duress can,  upon probable cause, be charged  as principals and accomplices with either kidnapping or arbitrary detention, grave coercion, obstruction of justice (in connection with the Senate warrant of arrest); and for making him sign untruthful affidavits: grave coercion, maybe falsification, maybe subornation of perjury (if notarized); in addition, hypothetically any lawyer who engages in what may be considered criminal behaviour may, in addition to criminal charges,  be the subject of discipline  by the Supreme Court  with notice and hearing,  for violation of the following: Canon  1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: “Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.” Etc. If the person is not a lawyer but pretending to be a lawyer, it’s indirect contempt. And on top of all those criminal charges that could be filed against the captors and accomplices; in the future if any plunder case is filed arising from the payoffs and commissions in the ZTE deal, all those who engaged in cover-up operations can, on probable cause, be charged too as accessories in the plunder case.  Thanks for writing! -marichu