Is it true that Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Jorge Emmanuel Lorredo has finally apologized for that strange and puzzling order he issued regarding the perjury case filed by former presidential chief of staff Mike Defensor against NBN ZTE witness Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada?
We heard that the good judge has done so, saying he is sorry for the uncalled-for remarks that he dished out against the President and the First Gentleman in said order. It will be recalled that Lorredo appeared for have ridiculed the current state of the health of the First Gentleman, comparing him to the robust health being enjoyed by former first ladies.
Lorredo also threatened to have the President arrested if she refused to appear before his sala as a hostile witness. According to him, if the President does not honor his subpoena, he would send the likes of Senator Ping Lacson, Mayor Fred Lim or even jailed Senator Antonio Trillanes and other Oakwood mutineers to arrest her.
In view of those remarks, people believe Lorredo should really apologize to the President and the First Gentleman. No matter what his political sentiments are, they say Lorredo should not have used the perjury case to expose those whom he personally dislikes to ridicule – especially if they are not parties to the case.
And even if they are. It will be recalled that Lorredo also went out of his way to call the complainant, Mike Defensor, by disparaging names. He ridiculed Defensor’s loss in the 2007 senatorial race, dubbed him “Mr. Railroadman”, and referred condescendingly to Defensor’s “rusty, old dilapidated trains which he can still play with”.
Were the remarks against Defensor proper? Defensor went to court to ask for justice against what he perceives to be an unfair act committed against his person. He expected an impartial, objective and fair treatment by the court as provided for in our justice system. Instead, he got those disparaging remarks from someone who is supposed to be a dispenser of justice.
So should Lorredo apologize to Defensor, too?
A professor of law who teaches at the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo University brought up an interesting point. He said that Lorredo should apologize not only to Defensor but also to the Filipino people.
He could be right.
Many are offended by the antics of Lorredo. Many felt he was taking advantage of an office that we all expected to be imbued with dignity and respectability. Maybe, they were offended because they had expected a man of the robe to speak with impartiality and handle the cases before him with objectivity – and that is what he is paid with taxpayers’ money to do.
It will be recalled that the latest of these antics was his reported plan to make world boxing champ Manny Pacquiao appear before his sala to facilitate a settlement between Defensor and Lozada.
Was the judge simply trying to be funny or has he lost his own respect for the dignity of his office?
So, maybe he should also apologize to his fellow judges?
At the end of the day, many feel he should also apologize to Lozada. Why? Maybe, his remarks and his insistence on a “settlement” between Defensor and Lozada may have created the impression that Lorredo was biased in favour of the NBN ZTE witness.
Already, a group of lawyers, calling themselves the National Association of Lawyers for Justice and Peace called on the public “to keep a close eye” on Lorredo, saying he may have already pre-judged the perjury case. The group said they were alarmed by Lorredo’s “seeming partiality” in favor of Lozada.
Maybe the impression has been created that Lorredo is determined to get Lozada off the hook. That is unfortunate. What if Lozada is eventually acquitted? Wouldn’t the public think he was acquitted not because he is not guilty but because he was simply lucky that the judge liked him?
There are many apologies that Lorredo may have to make.
But the question remains this: would Lorredo, despite the reported apology, still be able to hear this case with objectivity and impartiality?
We see many heads shaking.
Computerization update
The precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines of Smartmatic and Total Information Management Corp., the first consortium to be declared as a complying bidder for the full automation of next year’s elections, will have to pass through a technical performance test at the Commission on Elections.
The Comelec’s special bids and awards committee (SBAC) Monday night declared that the consortium of Smartmatic/TIM is a complying bidder, having offered to do the project at P7.19 billion.
The SBAC, however, can’t still declare Smartmatic’s bid as the lowest complying bidder since the committee will still decide on the pending motions for reconsideration of two other bidders earlier disqualified.
The technical performance test will determine if Smartmatic will really bag the contract. It will be subjected to a 26-point technical demonstration. The technical demonstration and evaluation of machines will check if the system complies with the minimum operating requirements.
The SBAC, last Saturday night, opened the proposals of Smartmatic which amounts to P7.19 billion, and of Indra Sistemas-SAHI-Hart Intercivic, which was worth P11.2 billion.
Smartmatic’s bid is P4 billion lower than the Indra’s PhP11.22 billion. The Comelec however said Smartmatic is not yet the official winner of the bid until they have evaluated the motion of reconsideration filed by the two other bidders who were earlier disqualified.
Indra was eventually disqualified because it failed to comply with the requirements such as providing the exact number of ballots, the precinct count optical scan machines, and digital signatures for operating the units, according to Ferdinand Rafanan, chairman of SBAC.
Also, Indra quoted for 57,231 PCOS machines when the requirement is pegged at 82,200 units.
The Comelec aims to award the contract by the end of May.
Meanwhile, Senator Richard Gordon, in a press statement, urged the government to ensure the success of nationwide automation in May 2010 because it will get the country out of the political rut it has fallen into.
Gordon, father of election modernization in the Philippines, underscored anew that clean, honest and credible elections brought by automated elections would ensure that the people’s votes are counted and their voices will be heard.
Gordon, author of Republic Act (RA) 9369 or the amended Automated Elections System Law, pointed out that automating the elections will ensure that winning candidates will have the people’s mandate.
For comments, e-mail at philstarhiddenagenda@yahoo.com