I asked former PNOC president Eduardo Manalac whether he would sue the most “popular’ newspaper in the Philippines, but he evaded my question. Whatever he plans to do, I think his “A complete falsehood” letter is a high mark in the flurry of accusations and counter accusations in the NBN-ZTE mess. Indeed, it carries a mine of secrets that could help us understand some of the aspects of the mess itself.
I think Manalac should sue if only to help us focus on the problem of how media has been used to promote a political agenda to an unwary public. It would be a distinct public service if he did.
It is not enough that the most ‘popular’ newspaper made amends by publishing his letter. It might have vindicated him personally but it is too important to be left at that. There is a public cause as well. A full discourse on the issue would be an excellent opportunity to discuss the role our media has played in shaping the nation. This is an important issue, and arguably more important than the newspaper’s alleged promotion of ‘truth’ that has kept it banging at the Philippine government and supporting every attempt to bring it down. It is tragic and certainly not the way to get at truth.
* * *
I can understand if the Manalac incident was a complaint about omissions or mistakes in reporting facts. But the Inquirer-Manalac case is a different kettle of fish altogether. It was a wholesale attempt to delude the reading public. What could have motivated its publication? The easy way out and that is what Manalac seems to have accepted, is the lack of due diligence on the part of its editors. But the letter of Mr. Manalac has a wider scope not answered by a mere lack of diligence.
Here we have a newspaper bent on pushing a political agenda by using its claimed “popularity”, its advantage in circulation and the financial power of its publishers. Of course, it does not go about saying they would go as far as publishing untruths in its alleged determination to get at truth. Until the Manalac incident came about, it might have gotten away with such arrogance. It is not just because I write for STAR (its rival) but the newspaper’s agenda setting proclivity is increasingly being exposed.
* * *
“A Complete Falsehood”, the letter, I am afraid tells it all and needs no interpretation. It is not complaining about something partly false. The Manalac letter makes it clear — everything about it has been invented and it made the headlines of this newspaper?
If that is the case, then I think it is time we look at the motive which is more relevant here. The reasoning goes this way: if former PNOC president Eduardo Manalac is a credible figure and he reportedly has gripes against the Arroyo government, then his revelations testimony would seal the case against the Arroyo government on the ZTE deal. This was the miscalculation. He may have gripes against President Arroyo and he may be a credible figure but that does not mean that he will lend his name to an obvious conspiracy to bring down the government as others have chosen to do so. Here is Manalac’s letter again which speaks for itself.
“I deny announcements made on the front page of the Philippine Daily Inquirer today that I am scheduled to testify on the ZTE broadband deal.
“I have never been involved in any conversations involving the ZTE investigations, do not know any ZTE details, large or small, other than what I read in the newspapers or watch on television, and have never been called by the Senate or any other group to talk about any issues regarding this matter.
“I have never met or been contacted by Sen. Panfilo Lacson, whom the article claims is to present a surprise witness, and have no idea how or why my name would be mentioned in this connection.
“I have never met Mr. Tony Bergonia, author of the article, who claims “highly placed sources,” and was never contacted by the Inquirer or any other newspaper to corroborate this piece of false information.
“I strongly condemn the Inquirer’s lack of due diligence, and their unparalleled degree of irresponsibility in making such an inflammatory declaration without confirming its accuracy. I reserve the right to take legal action against the Inquirer and its reporter Tony Bergonia for their part in this piece of fabricated information.
“Against my better judgment, I was forced to cancel an important business trip today in order to issue a denial against the Inquirer article, and so as not to appear as though I were fleeing the country to avoid testifying.
“I repeat that I have never been contacted by the Senate or any of their staff to appear as a witness for this, or for that matter, any other Senate investigation. I strongly reiterate my non-involvement in the ZTE deal and express total shock at finding my name and picture on the front page of the Inquirer in connection with this issue. Worse than hearsay, this article is a complete falsehood.”
* * *
He then goes on to explain why he resigned as president of Philippine National Oil Co. in November 2006 to return to the private sector and reiterates that he was never involved in any way, shape, or form during the negotiations for or the signing of the ZTE deal.
“Previous to becoming president of PNOC, I was employed by the US-based oil company, Conoco-Phillips, for 28 years and was based in Beijing from 1995-2003 as the company’s vice president for exploration. I did not work, as the article claims, for any state-owned Chinese companies.”
The more important part of the letter is how this credible person defends the Spratlys accord to which he has put his name. “In my capacity as president of PNOC in 2005, I was involved in the Tripartite Agreement for a Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU), a three-year commercial agreement among China National Offshore Oil Co., PetroVietnam, and PNOC to jointly gather seismic data in certain areas of the South China Sea.
“The JMSU was an integral part of the government’s energy independence agenda at the time to find and develop new indigenous petroleum reserves as a hedge against our country’s high dependence on imported petroleum, and the concurrent rise in the prices of oil. It was part of a strategic alliance to promote regional energy security, and to lessen the region’s dependence on Middle East oil.” That does sound more credible to me than any of the statements being dished out by oppositionists or the American chorus boys on the issue.
Readers in general know when a newspaper has gone too far. Freedom of the press can be abused and it has been abused in the Manalac case. How to balance these two seemingly opposed concerns of freedom and abuse is best answered in the courts. Readers will use their commonsense and accept that while a free press is desirable, it is should not be free from all constraints.