After writing the article “Don’t do business in San Juan,” I immediately received stern reaction from the City’s Public Information Officer, a letter from Vice Mayor Zamora and then a someone telling me that Senator JV Ejercito and Mayor Guia Gomez were deeply hurt by what was perceived as a direct attack on the leadership of San Juan as well as a misrepresentation of the business environment in San Juan.
* * *
In the interest of fairness and balance, I share what a third party claims to be a message from Senator JV Ejercito:
“Please relay to Cito that we really feel bad about the article that he wrote. Not because it damaged our reputation but because it was based on the ranting of XXX alone. Most businessmen are very happy in San Juan. In fact they reacted about the article saying it is so unfair knowing that me and my mom governed San Juan very well and have no record of corruption.”
“The road-widening project is a national project. Hindi maintindihan ni XXX that the local government cannot do anything about it. Law of Eminent Domain. In fact the project has been delayed for more than a year because we have been pressuring DPWH to try and adjust the widening so as to avoid including XXX property in the widening. Precy Tolentino owner of Music Museum who hosts Victory services sobrang galit sa article saying it is so unfair. Pati mga officers ng Ortigas. Sana lang nag verify si Cito before writing.”
* * *
For the record, nowhere in my article did I insinuate or accuse any elected official of the City of San Juan of corruption or wrongdoing, not the Zamoras and certainly not Mayor Guia Gomez or the Estradas. What I reported was that certain individuals reportedly asked for bribes referring to them as “campaign contribution.” I pointed out that this were independent moves of people taking advantage of the political feud or tampuhan between the Estradas and the Zamoras. The intention was to call everybody’s attention but not to start a political finger pointing or major “tampuhan” among friends or former allies.
* * *
When I wrote the article it was based on the presumption of regularity, as well as my source or sources being reliable and with valid concerns that I knew of personally, all of which I mentioned in my article. The fact that one or two failed to fully divulge or withheld information sensitive to their business is beyond my control.
Here and now I will state that I received sumbongs, complaints and problems mentioned by several and not just one individual over a period of time. The article I wrote was based on the inputs from a couple of individuals, one of whom has now become the focus of resentment and accusation by an aggrieved party because he was honest, and man enough to admit that he had talked to me about the matter.
* * *
For the record nothing in my article was triggered or suggested by a politician or intended to put a political twist or political color on the affairs and business in San Juan. No politician, councilor or anyone higher up had spoken to me. I have no professional dealings with politicians or the politics in San Juan City.
The issues raised have nothing to do with religious beliefs or a product of conspiracy among “Born Again Christians” nor should my writings be associated with being a “Born-Again Christian.”
* * *
I did not consult with any of the elected officials in San Juan because it would have been rather uncomfortable and unrealistic to go around City Hall investigating or asking about demands for payoffs in order to get clearances or permits. The fact that we still need to pass a “Freedom of Information” law partly explains our state of affairs and conduct in media.
* * *
There is a common impression that it would be better if we in media brought the matter to the officials concerned. In a “perfect world” that would be the ideal, but in many cases we or “I” choose to simply make matters public and let public officials deal with it, especially claims of corruption or inaction, as this is part of transparency and public accountability. It is not my job to call City Hall as someone sarcastically suggested; the problem is yours not mine.
As shown, they are entitled to respond and be given space to react. I have done that. Yes it is upsetting when someone you know or consider a “friend” does not call or ask to get your side, but in this instance it was not about being a lesser friend.
I believe I have shown true friendship for San Juan and its officials in the past and present in spite of professional and political pressure or consequence from their enemies. Even my late father Louie Beltran showed the same at great personal risk and professional cost.
My article was simply about calling attention to serious concerns confronting residents and taxpayers of San Juan. Only a true friend will point out your fault sincerely. If I have not earned this right, as a friend, please understand that this is also my duty and that comes first.
In hindsight, it would have helped, or eased people’s fears if the Mayor’s Office had guided the affected property owners on the step-by-step process of expropriation and how to get proper compensation for their land and or buildings that would have to be torn down. Even to this minute some people have no idea of what to do. Lack of valuable information and assistance is what generally leads people into helplessness and panic, which is why they usually go to media.
They are simply being human. What would truly be unfair is to add to their multimillion peso loss of property and business by turning on them with anger. No elected official or public servant has that right. If anyone wants to be angry be angry with me. I wrote the article.
My only regret about the article is that it did not elicit the same professional, mature, and friendship-based response that is now expected and demanded from me as a Journalist and a friend.
* * *
E-mail: utalk2ctalk@gmail.com