Solita Monsod on JLo and the Truth

Get Real
Truth
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:47:00 02/16/2008


MANILA, Philippines -- The recent Senate hearings make one appreciate the importance of requiring witnesses to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Because it is clear that a person can tell the truth, but not the whole truth (a half-truth or a quarter-truth, which means a half-lie or a three-fourths lie), and then embellish it with things other than the truth, what is required by the oath is
the unembellished, non-concealing truth.

Take the statement of Philippine National Police Director General Avelino Razon. He asserted that Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. had been brought by the police to La Salle Greenhills by 10 p.m. of the day he arrived. That certainly was true, and if we stopped at that we would ask, “What’s all the fuss about?”

But it was not the whole truth. What Razon did not say was that the police continued to “guard” him in La Salle and pulled out only, apparently, when they were overcome by a superior force, i.e., the nuns. (By the way, at the risk of being a nag, I have yet to get a satisfactory answer as to why the La Salle brothers did not announce that he was with them or ask the police to leave the premises, since they were giving him sanctuary. What kind of sanctuary is that, when the police could take him out at will?) No wonder his wife and brother filed for writs of amparo and of habeas corpus.
An example of truth-embellishing is Razon saying that the lawyer who had dinner with Lozada before he was brought to La Salle was Lozada’s personal lawyer. There was a lawyer, indeed, but not one of Lozada’s acquaintance or choice. Or saying that Lozada was under protective custody; Lozada was in custody, but the protection was being extended to the administration (covering their asses), not to him.
Of course, Razon was not the only one among the Senate witnesses who seemed to take liberties with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think those who watched the hearings will agree that this practice was more the rule than the exception. It is very tempting, if not to lie, at least to conceal or embellish the truth to make one look good vis-à-vis the opposite camp.

At the risk of going against the current of public adulation for Lozada, I believe he seems to have also fallen prey to the temptation -- at least regarding Sen. Joker Arroyo’s wife, Fely Aquino-Arroyo. I don’t have the transcripts of the hearing, but I recall that in defending himself against Arroyo’s charge that he was not evenhanded (I think Joker used the term “not balanced”) on whom to talk to, whether from the Senate or the media, Lozada caught Joker off-guard by saying that in fact he (together with someone named Tony Abaya) had visited Fely Arroyo in her Makati City home, and (here I am not sure whether this was said during the hearing or during subsequent TV interviews) she not only invited him, but she urged him not to testify.

That he talked to Fely Arroyo in her Makati home is true. That she invited him is half-true. That Lozada went to her because he wanted to get the advice of both sides is an embellishment. That she urged him not to testify is not true. This is from Fely Arroyo herself, who is not just Joker’s wife but also an excellent (and very successful) lawyer whose credibility and integrity I do not question.
Fely did not know Lozada before he went to her house in the company of Tony

Abaya (husband of Belle). Tony is a close friend of Fely’s, who frequently asks her (and is given) free legal advice; and when he asked her a favor to give legal advice to a friend (Lozada) of a friend (Romulo Neri), it was no big deal -- “consulta” [consultation] is normal in her profession. Because she was in Makati, she told Abaya to come to her house so she wouldn’t have to go back to her office in the Ortigas business district.

This, by the way, was way back in September, about a week after Joey de Venecia first testified, and a couple of days before Neri testified -- long before Lozada became a household word. To Fely’s recollection, the meeting was very brief (at most 30 minutes), as all three had other appointments, but long enough for her to say she could not lawyer for Lozada, because of Joker’s Senate position, and long enough for Lozada to break down in tears as he described his reluctance to testify in the Senate for fear of his and his family’s lives and his livelihood. Since he had at that time not even been invited to testify, much less subpoenaed or issued a warrant of arrest, Fely’s advice was simple (and obvious): Lozada was under no compulsion to testify, so if he did not want to testify, he didn’t have to testify.

This is a far cry from the image created in one’s mind of Fely inviting Lozada to her house for the sole purpose of convincing him not to testify, which, whether deliberate or not, is an image created by Lozada’s testimony. Joker’s obvious ignorance of that meeting is the best refutation of that image. And Fely did not tell Joker because it was just another “consulta.”

Lozada is a credible witness, particularly because he was initially very careful (in his predawn press conference and the first hearing day) to hew to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He did not follow that line when it came to Fely Arroyo. While it has been initially damaging to her (she is now being touted as Ricky Razon’s lawyer and consultant, both of which descriptions she strongly denies), it will ultimately be even more damaging to him.

Truth is like a flame. Those who play with it get burned.


My comment/reaction:

I watched the Senate hearing when JLo mentioned his encounter with Mrs. Arroyo. I don't recall that he said she had invited him over the way SM says JLo insinuated. I could be wrong, though. Reactions, anyone?