BJMP displaces sick detainees to make room for Gigi and Janet

Janet Napoles arrives in Bicutan.

Janet Napoles arrives in Bicutan.

While everybody was trying to recover from the emotional performance of President Aquino in his 5th State-of-the-Nation address Monday night, pork barrel queen Janet Napoles was brought to Camp Bagong Diwa jail of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology in Bicutan,Taguig.

Reports said Napoles arrived at Bicutan from Fort Sto. Domingo, a police camp in Sta. Rosa City , Laguna where she has been detained since March 31, at 11:15 p.m.

Napoles has been charged with graft, plunder and serious illegal detention in connection with the misuse of the multi-billion Priority Development Assistance involving three senators – Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla, members of their staff and other personalities.

She joined at the BJMP co-accused Atty. Gigi Reyes, former chief-of-staff of Enrile.

Enrile is in hospital detention at the PNP Hospital in Camp Crame. Estrada and Revilla are detained at the Camp Crame Custodial Center. All three are charged with graft and plunder.

A source at Camp Bagong Diwa jail said as of yesterday, “ both Gigi and Janet are staying at the air-conditioned area near the warden’s office at the ground floor.”

Gigi Reyes panics upon arrival at Bicutan.

Gigi Reyes panics upon arrival at Bicutan.

The source said the infirmary at the fourth floor is currently being renovated for Reyes and Napoles. “It will be turned into an isolation room for political prisoners.”

Wait a minute. Reyes and Napoles are charged with plunder and graft. Those are not political crimes like rebellion or sedition. They are not political prisoners.

The source said the renovation of the infirmary started before the arrival of Reyes from a temporary detention at the Sandiganbayan.

The infirmary renovation displaced detainees who are confined there. Since all the cells are almost filled some are sleeping on the floor or on benches, the source said. “Among those sleeping on the floor is a patient sick of tuberculosis. A pregnant woman who is complaining of spotting sleeps on benches which she joined together.”

The source also said the infirmary had a toilet without toilet bowl. “Now they are installing a toilet bowl.”

On the ground floor of BJMP are offices. The second and third floors are male dormitories.

The fourth floor is the female dormitory which houses 138 high profile and high-risk detainees, including female guerillas of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) captured during the Zamboanga City siege, foreigners, Abu Sayyaf and NPA rebels and other high risk detainees.

They are divided into four cells with triple deck beds.

It will be recalled that Reyes suffered a panic attack the first time she was brought to Camp Bagong Diwa last July 10 upon learning that she would be placed in a cell with nine NPA rebels.

BJMP jail in Bicutan.

BJMP jail in Bicutan.

Napoles was reported to have cried when she heard the order of Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to transfer her to Camp Bagong Diwa.

In a July 24 resolution, the Sandiganbayan Third Division headed by Tang said the rule for persons charged with plunder, a non-bailable offense, is detained at the a jail nearest the court. “The PNP Special Action Force Training school in Fort Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa City in Laguna is not under the jurisdiction of the BJMP, hence it is not a jail.”

Maybe the BJMP administrators are trying to give humane treatment to Reyes and Napoles while they are still on trial.

But humane treatment should not be limited to the two. It should be given to each and every detainee, whatever their status in society.

No one should be thrown to the floor to give the bed to someone who has more money, especially if it’s money stolen from the Filipino people.

‘Separate speculation from fact’- Luchi Cruz-Valdez

Luchi Cruz-Valdez

Luchi Cruz-Valdez

That was a strong statement that Luchi Cruz-Valdes, head of TV5′s news and public affairs department, unleashed against those who dragged her name in the Janet Napoles pork barrel scandal especially the Philippine Daily Inquirer who published the unverified information.

Luchi’s name was mentioned in Inquirer’s May 18 issue as one of the mediamen in the list of those who “received” cash gifts from Napoles through a certain Mon Arroyo,former television director.

The documents, Inquirer said, were contained in the hard disk given to them by the mother of Benhur Luy, one of the whistleblowers in the Napoles PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) scam, and Levi Baligod, former lawyer of Luy way back on April 27, 2013 when the two visited the Inquirer office.

“The current climate and appetite for news on the PDAF scam calls on all journalists to not only be aggressive and tireless in ferreting out facts, but to also be circumspect in every purported piece of information or data exposed, volunteered, or surrendered by our various sources. Media is allowed and empowered with that mandate to clarify, rather than confuse, matters for the public, and at the very least to separate speculation from fact,” said Valdez-Cruz who vehemently denied the allegation and denounced any imputation or suggestion that she benefitted in any way from the PDAF funds.

Others allegedly in the list are broadcasters Korina Sanchez of ABS-CBN, Mike Enriquez of GMA7, Deo Macalma of DZRH and Rey Pacheco.

Sanchez and Enriquez were listed to have been given P50,000 each “birthday gift” in 2004.

Sanchez and Enriquez vehemently denied ever receiving money from Napoles or Arroyo. Enriquez said he doesn’t know Napoles.

Sanchez said she only met Napoles last year when she interviewed the businesswoman in connection with the PDAF controversy.

Macalma and Pacheco were alleged to have gotten a total of P715,000 from 2004 to 2008.

Deo Macalma

Deo Macalma

Macalma said he was shocked by the Inquirer report and strongly denied the allegation.”Ang nasabing alegasyon ay tahasan ko pong itinatanggi.

“Una, hindi ako tumanggap ng anumang halaga mula kay Mrs. Napoles o mula kay Benhur Luy; pangalawa hindi ko kilala o personal na kakilala si Mrs. Napoles; pangatlo, hindi ko rin kakilala si Benhur Luy; pang-apat, kung totoong nasa listahan ni Benhur Luy ang aking pangalan, ang tanong ko sa kanya ay: “Kanino ibinigay ang pera?” at “Sino ang tumanggap ng malaking halaga ng pera?”

Similar to Cruz-Valdez, Macalma appealed to media to verify first before they report:”Ako ay umaapela sa mga nagbibigay ng ganitong alegasyon na sana ay iyong mga totoo lamang ang kanilang mga ibinabandera at katulad din sa ating kababayan, ako ay kasama rin sa mga naghahangad na lumabas ang katotohanan tungkol sa anomalya ng Pork Barrel Scam at iba pang kontrobersiya na may kinalaman sa isyung ito.”

Inquirer said Cruz-Valdez’s name was mentioned under Arroyo’s allocation for the media. The money was for “a meeting with Eric of Abante Tonight” and “representation expense for Luchi Cruz of Probe team charge from COA reports on NGOs.”

It was obvious Inquirer did not verify because they should have known that Cruz-Valdez was no longer with Probe during those years (2004-2008).

Cruz-Valdez said: “I denounce the reckless inclusion of my name in a list that has no legal legs to stand on. Luy’s supposed record is largely hearsay; the reporting of such as anything even remotely truthful not only casts grave doubt on my person and professional integrity, but on that of the very institution of the press of which the Inquirer is part.

“In particular, PDI’s wanton, liberal, and matter-of-fact treatment and use of the word “payout”, in the context of the above passage and that of every media person’s name so far uttered by Luy and printed by the Inquirer, is dangerous. It recklessly disregards the full context of what Mr. Luy claims but cannot prove, nor even claim to know. At best, Mr. Luy can only attest to his dealings with Mr. Arroyo. PDI’s reportage leads its readers to a perilous leap in the narrative, not only irresponsibly taking Luy’s notes as factual, but extrapolating his personal knowledge to establish a direct relationship between him and the media persons whose names Mr. Arroyo had merely dropped, when clearly Luy himself has yet to claim such knowledge.”

Cruz-Valdez appealed to the Inquirer: “I would urge our colleagues in the PDI to have that much respect for its own readers and the larger Philippine public. The search for truth demands that news organizations demonstrate that they at least know the basic difference between loose words and established fact, and be responsible enough to at least qualify when one is spewed and the other is not quite really there.

“Beyond that, by all means, let the chips fall where they may. We – and I – continue to encourage all our institutions (the media included) to continue the quest for truth and justice.”

This alleged Napoles/Luy media list once again compels members of media to remind themselves of the true essence of their calling.

We share the concern of those who are of the opinion that posting unverified data is not good journalism. It violates some of the basic values of journalism which are truthfulness, humaneness (you don’t put innocent people in harm’s way), and fairness.

Four years ago, when Wikileaks released on its website the classified documents filched by U.S soldier Bradley Manning from U.S. military and diplomatic communication, there were questions if that was journalism.
Steven Aftergood, head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists,speaking about Wikileaks said, ““The service that they have been providing up to now is that of a source of documents. But documents are not journalism. Documents can mislead as easily as any other source. The function of journalism still needs to be carried out as carefully and responsibly as possible.”

When you speak of function of journalism, Aftergood said, ““That means confirming the accuracy of the content of any particular document. It means placing it in some kind of political or policy context, and it means collecting a range of interpretations of the significance.”

‘Separate speculation from fact’- Luchi Cruz-Valdez

Luchi Cruz-Valdez

Luchi Cruz-Valdez

That was a strong statement that Luchi Cruz-Valdes, head of TV5′s news and public affairs department, unleashed against those who dragged her name in the Janet Napoles pork barrel scandal especially the Philippine Daily Inquirer who published the unverified information.

Luchi’s name was mentioned in Inquirer’s May 18 issue as one of the mediamen in the list of those who “received” cash gifts from Napoles through a certain Mon Arroyo,former television director.

The documents, Inquirer said, were contained in the hard disk given to them by the mother of Benhur Luy, one of the whistleblowers in the Napoles PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) scam, and Levi Baligod, former lawyer of Luy way back on April 27, 2013 when the two visited the Inquirer office.

“The current climate and appetite for news on the PDAF scam calls on all journalists to not only be aggressive and tireless in ferreting out facts, but to also be circumspect in every purported piece of information or data exposed, volunteered, or surrendered by our various sources. Media is allowed and empowered with that mandate to clarify, rather than confuse, matters for the public, and at the very least to separate speculation from fact,” said Valdez-Cruz who vehemently denied the allegation and denounced any imputation or suggestion that she benefitted in any way from the PDAF funds.

Others allegedly in the list are broadcasters Korina Sanchez of ABS-CBN, Mike Enriquez of GMA7, Deo Macalma of DZRH and Rey Pacheco.

Sanchez and Enriquez were listed to have been given P50,000 each “birthday gift” in 2004.

Sanchez and Enriquez vehemently denied ever receiving money from Napoles or Arroyo. Enriquez said he doesn’t know Napoles.

Sanchez said she only met Napoles last year when she interviewed the businesswoman in connection with the PDAF controversy.

Macalma and Pacheco were alleged to have gotten a total of P715,000 from 2004 to 2008.

Deo Macalma

Deo Macalma

Macalma said he was shocked by the Inquirer report and strongly denied the allegation.”Ang nasabing alegasyon ay tahasan ko pong itinatanggi.

“Una, hindi ako tumanggap ng anumang halaga mula kay Mrs. Napoles o mula kay Benhur Luy; pangalawa hindi ko kilala o personal na kakilala si Mrs. Napoles; pangatlo, hindi ko rin kakilala si Benhur Luy; pang-apat, kung totoong nasa listahan ni Benhur Luy ang aking pangalan, ang tanong ko sa kanya ay: “Kanino ibinigay ang pera?” at “Sino ang tumanggap ng malaking halaga ng pera?”

Similar to Cruz-Valdez, Macalma appealed to media to verify first before they report:”Ako ay umaapela sa mga nagbibigay ng ganitong alegasyon na sana ay iyong mga totoo lamang ang kanilang mga ibinabandera at katulad din sa ating kababayan, ako ay kasama rin sa mga naghahangad na lumabas ang katotohanan tungkol sa anomalya ng Pork Barrel Scam at iba pang kontrobersiya na may kinalaman sa isyung ito.”

Inquirer said Cruz-Valdez’s name was mentioned under Arroyo’s allocation for the media. The money was for “a meeting with Eric of Abante Tonight” and “representation expense for Luchi Cruz of Probe team charge from COA reports on NGOs.”

It was obvious Inquirer did not verify because they should have known that Cruz-Valdez was no longer with Probe during those years (2004-2008).

Cruz-Valdez said: “I denounce the reckless inclusion of my name in a list that has no legal legs to stand on. Luy’s supposed record is largely hearsay; the reporting of such as anything even remotely truthful not only casts grave doubt on my person and professional integrity, but on that of the very institution of the press of which the Inquirer is part.

“In particular, PDI’s wanton, liberal, and matter-of-fact treatment and use of the word “payout”, in the context of the above passage and that of every media person’s name so far uttered by Luy and printed by the Inquirer, is dangerous. It recklessly disregards the full context of what Mr. Luy claims but cannot prove, nor even claim to know. At best, Mr. Luy can only attest to his dealings with Mr. Arroyo. PDI’s reportage leads its readers to a perilous leap in the narrative, not only irresponsibly taking Luy’s notes as factual, but extrapolating his personal knowledge to establish a direct relationship between him and the media persons whose names Mr. Arroyo had merely dropped, when clearly Luy himself has yet to claim such knowledge.”

Cruz-Valdez appealed to the Inquirer: “I would urge our colleagues in the PDI to have that much respect for its own readers and the larger Philippine public. The search for truth demands that news organizations demonstrate that they at least know the basic difference between loose words and established fact, and be responsible enough to at least qualify when one is spewed and the other is not quite really there.

“Beyond that, by all means, let the chips fall where they may. We – and I – continue to encourage all our institutions (the media included) to continue the quest for truth and justice.”

This alleged Napoles/Luy media list once again compels members of media to remind themselves of the true essence of their calling.

We share the concern of those who are of the opinion that posting unverified data is not good journalism. It violates some of the basic values of journalism which are truthfulness, humaneness (you don’t put innocent people in harm’s way), and fairness.

Four years ago, when Wikileaks released on its website the classified documents filched by U.S soldier Bradley Manning from U.S. military and diplomatic communication, there were questions if that was journalism.
Steven Aftergood, head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists,speaking about Wikileaks said, ““The service that they have been providing up to now is that of a source of documents. But documents are not journalism. Documents can mislead as easily as any other source. The function of journalism still needs to be carried out as carefully and responsibly as possible.”

When you speak of function of journalism, Aftergood said, ““That means confirming the accuracy of the content of any particular document. It means placing it in some kind of political or policy context, and it means collecting a range of interpretations of the significance.”

Didal

Among working journalists, we have a term “didal.” That is used when a PR (press relations officer) pockets the money intended for a reporter.

Korina Sanchez

Korina Sanchez

So the PR’s principal- a government official, a businessman or anybody who is the subject of a news report – thinks that he has paid off the reporter, who doesn’t know that his name was used for a media payoff budget.

If a reporter finds out that his name was in the list and he didn’t get anything, we tease him, “Na didal ka.”

(Accepting money from a source for a story is unethical and is denounced in the practice of journalism. A reporter writes a story because he has discovered something that would be of interest and beneficial to the people and not because someone paid him to do it.

(The reality, however, is that there are PRs whose job should only be to facilitate access to his principal, who payoff media to promote his principal. This is a bad practice.)

We are told that these days the new term for “didal” is “bukol.”

We suspect that’s what happened to ABS-CBN’s Korina Sanchez and GMA 7’s Mike Enriquez.

An Inquirer report said according to the documents submitted by PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) scam whistleblower Benhur Luy, pork barrel queen Janet Napoles paid off a number of media personalities.

Mentioned in the Inquirer report were Sanchez and Enriquez who were supposed to have each been given a birthday gift of P50, 000 in cash through a certain Mon Arroyo, a former television director. This happened in 2004.

Radio announcers Deo Macalma and Rey Pacheco were also in the Napolis media list by Luy. They were alleged to have received a total of P715, 000.

Mike Enriquez

Mike Enriquez

Earlier, Inquirer reported a different group of broadcasters who were recipients of money from Napoles illegal with the National Agribusiness Corp.

Both Sanchez and Enriquez denied having received money from Napoles. In a statement, Sanchez said she only met Napoles and her family in late 2013 when she was assigned to interview the family in connection with the alleged PDAF scam.

“I had never met Ms Napoles nor had any associations with her, her family, her employees or associates before then, nor after my interview with her and her family,” she said.

“I am astounded to learn that I was supposed to have received a birthday gift from her one time 10 years ago in 2004. This never happened. I did not receive any such gift, in cash or kind, from Ms Napoles or her company nor through emissaries then and up to now, “ she added.

She said she knows a Mon Arroyo, the former husband of her high school classmate but she had not seen or heard from him he and her friend separated more than 10 years ago.

Enriquez also issued a statement “vehemently and in the strongest of terms” denying that he knew Napoles.
He also said “(I) .. just as strongly deny receiving any gift in whatever form from her. People who know me personally and those whom I associate with professionally know very well that both my personal and professional conduct is in strict adherence to the GMA code of ethics and to the values of hard and honest work, decent living and service to God and country.”

Arroyo issued his own statement: “I vehemently deny the allegations and I am willing to testify and face Mr. Benhur Luy about the reported ledger entry that I allegedly received money from anyone in the Napoles group.”
Inquirer didn’t carry statements from Macalma and Pacheco.

Janet Napoles

Janet Napoles

Ethical journalists are confronted with the problem if their names are included by an unscrupulous PR in the media payoff list because they don’t even know about that list.

There’s also the problem of returning the money if you are handed an envelope containing cash after an event or money is delivered to you. If you return the money to the PR, how sure are you that he would return that to the principal?

Way back in 1987, during an election campaign, a PR of a congressman sent me a press release and attached to it was P300. I had to take a taxi to go to the candidate’s headquarters to return the money. Of course, I could not deduct my taxi fare from the P300.

The candidate was not in the headquarters so I just left the money with a note. I don’t know if the candidate ever knew that I returned his P300.

Some media outfits have adopted a policy for the reporters to get the money (so that the PRs won’t be able to pocket them) and donate it to charitable institutions, then send the receipt to the official or whoever gave the money.

Against unscrupulous PRs, who use responsible journalists to steal money from their principals, the best weapon of journalists are the truth and their conscience.

Vetting the Napoles list

Secretary de Lima. Still vetting the list.

Secretary de Lima. Still vetting the list.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said she is still “vetting” the names of people in the list given to her by pork barrel queen Janet Napoles.

“You just have to trust me that I’m not gonna do that na isa-sanitize ko yung list. Pangako ko po yan sa taumbayan na hindi ko yan gagawin na isa-sanitize. Pangako ko rin sa taumbayan na gagawin ko yung mandato in a very responsible and prudent manner . Kaya kailangan munang magkaroon ng vetting,” De Lima was quoted to have said.

Malacañang supports De Lima’s non-disclosure of the Napoles list while she is still “vetting” the names in it.

Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr., head of the Presidential Communications Operations Office, said:”It will be irresponsible if the names are made public without being vetted. That is the essence of the appeal of Secretary de Lima, for her to be given time to vet the list.

Online Free Dictionary defines the verb “vet” as : “to investigate (someone) thoroughly to see if they should be approved or accepted for a job; to check (something) carefully to make sure it is acceptable.”

Okay. If her vetting revealed that some names in the list are not acceptable, what is she going to do? Will she remove the names from the list?

What’s her authority to tamper with Napoles’s list? If Napoles is lying with her list, expose her as a liar but De Lima should not tamper with it. Or else that list would no longer be that of the notorious pork barrel queen. It would then become a Napoles-De Lima list.

De Lima said the list containing the names of people who were beneficiaries of the Filipino people’s money Napoles stole by diverting some P10 billion for Priority Development Assistance Project to her and her cohorts’ pockets, was given to her personally by the pork barrel queen when she visited the latter at the Ospital ng Makati.

There’s another Napoles list and it’s with former senator now Rehabilitation Czar Panfilo “Ping” Lacson. Here:
Lacson's Napoles list
Lacson said his list came from someone close to Jaime Napoles, a former Marines and husband of Janet.

Since the two lists (De Lima’s and Lacson’s) supposedly were prepared by one person – Janet Napoles, they should be similar.

But they are not, according to no less than the President of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III.

Speaking to media in Burma, where he was attending the 24th ASEAN summit, Aquino said, “I think I have seen, iyong physically seen, I have seen two and they don’t agree with each other exactly…They supposed to have come from Mrs. Napoles.”

Aquino revealed something new in that Burma interview: he got the Napoles list before Lacson and De Lima got theirs. This belies earlier stories that when De Lima gave Aquino the list after she got it from Napoles, the President was shocked and deeply bothered.

Aquino said in Burma: “Iyong first one, I think, was transmitted to me, which I in turn gave to Secretary de Lima. At that point in time, she didn’t want to talk to Secretary de Lima. The second list naman with Secretary de Lima was when she asked to meet with Secretary de Lima when she had a change of heart.”

“Now, iyong list with Secretary Lacson, noong we were discussing Yolanda, so that was just a passing topic. Just parang give me a little highlights; and the highlight itself was not consistent already with the other two.”

Aquino said he heard that there’s a third Napoles list. Sandra Cam, president of the Whistleblowers Association,also has a Napoles list. She said it was given to her by a reliable source.

The common names in the three lists are that of the three senators charged by the Ombudsman with plunder: Juan Ponce-Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla.

Aquino admitted some of his allies are in the list.

“Merong alleged, maraming hindi. Pero alam ninyo kasi parang kapag sinabi kong may discrepancy, iyong number nagfa-fluctuate e. Iyong unang list na ipinadala sa akin X numbers sabihin natin, ano. Iyong next list na nakita ko, minus three. Tapos iyong binabanggit sa akin parang plus four. O di ba, parang, hindi merong ganun phrase: ‘Ano ba talaga ate?’ Hindi ba? Parang ganun,” the President said.

Ano nga ba talaga, Ate.