Saturday, February 09, 2008 Editorial: Lozada's Senate testimony
THE Senate testimony of Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. on the scuttled NBN deal has, as expected, given a kind of high to President Arroyo’s critics and to wannabe presidents.
Aside from its being fodder to efforts to expose Malacañang’s corrupt dealings, it allowed senators to play to the crowd (TV viewers) and militants to make hasty calls.
Lozada, former president pf the Philippine Forest Corp., has become key witness to the Senate inquiry into the scuttled national broadband (NBN) network deal.
One can consider Lozada a credible witness and he has given the public a version of the wheeling and dealing on the multi-million dollar NBN deal that is condemnable.
Premature
Despite this, however, his testimony is one man’s narration of what happened and is therefore still subjective---needing corroboration and the presentation of the other side.
There’s also a need to consider the limitations of Lozada’s testimony, especially on the participation of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and the President in the scheming.
That is why the militant party-list group Bayan Muna’s call for the arrest of the First Gentleman and senators’ demand for the President’s resignation are premature.
The Senate probe has not even been finished yet.
Truth
Just because Lozada surfaced does not mean the final piece of the puzzle is in place; much is still to be done especially in the effort to link President Arroyo to the deal.
This is the difference between using Lozada’s testimony as part of an anti-Arroyo propaganda and using it to get to the truth, which is the point of the Senate inquiry.
Of course, it would be naïve to think that the quest for the truth on the NBN deal is guiding most of the senators considering their political leaning and, for some, ambition.
Which also applies to militants and members of the so-called civil society.
Not fair
If Arroyo critics want to make the most out of Lozada’s testimony, they should not jump to conclusions or make calls that do not do justice to Lozada’s narration.
It would be unfair to Lozada and lessen the impact of his testimony.
