—-

Unang Kasinungalingan: Hindi raw kailanman hinaharap ni Sen. Manny Villar ang isyu ng C5 sa Senado.

Ang Totoo: Narito ang isang privilege speech marahil na sinasagot ang akusasyon laban sa kanya NA MAY PETSA SA Youtube NG ABRIL 22, 2009. Tandaan: Magdadalawang taon na ang isyung ito at wala namang bagong ebidensya kaugnay rito.

Solita Collas Monsod´s column – Refuting Manny´s defenders – responded quickly to counter the points I raised in my article “C – 5 Sound and Fury: Is Monsod painting the full picture?” (www.mbv.ph, Febraury 2, 2010). Contrary to her claim, I actually question the bases of her analyses and the “incontrovertible” evidence she presents.

Monsod started by acknowledging that she is “honored that he (i.e. Barcelona) considers his being my former student (albeit a rebuking one) more important than the rest of his professional achievements”. Well, this is news to me given that my article not once mentioned her as my former professor.

Yes, she was my professor at UP School of Economics in introductory economics and a course in project evaluation. Beyond this fact, I take no responsibility for Monsod´s conjectures – although I am glad that she finds my curriculum vitae impressive. I never shared my resume with her. But then, my resume bears no relevance to C – 5 debates.

So, what do I find erroneous with Monsod´s analyses and use of evidence?

The errors pertain to mis-application of economic and legal concepts, incorrect calculations, and a leap of faith in connecting “facts” to conclusions. Outright errors are easy to spot and disregard. However, “half-truths” not only mislead, they inflict serious injustice by wrongly apportioning guilt. Specifically: a) Incomplete evidence bias research results, limiting its usefulness as evidence; b) Assumptions, disputed data and allegations are presented as “incontrovertible facts”; c) Incorrect calculations and methodology on land and project values make comparisons meaningless; and d) facts rather than opinions disguise as incontrovertible evidence, should support conclusions.

For this reason, I take to heart a legal luminary´s advice who guided me on the fine art of argumentation. He said: When you are strong on facts, use the facts; When you have the law on your side, use the law to argue your case; But when you have neither, raise your voice!

Villar´s detractors have extended this advice in their practice of partisan politics: When yelling does not work, confuse the issues. This is the aspect of partisan politics that I am fighting against. Hence, for the avoidance of any doubt, I take my privilege of delivering final rebuttal acting for the defense. This I do to present both sides of the argument without pretense of hiding behind “academic independence”. I have made my choices:

1.    Work to elect Manny Villar on May 10, 2010 as our next president; and
2.    Achieve Villar´s victory on the merits of his candidacy.

Hence, separating the facts from assumptions, allegations and omissions is the first step towards this goal. On this basis, I trust the voters will make their choice accordingly.

Error 1: Official documents and testimony in the senate are given equivalence as “incontrovertible” facts
Monsod: “The A´s (i.e. answers) in my column can be verified by documents and uncontroverted statements from official sources … I am certainly glad Mr Villar aired his side on his website. That is his choice. It is mine to look at the government documents and the sworn testimony that are part of the Senate Record.

What´s wrong: The official sources that comprise the Senate Record include Villar´s privilege speeches in 2008 and 2009, and depositions disproving any wrongdoing. By ignoring evidence that refutes the detractors´ allegations, the validity of the research conclusions are at best incomplete – worse they become questionable.

The source data of Senate Report 780 is the subject of challenge. The transparency (or lack of it) and objectives (political vs establishing the facts) of the investigation are in the first place at the core of the dispute. For instance, 25 witnesses named by Senator Ana Consuelo Madrigal – Villar detractor – as key to the investigation were never given the opportunity to testify. Others include testimonies submitted to the senate, but ignored by Monsod, that I cited in my article (i.e. Atty Carmela Bacod on “no over-pricing”; and Atty Yolanda Doblon on “no double insertions”).

Consequences: Monsod is within her right to limit the documents she chose to review. However, contradicting evidence consciously excluded renders her analysis of limited value. Precisely, official documents rely on due process and transparency to establish its credence. Senate Report fails this test as allegations are taken as “facts”.

Error 2: Allegations are used as “incontrovertible” facts to support conclusions
Monsod: “Since there was already an ongoing project (the MCTEP or Manila Cavite Toll Expressway) linking C – 5 to the Coastal Road, it was totally unnecessary to build a second one”. Is this a fact, assumption or assumption-turn-doctrine?

To arrive at this conclusion, she used the interactive map published at www.gmanews.tv arguing that “technically there has been no realignment, because these are two separate roads linking C – 5 from SLEX (i.e. South Luzon Expressway) to the Coastal Road. But they are very close to each other and in some areas overlap as can be ascertained from a site map” (www.inquirer.net, posted January 30, 2010).

She added in her subsequent column that “MCTEP was conceived precisely to create choices for motorists. There already exists a current road network, toll free, that will allow motorists to move from SLEX to the Coastal Road. MCTEP would give them the choice of going from point A to point B more quickly – as long as they are willing to pay for the convenience. Giving motorists a third choice, in the context of competing demands on scarce resources, cannot be – never mind, should not be – defended”.

What´s wrong: Waste is established after the fact when a project is completed. That is, a project becomes wasted investment if no socio-economic value is generated. Monsod dismisses Ma Nalen Rosero Galang´s explanation, Villar´s legal counsel, that the C – 5 roads are needed to ease traffic congestion. To wit: “To Ms Galang, where in urban Philippines are traffic conditions not worsening?”

If traffic volumes require additional road capacity, they need to be built once the case for investment is justified. Monsod´s a priori conclusion on waste takes the status of assumption-turn-doctrine (at least in her view). Reality debunks this “novel” economics:

1.    Skyway is a Manila toll road sitting above toll free Sucat – Alabang road. Both are highly utilized by motorists.
2.    Light railways in Metro Manila are built on top of existing roads in major thoroughfares. All infrastructures are highly utilized.
3.    Multiple level toll and toll free roads co-exist in Boston, New York and other high traffic density US urban areas.
4.    Barcelona´s (Spain) prime beach resort community in Sitges is connected by toll roads, sharing common stretches with toll free roads, in addition to railways and marinas.

Indefensible C – 5 waste of money as Monsod´s “doctrine” would argue? Definitely not – at least six million beneficiaries that enjoy better travel is not to sneeze at.

Monsod´s principal evidence is based on an interactive map of C – 5 drawn by journalists. GMA News´ interactive map is generally assumed to be from the Senate Report 780. In reality, this was drawn by journalists from GMA News allegedly based on a letter from DPWH CESO Regional Director Robert Lala to former DPWH Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane on October 15, 2008. However, this letter is not included in the Senate Report. (http://c5truth.wordpress.com/tungkol-sa-c5-map-ng-gma7).

MCTEP is presented as the “original” C – 5 extension, while CX – 5 is shown as the rerouted road that was actually built. To quote: The map shows the “originally planned route of the road project and where the road actually passed after presidential candidate and real estate magnate Senator Manny Villar allegedly intervened” (www.gmanews.tv).

Wait a minute – did Monsod herself not say these are two separate sets of road projects? If this was not included as part of the Senate official documents, does it fall under Monsod´s scope of admissible evidence after excluding Bacod and Doblon´s testimonies that I cited? Now, are there two links or three links as Monsod claimed? Relevance? Not much as all roads are serving the communities they are built to serve (Galang letter to Inquirer, February 6, 2010, www.mbv.ph).

Villar in his various privilege speeches at the senate in 2008, 2009 and 2010 presented evidence to refute arguments about “double insertions”. What happened to these supporting documents? Why are they ignored by the Senate Report 780? One of salient points of that debate precisely revolve around what the “original” road design was – MCTEP or CX – 5 that was claimed to have been part of the general road plan formulated by the Americans in the 1940s, according to Villar and DPWH (Senate Privilege Speech, February 2, 2010).

Clearly, official documents contain “facts” that are disputed. This requires inclusive evaluation of evidence to get to reality. No, not for Monsod given that “it is mine (i.e. preference) to look at government documents and the sworn testimony that are part of the senate record” (www.inquirer.net, February 5, 2010).

Consequences: If allegations are accepted as “incontrovertible” facts, and are then used to arrive at a “conclusive” case for censure and retribution, what has become of the Senate and the justice system? We are entering an era where no one is secure in life and property, where no one can expect due process. As a consequence, the Philippines is likely to join failed states such as Somalia once this logic is extended to policy and government. In fact, the Philippines is ranked below most of its ASEAN and Asian peers in surveys by Transparency International, Heritage Foundation and similar surveys. This is because of onerous legal framework made unpredictable by discretionary application of law and evidence.

Error 3: Incorrect math and economic theory render comparisons meaningless
Monsod: To justify the discrepancy between what appeared on her Inquirer.net column and News on Q, she explained that “the P11,520 figure refers only to the properties that are directly Villar-owned. The P7,168 figure refers to the direct properties and those in joint-venture with Villar companies. Please note that I used the lower figures in my column”.

What´s wrong: Monsod stated that “I have – based on the documented prices and acreage of the lands purchased in connection with LPPLP – computed the weighted average prices that were paid for the Villar and related properties, and those paid for the non-Villar properties (www.inquirer.net, January 30, 2010)”. In reality, the figures can be calculated as the simple average by dividing the price paid (P168.1 million as numerator) with the acreage (23,455 sq meters as denominator) to arrive at Monsod´s result of P7,168 / sq meter. Now, if you want to adjust for the Villar only property, both the numerator and denominator should be adjusted accordingly. Although Monsod never substantiated her figures at News on Q, you can calculate this by fixing the price paid at P168.1 million (as numerator) and divide by 14,592 sq meters (as denominator). The Villar only acreage of 14,592 sq meters is derived by dividing the total price (P168.1 million) by the price / sq meter (P11,520). Word of caution: Simple averages are easily distorted by excessively high (or low) prices for small lots that are given the same weight as large lots.

Monsod went quiet on her “novel” economic argument on MCTEP joint venture vs CX – 5 / LPPLP. She argued that “MCTEP is a joint venture … with the government´s financial exposure limited to P2.68 billion for the purchase of the right of way … while CX – 5 / LPPLP is a toll free, wholly financed by government project costing P6.96 billion”.

Consequences: An English expression is appropriate – half truths, lies and statistics are taken in the same breath by skeptics. Hence, when meaningless statistics are presented as having credence of “incontrovertible facts”, I attach no value to what passes as “analysis” supporting the “conclusive” case to convict.

Any student of finance and decision theory will see through these comparisons as illogical and meaningless. Incorrect math combined with incorrect theory results in dubious comparisons. A Shakespearian farce – all sounds and fury signifying nothing!

By ignoring Bacod´s testimonies declaring “no over-pricing” on at least two instances in the Philippine Senate, what game is being played by flogging a dead horse? The only tangible contribution that I see is to reinforce doubts in investors´ perception of Philippines as an attractive market. As a result, punitive interest rates on borrowings and onerous terms are what we can expect if we apply this type of “novel” economics.

Error 4: Tainted by association and presumption of conflicts of interest
Monsod: “Do not put words into my mouth. I was not suggesting that capital gains linked to public works should accrue to government. There is a world of difference between the Hda. Luisita issue and the Villar properties issue: (1) NoyNoy Aquino probably owns less than 2 percent of Luisita, Villar owns 100 percent of his companies; and 2) Villar conceived and initially funded CX – 5 / LPPLP; And Aquino has zilch to do with SCTEX”.

What´s wrong: There is a pattern of mixing allegations, unexplained assumptions and opinions passed as “incontrovertible facts” that raise questions about research rigor. Monsod´s arguments are non-sequiturs: (1) Ownership on its own hardly leads to “incontrovertible” fact that NoyNoy Aquino is subjected to less conflicts of interests than Villar, and vice versa; and (2) Sponsoring a project logically taints its benefits because the sponsor will only look after their own interests. Both are assumptions that bears little basis on specific facts. Specifically:

1.    Ownership share on its own neither guarantee conflicts of interest nor reduce temptation to plunder. NoyNoy Aquino´s 2% stake (by Monsod´s reckoning) if applied to an estimated P60 billion value of Hda Luisita, once connected to SCTEX, is worth P1.2 billion (a massive increase from from zilch). Using Aquino´s estimate of 3.125% share, this is P1.875 billion (www.gmanews.tv, February 9, 2010).
2.    Congressmen are mandated by law to represent and work for the interests of their constituency. Sponsoring projects of major impact is a part of that role.

In an ongoing investigation at Congress, records show SCTEX is fully funded by government. Precedents make Monsod´s logic untenable. Using her own C – 5 “logic”, Cojuangco – Aquino´s 500 hectare industrial and residential estate is the principal beneficiary of the P32 billion SCTEX. There are existing roads and access to the site. Tai pan Lucio Tan, faced with similar quandary at his properties at Cabuyao, housing Asia Brewery and real estate developments, paid in full from his company´s funds. This is paid to the government to construct roads connecting his properties to existing road networks.

The more fundamental issues are: (1) If SCTEX at P32 billion is a major project that impacts Noy Noy Aquino´s constituency when he was Congressman for Tarlac, should he be at the forefront championing the project?; and (2) If Hda Luisita is the major beneficiary, should he not take a more active interest to ensure that SCTEX follows utmost transparency that Monsod deem as fundamental for good governance? By showing apparent disinterest, was NoyNoy Aquino derelict in his duties as Congressman for Tarlac?

Zilch to do with SCTEX ? Interesting … but let Congress complete their work before we pre-empt their findings. In the meantime, check out Daily Tribune´s article on “SCTEX Arroyo´s gift to Aquinos” and wait for the unfolding saga that has all the making of a “bigger than C – 5” controversy (www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/20100207hed1.html).

Putting words into Monsod´s mouth? Let us face it – What is Monsod´s point in belaboring that Villar wrongfully gain from C -5 because his company´s property values rise after the project is completed?

Consequences: If issues are debated without separating facts from fiction or allegations, we get the results that we have. The senate debates on the C – 5 controversy, conducted in an obvious partisan manner (i.e. Senate divided along party alliances or personal grudges), is a classic example of this outcome.

If SCTEX follows the path C – 5 took in congressional investigation, the greater loser is Philippine development. With Congress and the Senate lock in partisan politics, rather than producing legislation that facilitates development, the Philippines can be condemned to prolong under-development – at the Filipino´s expense.

Conclusion – Villar is innocent of any wrong-doing
The errors and consequences contained in Monsod´s “analysis” on C – 5 lead me to question her methods and conclusions. To complete the partial picture Monsod paints, this contrasting view allows voters to weigh evidence to aid their decision. I conclude that the case against Villar, and Monsod´s evidence, cannot stand scrutiny in a court of law.

In the court of public opinion, clarity of facts and a balance treatment of evidence is what I aim to achieve. I trust that I have achieved this goal with rigor, transparency and fairness.

Reflections and way forward
Monsod close her arguments by providing a moral of the story that is curious, if not irrelevant: “Do not rebuke your teacher using insinuations and without knowing full knowledge of the facts. My fault is that I didn´t teach him any better”.

Again, I take no responsibility for Monsod´s conjectures. On deeper reflection, perhaps being a former student of Monsod that “did not get it”, who she could have taught better but did not, has its own benefits.

After UP School of Economics, I am fortunate to be given the opportunity, and the wisdom to accept advice from wiser people. As a result, I pursued farther education in world class institutions such as IESE Business School, Spain and Cranfield School of Management, United Kingdom. This is complemented by courses taken at Wharton / University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, both while serving at Royal Dutch Shell in The Netherlands. In the process, I manage to enrich my education, update my knowledge and enhance my formation, thanks to the guidance of great minds and peers.

Sitting on shoulders of intellectual giants, I benefited from their insights and personal qualities. To name a limited number: Bernardo M Villegas´ (University of Asia and the Pacific) lessons in humility and personal integrity serve as foundation; Florian Alburo´s (UP School of Economics) mantra to go see the world when introspection was UP´s prevailing wisdom; late Harry Hansen´s (Harvard and IESE Business School) mentoring on strategic foresight; Carlos Cavalle´s (IESE Business School) openness in seeing challenges to arguments as intellectually stimulating; combines with Pedro Nueno´s (IESE) focus on the practical use of knowledge; and David Parker´s (Cranfield) pursuit of evidence with rigor to inform policy and debate. Their company makes the journey worthwhile as we find inspirations from the works of Porter, Ghemawat, Markowitz, Sharpe, Rubinstein, Dixit, Pindyck, Arrow and many more …

They share common traits: By embracing dissenting views, pursuit of knowledge is undertaken in service of truth and common good – tempered by humility that we do not have a monopoly on wisdom but possess sufficient sense to shape it.

Had I been “taught better” by Monsod, would I end up in a better place? A curiosity – but then I trust my European sojourn prepares me well to continue serving our people, as I am doing in my private capacity.

For partisans who instinctively react to stamp out dissenting views like a “yellow fever”, all I can say is this: Let us shake hands, enjoy our drinks, and depart as friends agreeing to disagree!

—-

Ricardo G. Barcelona is currently the managing director of Barcino Capitas Limited – Barcelona, Spain and the United Kingdom. He is also the senior adviser to Livingstone Partners (Spain and USA), Agrival Tigrus (Romania and United States), ServiHabitat / La Caixa (Spain) and board director to In2Power (Philippines). He is also a lecturer at the IESE Business School in Spain. He is currently working on his DBA (Candidate) in the Cranfield School of Management in UK; and has an MBA from IESE Business School, Universidad de Navarra, Spain; BA in Economics from the University of the Philippines School of Economics.

Professor Solita Collas Monsod´s analysis of C – 5 attempts to inject “facts” into the sound and fury, that passes for parliamentary debate. While laudable, her efforts risk losing sight of the first principles in economics. By framing the debate too narrowly, we learn half the story. Unfortunately, it is the half that proves inaccurate.

For this reason, I offer contrasting views that draw different conclusions, proving Senator Manny Villar´s innocence.

The controversy on C – 5 precisely arose because Villar´s detractors a priori have judged him guilty. To build their case, they selectively use what passes as data that fit their arguments, while ignoring those that contradict their personal agenda. Hence “half-truths” not only mislead, they inflict serious injustice on the aggrieved parties.

How do we see the full picture?  Answers to the following questions help:

1. What are the facts of the case?
2. Who are accountable for executive decisions, and those with responsibility for due care and diligence?
3. In the event that Villar has a case to answer, what due process is needed to serve the interests of justice?

The answer to these questions, in its order, serve to establish a) what we are dealing with; b) pin accountabilities on the right parties; and c) ensure transparency that gives all aggrieved parties a fair trial.

What are the facts?

Senate Committee Report 780 alleged that Senator Manny Villar is guilty of a) double “insertion” that funded the same project twice at P200 million each; b) realignment of road to favor his corporations; and c) as a consequence, bloated the project costs by an extra P6 billion. Hence, Villar is asked by the senate to pay back this amount.

Prof Monsod, using data from the Senate report and the media, succinctly describes that the C – 5 controversy actually comprise three different road projects: a) Manila Cavite Toll Expressway (MCTEP), where motorists pay a toll for its usage, links Southern Luzon Expressway (SLEX) to Coastal Road; b) C – 5 extension (CX – 5); and c) together with Las Piñas – Parañaque Link project (LPPLP) gives a separate toll free link to SLEX.

So what are the issues … and the underlying principles that should be considered?

Waste … or creating choices for motorists ?

Monsod argues that MCTEP and CX – 5 / LPPLP are close to each other. Given that MCTEP already exists, CX – 5/LPPLP is redundant. Hence, by not building CX – 5 / LPPLP, the government stands to save P6.96 billion.

While this logic is alluring, the case for waste cannot be argued convincingly. With two different roads, one charging motorists for its use (MCTEP) while the other is free of charge (CX – 5 / LPPLP), the issue becomes one of providing choices for motorists.

Does this have precedents in international practice?

Yes. In fact it is common to see toll roads and toll free roads to co-exist in Europe and in other countries. For infrastructures, such as roads, this choice is important given that multiple points of access are needed to connect communities, facilitate travel and decongest high traffic density areas. Competition between toll and toll free roads, when they coexist, often comes at the expense of toll roads. However, for C – 5, this is not an issue given the high traffic density.

Monsod´s argument that the toll road only costs the government P2.68 billion, hence cheaper than CX – 5/LPPLP, is indeed “novel economics”. The total costs to motorists (who are also taxpayers) are in fact higher. MCTEP´s sponsors recoup their total investments plus a return by collecting tolls every time motorists use the road. Notwithstanding this flawed logic, the fact is, both segments of C – 5 are needed to decongest Las Piñas, Cavite and Parañaque.

Senator Villar, in his speech to the senate on February 2, 2010, presented the same evidence given in 2008 and 2009: Realignment of C – 5 involved one kilometer in MCTEP, and shifting one bridge (i.e.no. 2) to avoid conflicting with the light railway transport.

Therefore, without a solid case for claiming waste, redundancy and extra costs for re-alignment, Monsod and the senate´s demand for restitution from Villar cannot withstand scrutiny and legal challenge. Interestingly, the P6.96 billion sought from Villar for “wasting” tax-payer´s money is well above the total P4.2 billion budget for C – 5.

Land value and right of way

Comparison of land values is at best a treacherous art. Fortunately for Villar, he has the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of Finance and Philippine jurisprudence on his side. As a rule of thumb, government zonal values are lower than what developers can realize in the commercial markets. For this reason, real estate developers tend to resist forced acquisitions by government for public works.

Monsod suggested that Villar´s lots were acquired at an average price of P7,168 / sq meter, while the non-Villar properties were paid P1,880 / sq meter. She gave higher numbers of P11,000 / sq meter and P4,500 / sq meter respectively, in her television talk show. Apparently, both figures are estimated from the senate report.

While the comparison is simple and appears compelling, it is in fact simplistic. Atty Carmela Bocod, as early as 2008, certified that there was no over-pricing. Based on the government´s zonal value, Commercial and Industrial lots are valued at P30,000 / sq mtr, while residential lots around Sucat is valued at P4,500 / sq meter. Villar´s detractors later claimed that the wrong zonal value was used. In response, Atty Bocod re-affirmed that the values used in the acquisitions of all land relating to C – 5 are correct, and in accordance with government guidelines. Hence, without knowing the composition of the land types acquired (i.e. commercial, industrial or residential), any comparison of land acquisition prices are meaningless.

Land value is claim by Monsod and other Villar detractors to have directly benefited Villar´s family corporations. This is a double edged sword:

1. Assuming this is true, did the government under-pay Villar´s corporations by depriving them of any rightful gain from their real estate assets? Or,
2. If capital gains link to proximity to public works should accrue to government, as Monsod appears to suggest, should other real estate developers and Hda Luisita of the Aquinos – Cojuangcos (as a result of the P 32 billion Subic – Clark – Tarlac Expressway) be subjected to the same claims?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. As a matter of principle, government acquisition of land for public works is subject to government sequestration. Government dictates the value without any recourse for negotiations.

Clawing back capital gains (i.e. induced by improved infrastructures) set dangerous precedents. Such gains are called by economists externality simply because it cannot be directly quantified or link to unique beneficiaries. Applying such “novel” legal construct can only erode any security of tenure, and violates property rights, making Philippine legal framework onerous and unpredictable.

In the same speech to the senate, Villar revealed that his family corporations remain unpaid on a number of land acquisitions by the government related to C – 5. Others were fully paid. Surely, if Villar is as influential as his detractors paint him to be, why are his companies the last in the payment queue?

Therefore, without any over-pricing of the Villar properties, there is no basis to claim against ill gotten wealth.

Double amendments…or additional budget ?

In October 6, 2009, Atty Yolanda Doblon of the Senate Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office (LBRMO) certified that there were no double amendments (more popularly referred to as “insertions”) on C – 5. The P400 million were allocated for Sucat Flyover (i.e. P200 million) and Coastal Road (i.e. P200 million).

As of February 2, 2010, the P200 million for C – 5 has not been disbursed. Curiously, while this fact is readily verifiable, Villar´s detractors insist that Villar enriched himself from money that was not yet disbursed. Worst, this is money that will never be disbursed to Villar or his company.

The principle of separation of judiciary, legislative and executive branches of government is ignored. While senators and congressman can legitimately propose amendments to the national budget, it is the executive that disburse and monitor any money earmark for public works and other projects. Hence, the possibility of Villar or anyone from the legislature directly receiving any money for projects is remote, if not in breach of this separation of powers and accountabilities.

Legislature scrutinizes the budget, giving each senator and congressman the duty of due care and diligence to preserve the wealth of the Filipino nation. In contrast, the executive (i.e president and cabinet secretaries) disposes of money approved under the national budget.

Therefore, without direct fiduciary responsibility, how can Villar or any senator, be held responsible for any disbursements of public funds? Under the principle of separation of powers and accountabilities, why is the senate only after Villar and not anyone from the executive branch of government?

If Villar hood winked his colleagues in the senate, as his detractors allege, and “rob the country” right under the senators´ noses, are the senators remiss in their duty of due care and diligence in voting in favor of the national budget?

Due process … or hanging by assumptions?

A traffic violator is given more protection and rights to redress. When issued a ticket for traffic violation, the violator can appeal and given the opportunity to overturn any penalty on the basis of evidence.

The senate investigation on C – 5, after two years of work, only manages to assume a plausible link between Villar and alleged irregularities. The senate report, while explicitly admitting there was no direct cause to link Villar, a plausible cause was sufficient basis for “censure” and demand for repayment of P6.96 billion wasted on public works.

This stance violates two basic principles of jurisprudence: a) Guilt is establish only after presenting compelling evidence that directly links the party to a crime; and b) Restitution is due only on conviction of a relevant crime.

Under its newly formulated principles, the senate now wants to legislate, sits in judgment of a colleague, and adjudicates using rigor of proof that cannot stand a chance in any court of law. This blurring of the powers and accountabilities violate the most basic principles of good governance and justice.

Is it any wonder then that Villar refuse to be drawn to such “trials by innuendos”? Far from being a “coward”, which no less than Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile labeled Villar, Villar actually showed courage in refusing to be complicit to a farce.

Conclusion

Monsod´s “conclusive” proof to declare Villar guilty of wasting taxpayers´ money is a great leap of faith. To ask P6.96 billion back requires greater rigor of proof. Censure does not carry any lower burden of proof, given that “half truths”, innuendos and assumptions (i.e. to fill the gaps in evidence) inflict great injustice to an innocent person.

The charges against Villar can neither stand the test of jurisprudence, nor the judgment of wise and practical men … and women as well. The greater concerns are the absence of integrity, cavalier application of tests for evidence, and total disregard for inflicting injustice to an innocent man. After all, Villar remains innocent until convicted of any crime in a qualified court of law.

The senators sitting as accusers, judges and executor of sentences is far from a credible body to judge Villar or any senator. Villar showed courage, not cowardice, by refusing to legitimize such farce at great personal calumny by his detractors.

Be informed … ask questions! Madame Professor – together we can paint a full picture we can believe in, by remaining true to our academic calling as guardians of truth and integrity.

—-

Ricardo G. Barcelona is currently the managing director of Barcino Capitas Limited – Barcelona, Spain and the United Kingdom. He is also the senior adviser to Livingstone Partners (Spain and USA), Agrival Tigrus (Romania and United States), ServiHabitat / La Caixa (Spain) and board director to In2Power (Philippines). He is also a lecturer at the IESE Business School in Spain. He is currently working on his DBA (Candidate) in the Cranfield School of Management in UK; and has an MBA from IESE Business School, Universidad de Navarra, Spain; BA in Economics from the University of the Philippines School of Economics.

Here is a review of a recent article of Solita Collas-Monsod, a professor at the School of Economics of the University of the Philippines. In spite of her superb credentials and track record, Ms. Solita missed at least five points basic to understanding the so-called “C-5” Controversy, which some Manny Villar’s critics are turning into their version of the C-4 plastic explosives.

Point No. One: Ms. Solita and other critics fail to remind readers that Manny Villar, Jr., and his wife, Cynthia Aguilar, and their families were engaged in real-estate development long before they entered the field of politics. In short, the Villar-Aguilar-founded firms made decent returns in buying raw land and developing them into prime properties such as subdivisions not only in Parañaque and Las Piñas but also in other cities and provinces as well for the past 30 or more years. It is not like Manny Villar bought raw land yesterday because he has inside information that the property will be claimed tomorrow by the government in its exercise of its eminent-domain power and used for a public-infrastructure project. What we, the Fourth-Estate advocates and activists, should do is to persuade Mr. & Mrs. Villar, especially when they become the First Couple, and for that matter all national and local officials to put all their corporate holdings under trust with a Trust Department of a bank or financial institution, just as politicians do in the United States.

Point No. Two: The value of real property – pursuant to Economics 101 – is actually dependent on three factors: Location, Location and Location. Thus, it would not be inconceivable that a bigger property that is more-strategically located and more-developed will be priced higher than a smaller adjacent property, especially when the latter is raw land. This may explain Ms. Solita’s predicament when she wrote: “The Villar/related properties, comprising 23,455 square meters, were bought for P168.1 million. The non-Villar properties, comprising 11,685 square meters, were bought for P22 million. That comes to a weighted average of P7,168 per square meter for Villar’s properties, and P1,880 per square meter for the non-Villar properties.” Some commercial and/or residential properties in Las Piñas-Parañaque are priced higher than 10,000 pesos per square meter, again depending on their location. The other fact also is that buying from one controlling corporation (owner) of a huge tract needed for a government project is usually cheaper than dealing with individual owners of smaller parcels of land. And asking the courts of law to let the government exercise its right of eminent domain is a long-and-expensive process.

Point No. Three: Ms. Solita mentioned that “the conceptualization of and the initial release of funds for the CX-5 Project was initiated by Sen. Manuel Villar whose same efforts also paved the way for the funding of the Las Piñas-Parañaque Link Road [LPPLP]; 2. Various insertions and amendments (Priority Development Assistance Fund, read pork barrel) . . . “ Ms. Solita forgot to mention that Senator Villar used to represent the area in the House of Representatives and which seat is in fact now occupied by his wife, Rep. Cynthia A. Villar. Both Senator Villar and Representative Cynthia Villar have the duty to use their pork-barrel allocations and their clout to create more nationally-funded infrastructure projects in their home district, which improvements can raise the quality of life of their constituents. Should Senator Villar not be commended for using his pork-barrel allocation—to quote Ms. Solita’s words—“to conceive ‘the CX-5 and the LPPLP’ and initially fund” them? Unlike the pork-barrel funds of some legislators that are spent for “ghost projects,” Senator Villar brought “home the bacon,” to use an oft-quoted cliché, to his domicile of a district.

Point No. Four: As Ms. Solita wrote, if Senator Villar caused the inclusion “in the national government budget over the years 2002-2008 for CX-5 and LPPLP” funding for the said project, how come it is only now – after Manny Villar has been proclaimed as the Nacionalista Party’s official candidate – that critics, including some members of the press, started saying that the C-5 project was anomalous? How come the same critics in the Philippine Senate kept on voting for the national budget in 2002 up to 2008 and nobody among them questioned the appropriations for the C-5 project, which should have been included in the annual budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)? Why did the country’s senators, economists and the press not raise any alarm or criticism as early as 2002? Even the Pope and the Vatican understand the meaning of the Statute of Limitations.

Point No. Five: Ms. Solita wrote: “This unnecessary, wasteful (C-5) project was certainly Villar’s idea. It is specious to argue that it is a DPWH project.” Ms. Solita’s argument has no basis in fact and in law because there is the separation of power between the Executive Department (Arroyo Administration and the DPWH that it controls) and the Legislative Department (to which the Villar Couple belongs). How can Senator Villar and Congresswoman Cynthia Villar have total control of a DPWH project? (Mr. Villar was even removed as Senate president allegedly at the urging of President Arroyo.) The DPWH is part of the Office of the President. The DPWH, for all its warts and defects, has professional people working for it and they will never permit themselves to become stooges or robots of a mere senator and his congresswoman-wife – or for that matter, any legislator – who after all are not their bosses. The C-5 project might have been Mr. Villar’s original idea (and bless him for his foresight) but in the final analysis, it was the DPWH that had to make a decision on the viability of the project. In fact, the buck should have stopped at President Arroyo’s table in the matter of the C-5 controversy.

My unsolicited advice is to please read again Ms. Solita’s article but along the lines of the five points that she failed to discuss or even mention.

—-

Bobby Reyes is a columnist for Mabuhay Radio. Here he resumes a column that he wrote in the late 1980s for the then Southern California’s Philippine Journal magazine and its sister publication, the Manila Standard newspaper (Los Angeles edition).

We wish to respectfully convey our comments on your article entitled “Get Real: Manny Villar blameless?” published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on 30 January 2010.

First. It is imperative to point out the differences between the Manila Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP) and the C5 Road Extension Project (C5 Road Extension).

The MCTEP is a toll road, which requires payment of toll fees; while the C5 Road Extension is a public road, which allows free passage to all commuters. In other words, the C5 Extension Road is an alternative route to commuters who cannot afford to pay toll fees. The MCTEP has “limited access”, meaning it has a single entry and exit point; while the C5 Road Extension has “open access”, such that through said road commuters can access various cities and/or municipalities. Clearly, by their very nature, it is not difficult to comprehend that the 2 projects are not mutually exclusive of each other or that the C5 Road Extension is a duplicate of the MCTEP. The construction of the C5 Road Extension did NOT result in MCTEP becoming unnecessary as to require its being discontinued. The truth is both projects are necessary to decongest the worsening traffic condition in Paranaque, Las Pinas and Cavite.

Second.There is no evidence whatsoever that the alignment of the C5 Road Extension was determined by Senator Villar or that its alignment was changed in order that it should pass through the real estate properties of Senator Villar’s companies.

If at all there was any re-alignment of the C5 Road Extension Project, it was only a slight shifting of one bridge (Bridge No. 2) in the upstream direction in order not to create conflict with the proposed alignment of the LRT Line I South Extension Project. This slight shifting of Bridge No. 2 was at the request of LRTA; and it did not involve any intervention or even a request from Senator Villar.

What has been conveniently ignored is the letter dated 15 October 2008, of DPWH Regional Director Roberto G. Lala, CESO III, to DPWH Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr. (which letter was attached to the Affidavit submitted by Engr. Adriano to the SCOW), thus:

“The segment of C-5 Project that is described hereto is from Sucat Road to Pres. Quirino Ave. (also known as Paranaque-Las Piñas Link Road)

The project was not re-routed as it followed theoriginal route or alignment prepared by the DPWH-NCR except for the location of one bridge (Bridge No. 2) whose centerline was slightly shifted in the upstream direction in order not to create conflict with the proposed alignment of LRT Line I South Extension Project. This was made in attention to the request of LRTA to then NCR Regional Director Salvador A. Pleyto, per letter dated Feb. 23, 2001 copy attached marked as Annex I. But even with this slight change, the 30 meters road right-of-way was still maintained. Except for such shifting of the Bridge No. 2, no more modification was made from the original alignment up to its construction phases from Sucat Road to Pres. Quirino Avenue.” (As cited in the Affidavit of Engineer Adriano, TSN, 8 September 2009, 11:06 a.m., pp. 2-3)”

Third. Not having anything to do with the final disposition of his proposed amendments to the 2008 GAA, Senator Villar cannot be accused of proposing the amendments in order to benefit himself and his real estate companies as the said “double insertion” in the 2008 GAA was intended to secure payment to Senator Villar’s real estate companies compensation for the ROW taken by the C5 Road Extension.

The Senate’s role in the enactment of the GAA starts and ends with its proposing and approving amendments thereto. Once approved and signed into law by the President of the Philippines, the Senate or the Senators no longer have anything to do with the disposition or implementation of the GAA, which belongs solely to the implementing agencies of the Executive Department.

There is nothing from the evidence presented to even suggest that Senator Villar ever intervened in the disposition or implementation of the 2008 GAA as to derive benefit for himself or his real estate companies to the detriment of the Filipino people.

On the contrary, the record shows that other land owners in the same area of Las Piñas and Parañaque whose lands were also taken by the DPWH as ROW for the C5 Road Extension were long paid ahead for their lands, while some companies of Senator Villar, like the Golden Haven and API, have not even filed the requisite documents with the DPWH to facilitate payment. (Testimony of Engineer Adriano, TSN, 8 September 2009, 12:06 pm, p. 4; 12:46 pm., pp. 4-5).

Fourth. Valuation of properties depends, among others, on its size and location. It is not, therefore, correct to get the “weighted average” of the prices paid for the Villar properties and those paid for the non-Villar properties and imply a conclusion that Villar companies were paid higher valuation.

The properties owned by Villar companies that were traversed by the C5 Road Extension are located in different areas and therefore, have different values. Those that have “frontage” and/or classified “commercial” were given higher valuation and those that are “interior” and/or classified “residential” were given lower valuation – which was the same parameter used for properties owned by other landowners.

Again, what was conveniently ignored was the testimony of Former BIR-Paranaque Revenue Officer, Ms. Carmelita Bacod whom complainant Senator Madrigal had subpoenaed. Ms. Bacod not verified the P30,000.00 zonal valuation for the lots along Sucat Road but also the P4,500.00 per square meter zonal valuation for the other lots.

She explained that the other lots along Sucat Road are classified as “residential”; hence, they have a zonal valuation of only P4,500.00 per square meter. She went on to explain further that the Masaito lots were classified as “commercial/regular,” hence, they have a zonal valuation of P30,000.00 per square meter. (TSN of 22 September 2009, 12:23pm, pp. 7-8).

Ms. Bacod was even adamant about the zonal valuation as she declared at the hearing on 22 September 2009 that if she wereto issue another certification, she would use the same zonal valuation for the Masaito lots. (Ibid., p. 7). Thus:

“MR. FRANCISCO: But if you are to make another certification and you were asked for the zonal valuation of San Dionisio, Sucat Road, what will you state?

MS. BACOD: I will state the same facts as contained in the same certification.

MR. FRANCISCO: Which is?

MS. BACOD: That the zonal value of the property will still be 30,000 per square meter.

MR. FRANCISCO: Even if that is not found in the Revised Zonal Valuation of 1998?

MS. BACOD: Yes, because in this page 9 of San Dionisio, even if the zonal value of Don Antonio Avenue – the zonal value is 4,500, it is residential. But we have – on page 9, we have commercial/residential valuation of Php30,000.00. And for sure, my basis for classifying this property as commercial/regular is the tax declaration presented to us as issued by the Assessor’s Office classifying the same property as commercial/residential as to its actual use, Your Honor.”

More importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that Senator Villar ever interfered with the issuance by the BIR of the zonal valuation of the properties of his companies taken for ROW of the C5 Road Extension. And, the Senate Committee of the Whole in its Report admitted this. Thus, page 83 thereof states, “xxx xxx although there is no evidence to prove the direct participation of Senator Villar in the overpricing of such properties, it is fair and safe to assume that Senator Villar knew about the said overpricing xxx.” To this we say – Since when has it been “safe” to assume a person’s liability?

We trust that you shall consider our position on the matter.

Very truly yours,
MA. NALEN ROSERO-GALANG
Legal Counsel
Sen. Manuel B. Villar, Jr.

Mr. President: I stand before the Senate and the People of the Philippines in defense of my name, my honor, and dignity against my accusers in the so-called C5 controversy. To set the records straight and to prove to the Senator who called me coward na hindi ako duwag.

Wala pong DUWAG na taga-Tondo!

May kasabihan tayo na ang mga Pilipino ay may crab mentality. Sa aking kabataan ay kasama ko ang aking ina sa pagbenta ng pagkaing dagat sa palengke. Nakita ko na totoong ganun nga ang asal ng mga talangka — hinahatak pababa ang kanyang kapwa.

Ang hindi ko maintindihan ay kung bakit sa dami-dami nang pagmamanahan ng ugali, sa talangka pa nagmana ang iba sa atin.

Ako’y dating mahirap; di ko ikinahihiya ang aking pinagmulan. Sa murang edad, nalaman ko agad na di ako kakain kung di ko ito pagpapawisan. Mula sa aking mga magulang – isang tindera at isang karaniwang empleyado – natutunan kong mabuhay nang marangal. Siyam kaming magkakapatid na itinaguyod sa malinis na pamamaraan.

Ngunit taas-noong kong masasabi sa inyo na kahit ng anong hirap ang dinanas namin, wala kaming inagawan, wala kaming inagrabyado. Wala sa dugo namin ang manloko o mandaya ng kapwa. Ang mga nakamit ko sa buhay ay aking pinagpaguran. Mula pa nung skwater ako sa Tondo, ang kinagisnan ko na ay ang magtrabaho. Kaya sa tulong ng maykapal, ng pagsusumikap at ng sipag at tiyaga ay naiahon ko ang sarili ko sa kahirapan.

Wala akong minanang yaman bukod sa kabutihang asal; ang lumingon sa pinanggalingan at tumulong sa nangangailangan.

Nung gumanda ang aking kapalaran, ninais kong suklian ang tadhana sa pamamagitan ng pagtutulong sa mga kapuspalad at manilbihan sa mga nangangailangan. Natanto ko na iyon ang aking misyon sa buhay kung kayat ako’y nabiyayaan.

Ngayon, bagamat nais kong ipagpatuloy ang serbisyo publiko, pilit akong hinihila pababa ng aking mga katunggali sa pulitika. Sila’y nagmimistulang mga talangka.

Sabi nila’y ako ay masyado daw mayaman. San daw galing ang yaman ko? Pilit nilang nilalagyan ng malisya ang pag-ahon ko mula sa kahirapan. Magpapayaman pa daw ako pag nanalo. Babawiin ko daw ang ginagastos ko sa kampanya.

I can explain my wealth. I am the principal shareholder in a public company that I founded.. From a small gravel and sand enterprise 30 years ago with but an old beaten up truck as its main asset, I have been able to grow it into a trustworthy, viable, and solid real estate company. It is a matter of public record.

Mahigit 250,000 na pong mga bahay ang naitatayo namin sa buong Pilipinas – karamihan para sa mga middle at lower income nating mga kababayan masipag at masinop.

In business circles, I have been known as the brown taipan.

Hindi ko kailangan ang 200 million pesos na sinasabi nilang nakimkim ko sa proyekto ng C5 extension. Di pa sila nakuntento ay pinalaki pa ito. Pagkatapos ng so-called investigation nila ay 6 billion pesos na daw ang napunta sa akin.

Pano po mampupunta sa akin ang 200 million pesos, Mr. President, kung:

* Una, di pa nare-release ang nasabing 200 million pesos
* Pangalawa, kung na-release man ito ay di dadaan sa kamay ko ang pondo dahil ang DPWH ang implementing agency.

Pano ko maibubulsa ang wala pa at ang hindi dumaan at dadaan sa kamay ko?

Uulitin ko po. Pulitika na naman ito.

Dalawang taon na po ang isyung ito. Hindi ko ubos-maisip kung bakit naggugugol po ang Senado ng ganito karaming oras upang ipilit sa taumbayan na ako ay magnanakaw.

Pilit na sisinira ang aking pangalan. Tinalakay nang napakaraming ulit na itong C5. Nadinig ko na ang mga akusasyon. Inihayag ko na ang aking saloobin at depensa nang napakaraming beses na din.

Walang makapagsasabi na hindi ako sumagot sa mga paratang sa senado. Nandito kayong lahat noong ako ay nagsalita dito. Nagsalita na din akong nang mahigit na isandaang ulit para sa media. Lahat ng pertinenteng dokumento ay kinalap at kinolekta namin sa aming official website na MannyVillar.com.ph. We printed informational pamphlets and even advertised. I personally brought journalists to the location. Wala akong nilihim tungkol sa aking partisipasyon sa marangal na proyektong ito.

Ako’y nananawagan na sana’y maging patas naman ang aking mga kasamahan sa senado. Noon ko pang sinabi at pinatunayang wala akong kasalanan at walang anomalya at katiwalian sa C5. Wag po nating hayaang maging kasangkapan ng pulitika ang napakagandang proyektong ito.

Subalit pano makakakita ang nagbubulagbulagan? Pano makakarinig ang nagbibingibingihan? At ika nga, ang pinakamahirap gisingin ay ang nagtutulug-tulugan. At higit sa lahat, pano magkakaroon ng hustisya at katotohanan sa isang kasong may hatol na bago pa man litisin?

Mr. President, I was condemned without the benefit of a fair trial.

Alam ko namang hindi ako titigilan. Yan ang dahilan, Mr. President, kaya ayaw kong sumali sa sarswelang ito na ikinubli sa tawag na imbestigasyon. Ang isang boxer ba ay lalaban pa kung may decision na ang mga hurado?

Sa kagustuhan nilang sirain ako sa mata ng bayan, ang isang marangal at napakandang proyekto pa ang babaluktutin at gagamitin laban sa akin.

This is precisely what’s wrong in our country, Mr. President.

Ang mga gumagawa ng tama at kabutihan ay ang siya pang kinakastigo. Kung ganyan ang ipagpapatuloy natin, wala nang mangangahas mangarap at gumawa ng mabuti. Only those with vision, capability, and are strong-willed can be part of something like the C5 project – a project that shows the country is moving forward. While many of us who want to get elected promise progress for our country, C5 is that promise realized. It is there for everyone to benefit from and take advantage of.

I am proud to be part of this project.

The construction of the road which is meant to serve the people is far from complete. A day lost in the development of the C5 extension project is a day taken away from the people we committed to serve. They need the road. They need our help. But some of the senators here have other needs – such as a need to embarrass me in public. They want to weaken my candidacy. They want me out of their way.

Nalulungkot ako na ito ay nagpapalayo sa atin mula sa sinumpaan nating trabaho sa Senado. Habang nagbabangayan ang mga senador ay may mga tao sa labas ng dating marangal na institusyon na ito na naghihirap. I am here today for the people who aren’t here in this room today. Kahit na magdamag tayong magdebate, sigurado tayong may kakainin sa ating pag-uwi ng bahay. Ngunit ang karamihan sa ating mahihirap na kababayan ay di pwedeng umupo lamang at maghintay matapos tayo. Kung di sila kakayod, wala silang kakainin.

Mr. President,

For the record, Mr. President,

I want to set the facts straight. The report of the committee of the whole – as submitted and read to the public last Monday – is most unfair to me. I believe it was so presented to deceive the people. It was meant to besmirch my reputation.

Whatever the motives of my accusers, the report does not reflect the truth.

Wala pong katotohanan dito.

Wala po akong kasalanan, wala pong anomalya sa C5 project, at hindi po ako nakinabang. Mula simula hanggang huli, ang sinasabing imbestigasyon ay punung puno ng pulitika. Lahat ng aking mga kalalaban sa election ay nagimbento.

Sila’y nagluto ng isang kaso na kanilang pinalaki sa media.

Nung binato nila ito sa Ethics Committee at nalamang hindi sakop ng ethics ito, nagluto ng special set of rules para lang sa akin at in-apply retroactively — in clear violation of our Constitution.

Sila mismo nag conduct ng hearings, at kung dati ay executive session dapat ay ginawa nilang publiko para lamang sa akin. An unprecedented 19 public hearings were staged to shame me. Napakaliwanag na pamumulitika lang. Gumawa sila ng kakaibang pamantayan para lamang sa akin.

At nang lahat ng saksi ay nagsabi na wala akong kasalanan, nagluto na naman sila ng sariling desisyon.

Lutong Macau lahat ito, Mr. President. Lutong Macau mula simula hanggang katapusan.

Nung una, double insertion ang paratang. Nung nakitang di naman totoo at para sa dalawang proyekto naman pala yun, realignment naman ang banat. Nung napakita namin na dalawang kalye ito – isang toll road at isang surface road, overpricing naman. Nung napakitang wala namang overpricing, conflict of interest ang sumunod. Napabulaanan ko yun at sa katunayan ay may ruling ang Department of Justice na walang conflict of.

Simple lang naman ang paliwanag e. Napaliwanag ko na ng simple dati pero tila walang naririnig. Kumbinsido na sila sa kasinungalingan nila.

Naluto na.

C5 Project Details

For the record, Mr. President, the C5 Road Project is not just my own personal project though it is one I am proud to be associated with – all these controversies notwithstanding. This is a project of the government implemented through the Department of Public Works and Highways. Renamed the President Carlos P. Garcia Avenue, the C5 Road was conceptualized as early as 1946, and runs from Manila Bay-Malolos-Caloocan-Quezon City-Taguig/Pateros-Paranaque-Las Piñas-Cavite. It is a 51-kilometer long thoroughfare starting from Manila Bay, and goes full circle to end likewise in Manila Bay.

Of the entire stretch, 32.5 kilometers are fully developed, covering Malabon and Caloocan going all the way to Quezon City-Taguig/Pateros-Paranaque-Las Piñas.

The Additional P200 Million Appropriation

As I am an ardent supporter of development, I have been pushing for the completion of the project.

I have emphasized in the past that the C5 Road Extension project would ease the worsening traffic problem common in the neighboring cities of Paranaque, Las Piñas, and Muntinlupa, as well as the nearby towns of Cavite. Kita po natin ang grabeng trapik sa Coastal Road araw araw. And I have lived in Las Piñas for the most part of my life. I can attest to the severe traffic situation residents face there every day.

Even on weekends, it is almost impossible to exit BF Homes via its two main gates, the Alabang and Lopez gates, without experiencing at least 30 minutes of traffic. The Lopez gate, being nearest to the C5 Extension, is under frequent gridlock due to a large number of vehicles passing through BF Homes, which itself straddles the cities of Paranaque, Las Piñas, and Muntinlupa.

May I also add that with the completion of the C5 road extension, as envisioned, travel time from northern areas to and from the industrial parks in Cavite, Laguna, and Batangas will be shortened. This translates to fuel savings for motorists.

For this reason, I proposed an amendment in the form of additional budget amounting to 200 million pesos for a certain portion of C5 –the flyover to be constructed in the Cavite Coastal Road.

May I enlighten you, fellow legislators, that this is an ADDITIONAL amount to the budget of the SAME project. Meaning, the total appropriation should have reflected 400 million pesos in the GAA, instead of 200 million pesos as earlier proposed. For your information, the proposed aggregate budget for the C-5 is placed at 4.2 billion pesos.

To this end, allow me to bring to your attention the declarations made by Atty. Yolanda Doblon, Director General of the Legislative Budget and Research Monitoring Office (LBRMO).

In the hearing of October 6, 2009, Atty. Yolanda Doblon CATEGORICALLY SAID THAT THERE IS NO DOUBLE INSERTION IN THE C-5 ROAD PROJECT.

Again, I would like to repeat, reference is the TSN of October 6, 2009 public hearing of the Committee of the Whole, pages 128-136.

Of significance, let me bring to your attention too that I have no doubt that the DPWH knew and got the instruction correctly. In the public hearing of October 15, 2008, Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane was right in saying that the two 200 million pesos were allocated for two different sites, but they are still within the confines of the C5 road project. Hence, I insist it is for the SAME project (C5), albeit on different locations – the first being the Sucat road flyover, and second, the Coastal road.

The “double entry” or insertion of 200 million pesos is not irregular because it covers two different – let me repeat, TWO DIFFERENT and SEPARATE segments of the C5 project.

“Insertion,” per se, or amendment, which is the appropriate parliamentary lexicon, is not illegal as it is a right commonly observed within the realm of policymaking to allow lawmakers to adjust the proposed annual budget by introducing appropriate amendments, with the public’s welfare in mind.

Wala po akong kasalanan, wala pong anomalya sa C5 project, at hindi po ako nakinabang. Pulitika lamang po.

I Did Not Use Influence vis-à-vis the Project

According to the Committee Report, the Las Piñas-Paranaque Link Road Project and the DPWH C-5 Road Extension Project were made to pass through the properties of my corporations, instead of a straight alignment. It went further to say that the alignment of the C5 Road Extension segment of the Manila Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP) of the Toll Regulatory Board has to be changed just to accommodate the alignments of the Las Piñas Paranaque Link Road Project and the DPWH C5 Road Extension Project.

These are blatant lies, Mr. President.

I did not direct, or influence, the DPWH to have the C5 Project pass through my properties. The fact is that the conceptualization, alignment, planning and execution of the said project were all done by the DPWH.

If indeed there was any re-alignment of MCTEP, it only involved a “kilometer” of said alignment. Surely, such did not cause the MCTEP to be mothballed. There is no evidence that the supposed re-alignment resulted in MCTEP becoming unnecessary as to require its being discontinued.

As to the alleged re-alignment of the C5 Road Extension Project, it was only a slight shifting of one bridge (Bridge No. 2) in the upstream direction in order not to create conflict with the proposed alignment of the LRT Line I South Extension Project. This slight shifting of Bridge No. 2 was at the request of LRTA; and it did not involve my intervention or even a request from me.

As explained in the letter dated 15 October 2008, of DPWH Regional Director Roberto G. Lala, CESO III, to DPWH Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr. (attached to the Affidavit submitted by Engr. Adriano to the Committee):

“The segment of C5 Project that is described hereto is from Sucat Road to Pres. Quirino Ave. (also known as Paranaque-Las Piñas Link Road)

The project was not re-routed as it followed the original route or alignment prepared by the DPWH-NCR except for the location of one bridge (Bridge No. 2) whose centerline was slightly shifted in the upstream direction in order not to create conflict with the proposed alignment of LRT Line I South Extension Project. This was made in attention to the request of LRTA to then NCR Regional Director Salvador A. Pleyto, per letter dated Feb. 23, 2001 copy attached marked as Annex I. But even with this slight change, the 30 meters road right-of-way was still maintained. Except for such shifting of the Bridge No. 2, no more modification was made from the original alignment up to its construction phases from Sucat Road to Pres. Quirino Avenue.” (As cited in the Affidavit of Engineer Adriano, TSN, 8 September 2009, 11:06 a.m., pp. 2-3)

It is noteworthy that at no time during the entire adjudicatory proceedings did the complainant and counsel ever present testimonial or documentary evidence to disprove the truth and veracity of this letter of DPWH Regional Director Lala.

Wala po akong kasalanan, wala pong anomalya sa C5 project, at hindi po ako nakinabang. This was all politics.

There is no corruption

They accused me of financially benefiting from the C5 transaction; that I made a pile of money out of it.

There is nothing farther from the truth, Mr. President.

It is common knowledge that the fund was impounded by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), upon directions from President Gloria Arroyo herself. It means the fund has not been released by the DBM. So where is corruption there?

As regards those deeds of sale and payments made by DPWH to companies my family owned – in legal terms, the payments made are called just compensation. Properties were taken and so corresponding payments should be made.

I could not have possibly prevented the construction of the road. That is the government’s prerogative. But I cannot, in my conscience, sacrifice the interest of the general public simply because some of my companies’ properties will be affected.

Let me stress that as developers of real estate properties, the Villar companies could have, by themselves, constructed the road and earmarked some portions as exclusive in which case, the properties could have had higher values. But public interest demands that we open the properties and allow motorists and the commuting public to utilize the roads.

Besides, allow me to state that I am not a member of the Bicameral Conference that approved the 2008 budget. That is significant to prove that I did not dip my fingers or never exerted influence in the passage of said legislation.

More importantly, not having anything to do with the final disposition of my proposed amendments to the 2008 GAA, I cannot be accused of proposing the amendments in order to benefit my real estate companies.

The Senate’s role in the enactment of the GAA starts and ends with its proposing and approving amendments thereto. Once approved and signed into law by the President of the Philippines, the Senate or the Senators no longer have anything to do with the disposition or implementation of the GAA, which belongs solely to the implementing agencies of the Executive Department.

Above all, there is nothing from the evidence presented to even suggest that I ever intervened in the disposition or implementation of the 2008 GAA as to derive benefit for myself or my real estate companies to the detriment of the Filipino people.

On the contrary, the records show that other land owners in the same area of Las Piñas and Parañaque whose lands were also taken by the DPWH as right of way for the C5 Project were long paid ahead for their lands, while some of my companies to this day remain unpaid and have not even filed the requisite documents with the DPWH to facilitate payment. (Testimony of Engineer Adriano, TSN, 8 September 2009, 12:06 pm, p. 4; 12:46 pm., pp. 4-5)

No Overpricing

The C5 issue brought with it otherwise irrelevant matters, but I am compelled to answer anyway for they mischievously depict this humble representation as a scheming man – which I definitely am not.

There is an allegation that as a result of the undue advantage, the properties owned by the Villar companies are grossly overpriced. Allow me to state, for the record: Zonal valuation is determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), not by Senators, not by me.

There is absolutely no evidence that I ever interfered with the issuance by the BIR of the zonal valuation of the properties owned by my companies.

SA MISMONG REPORT, SINABI NA “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE DIRECT PARTICIPATION OF SENATOR VILLAR IN THE OVERPRICING OF SUCH PROPERTIES”.

ITO AY PAGE 83, PARAGRAPH 1, VERBATIM:

“As to the valuation of the properties of Senator Villar’s corporations that were acquired for roads-right-of-way for the Las Piñas-Parañaque Link Road Project and the DPWH C-5 Road Extension Project, although there is no evidence to prove the direct participation of Senator Villar in the overpricing of such properties, it is fair and safe to assume that Senator Villar knew about the said overpricing as his corporation stood to gain from such transactions with the government and considering the closeness of Senator Villar to Engr. Adriano who was directly involved in these transactions.”

SAMAKATWID, ANG IBIG SABIHIN NITO – SA HINABA-HABA NG KANILANG MGA EBIDENSYA, HALOS 127 YATA, ANG KANILANG BASEHAN LANG AY “ASSUMPTION” O “YUNG KANILANG STATEMENT NA “IT IS FAIR AND SAFE TO ASSUME”.

ITO AY SOBRANG MALI.

CONSISTENT ANG SUPREME COURT SA DECISION NITO NA HINDI BASEHAN ANG SIMPLENG “ASSUMPTIONS” PARA MAG-CONVICT, LALO NA KUNG ITO AY PATUNGKOL SA ETHICAL BEHAVIOR.

Proof, not mere conjectures or assumptions, should be proffered to indicate that the accused had taken part in, to use the Court’s words in Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, the “planning, preparation and perpetration of the alleged conspiracy to defraud the government” for, otherwise, any “careless use of the conspiracy theory (can) sweep into jail even innocent persons who may have (only) been made unwitting tools by the criminal minds” really responsible for that irregularity. (for reference, ito ay kaso ng Sabiniano v. CA, GR 76558, October 6, 1995).

SA MGA KASO SA AMERICA NA APPLICABLE SA PILIPINAS – AT GINAMIT ITO NI PANGULONG ESTRADA MISMO SA KANYANG MGA KASO, SINASABI RIN NA –

“Logical reasoning in the law does not work in this manner. Courts are not allowed to supply missing evidence or to give a party the benefit of unreasonable speculation or forced inferences. Liability cannot rest upon guesswork, conjecture or speculation beyond inferences to be drawn from evidence.”

Ang sabi nga, inference must be the product of reason and logic and it must rest on evidence, i.e. on probability rather than on speculative possibility or conjecture, and must comport with physical laws and human experience.

Certainly, my participation cannot simply be “safely assumed”. It is never “safe” to assume malicious intent.

Moreover, the supposed higher valuation given the Masaito property was duly explained by the very same BIR officer who issued the certificates of zonal valuation for it. Former BIR-Parañaque Revenue Officer Carmelita Bacod, whom complainant Senator had subpoenaed and who issued the certification on the zonal valuation of the Masaito lots, not only verified the P30,000.00 zonal valuation for the said lots but also the P4,500.00 per square meter zonal valuation for the other lots along Sucat Road.

She explained that the other lots along Sucat Road are classified as “residential”; hence, they have a zonal valuation of only P4,500.00 per square meter. She went on to explain further that the Masaito lots were classified as “commercial/regular,” hence, they have a zonal valuation of P30,000.00 per square meter. (TSN of 22 September 2009, 12:23pm, pp. 7-8).

In other words, the P30,000.00 per square meter valuation for the Masaito lots in question did not come from thin air. Former Parañaque Revenue District Officer Bacod got the figure from page 9 of the Revised Zonal Valuation of 1998 of the Department of Finance.

Ms. Bacod was even adamant about the zonal valuation as she declared at the hearing on 22 September 2009 that if she were to issue another certification, she would use the same zonal valuation for the Masaito lots. (Ibid., p. 7). Thus:

“MR. FRANCISCO: But if you are to make another certification and you were asked for the zonal valuation of San Dionisio, Sucat Road, what will you state?

MS. BACOD: I will state the same facts as contained in the same certification.

MR. FRANCISCO: Which is?

MS. BACOD: That the zonal value of the property will still be 30,000 per square meter.

MR. FRANCISCO: Even if that is not found in the Revised Zonal Valuation of 1998?

MS. BACOD: Yes, because in this page 9 of San Dionisio, even if the zonal value of Don Antonio Avenue – the zonal value is 4,500, it is residential. But we have – on page 9, we have commercial/residential valuation of Php30,000.00. And for sure, my basis for classifying this property as commercial/regular is the tax declaration presented to us as issued by the Assessor’s Office classifying the same property as commercial/residential as to its actual use, Your Honor.”

Interestingly, the said testimony of Ms. Bacod was conveniently ignored in the Report.

Wala po akong kasalanan, wala pong anomalya sa C5 project, at hindi po ako nakinabang. Pulitika po lamang ito.

No Conflict of Interest

While none of the witnesses they presented accused me of any wrongdoing – I was shocked, and still am in shock, that the conclusion they arrived at is completely the opposite.

In the Report, they concluded that I violated the Constitution for my alleged financial interest in the C5 Project, which as senator placed me in a conflict of interest situation.

First. I did not author the 2008 GAA as no senator can be its author since the GAA originates solely from the House of Representatives.

Second. It is not true that I did not disclose my financial interest in the companies whose properties will be traversed by the MCTEP and the C5 Road Extension Project.

The truth of the matter is that one of my companies even sought the opinion of the Department of Justice precisely to determine whether or not the validity of the proposed transaction will be affected by the fact that I am its principal stockholder and whether the proposed acquisition will be violating any law or regulation, particularly the Constitution.

And, significantly, on November 9, 1999, the DOJ, through Justice Serafin R. Cuevas, rendered an Opinion holding that the acquisition by the Government of private property for right-of-way purposes does not fall within the Constitutional prohibition against Members of Congress having direct or indirect financial interest in any contract with the Government.

As aptly put by then Secretary of Justice Cuevas:

“In the instant case, there is no showing that the principal stockholder of the API took advantage of his position as a member of the House of Representatives to enable API to enter into a contract with the TRB involving the API’s property. The transaction arose as a necessary consequence of the government’s decision to implement the MCTEP and for which it became necessary for the TRB to acquire properties for right-of-way purposes. The API’s property happens to be one of those that the TRB had identified as necessary for the implementation of the MCTEB.

Clearly, the proposed acquisition by the TRB on a voluntary sale and purchase basis of the subject property of the API for right-of-way purposes does not fall within the subject constitutional prohibition. The said proposal is a mere consequence of the exercise by the TRB of is power to “condemn private property for public use subject to the provisions of existing law.” In acquiring the API’s property through negotiated sale, the TRB was acting pursuant to law.

In sum, inasmuch as the proposed transaction was not sought by the API nor by any of its stockholders, but was initiated by the TRB in view of the importance and urgency on the part of the government to acquire the subject properties of the API to obviate delay in the continuous implementation and eventual completion of the MCTEP, this Department does not foresee in situations such as this, that a principal stockholder of a private corporation who happens to be a member of the House of Representatives would be cited as having violated Section 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which expressly prohibits legislators from being directly or indirectly interested financially in any contract with the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities.”

Again, said DOJ Opinion was conveniently ignored by the Committee.

ON THE P6,226,070,427

Worse, the Report recommends that I return the amount of P6Billion, which I allegedly made the people to suffer.

This is totally ridiculous, Mr. President.

Let me state categorically that no government money was wasted in the C5 Project – not a single centavo!

To reiterate, there was no “re-alignment” of the C5 Road Extension Project or of the MCTEP.

The MCTEP was not rendered useless by the construction of the C5 Road Extension Project. These 2 projects are entirely separate and distinct projects. The MCTEP is a toll road, which requires payment of toll fees; while the C5 Road Extension is a public road, which allows free passage to all commuters. In other words, the C5 Road Extension is an alternative route to commuters who cannot afford to pay toll fees. The MCTEP has “limited access”, meaning it has a single entry and exit point; while the C5 Road Extension has “open access”, such that through said road commuters can access various cities and/or municipalities. Clearly, by their very nature, it is not difficult to comprehend that the 2 projects are not mutually exclusive of each other or that the C5 Road Extension is a duplicate of the MCTEP. The construction of the C5 Road Extension did NOT result in MCTEP becoming unnecessary as to require its being discontinued. The truth is both projects are necessary to decongest the worsening traffic condition in Paranaque, Las Piñas and Cavite.

ROW payments on the MCTEP were not wasted. The roads acquired are still there and owned by the government. Once the TRB shall have found another joint venture partner, the expressway project can continue.

Wala po akong ninakaw sa kaban ng bayan.

Wala po akong kasalanan, wala pong anomalya sa C5 project, at hindi po ako nakinabang. Napulitika po si Manny Villar.

On the Unjust Process

MAHIRAP GISINGIN ANG NAGTUTULUG-TULUGAN. NGUNIT MAS MAHIRAP PALANG GISINGIN ANG KALABAN SA PULITIKA.

Kahit anong paliwanagan, hindi naniniwala ang mga ito sa akin.

Binago ang proseso para yurakan ang aking dangal at sirain ang aking pagkatao.

Umpisahan natin sa naka hilerang hearing na naka schedule sa Senado. Kahit hindi pa dapat, inuna ang C5 issue para matiyempuhan ang pagkampanya sa darating na eleksiyon. Ito ang inaasahan nilang lahat na makapagbaba ng aking ratings sa mga surveys.

Pangalawa – Ang Ethics committee hearing ay karaniwang pribado at hindi pangmadla para maprotektahan ang kapakanan ng mga Senador o mga opisyal ng pamahalaan. Pero binukod nila ang kasong laban sa akin dahil sa hangaring pahiyain ako at sirain ang aking pagkatao. Hinayaan nilang magka dalawampung hearings at limang privilege speeches na mailadlad sa publiko.

Pangatlo – Banggitin na rin natin ang lahat ng tumestigo para patunayang ako ay walang sala. Hindi ba’t idiniklara akong wala kasalanan ng Ethics committee lalo na sa Plunder at Estafa charges sa akin noong Hulyo? Bakit ngayon merong mga bumabaligtad at binuhay na naman ang kaso? Ang ibig sabihin ba nun binabale-wala natin ang mga tumestigo? Wala pa namang nagsasabing may kasalanan ako maliban sa mga kalaban ko sa pagtakbo bilang Presidente.

Pang-apat ang paulit-ulit kong kinekuwestiyon:

Saan ka naman nakakita ng isang korte na naglilitis sa yo na binubuo ng mga kalaban mo sa pulitika? Apat na taga-Liberal Party, dalawang taga-Puwersa ng Masa at dalawang Presidentiables lumalaban sa akin?

Gumawa na nga ng sariling patakaran sa paglilitis, pagkatapos ang “accusers” ay ang mga “judges” din? Other upright individuals would have inhibited themselves from the process.

Samakatuwid, bakit ako lalahok sa di-makatarungang prosesong ito, kung alam kong niluto naman ang laban?

Kung alam mong ikaw ang dehado, pagkakaisahan at na-desisyunang may sala, bago pa man magumpisa ang paglilitis, may punto pa bang puntahan ito?

Nililinaw ko–ang aking pananahimik ay hindi pagkaduwag.

Ito ay ang hindi pagkilala sa korteng ito.

Kung tinikom ko ang aking bibig nitong mga nakaraang linggo, ito ay dahil di ako madaldal na tao. Mahilig ako sa gawa, at di sa salita. Nasagot ko na lahat ng isyu noon pa sa lahat ng uri ng komunikasyon. I’ve done hundreds of interviews for TV, radio, at print. Sinagot ko na sa aming website na MannyVillar.com.ph, nagpalimbag ako ng mga pamphlets, nagpa-advertise din ako. Dinala ko na din ang napakaraming peryodista sa lokasyon upang mapaliwanag ang katotohanan.

My Conscience is Clear

I have been publicly condemned and maligned by some of my colleagues by simply presenting statements of my alleged indiscretions and without proof that I pocketed the funds for the road project. I have been pilloried with a lot of charges as a result of my declaration as a presidential candidate.

As I have stated on September 15, 2008, the first time that this issue was presented on the floor by a colleague and thus, I am saying it again: I have not stolen money from the public coffers and I do not intend to steal. Whatever station in life I am in right now, whatever I am earning now, is a product of hard work, sweat and industry.

Simple lang ang pamilya ko. We do not need more than what we already have. Ganid ang mga ganun, at magagalit ang Diyos sa ganung mga tao.

Mr. President,

Sa aking mundong kinagisnan, sa Moriones Tondo, sa paggising ko nang hatinggabi para sumama sa aking Nanay sa bulungan sa Navotas… sa pagidlip sa makitid na bangko sa Divisoria pagkatapos magtinda ng hipon hanggang alas sais ng umaga. Nakita ko kung paano magtiis, magsikhay at magsikap ang mga katulad kong mahihirap.

Ganun pa man, hindi nirerespeto ng ilang mayayaman ang mga katulad namin. Langit at lupang agwat ng aming kabuhayan.

Mahirap bang isipin at sikmurain na ang isang dating mahirap ay nangangahad mangarap sa pagkapangulo? Di ba pwedeng umahon at mangarap ang tulad namin? Mahirap lang ba ako kaya ako’y hinuhusgahan?

Mula sa pagkamusmos, marami akong karanasan nagpamulat sa kin sa katotohanan that life an be unfair. A child of privilege always gets the benefit of the doubt. A child of poverty hardly does.

Bigyan natin ng katahimikan ang Senado. Gawin natin ang dapat gawin para sa mahihirap. Para sa mga taong naghihintay.

Simula nang pumutok ang isyung ito, hanggang sa ngayon, natanggap ko na yata lahat ng masasakit na salita na pwedeng matanggap ng isang tao sa kanyang buhay. Tinawag ako ng maraming masakit na pangalan. Tinawag akong magnanakaw, duwag, oportunista, mahina, at marami pang iba.

Nagdaramdam ako. Masakit para sa kin na marinig ito, at maging sa aking pamilya, lalo pa’t nanggaling ito sa ilan kong kapwa mga mambabatas—ang mga kasama ko sa kamara, na pinagsilbihan ko rin bilang Senate president at tinuring kong pamilya at kaibigan.

Salungat sa iniisip ng ilan, hindi ko kailanman naging hangarin na bastusin, hatiin, at higit sa lahat sirain ang integridad ng institusyon ng senado.

Pero uulitin ko na tila ang kasalanan ko sa mata ng ilan ay di ako pinanganak na mayaman. Wala akong kilalang apelyido o tanyag na kamaganak. Sa pagtuligsa sa akin, isa ang malinaw: ang opinion na porket nanggaling sa mahirap ang isang tao ay di pwedeng yumaman sa mabuti at marangal na paraan.

No one is above the law. Yan ang paniwala ko. Ngunit dito sa Senado, anong batas ang pinapairal? Kaninong kapakanan kundi sa mga katunggali sa pulitika?

I shall repeat what I’ve said so many times. I will be repeating this for the last time. Wala akong kasalan. Walang anomalya sa C5 project.hindi ako nakinabang lahat ito ay pulitika lamang. Ito ay kathang isip ng mga ilan na ginagamit ang senado para ako’y siraan.

Nakamtan ko na ang marami sa aking pangarap sa buhay. Ang tanging huling nais ko ay maiahon ang karamihan sa ating kababayan mula sa kahirapan. Matagal na silang naghintay sa makakatulong sa kanila.

I seek the presidency now because I have a dream for our people – a dream of rescuing them from poverty and giving them a better future such as the future I have realized for myself and my family. Natapos ko na ang aking kahirapan bago pa ako naging pulitiko. Ngayon, sapat na ang napundar ko para sa kinabukasan ng aking pamilya. We have more than enough. Kung gusto kong yumaman pa, mananatili na lang ako sa negosyo.

I do not want the majority of the Filipino people to always keep hoping and waiting for the next presidential candidate to save them. I seek the presidency as the culmination – not the beginning – of my life in public service. I have always strived to help as many people as I can. Panata kong ibalik sa mahihirap ang mga biyayang aking natanggap. Alam ko ang pakiramdam ng maging maliit at walang wala.

Alam ko kung paano tapusin ang kahirapan. Nagawa ko ito sa aking sarili, nagawa ko para sa iba na akin nang natulungan at hangarin ko na gawin pa ito para sa mas nakakarami.

Ang pangarap kong ito ay di matutumbasan ng pera.

Maraming salamat sa inyo, aking mga kababayan, na tuloy na nagtitiwala sa akin sa gitna ng mga paratang ng kasinungalingan. Bagamat ganito ang nangyari, ako’y nananalig pa rin na mananaig ang katotohanan dito sa Senado at sa mahal nating bayan.

Nakikiisa ako sa lahat ng nangangarap at tuloy na nananalangin at nagsusumikap upang muling ngumiti ang langit sa Pilipinas.

Q: Meron pong alegasyon si Sen. Enrile na tinangka nyo raw po siyang suhulan?

Villar: Alam mo, hindi ko gagawin iyan. Dalawang taon na akong binibira sa isyung ito. Hinayaan ko lang nga silang mag-imbestiga. Dalawang taon na rin akong nagpapaliwanag tungkol diyan sa taong bayan ng aking panig. Alam mo masakit sa akin iyang akusasyon ni Sen. Enrile. Bagaman masama din ang loob ko sa kanya dahil sa sinasabi niya at ng aking mga kalaban ay okay lamang. Pero huwag ganyan. Hindi naman tama iyan. Napakarami na niyang ibinato sa akin itong nakakaraang araw. Ang report ay puro kasingungalingan. Umutang daw ako, nago-offer ng bribe, lahat na ay personal. Sa palagay ko, noong nasasagot namin ang mga isyu ay naghahanap na lamang sila ng isyu na personal. Hindi naman tama iyan.

Q: Ang sabi po, noong nakaraang taon pa ito buwan ng Agosto. Bakit ngayon lang kaya inilabas ito kung totoo man ito?

Villar: Alam mo, masyado namang grabe na iyan. Tumataas kasi ang aking survey. Alam mo ba na walo na lamang ang lamang sa akin ni Noynoy sa huling survey. Umabot ng 40+ iyan at nagdeklara na tatakbo ang dating pangulong Erap Estrada. Suddenly nagsama-sama na uli itong mga kalaban ko at nilabas na uli itong mga bagay na ito samantalang dalawang taon na akong nagpapaliwanag dito. Maliwanag naman ang lumabas sa aming imbestigasyon na wala maski isang witness ang nagsabi na ako ay may kasalanan. Wala akong hihingin kay Sen. Enrile dahil talaga namang wala akong kasalanan.

Q: Dito ho ang pakiramdam ninyo ay pinagkakaisahan na kayo ng mga kalaban ninyo dahil sa patuloy na umaakyat kayo, eight points na lang ang distansya ninyo kay Noynoy sa pinakahuling survey ng SWS?

Villar: Palagay ko nagpa-panic na ang iba. At gumagawa ng paraan para matigil itong pagbaba at mapigil ang ating pagtaas. Subalit ako ay nalulungkot sa bagay na iyan. Dalawang taon na akong sumasagot diyan at lahat naman ay pinakita ko na, lahat ay ginawa ko na. At pati iyang mga ganyang akusasyon, hindi ko gawain iyan. Hindi ko gagawin ang mga bagay na iyan.

Q: Sa pangyayaring ito, sa kabuuan ang Senado ay nababahiran ang imahe, nagkakawatak-watak. Maging itong si Sen. Miriam Santiago ay talagang asar na asar na at pagod na sa nangyayaring pulitika diyan sa Senado.

Villar: Masyado naman kasing binabastos na ang Senado. Alam nyo itong nagyayari sa Senado, ako ay dating pangulo ng Senado, lungkot na lungkot ako at nawawasak ang institusyon. Hindi pa nagkaroon sa history ng Senado na ganito ang paggamit sa Senado sa pulitika. Maliwanag naman ito, lahat ng nag-akusa sa akin ay kandidato sa pagkapangulo o kaalyado nila. Buong-buo, sila ang nag-akusa, sila ang gumawa ng rules at sila nag-hearing at sila rin ang nagdesisyon. Syempre ang Senado, iyan ang pinakasentro ng katarungan subalit paano magkakaroon ng katarungan ang ganung sitwasyon na iyong nag-akusa ang magja-judge din.

Q: Marami po ang patuloy na humihikayat na dapat raw ho ay sagutin ninyo iyon sa floor.

Villar: Kokorekin ko lang na sinagot ko na iyan sa floor. Subalit magsasagutan kayo everyday, wala nang mangyayari diyan. Sa tamang oras, ako ay sasagot diyan pero hindi ako makikiloko sa mga ganyang sagutan. Sasabihin ko lang din na nitong nakaraang taon, sinagot ko na iyan sa floor, isang daang interview sa radio, TV, print, isang daang forums na ang inatendan ko at pinaliwanag ko iyan. Nilagay ko na iyan sa website. Gumagawa kami ng pamphlet at dinidistribute namin sa buong Pilipinas, pinapaliwanag ang isyu na yan. Dinala ko na ang buong media sa C-5. Subalit itong mga kalaban ko, patuloy pa rin ang pagsasabi na hindi ako sumasagot.

Q: Dahil sa pangyayaring ito ay naapektuhan na rin ang ibang trabaho ng Senado na dapat ay maaprubahan na ang ibang panukalang batas bago ho magbakasyon ang Kongreso.

Villar: Isang linggo na lamang ang nalalabi. Napakarami pang problema ang ating bayan pero nakita mo naman, ito pa ang inuna nila. Ito pa ang pinapalaki, ito pa ang binigyan ng prayoridad. Talagang halatang-halata mo naman na pulitika lamang ang hangarin dito.

Q: Sa panghuli po, baka meron kayong panawagan sa ating mga kababayan na nalilito dahil syempre kaliwa’t kanan ang ibinabato sa inyo?

Villar: Sa ating mga nakikinig, gusto ko lamang sabihin na dito po sa isyung ito, uulitin natin, na ang lahat po ng sinabi nila ay napatunayan naming mali. Wala ho talaga ang tinatawag nilang double insertion na iyan, wala iyong realignment, wala iyang overprice. Wala man lang witness ang nagsabi na totoo iyan. Kaya nagtataka kami kung bakit iba ang lumabas na resulta. Pero ginagawa po namin ang lahat para makarating po sa lahat ng ating mga mamamayan ang paliwanag dito at maliwanag na ito po ay ginagamit para siraan lang po tayo. Subalit ito pong C-5 ay isa pong proyekto na napakaganda. Ito po ay magbibigay ng direktang benepisyo sa 6 na milyong Pilipino sa Cavite, Las Pinas at Paranaque, maiibsan ang aming trapiko sa umaga at sa hapon. Napakalaking bagay sa amin ito at isang malaking karangalan sa akin na maging isa sa nagtutulak ng proyektong ito. Ito ay pinagmamalaki naming lahat at hindi namin ikinakahiya yung makatulong sa ating mga kababayan. Ang tanging hangarin ko lang ay makatulong na magkaroon ng trapiko dahil kitang-kita ko naman ang trapiko naming kapag umaga at hapon at ito pa ang ating napala. Subalit hindi naman tayo madi-discourage dito, malinis ang aking konsensya diyan. Wala akong ginagawang masama, wala akong kinukuhang pera. Ito po ay isang proyekto na napakaganda, maipagmamalaki po natin ito at maliwanag naman na ngayon lamang ako nakakita ng ganitong klaseng katarungan na iyong nag-akusa ay gumawa ng rules, nag-hearing, gumawa ng desisyon. Tunay na nakakalungkot ang nangyayari sa ating Senado. Ako na rin po ang humihingi ng paumanhin sa inyo sa ganitong pangyayari sa Senado dahil talaga pong nakakahiya.

Villar: Mabuti naman sa ngayon ay nakita natin ang mga issues at naipaliwanag. Nagapapasalamat ako sa aming mga kasamahan. Ito naman talaga ang desisyon na inaasahan natin. Kaya nga hindi ako sumasali sa hearing na ito dahil maliwanag naman na walang katarungan akong makukuha rito. Yung isa nga sinasabi, ayaw ko raw sumagot. Kayo, iniinterview ninyo ako. Dalawang taon na ito, napapagod na ako. Isang daang interview na ang binigay ko, pumupunta pa nga ako sa mga opisina ng diyaryo para magpaliwanag. Dinala ko na ang media doon sa C-5. Nagpagawa na kami ng mga pamphlets, nilagay namin sa internet. Nag-advertize na ako, nagsalita na ako sa floor. Lahat na ginawa ko pero maliwanag na ayaw makinig. Kaya sabi ko, useless. Isa pa, kapag tiningnan mo naman, lahat ng nag-aakusa ay puro kandidato sa pagkapangulo o kaalyado nila. Tapos gumawa ng rules na sarili, sila nag-hear, sila rin ang nagdesisyon. Hindi ba nakakatawa naman iyan? Nakakahiya nga sa Senado ang ganyan. Hindi ako nagugulat dito dahil ito na ang inaasahan ko. Pero maliwanag na wala akong ginagawang masama dito, at ang proyektong ito ay magbibigay ng benepisyo sa 6 milyon na kababayan natin na taga Cavite, Las Pinas, Paranaque at buong Southern Luzon kasi ang mga taga Makati, Taguig, Quezon City ay makakapunta. Kaya napakahalaga nito. Ito nga ay isnag proyekto na pinagmamalaki ko. At ng iba pang mga kasamahan sa pagbubuo nito.

Q: Sabi ni Sen. Jinggoy, sagutin nyo daw punto por punto.

Villar: Sinagot ko na iyan punto por punto doon sa unang beses na nagsalita ako sa floor. Televised pa nga iyon. At lahat ng interview, napakarami na, nasa website na nga, nasa pamphlet na. so sa mga manonood na gustong malaman iyan, tumingin na lang sa internet. O sumulat sa amin at padadalhan namin ng pamphlet o kaya bumisita doon sa C-5. Open lahat. Matagal ko nang nasagot lahat iyan. Paano ka magkakaroon ng hustisya, puro kalaban mo naman sa pulitika ang nandyan. Kaya hindi nakakagulat.

Q: Hindi kayo magpi-privilege speech?

Villar: Ayoko munang magsalita. Ang ayoko lang, yung didiktahan ako kung kelan ako magsasalita at kung ano ang aking sasabihin. Walang makakapagsabi sa akin kung kelan ako dapat magsalita at kung ano ang aking sasabihin.

Q: Ano po ang masasabi ninyo sa pag-withdraw ng signature ni Sen. Jinggoy and Sen. Kiko?

Villar: Doon sa bagay na iyon, medyo masakit iyon sapagkat itinuturing ko naman silang mga kaibigan. Paano naman magbabago ang kanilang pananaw, wala namang hearing mula nang pirmahan nila iyon at nung pumirma sila sa report. Paano naman nangyari na nagbago ang kanilang opinyon?

Q: Kaibigan pa rin po ba ang turing ninyo sa kanila?

Villar: Oo naman. Ang totoo niyan, lahat naman ng mga senador ay kaibigan pa rin ang turing ko. Hindi ako nakikipag-away. Alam nyo naman ang personalidad, hindi ako mahilig makipag-away. Tingin ko pulitika lamang iyan, dahil sa eleksyon lamang iyan, nag-panic nung ako ay dumidikit na, biglang ninerbyos, ayan inilabas na uli ang dalawang taon nang issue. Pero okay na rin iyan. Anytime naman handa akong sagutin iyan pero sa labas, sa tao. Kasi dito sa Committee dito, wala naman akong nakikitang magkakaroon ako ng katarungan dito. Sabi nga ni Sen. Joker, si Ninoy Aquino mismo noong malaman niyang hindi siya magkakaroon ng hustisya sa Military Commission noong Martial Law, hindi sumali. Dinismis pa nga ang lawyer niya. So walang masama doon.

Q: May choo-choo train ka naman daw…

Villar: Joker Arroyo, Nene Pimentel, Miriam Defensor, Alan Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, paano mo naman sasabihing choo-choo train iyan? Ito ay mga taong talagang napakatagal nang subok sa batas, pakikipaglaban para sa karapatang pantao. Hindi naman choo-choo train siguro iyan.

Q: Sino po ang sinabi ninyong nag-panic?

Villar: Ang Liberal. Sila ang nag-leak nito. Maliwanag naman na nag-panic ang Liberal Party dahil sila naman ang nag-leak diba? Hindi naman nili-leak ang committee report talaga, pero sinadya nila dahil nga doon. Pero sa akin, okay lang iyan. Pulitika lang naman ito at alam naman ng tao iyan. Basta ako Masaya, bukas naman ang C-5, nagagamit na ng 6 na milyong kababayan ko sa Cavite, Las Pinas, Paranaque, Taguig, Makati. Happy na ako diyan. Napakagandang proyekto ito at dapat ipagmalaki.

Q: After this, botohan mauuwi. Magpa-participate ba kayo?

Villar: Hindi ko alam kung ano ang gagawin ng ating mga kasamahan. Sinasabi ko nga, hindi naman ako sumali dito sa mga hearings na ito. Sa ating mga kababayan, ito hong mga hearings na ito ay isang side lamang po ito, wala ang panig namin dahil hindi nga ako sumali. Kaya itong nag-hearing dito ay lahat ng nag-accuse. Ewan ko kung may makikita sa history natin na ganito ka-one sided. Palagay ko, kamukha lang ito nung nangyari kay Ninoy Aquino.

Q: Dalawa na po kayo ni Senate president na sasabihin sa publiko kung ano man ang nilalaman ng committee report.

Villar: Talaga naman. Ibang partido sila, ibang partido kami, may eleksyon. Normal naman iyon na magpapalitan kami ng akusasyon sa isa’t isa. Hindi naman nakakagulat iyan.

Q: May koneksyon daw ang C-5 issue sa balak na coup sa Senate?

Villar: Ewan ko kung may kinalaman ang C-5. Ang nabasa ko sa diyaryo, kung saka-sakali magkagulo sa eleksyon, kailangan bago ang pangulo ng Senado. Pero hindi ako nakikialam diyan. Ang mahalaga sa akin ay itong report ay makita ng tao ang katotohanan. Wala talaga akong ginagawang masama dito, gumagawa lang ako ng kabutihan. Gusto kong mawala ang trapiko sa aming lugar, nagawa ko naman. Ipinagmamalaki ko.

Q: 100% owned nyo daw ang Adelfa at hindi ninyo dineclare?

Villar: Alam ninyo isa pang kasinungalingan na yung Adelfa daw ay hindi dinilvulge na kami ang may-ari. Kami po ang may-ari nun. Pero humingi po kami ng opinyon ng Department of Justice para masiguro na walang mali doon. Nagbigay ng opinyon ang DOJ na walang conflict of interest. Iyan po ay kasama sa isina-submit namin noon. Kaya malaking kasinungalingan na naman iyan.

Q: May twelve signatures na ang Committee of the Whole on the ethics case against you.

Villar: Hindi naman ako nagugulat doon dahil talaga namang inaasahan na natin na ganoon ang mangyayari. Kaya nga noong una pa lamang, hindi na sumali ang Minorya dito sa committee hearings na ito dahil sa talagang inaasahan naming na tapos na, meron nang konklusyon. Kapag tiningnan mo ang mga bumoto ng laban sa akin, sila ang mga miyembro ng Liberal Party, Pwersa ng Masa na mga kalaban naman natin sa pulitika, sa pagkapangulo at mga dating pangulo sa pagkapangulo. Maliwanag naman talaga na bias lahat pero nililiwanag ko lang na malaking kasinungalingan ang lahat ng iyan. Hindi ko nga alam kung saang panaginip nakuha iyong P6 billion, P200 million lang dati iyon. Subalit nasagot ko nang isa-isa iyan. Nasa internet na lahat iyan, may website tayo, dini-distribute ko lahat ng sagot namin dito sa C-5. Ang C-5 ay isang napakagandang proyekto, 6 milyon na Pilipino ang directly nakikinabang diyan sa Las Pinas, Paranaque, Cavite. Napakagandang proyekto iyan, finally natapos na yung pinakahuling parte ng C-5. Pinagmamalaki nating project iyan. Bagaman hindi totoo na akin lamang ang project na iyan dahil sa talagang iyan ay DPWH. Kaya yung kine-claim na sa atin lang iyan, gusto ko mang angkinin iyan ay hindi pwede, sa DPWH iyan. Pangalawa, double insertion, pauli-ulit naman ito. Nasagot ko na lahat ito, walang double insertion. Mismong ang Senate president ang nagsabi na hindi puwede. Mismong si Yolly Doblon ng LBRMO ang witness na sinubpoena nila, nagsabi na walang double insertion. Kaya nagtataka ako kung bakit nang lumabas ang report ay hindi nabanggit iyon. Ang nakakapagtaka, lahat ng witness na sila ang nag-imbita, wala kami doon, ang abugado nila ang nagtatanong, silang dalawa lang ng abugado ang nag-uusap doon. Subalit lahat ng witness na pinatawag nila, wala ni isa ang nagsabi na ako ay may kasalanan. Si Mrs. Lala ng DPWH, sinabi na walang realignment, definite. Si Mrs. Bacod, sinabi definitely na walang overprice. At tinanong siya kung papagawin siya ng report, iyon uli ang report na gagawin, ang sabi niya oo. Walang realignment sabi ng DPWH, walang overprice sabi ni Mrs. Bacod, walang double insertion, ag sabi ni Yolly Doblon. Nagsabi ng totoo ang lahat na wala akong kasalanan. Kaya nagulat kami na biglang may kasalanan na ako ngayon at nag-imbento pa ng halaga. Kaya maliwanag naman ito, pulitika lang ito. Nakahanda akong sagutin ang lahat ng katanungan, sinasabi nila na ayaw ko sumagot. Pagod na pagod na ako sa kasasagot. Nagpainterbyu na nga ako sa artista para mapanood lang ang aking sagot sa C-5. Panay na ang pa-interview ko, sa internet, handouts, dinala ko lahat ng media sa C-5. Ipinakita ko ang dalawang daan.

Q: Ipinapasoli ang P6 billion…

Villar: Yung pinapasoli, nakakatawa. Unang-una, may penalty ba na ganoon? Wala akong alam na penalty na ganun sa Ethics. Yung pagsoli, hindi ko alam kung saan naimbento iyan. Anyway, kapag pinapasoli, parang sinasabi na walang silbi ang C-5. Palagay ko baka taga-Forbes Park ang nagsabi nun kasi ang C-5 ay napakahalaga. 6 milyon na mga kababayan namin ang makikinabang directly sa Las Pinas, Paranaque, Cavite. Napakahalaga sa amin na matapos ito. Grabe ang trapik. Kaya masayang-masaya ang lahat kapag ito ay kumpletong magagamit. Kaya yung isosoli, para mong sinabing ang C-5 ay nasayang. Pangalawa, ano ba iyang P6 bilyon na iyan, hanggang ngayon hindi ko maisip kung saan nanggaling iyon. Baka kako ang gumawa noon ay mana ang iniisip kaya napalaki.

Q: Gumastos ba ang government nang ganun kalaki?

Villar: Napakalayo ng halaga na iyan sa nagastos ng gobyerno. At saka ang pangyayari, pinapaghalo ang toll road sa C-5. Ang C-5, maski pa mula UP ay walang bayad iyan. Ang toll road, may bayad. Ang toll road ay tuloy pa rin, hindi sayang iyon. Hindi pa lamang natatapos dahil iyan ay isang pribadong transaksyon. Kaya yung right of way na kinuha ko noon hindi nasasayang iyan at hindi naman nila binayaran yun kaya walang ibabalik. Yung TRB nga hindi pa rin kami binayaran, okay lang iyon. Kaya ano ang ibabalik mo, hindi naman sila nagbabayad?

Q: Parang ang gusto nila ay sa plenary mo sagutin.

Villar: Wala pa ang report. Pero ang totoo niyan, 20 hearings na, 5 TWG (technical working group), pwera pa yung privilege speeches, sobrang dami na. Dalawang taon na akong binibira dito, pagod na pagod na ko nang kasasagot. Alam naman natin na ang gusto lamang nilang mangyari ay dahil eleksyon ngayon at ang survey ay ginagawa ngayon kaya gusto nilang palabasin ngayon ito. Kaya inuulit ko sa lahat na handa akong sagutin. Sa lahat po nang nagsasabi na hindi ko kayang sagutin ito, lahat po kaya kong sagutin.

Q: Duwag daw kayo sabi ni JPE.

Villar: Palagay ko ang pagtakbo sa pagkapresidente ay nangangailangan ng katapangan dahil sa dami ng problemang haharapin. At kapag tiningnan mo ang aking buhay, makikita mo naman na hindi tayo duwag na tao. Tayo ay pinanganak sa Tondo bagaman tayo ay mahirap ay hindi tayo natatakot kaninuman. Kaya lamang hindi ako palaaway dahil nasanay na ako na ako ay nagtatrabaho, wala naman akong minana.

Q: Magpi-privilege speech kayo?

Villar: Yes, definitely at the right time. Hindi ko muna alam kung ngayon o sa darating na panahon. Subalit definitely kapag may report na, sasagutin ko iyan. Unang-una nais ko lang i-correct ang impresyon na hindi ako sumasagot. Nandoon kayo nung sumagot ako, sinagot ko lahat ng tanong. Akala lang kasi nila ay napakahaba ng sagot, maikli lang ang sagot. Simple lang kasi ito. Ito ay makakatulong sa bayan. Ang proyektong ito ay napakahalaga sa bayan. Ito ang kailangan natin.

Q: How do you feel na si Sen. Pangilinan ay pumirma din?

Villar: Masakit din iyon bilang isang kaibigan. Kahit paano ay masakit din. Kaya lang syempre, sumusunod siya sa Liberal Party, iyon ang posisyon ng LP kaya walang magagawa.

Q: Nag-usap ba kayo after that?

Villar: Hindi pa. Pero ganyan talaga iyan kapag eleksyon na, syempre naglilinyahan na ang mga tao. At nakita ko na lahat sa kabila ay sama-sama sa C-5, dito sa kabila, ako lang ang kandidato for president.

Q: Magkaibigan pa rin kayo?

Villar: Oo naman. Bagaman syempre kapag kaibigan, mas masakit iyon.

Q: Bakit po wala kayo kahapon?

Villar: Na-late ako, nag-adjourn na.

Q: May impression na may attempt na ma-oust si SP Enrile para ma-prevent ang pagtalakay sa report?

Villar: Wala naman. Mali naman iyon. Itong committee hearings na ito, kahit hindi kami nag-participate dito ay tapos na itong konklusyon na ito noon pa. Alam na namin ito.

Q: The insinuation that the attempt came from your camp…

Villar: Mali naman iyon. Alam mo kapag malapit nang mag-adjourn napakarami nang coup. Kapag nagsisimula na ang sesyon, may mga rumored na coup. Normal na normal iyan. Ako bilang dating pangulo ng Senado at Speaker of the House, normal iyan.

Q: Magpa-file daw ng plunder case…

Villar: Wala akong kaproble-problema diyan sa plunder case. Malaking kasinungalingan iyon at maliwanag na iyan ay publicity lamang.

Q: Malaking dagok ba ito sa kampanya ninyo especially because tumataas kayo sa survey?

Villar: Hindi naman. Hindi ako nababahala dito, nalalaman ng tao na may crab mentality ang mga Pilipino, kung sino ang nagtatrabaho, siya ang sinisiraan. Sa palagay ko, gusto lamang pagtakpan ng mga naninira sa akin na walang silang nagawa sa kanilang mga lupa. Yung iba kahit barangay road, walang naitayo.