Reader comments on Perdices' suit

I just received an email from a reader of the Negros Chronicle reacting to the civil suit filed by Dumaguete Mayor Agustin Perdices against a person the mayor claims to be an Australian citizen named Dindo P. Generoso. Here is that email:

"To Negros Chronicle,

This is my first time to write to your Readers Comments and would like to say that I am appalled at the over-reaction of Mayor Perdices to Mr. Generoso's article. I have just been able to read that May 20 article and found nothing of the mayor's accusations supposed to have been made by Mr. Generoso.

In another newspaper I also read that Mayor Perdices said he was forced to file a complaint because Mr. Generoso refused to apologize for his beliefs. I do not know that people are now supposed to apologize for their beliefs if other people don't like it.

In this connection I congratulate the Dumaguete media in standing up to protect the Freedom of Speech specially your write ups in relation to the Generoso Issue with Mayor Perdices. I am hoping the mayor will come to his senses and recognize that as a public official he is subject to public scrutiny and criticism.

Since this is his last term in office, i would prefer to read about his plans for Dumaguete for the next three years instead of tangling with the media and infringing the freedom of Speech in its wake. Mr. Generoso's comments were admittedly abrasive but the mayor should not allow himself to be carried away by his imagination. Thank you and more power to Negros Chronicle.

En-en Tolen"

Lying under oath is a serious offense

Lying under oath is a serious offense. It is a criminal act. It is not taken lightly.
In the United States, former president Bill Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives after lying under oath when he denied that he had sexual relations with a White House intern.
The latest (ex) high ranking U.S. government official to be convicted of perjury is the former chief of staff of Vice President Richard Cheney, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby.
Libby was convicted recently of lying to government prosecutors investigating a CIA leak.
Lying under oath has caused governments to fall.
This was what happened to the administration of the former United States President Richard Nixon, who became the only president in U.S. history to resign from office following the infamous Watergate scandal.
Lying under oath becomes more serious when it is done to mislead the courts. Feeding the courts with lies is detestable.
To lie under oath debases and obstructs, and makes a mockery of the administration of justice.
When a party degrades the administration of justice by lying under oath, he can be subject to contempt proceedings.
If a public official lies under oath, it becomes all the more serious because public officials must at all times be accountable to the people, and they must serve with integrity and act with justice.
This is because a public office is a public trust.
If an elective local official is found lying under oath, the electorate can loose confidence in him, and the people can exercise their power to have him recalled from office.
Recall is a process of removing an elected official for loss of confidence by the sovereign constituents.
We shall discuss the process of recall in a separate article.
Mayor Agustin Perdices, with so much noise and publicity, filed a case against an Australian citizen.
Copies of his complaint were provided to media after holding a press conference with his high caliber, high profile lawyers.
Obviously, he wants the case to be discussed and covered by glare of media.
So discuss it we will.
In his complaint for defamation and damages, he identified under oath the defendant as one Dindo P. Generoso, “of legal age, married and Australian citizen and a resident of 2/31 Kensington Road, Summer Hill 2130, New South Wales Australia…”
In the same complaint, in paragraph 5, Perdices also swore that the defendant, meaning the Australian citizen, is a columnist of the Negros Chronicle.
More, Perdices also swore that this Australian citizen owns a piece of land in Dumaguete City.
The mayor made this allegation despite his presumed knowledge that the constitution prohibits foreigners from owning land in the Philippines.
The Negros Chronicle, which has been dragged into the case, is categorically denying that it has a columnist who is a citizen of Australia, and resident of New South Wales, contrary to the sworn allegations of the mayor.
Either the Negros Chronicle or Perdices is not telling the truth.
In Perdices’ complaint, which he swore before notary public Neil Rey Lagahit, the good mayor needs to establish the following:
First, Perdices has to identify the defendant, the person he is suing.
He has to establish that there is indeed an Australian citizen named Dindo P. Generoso.
Next, Perdices the plaintiff, has to establish that this Australian citizen named Dindo P. Generoso resides in 2/31 Kensington Road, Summer Hill 2130, New South Wales Australia.
Third, Perdices has to establish that this Australian citizen he is suing, if ever he exists, is indeed a columnist in the Negros Chronicle.
Fourth, Perdices need has to explain how this Australian citizen became owner of land in the Philippines.
The Negros Chronicle, surprised over the mayors sworn allegations, took it upon itself to inquire with the Australian embassy about this Australian citizen whom the mayor has sued.
The response from the Australian embassy is still being awaited.
Meanwhile, the mayor’s complaint is seeking the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.
An attachment is a remedy where property of the defendant is held by the court while the proceedings are on going to ensure the satisfaction of any judgment of the case.
Perdices’ sworn allegations on the identity of the defendant will have a strong impact on the sufficiency of the basis to issue this writ of attachment.
According to the mayor, since the defendant, aside from being a citizen of Australia, is residing in “2/31 Kensington Road, Summer Hill 2130, New South Wales Australia”, then he does not reside in the Philippines.
According to Perdices, since the defendant Australian Dindo P. Generoso does not reside in the Philippines, then the court should issue a preliminary attachment.
In other words, Perdices would have to invoke his allegations that the defendant is an Australian citizen and that he resides in New South Wales Australia, to help him have the attachment granted.
In fact Perdices executed another sworn statement adopting and incorporating the same allegations in his complaint.
The question is: Are the mayor’s sworn allegations true, or are they lies? Or are they true lies?
Did the mayor lie under oath, in his bid to lead or mislead the court to order an attachment?

My response to the DILG letter

Leopoldo Pol Gravador

Dept. of Interior and Local Gov't

Dumaguete City

Dear Mr. Gravador:

Please allow me to clarify.

First. When I write my opinion and my thoughts, those are merely what they are--- an ordinary citizen’s opinion. I pay my taxes to the government. These taxes go to salaries of government officials like you. So I sincerely believe I have earned the right to comment on the affairs of state.

Second. When I write my thoughts and opinion and argue and debate, I do not look into the personalities and the people who advance contrary opinions or arguments. I only look at the substance of the arguments.

Third. You have an impeccable set of credentials and I believe you are probably one of the most qualified officials in the DILG. Your son Waldemar too (who is a very good friend), has such sterling resume that easily qualifies him certainly to be congressman, senator and even president of the republic one day. And that would be a good thing. But you and your son’s credentials are not the issue. The issue I raised was that the opinion that the ex officio hold over membership in the sanggunian by the liga president is elective, runs afoul to the constitutional principle that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. To me, such an opinion is like a square peg placed on a round hole. To me, it doesn’t fit. To me, it’s incongruous.

Fourth. Nobody ever said or published that you could be liable as co-conspirator. I think it would be too presumptuous for you to claim you are the sole and only DILG officer in the land.

Fifth. I am flattered that you read my blog. For the longest time, I thought only two people read them--- me and my wife. Unfortunately, you misquoted me (wittingly or unwittingly). I never wrote “people from city hall helped draft the opinion of the DILG Operations Officer.”
My blog states: “Personally I can't even rule out the possibility that people from city hall "helped" draft the opinion of the DILG operations officer.” (You subtracted my sentence making out a whole different meaning)
What I blogged was that I cannot remove the lingering disturbances from my mind about the possibility that people from city hall "helped" draft the opinion of the DILG operations officer.”
It is a possibility that still occupies my mind to this day. I laid the basis for my suspicions in my blog. (By the way, not to advertise but for those who care, my blog is at http://jaydejaresco.blogspot.com)
So I never made any accusatory statement.
As you can see, your mis-quote and what was actually published and written are worlds apart. So there is really no basis to feel insulted.
Whether you deliberately mis-quoted me in your letter or not, only you and God know.

Sixth. I agree with you that knowledge of the law is not the monopoly of lawyers. The fact that it was your opinion (and not the DILG region’s) that was published speaks volumes of how highly regarded your opinions are by the Negros Chronicle. It’s just that other people have a contrary opinion.

Finally. Please rest assured that my contrary opinion to yours is not an indictment of your other past opinions and your highly regarded credentials.

Thank you and more power.

Jay Dejaresco

"Insulted" DILG officer writes

The city operations officer of the Department of Interior and Local Governments in Dumaguete City wrote me a letter, saying he feels insulted about my post in this blog. Here is his letter:


5 June 2007

ATTY. JAY I. DEJARESCO
The Negros Chronicle
Piapi, Dumaguete City

Dear Atty. Dejaresco:

This is in connection with your commentary in the Negros Chronicle where you labeled my opinion dated May 24, 2007 as totally inconsistent, simplistic reasoning, fatally flawed, irrelevant, way off tangent, more confusing and devoid of any legal basis.

At the outset, I would like to inform you that I was not asked by legal people from City Hall to write a separate opinion and as explained in my letter, I wrote it because of doubts cited in your paper that I could be liable as co-conspirator for failure to act on an illegal and irregular act.

I do not wish to debate further on the issue. Likewise, the continuous publication of commentaries on the issue would not change anything because “It is a principle widely accepted that the interpretation placed upon a statute by the executive officers whose duty is to enforce it is entitled to great respect by the Courts. Nevertheless, such an interpretation is not conclusive and will be ignored if judicially found to be erroneous” (People vs. Fernandez, 59 Phils. 272) I respectfully suggest that you take the proper action in Court.

I have never asked favors from politicians, editors, and lawyers, and I can not be ordered around to write separate opinions against my wishes and I take it as an insult when you wrote in your blog that “people from City Hall helped draft the opinion of the DILG Operations Officer”. I believe that knowledge of the law (in this case, the Local Government Code) is not a monopoly of lawyers and I also believe that not all commentaries written by lawyers are well founded on the law.

Modesty aside, my lawyer-son, Atty. Waldemar R. Gravador, who graduated Cum Laude, was the Best Debater in the 1994 SU-UP Diliman Grand Debate and got a rating of 86.85% in the bar, respects my knowledge of the Local Government and does not underestimate my being a non-lawyer.

Again, modesty aside, despite my being a non-lawyer, I have written the counter-affidavits of cases against then Mayor Enrique R. Jariol and Antonio D. Tan, and Mayor Antonio D. Renacia, all of Sibulan filed at the Office of the Ombudsman and all those cases were dismissed. I mention this to prove to you that I am capable of writing my own thoughts and opinions.

Thank you!


Leopoldo Gravador
Department of Interior and Local Government
City Operations Officer

Mayor Perdices picks a fight

We don’t know what happened to the mayor of this city, but right after winning the elections, he began picking a fight.
The mayor was displeased with an article that was not about him in the first place.
In this fight mayor Perdices indulged in a lot of pomp and media ceremony.
One Friday noon, with all his vast powers and influence, he herded the local media into his office for a press conference.
Flanked by his high-caliber, high-profile lawyers, the Bejar Nuique Moncada Catacutan Law Office, the mayor sued an Australian citizen who he swears under oath is a Negros Chronicle columnist.
Not only that, the mayor discovered that this Australian citizen owned a piece of land in Taclobo, this city, so he sought the court to have the Australian’s land attached.
This bizarre move sparked a mad scramble in the Chronicle offices as staffers were tasked to make a spot research to see if the constitution had already been changed that it now allows foreigners to own lands in the Philippines.
In the press conference, one of the senior partners of the law office hired by the mayor, dutifully obliged to brandish to the media what appeared to be a copy of the Negros Chronicle, the newspaper that purportedly published the writings of that Australian whom the honorable mayor sued.
The mayor wanted to score in dramatic fashion, both against the Australian, and the newspaper that, according to his oath, carried the Australian's writings.
(Until now, we are still searching for this Australian columnist the mayor has sued)
Since the Chronicle has been dragged into this media frenzy, it has taken occasion to inform the reading public of its position in these kind, amd similar situations.
First, it is a policy of this paper to defend its writers and columnists for their constitutionally protected published writings, articles, columns.
The Chronicle adopts the motto of the military “never to leave a comrade in battle.”
We will assist our fellow press freedom advocates in whatever way we can.
Thus, when press freedom is on the line, no one will see the Negros Chronicle fence-sitting.
Let it be on record that it was the mayor who started this legal fight.
Let it also be on record that it was the mayor who wanted his legal battle to be high-profile.
Why, he even held a press conference just to file a case.
Since the mayor wants his case to be high-profile, the Negros Chronicle will oblige, by covering and reporting blow-by-blow the developments of this case.
That is what the mayor likes.
This is what the mayor gets.