Perdices debuts on witness stand

For the first time last Tuesday December 3, 2008, the city mayor Agustin R. Perdices took the witness stand as complainant-witness int he sala of Judge Antonio Estoconing.
Perdices testified to prove how he was deeply hurt about an article published in the Negros Chronicle, written by columnist Dindo P. Generoso on May 20, 2007, after the May 14, 2007 elections.
Perdices has accused Generoso of abusing his rights when he wrote the hurtful article. He accused Generoso of defamation. He is demanding that Generoso pay him P300,000 pesos in damages.
In his testimony, Perdices said Generoso caused him damage when Generoso, in his column, attributed the loss of Atty. Arturo Umbac in the 2007 mayoral elections to a criminal conspiracy and felonious act of electoral fraud involving Perdices.
Perdices also complained that Generoso had accused him (Perdices) of robbery, by robbing Atty. Umbac of his victory in the elections.
It was a rare privilege to "baptize" Perdices as he debuted on cross-examination.
I am not sure if he enjoyed it as I did. It was fun.
Perdices struggled particularly when he was asked to point out where in the article he based his charges, so as to enable him to extract P300,000 from Dindo Generoso.
He engaged in round-about responses. When pressed, his answer was "You have to read the whole article," or "It is implied."
In other words, one has to resort to imaginations to see the complained defamation.
That is the theory according to Perdices.
He miserably failed to point out in court the defamatory language and words he was accusing Dindo Generos of having written.
The defense here is quite simple: Res Ipsa Loquitor.
The article will speak for itself.
Just to recall, here again is that very article itself.
Kindly read and see if you can find the defamatory and abusive imputations that Perdices is accusing Dindo Generoso of.

"When trends are established in cavassing election returns, it is unlikely that it will change much. It didn't change much for the counsilors as much as it did not for the vice-mayoraltyrace TO THE VERY END. BUT IT DID FOR THE MAYORALTY RESULTS! From LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED VOTES AHEAD, the incumbent's lead streatche dto more than FOUR THOUSAND VOTES AFTER THE COUNTING WAS ILLEGALLY STOPPED FOR AT LEAST TWELVE HOURS WITH A QUICK BROWNOUT TO BOOT.
As if it had no connection to how the people voted for councilors and vice-mayor, it assumed a life of its own. Sec. 231 of the Comelec's RULES OF CANVASSING VOTES is very SPECIFIC in stating "It shall meet CONSINTUOUSLY...until THE CANVASS IS COMPLETE..." offering no allowable excuse why it should be stopped other than running out of votes to be canvassed.
Elections are not ordinary democratic exercises and stopping the canvassing "BECAUSE THE CANVASSERS ARE TIRED..." constitutes no less than tht echoking of democracy and the violation of the sacred right to vote. It needs to be addressed and the perpetrators prosecuted for this criminal offense of desecrating the people's democratic voice and the mockeryh of the electoral process.
The COLLECTIVE GUILT rests on those cnavassers who "became tired..." and the COMELEC officer who allowed the stopping of the canvassing, specifically Sec. 231. Under this rule CANVASSING SHOULD NEVER BE STOPPED! If canvassers get tired, they should be replaced.
"Until this can be sufficiently EXPLAINED, this columnists believes, that Mr. Arturo Umbac has been ROBBED of his apparent road victory in the last elections. The people's VOICE has been clear fromt eh very start of the canvassing; establishing a likely loss of hte incumbent mayhor. it didn't change much for the councilors and the Vice-mayor; IT DID ONLY FOR THE MAYORALTY RESULTS.
Strange huh? It might be good to hear from the father and son team, Lagahit & Lagahit, mayor's sidekick and city legal officer on how this can possibly happen! Will the people of Dumaguete have the political will to correct this apparent choking of democratic rights? Mr. Umbac's resigning not to fight for his rights puts this issue on the people's court. After all it was the people's voice which was baltantly stifled. We can only have what we deserve, right? Have a nice day!"

Perdices and prior restraint

Let me give an update of the defamation case filed by Mayor Perdices against the Australian Dindo P. Generoso.
Mayor Agustin Perdices has foreclosed any settlement of his defamation case against Dindo Generoso during last Thursday’s preliminary conference.
Perdices told the court there wasn’t any settlement because according to him, Dindo Generoso did not comply with his demand that Dindo submit to him a pre-publication draft of Dindo’s column where Dindo was to admit he was wrong.
When I heard this from the mayor, I almost choked.
I thought I would collapse in the courtroom.
Seriously, Perdices may not have realized this but, with all due respect to him, what he demanded was precisely what is abhorred by our constitution.
Our constitutional system prohibits what is called prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an official restriction on free speech prior to publication.
The state, which includes its officials, including mayor Perdices of course, is prohibited from exercising prior restraint.
But this is exactly what Perdices wanted to do. Censorship.
You may not believe it. I couldn’t. But it actually happened.
Perdices wanted a newspaper columnist to submit to him a draft of his article prior to publication!
My goodness.
Perdices wanted to play the role of newspaper editor, and attempted to take over the job editor-publisher publisher Ely P. Dejaresco.
Perdices wanted to make a pre-publication review of the draft of a columnist and see if it meets his approval.
The problem is, even if Perdices applies as editor of the Negros Chronicle., he will not be hired because he is not qualified.
Therefore Perdices, even if he is mayor, and no matter how mighty he thinks of himself, has no business making pre-publication reviews of any article in the Negros Chronicle.
Hands off, Mr. Mayor.
Frankly, I never realized the mayor’s ignorance of the role of a free press in our democratic system.
The last time the state imposed screening restrictions on the press, it was during martial law.
Back in the feudal days where kings ruled, if there had been newspaper men already, then it could have been allowed.
But we live in a different system now.
It is called democracy.
And a mayor is not king. He is supposed to be a “servant of the people” (This is how politicians inaccurately portray themselves during elections: sulugu-on sa haring lungsod ek ek nimo).
I don’t want to say this but I think Perdices’ battery of legal advisers should at least give him a crash lecture on the concept of prior restraint.
Perdices, the client, sounded so funny in court that day.
He did not know what he was talking about.
I really feel sorry for him.

Perdices a good faith liar

While recognizing that indeed mayor Agustin lied under oath, the city prosecutors deaclared these lies were in good faith.
This was the gist of the resolution of the city prosecutors owhich dismissed the perjury charge filed by newspaper columnist Mercedarius Dindo P. Generoso agasint the city mayor.
According to the city prosecutors, the lies made by Perdices were not deliberate.
However, Dindo Generoso said he will seek a reconsdieration of the resolution dismising the perjury charge because the evidence is very clear that Perdices dliberate lied under oath.
Mercedarius Dindo P. Generoso yesterday said he will seek a review of the resolution of the city prosecutors’ office dismissing his two- count complaint of perjury against city Mayor Agustin R. Perdices.
Generoso said despite the dismissal of his perjury complaint, he feels vindicated because the resolution confirmed that mayor Perdices is a liar, and that Perdices lied under oath.
Perdices did not dispute the lies attributed to him.
Perdices was shown to have lied by stating under oath that Dindo is an Australian; that Dindo cannot be found in Dumaguete; that Dindo is not residing in the Philippines.
Perdices used these lies in court, and even sought a preliminary attachment against Dindo’s property in Dumaguete City.
The city prosecutors dismissed the perjury complaint because according to them, Perdices merely lied “in good faith.”
However, Generoso said that the evidence clearly shows that Perdices deliberately lied.
For this reason Generoso said he will ask the city prosecutors to reconsider their resolution, which he was able to get a copy only yesterday.

Half baked resolution
Generoso said he found the prosecutors’ resolution unusual, odd, and half-baked despite the fact that it ostensibly was reviewed by four city prosecutors, namely 4th assistant city prosecutor Leonardo E. Mandahoyan, 3rd assistant city prosecutor Alvin A. Aseniero, 2nd assistant city prosecutor Joseph Arnel M. Zerna, and approved by city prosecutor Adrian C. Borromeo.
Generoso said he found the resolution unusual because it had to be reviewed by four prosecutors.
Despite this supposedly thorough review, the resolution failed to address all the issues raised in his complaint.
For instance, Generoso observed the city prosecutors apparently forgot there were two counts of perjury filed against Perdices.
Perdices already knew about and realized the sworn lies he had made in his first sworn statement, Generoso stressed.
Yet, even already knowing he lied under oath, Perdices still persisted and made a subsequent sworn statement repeating the same lies he made in his previous sworn statement, Generoso added.
“How can that be good faith?” Generoso asked.
Curiously, the resolution which supposedly underwent “thorough review” was eerily silent on this issue, Generoso observed.
Generoso also noted that he and Perdices met here in Dumaguete several times.
Generoso even submitted to the prosecutors photographs evidencing Perdices and himself together.
Yet, the prosecutors still believed Perdices’ claim he was acting in “good faith” when he lied under oath that Generoso cannot be found in the Philippines.
Again, the silence in the resolution on this matter was deafening, Generoso said.
Generoso also expressed disbelief, and amusement in the resolution which stated: “It is generally given that Filipinos who lived abroad (with the exception of overseas contract workers living among others, in the Middle East and in Hongkong) are perceived as having obtained the citizenship of the country where they reside.”
This is absolutely without factual and legal basis, Generoso said.
“This funny statement in the resolution brings dishonor to our great political leaders who had lived abroad but yet maintained their dignity and sense of patriotism by remaining to be Filipino citizens,” Generoso said.
These political leaders who lived abroad include the late President Manuel L. Quezon, Jovito Salonga, Ninoy Aquino, Corazon Aquino (former President), former Senator Heherson Alvarez, the Lopezes of ABS-CBN, Senator Mar Roxas, Senator Noynoy Aquino, to name a few.
“And there are many, many more ordinary Filipinos who reside abroad but did not naturalize,” Generoso said.
“It was amusing to read the resolution which associated living abroad with citizenship change,” Generoso said.
The legal process of naturalization is a complicated, difficult process. It is not even automatic. It cannot be assumed, Generoso added.
One is not naturalized in a foreign country just because he lives there, Generoso maintained.
Yet, the prosecutors, learned men in the law, believed the preposterous if not ridiculous statements of a mayor Perdices, Generoso said.

Inquirer picks up Perdices-Dindo suits

The Inquirer website, a partner of the Philippine Daily Inquirer has picked up the story of the swapping of suits between Dumaguete mayor Agustin Perdices and Negros Chronicle columnist Dindo P. Generoso. The story written by Inquirer Dumaguete correspondent Alex Pal is titled: "Dumaguete journalist, mayor swap civil suits"
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines has also circulated the Inquirer news article in its newsgroups and will shortly post in on its alerts on its website.

Perdices used switched, falsified public document

Contrary to what others may think, the crime of falsification is not limited to forgery.
In our Revised Penal Code, the felony of falsification could also be committed when a person engages in switching of documents.
The switching of a page or pages of a document that would make it appear that a person performed an act, when in truth that person did not perform such act, is criminal.
If the switched document would result in attributing to a person acts or statements other than those made by him in the genuine document, that would also constitute falsification.
For example, a genuine document shows a certain person signing as witness in a public document.
But the falsifier switches that document with another document where it now appears that another person, say Governor Macias, witnessed the execution of the document, instead of that other person, that is falsification of public document.
It is falsification because the falsifier made it appear that Governor Macias signed as witness to the execution of a document, when in truth, he did not.
Not only the actual falsifier is liable, but the one who used such falsified document is criminally responsible.
It would be worse if such falsification is used in judicial proceedings.
Unfortunately, this is what Mayor Agustin Perdices did.
This is what journalist Dindo Generoso discovered in the defamation suit filed by Mayor Agustin Perdices against him (Civil Case 2007-66), pending in the sala of city judge Antonio Estoconing.
Here is what happened.
Mayor Perdices filed an amended complaint against Mercedarius Dindo Generoso sometime in August 2007.
Perdices attached as his Annex “A” a purported two-page contract of services between then Governor George Arnaiz and Dindo Generoso.
The contract shows that the provincial government engaged the services of Dindo as tourism official for the six month period from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007.
However, the second page of the contract, which bore the signatures of the parties, the witnesses, and the notarization, was replaced by another document, completely alien to the contract.
As a result, the signature of Dindo was already different.
As a result, it appears that then Rep. Macias was a witness to the contract. The genuine did not show Macias as witness.
As a result of the falsification, it now appears that the contract was notarized in 2006.
In truth, the document was notarized in the year 2007.
As a result, the signature of Dindo on the second page (the fake page) is different from the signature he affixed on the first, genuine page.
Under oath, Mayor Perdices used such falsified document in his civil suit against Dindo.
Terrible.
Dindo and I just shook our heads.
Worse, during the pre-trial, the copy of the falsified public document was offered to Dindo for admission.
Knowing that the public document was falsified, since the second page was replaced with another alien (fake) page, Dindo of course refused to admit.
Dindo now is challenging Mr. Perdices, and his legal counsels to produce an original of such document, if at all such exists. (Good luck).
If unable to produce, Dindo is set to file criminal charges of falsification of public documents against Perdices and his lawyers.
The rule is that of a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification.
We don’t know how judge Estoconing will appreciate this brazen criminal act before his court. That is his call. It is his court that is being blatantly mocked.
That is not really our utmost concern.
Our concern is on matters of public policy.
Our worry is, since it is our dear Mayor Perdices who is using a falsified document---in a judicial proceeding at that---it makes us wonder.
Are there documents at city hall which are falsified also?
If ordinary citizens deal with city hall, how sure are we that falsified documents are not being used by Mayor Perdices?
How sure are we that Mayor Perdices does not use switched public documents in his dealings at city hall?
We thus deem it our civic duty as journalists to warn fellow citizens.
When you deal with city hall, or with Mayor Perdices for that matter, be wary.
Be on guard against document switching.
What a sad story to tell.

Dindo wants Perdices to Apologize

The pre-trial proceedings in the civil case of Mayor Agustin R. Perdices and Negros Chronicle columnist Dindo Generoso went as scheduled last Wednesday at the sala of city court Judge Antonio Estoconing.
It was by and large an amusing pre-trial session.
By the way, I am acting as Dindo’s counsel for this case. I took personal interest in this case because it is one concerning press freedom.
I have surveyed Philippine jurisprudence on the civil liability of public officials who harass journalists writing for the press, and I have not found one yet, so I view the case as a test which could hopefully enrich jurisprudence.
If you have jurisprudence on this subject, please inform me so we can share it.
As you remember, Mayor Perdices felt he was defamed by an opinion article when Dindo wrote and questioned the canvassing of the mayoral elections.
Mayor Perdices felt the article defamed him, so he sued Dindo ---not for criminal libel--- but for civil defamation and abuse of rights.
Mayor Perdices’ theory is that Dindo Generoso as an opinion writer, abused his rights when he demanded an explanation by the canvassing board, on the counting of votes in the the mayoral elections in 2007 where mayor Perdices was a candidate.
Dindo opined that if he gets no sufficient explanation, he believes that Atty. Art Umbac was robbed of his road to victory in the mayoral elections.
Coming out of nowhere, Mr. Perdices who obviously was not a member of the board of canvassers since he was a candidate himself, sued for defamation perhaps wrongly thinking he was the one made to explain.
Dindo sued Mayor Perdices back for violating Dindo’s constitutional right to write for the press, as a columnist.
Yes, the civil code explicitly holds liable any public official who violates any persons constitutional rights, including the right to press freedom.
It is not true that journalists do not have legal remedy against public officials who them harass in court while they do their jobs. They have. We have.
This is the aspect that interests me about this case.
As a lawyer, I am trying to put a human face to this civil code provision.
Back to the pre trial, the judge as a matter of procedure, asked both Perdices and Dindo if there is a way to settle the case.
I was told by Perdices’ lawyers, Myles Bejar S.U. Dean of the College of law, and brod Lester Nique, that Perdices wants Dindo to make a written apology.
Perdices' offer was that if Dindo apologizes, then Perdices will settle.
Dindo was present in the hearing so I relayed to him what Perdices' offer of settlement was.
Upon hearing this, Dindo almost fell off his chair.
I, too, was amused. Mayor Perdices, after harassing a journalist by filing what many believe is a nuisance suit, now wants the journalist to apologize.
Pasi-aw giyud ning kang Senior Perdices.
Dindo instead told me to tell Senior Perdices that if Perdices will be the one to apologize, then perhaps Dindo will be open to settlement.
So, Mayor Perdices, as Dindo’s messenger, he is asking you to publicly apologize for your harassment acts, because that is an act un-befitting a public servant paid by taxpayers' money. I think the Negros Chronicle will be willing to publish the mayor’s apology free of charge.
Dindo’s offer is indefinite. Mayor Perdices, you may contact Dindo at this number: 225-1825. Para mahusay na ni, the earlier the better.
Everybody happy, including Judge Estoconing kay puntos ni sa iyang case disposals.
Mayor, dunay pa ra ba'y pending perjury complaint batok nimo. Na-ay pa giyu’y falsification of public documents mo-sunod.
Ah, I will write about that falsification public documents, next.

Perjury raps filed against Mayor Perdices

Dumaguete City Mayor Agustin R. Perdices has been charged with two counts of perjury with the Dumaguete City prosecutors office.

The criminal complaint against Mayor Perdices was filed by Mercedarius Dindo Patrimonio Generoso, a Filipino and former Dumaguete city councilor, who also writes a column in the Negros Chronicle, a weekly newspaper.

The criminal charges follows the civil suit for damages also filed by Generoso agasint Mayor Perdices, for violation of a person's constitutional right to press freedom.

Mercedarius Dindo Patrimonio Generoso accused Perdices of lying under oath in his sworn complaint and amended complaint which the mayor filed against Generoso in June and August this year.

According to Generoso, the city mayor is liable for violating Article 183 of the revised penal code entitled 'False testimony in other case and perjury in solemn affirmation'.

Generoso filed the perjury complaint and swore before First Assitant City Prosecutor Ely Escorial.

A person is liable for perjury if he executes a material statement under oath and swears before a notary public wherein he makes a deliberate and willful assertion of a falsehood.

Generoso said the mayor lied in his sworn complaint and amended complaint when he stated that the defendant he was suing was an Australian residing outside, and is not found in the Philippines.

After stating this, Mayor Perdices alleged uner oath that since the defendant is residing outside the Philppines, such circumnstance constitutes a ground for the issuance of a writ of attachment.

Thereafter, in the same sworn statement, mayor Perdices prayed for the issuance of a writ of attachment.

As it turned out, the summons was served upon Generoso, a Filipino and resident of Dumaguete City.

Mayor Perdices validated this service of summons and even alleged later that the Australian defendant he sued, and Generoso the Filipino, are one and the same person.

When these contemptuous acts of the mayor were exposed in the media, mayor Perdices went to court, through his lawyers, and withdrew his application for attachment.

For this Generoso is holding Perdices criminally liable for the blatant acts of mocking, abusing and disrespecting the justice system.

Generoso also said that the act of the mayor and his lawyers of trying to fool the court into issuing an illegal attachment, he will initiate separate contempt proceedings against the mayor and his lawyers.

Their contemptuous acts degrade and impede the administration of justice, Genroso said.

P.3M damage suit filed vs. Mayor Perdices

Dumaguete City Mayor Agustin R. Perdices was slapped with a P.3-million damage suit with the local court here last Tuesday.
Mercedarius Dindo Patrimonio Generoso, a Filipino and Dumaguete resident who writes an opinion for the Negros Chronicle, a 33-year old newspaper in Negros Oriental, filed a civil suit against the Dumaguete mayor for violating his constitutional rights and freedom to write for the press.
Generoso said the suit he filed last Tuesday is the initial salvo of several cases, administrative and criminal, which he is set to file against the mayor with various fora, including the office of the ombudsman.
The suit filed by Mercedarius Dindo P. Generoso is in connection with the earlier civil charges filed by mayor Perdices against an Australian citizen, whom the mayor alleged under oath resides outside the Philippines and is not found in the Philippines.
Yet, to Generoso’s surprise, the summons was mistakenly served upon him and the court directed him to Answer the mayor’s complaint.
The mayor alleged later that this Australian citizen he sued “claimed” to be a Filipino and led or mis-led the provincial government into entering a contract of services with him.
In the contract of services, this Australian citizen, whom the mayor alleged to have “claimed” to be a Filipino, also procured a residence certificate with the Dumaguete City government and came to the Philippines and appeared before, a notary public, Erwin Vergara, documents show.
Then later, Mayor Perdices, in a bizarre twist of his tale, alleged that this Australian citizen and Mercedarius Dindo Patrimonio Generoso, a Filipino, are one and the same person.
Mercedarius Dindo Patrimonio Generoso found the mayor’s sworn allegations ridiculous and contemptuous because he has never been an Australian citizen, and is not the defendant whom the mayor identified under oath in his complaint.
Contrary to the mayor’s allegations, I am not residing outside the Philippines, and I can be found in Dumaguete City, so I cannot be that defendant sued by the mayor, Generoso said.
Instead, it is Mercedarius Dindo Patrimonio Generoso who has been made to answer the mayor’s complaint, not the Australian who according to the mayor, under oath, resides in New South Wales, Australia and is not found in the Philippines.
Because of this harassment acts by the mayor against Generoso as a mediaman, Generoso said he has sued the mayor and is seeking damages for P300,000.00.
He explained that under the civil code, any public official who violates another person’s constitutional rights, such as the right to press freedom, can be held liable for damages.
This is the second suit of such nature filed in Philippine courts of recent recall.
The first was filed by several Manila journalists against First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, which is now pending before a Makati court.
Generoso said he has directed his lawyers to prepare other charges against the mayor before other courts for contempt, and before the office of the ombudsman.

Feedback from a Chronicle reader

A reader of the Negros Chronicle writes his feelings about Dumaguete City mayor Agustin Perdices:

"Dear Negros Chronicle,
I have read regularly your NC in the internet because this is my way of keeping in touch with the city where I grew up. Thanks to your wordwide exposure. My Tita Meling raised me in San Jose Extension and I spent my elementary in West Central and high school in NOHS. This is the first time I am writing to you and I have to say something because I am not happy with Tuting's harassing a media person. I wanted to keep my personal observation to myself but it's hard to let powerful people threaten the only power that the people have---the right to speak.
I try not to be political because I don't have a lot of respect towards politicians who cannot handle criticisms, more so, avoid criticisms. Mayor Perdices is a case in point. As far as I can remember, he's been the mayor (on and off) of Dumaguete for a long, long time. In all his years in office, I observed that he avoids controversies by using his underlings (such as the Vice Mayor and City Legal Officer) to face public scrutiny and legal actions. For example, when his former Vice Mayor and City legal Officer were sued in relation to the closure of lotto outlets in the city, I wondered ngano sila, dili siya? Asa si Tuting? Why is he not taking the burden as mayor of an issue that he strongly talks about? Looy si Ablong ug si Lagahit. At least, Ablong is lucky that he lost. As far as Atty. Lagahit is concerned, I think he likes to be used over and over again. I don't know much about the new Vice Mayor. I hope he will not allow himself to be used like Ablong.
Now, in his questionable last term, he sued an Australian citizen. For a person who avoids controversies, filing a case against a media person looks foolish. Interestingly, he backed down? Bason napikon lang. Ngano man? Again, it shows that he cannot stomach a criticism. Maybe, it's more than just criticism. Perhaps, there is a truth to the allegation that he really lost the election. That's why he sued. Of course, we can't know it unless the COMELEC investigates the brown-outs, stoppage of vote counting, and the surge of his lead against Umbac after the power was restored and the counting was restarted.
The truth is a lot of Dumaguetenos are already tired of the rise of ciminality, drug problems, unsolved crimes in the city that even Umbac can beat Tuting in an honest election. A former elementary teacher of mine confided to me that actually Umbac won the election but lost the counting. Looy si Umbac apan he deserves to lose by not fighting on. I am not happy with Tuting but I am not happy with Umbac either. Dumaguete has words for it: Wa'y baruganan!.
Tuting is Tuting. Expecting him to change is like expecting a tiger to lose its stripes. He will be known in Dumaguete and the internet world as a mediocre politician in his sunset years with a questionable last term mandate who would rather harass a media person for an unfounded lousy reason rather than dedicate his precious time solving the homicide and murder cases in the city. I am sad to say that as of now, I am hopeless but as long as the media continue to speak and protect our rights to express ourselves, then there might be some hope for us.Go NC for your steadfastness in protecting the right to speak!
H. Albrido"

Perdices suit referred to national press watchdogs

The Negros Chronicle has referred the defamation suit filed by Dumaguete City mayor Agustin Perdices against an Australian newspaperman to the nation's top press freedom watchdogs in Manila.
Earlier this week, Chronicle associate editor Jay Dejaresco met with Jose L. Pavia, executive director of the Philippine Press Institute and coordinator of the Freedom Fund For Filipino Journalists, and relayed the latest happenings affecting press freedom in Negros Oriental.
Dejaresco also submitted to Pavia a brief of the defamation suit filed by mayor Perdices.
Dejaresco reported to Pavia the serious press freedom implications of the mayor's suit as it attempted to use court attachment remedies as another legal tool to harass journalists.
Pavia welcomed the report and said incidents seen as threats and dangers to journalists will be disseminated to practicing newsmen all over the country, so they will be made aware.
In the case of Perdices, he attempted to have the Dumaguete land of the Australian citizen he sued attached by the court.
In his effort to deprive the journalist of his property and full ownership rights, Perdices alleged patent lies under oath in his complaint.
For instance, Perdices alleged in his complaint that the Australian he sued was a columnist of the Negros Chronicle.
The Negros Chronicle has denied it as any Australian citizen who writes in the paper.
Perdices also under oath told the court that the Australian is a Dumaguete land owner.
In truth, the land referred to is owned by a Filipino.
In the Philippines, a foreigner is prohibited from owning land.
Dejaresco pointed out that there may be many other public officials or high handed plaintiffs who sue journalists for defamation, and are so brazen as to undermine and mock the judiciary by lying under oath, in their bid to attach journalists' properties.
Pavia meanwhile, underscored the need for vigilance on the part of journalists as they pursue their profession.
Otherwise, Pavia said, journalists might wake up one day only to find out they have suddenly lost their property rights.
He also noted that court attachment proceedings can be done without the knowledge of the defendant-journalists, the process being "ex parte".
In Perdices' case, he subsequently withdrew his own attachment bid after the Chronicle raised questions on the veracity of his sworn allegations, which was to be the basis for having the attachment granted by the court.
Perdices has not given any iota of proof of the citizenship of the person he sued, or that such Australian even exists.
Perdices has not substantiated his sworn allegations pointing to the Australian address.
This allegation would have been important in establishing non-residence of the defendant in the Philipines.
Rules on attachment require that the defendant be a non-resident of the Philippines.
The Negros Chronicle has also submitted a report of the Perdices suit to the National Union of Journalists of the Philipines (NUJP).
Next week, the Chronicle will submit a similar report to the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) in Makati.

Public resources, personal agenda

The holding of press conferences has taken a different complexion lately.
When I was active in attending press conferences usually initiated by government officials and public offices, it was meant to highlight a significant public policy or a major directional development in the area of governance, or to receive a guest of national prominence.
But lately, the purpose of press conferences was reduced to becoming a forum for insignificant chit-chats, and personal agenda, and vendettas.
This was evident when Mayor Agustin Perdices held a press conference a few weeks ago.
The main, if not sole subject of the press conference was to announce that the mayor, was suing an Australian citizen for defamation.
Taken in that perpective, the press conference was perhaps justified as it recorded a "first" in the mayor's life---suing a journalist for the first time.
Perhaps, the mayor thought anything that happens for the first time deserves some pomp and ceremony, just like the first time that a baby could walk, the first birthday, the first hair-cut, the first graduation, the first piano recital.
So the mayor perhaps thought that his first time to file a case, by himself, must have a grand media attention.
So he gathered the local media to his office to make this historic and "earth-shaking" announcement.
However, from the media's perspective, is the "mayoral milestone" really that significant that it deserves a press conference?
I must tell that my uncle Peter almost fell off his chair upon learning that the mayor of Dumaguete was holding a press conference, the sole purpose of which was to announce he was filing a case against a foreigner.
"That's the only agenda of the press conference?" my bewildered uncle asked.
For me, I really don't take it against the mayor for holding that press conference.
The mayor is an influential and powerful government official.
He can gather the media in a snap, because the local media want to listen to what he has to say, significant or insignificant, mudane or esoteric.
Notably, to emphasize that the press conference was just about his filing of a case, the mayor had the media accompany him to the hall of justice so he could pose while personally filing the case.
I will have to say though, that the mayor took it to the extreme when he had to hold a press conference about a matter that many people really don't care about.
But that's his call.
My problem with the mayor's action is that he held a press conference about a matter that was personal, and not official.
The subject of the press conference was the mayor's filing a defamation suit.
Defamation, libel are laws designed to protect a person's PRIVATE reputation.
I read the mayor's complaint, and the article he was complaining about touched on his candidacy for mayorship, and not being the mayor.
Therefore, there was nothing official, or anything that related to public policy and governance in that press conference, except the mayor's personal hurt, vengeance, and rantings against a foreign newspaper writer.
If the press conference was about a matter personal only to the mayor, that did not involve matters on the welfare and safety of the constituents, why hold that press conference at the mayor's office, during office hours, and with the attendance of the mayor's subodinates like the city legal officer?
For me, that press confrerence was no different from using government vehicles on Sundays to go marketing or going to the beach, or to fetch their children from school.
That is using public resources for personal ends.
The mayor did not draw the line between his personal, from his official concerns.
If the leader of the city government has no qualms about using public resources to advance his personal interests, and for personal gains (what gain will his personal rantings give to Dumaguetenos?), then we cannot discount the possibility that other city officials will do the same.
Other city officials, and employees will just "follow the leader."
Can we blame them?
I am reminded of that city official who admitted under oath that he used a government vehicle to play tennis.
Do you believe in the saying that birds of the same feather flock together?
If mayor Perdices had to hold a press conference, it would have been proper and legal to hold it in a private place, say in McDonald's, Jollibee, Chiquiting's Scooby's, or if he wanted it to be more sophisticated, maybe in some fancy restaurant, or if he wanted to save costs, maybe in Ma Mia restaurant.
But not in city hall and certainly not in the office of the mayor because that sacred office belongs to the sovereign people, and it is an office for more important public transactional and policy matters.
I saw on t.v. the city legal officer attending that personal press conference. What was he doing there?
Do his official duties now include attending to the mayor's personal legal concerns, as against the paying public's legal concerns?
Public office is a public trust.
Public office is not to be used to advance personal interests.
As a citizen I demand that city hall, and the mayor's office, be used strictly to advance the interests of all Dumaguetenos, not as a venue for the mayor to demand apologies for his personal hurts.
Do that somewhere else mayor, please.
That is why our laws against graft and corruption prohibit the use of public resources for one's personal gain.
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6713 establishing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standard for public officials, provides:
"Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues."
Next time, we hope the mayor would be more circumspect and more prudent by drawing the line between public concern and his own private concern.
Good, not crooked leadership-by-example is the key issue.
Otherwise, the people would not tolerate it anymore and will hold him legally accountable for using public resources for his private, personal interests.

Judge orders service of summons

The case filed by Dumaguete city mayor Agustin Perdices has been raffled to the sala of presiding Judge Antonio Estoconing of the municipal trial court in cities.

His first order contains notations of the pre-mptive withdrawal by mayor Perdices of his prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendant Australian, Dindo P. Generoso.

What strikes me in the judge's order is his comments that although it was a voluntary withdrawal by Mayor Perdices, the judge apparently made a comment stating that no attachment was forthcoming.

I am referring to the judge's statement in the order dated June 12, 2007 which says, "Anyway the the withdrawal of the provisional remedy is the prerogative of the plaintiff, but just the same, the Writ of Preliminary Attachment, under the rules may not be granted to him as the facts and information obtaining in the situation witholds it from the plainitff."

Another thing that strikes me in the order is the directive for the isusance and service of the summons to the defendant.

If you would notice in the lower portion of the order , the judge categorically directed that copies of the June 12, 2007 order be furnished to the defendant Dindo P. Generoso specifically to his address at 2/31 Kensington Road, Summer Hill 2130, New South Wales Australia.

Thus, the summons should be served in said address, as even a copy of the June 12, 2007 order of the judge is to be served upon the defendant to the same address.

Besides, this is the address given by the plaintiff under oath.

The Empire Strikes Back

City strikes back at the Chronicle

The mayor’s political henchmen have gone to work and have staged a basklash against the Negros Chronicle and the people behind this paper.
This is the result, after the Negros Chronicle, and its writers ran a series of stories, articles and commentaries unfavorable to Mayor Agustin Perdices and his lieutenants.
This has been seen as an obvious attempt to purge and punish the Negros Chronicle for writing pieces not to the liking of the powers-that-be at city hall.
One of the mayor’s foot-soldiers, the controversial Harrison Gonzales, who himself has been underfire for his ignominious unliquidated cash advances from the peoples’ pockets, has directly accused the publisher of the Negros Chronicle, and his entire family including myself, of committing the crime of TAX EVASION.
In Harrison Gonzales’ privilege speech, Mayor Perdices’ trusted and loyal man-Friday at the city council, he said:

"Moreover, they have been wrongly intimating the fact that I seemingly, do not have respect for the law, that I should step down, I want to hurl back the same suggestion to them. I also urge them to show respect for the law by paying the forty-five thousand nine hundred and twenty-two pesos and fifty centavos (P45,922.50) which they owe the city government in amusement taxes. I understand that a member of the Dejaresco family was responible for leading the group named Bell Tower Productions which sponsored the Christian Bautista concert in 2005, and whose amusement taxes to the government has remained unpaid till now. By not paying, they are openly cheating and shortchanging the city government of Dumaguete of the much needed revenue. This is a clear case of tax evasion."

Although not mentioning me by name, he specifically referred to me as the writer and member of the Dejaresco family who wrote the article “ABC vacancy in the city council.”
That sufficiently identifies me because my by-line is seen below the title of the article in the May 20, 2007 issue of the Chronicle.
To accuse a person and his family of tax evasion is a serious public and malicious imputation of a crime.
Gonzales made the privilege speech after the article unfavorable to him was published.
The malice of Gonzales is patent because he is fully aware and even studied the request of Bell Tower Productions for a reduction of their amusement tax payables.
I speak for my family Harrison Gonzales has falsely accused.
None of us have committed the crime of tax evasion against the city government.
Tax evasion is a crime and punishable because it is a taxpayer’s insidious, deceitful, efforts to evade, hide, and escape payment of taxes which are due the government.
A common example of tax evasion is the maintenance of two accounting books for one’s business---one reflecting the true account, the other “para sa B.I.R.”
None in our family has ever tried to deceive the city government with respect to taxes.
What is the basis of Mayor Perdices’ favorite councilor to accuse us of tax evasion?
They dug into the files of the city treasurer’s office.
And they found the unpaid tax liability of Bell Tower Productions in the amount of P45,922.50.
Bell Tower Productions is an un-incorporated concert production entity which promoted the concert of Christian Batustia in 2005.
The young men and women behind Bell Tower Productions included Jeffrey Real and his wife Marilen D. Real, daughter of Ely P. Dejaresco, publisher of the Negros Chronicle.
Bell Tower Productions reported to the city treasurer its inability to pay all the amusement taxes because the Christian Bautista concert did not generate the estimated tickets sales.
Bell Tower Productions thus requested for a reduction of the amusement tax to five percent, which the city government rejected.
Bell Tower Productions reported to the city treasurer’s office the actual, and true financial statement of the concert.
Bell Tower Productions had ALL the tickets stamped by the city treasurer’s office.
One member of the Bell Tower Productions was told by somebody from the city treasurer’s office that concerrt organizers and promoters almost always try not to have all the concert tickets stamped so they would pay less amusement taxes.
That is the usual practice by most concert promoters, according to a source from the city treasurer’s office itself.
But Bell Tower Productions refused this illegal practice and would rather report everything to the government and have all the tickets stamped.
True enough, Bell Tower Productions was able to uncover and possess tickets of other concerts which did not bear any stamp from the city treasurer’s office.
Bell Tower Productions still has these tickets as evidence.
This prompted Bell Tower Productions to inquire from the city treasurer’s office why there were tickets of other concerts that did not have any stamp from their office.
If there is no stamp, then there is no way the government would know exactly the number of tickets sold.
In order to evade the payment of the correct taxes, some concert promoters only declare and submit to the city treasurer’s office far fewer tickets, than what is actually sold to the public.
As a result, the government is paid far less than what is actually due.
That is how cheating is done with respect to evading the payment of amusement taxes.
Until now the city treasurer’s office has not responded to our query.
So where is the tax evasion, when Bell Tower Productions reported everything to the city treasurer’s office?
Tax evasion is hiding, and deceiving the government in order to evade the payment of the correct taxes.
On the contrary, Bell Tower Productions reported everything to the city treasurer, and even rejected the idea of mis-declaring the number of tickets sold.
If a person is unable to pay his tax after reporting a loss, that is not tax evasion.

Gonzales, a law-maker, should know that.
If the city treasurer’s office intends to single out Bell Tower Productions, then we suggest that the city treasurer comply with the procedures and remedies laid down in the local government code in collection of local taxes.
But before it singles out Bell Tower Productions, the city treasurer should first respond to our request since long ago for documents and information about the other concerts held in Dumaguete, particularly why some of their tickets do not bear the government stamps.
All relevant documents and correspondences of Bell Tower Productions is posted in my blog at http://www.jaydejaresco.blogspot.com/
But what is ridiculous is Harry Gonzales’ desperate imputation of the crime of tax evasion not only upon Bell Tower Productions, but also to the other relatives of Bell Tower members who have nothing to do with Bell Tower Productions in the first place, like the publisher of this paper and myself.
After falsely and maliciously accusing Bell Tower Productions of committing tax evasion, Gonzales proceeded to accuse family members of tax evasion too.
In the mind of Gonzales, if Juan shoots Pedro, then homicide charges should be filed against Juan’s father, Juan’s brother and the rest of the members of Juan’s family.

Harry should stop getting (il)legal advise from that corrupt, crooked and hare-brained lawyer, who has an axe to grind against this paper.
It’s for Harry’s own good.

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?

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.