gmanews.tv | Live from the Palace: A new transparency

Live from the Palace: A new

transparency

ALAN C. ROBLES

08/12/2009 | 02:31 PM

HUMOR ME: A new column that takes a satirical look at the Philippines’ real state of the nation.

TV anchor: Hello to all our viewers out there. We're coming live from the Palace, where the administration is about to announce what it says will be a dramatic newshift in its stance towards the media. It has promised that today it will fully answer and explain everything that the public and the press have been asking about. And let me tell you, it's going to be a change from the usual policy of not answering anything at all... Wait, here comes the spokesperson now, let's focus the camera on him...

Spokesperson: Good afternoon, everybody, we've all asked you to attend this gathering because we have an important announcement to make. In light of all the unfair criticisms and destructive remarks being made against this administration, we have decided to adopt a new media policy that, we feel, will totally address all these questions that have been raised for so many years. So let's start, first question?

Reporter No. 1: That's good to hear sir. Can you start by telling us if there's any truth to the charges that the President and cronies ran up a huge dinner bill abroad in Ristorante Costa Plente?

Spokesperson: It's a communist plot. Next question please.

Reporter No 1: Wait, don't you want to add details to your reply?

Spokesperson: Oh, yes, right. It's CLEARLY a communist plot. Is that detailed enough? Next question.

Reporter No 2: What about all these stories that the President plans to stay forever in power, that the president goes around the Palace touching the walls saying “hehehe, you're mine forever?"

Spokesperson: A communist plot.

Reporter No 2: Anything else?

Spokesman: A dastardly communist plot clearly bent on undermining the fabric of our democratic republic. Next question.

Reporter No 3: Can you comment on allegations that the President's family as well as members of the Cabinet have all become so rich that they play Monopoly with real property?

Spokesperson: What can I say, it's a communist plot. A disgusting, diabolical communist plot.

Reporter No 3: It's a communist plot that they've become rich?

Spokesperson: Who knows how these filthy communists work? Their agitation propaganda is really insidious.

Reporter No 4: What can you say about rumors that only textmates of the President will qualify for the National Artist award?

Spokesperson: You know what I'm going to say, right?

Correspondent: Uh, it's a communist plot?

Spokesperson: You see it too! Next question.

Reporter No 5: What can you say about government's efforts to deal with the destruction wrought by the consecutive typhoons.

Spokesperson: At last a question that allows me to demonstrate the work this government is doing in the face of the massive damage wrought by a clearly communist plot.

Reporter No 5: Are you saying the typhoon was caused by communists?

Spokesperson: I'm not pointing fingers but I think the evidence is overwhelming. Next question.

Reporter No 6: Excuse me sir, is the aircon working? Why is it so hot in the room?

Spokesperson: It's a communist plot!

Reporter No 6: No, no, we're just saying there seems to be a problem with the aircon.

Spokesperson: And I'm saying it's all a communist plot! It's clear that the communists have poisoned all your minds! You're all communists! All of you!

Reporter No 5: Are you OK sir?

Spokesperson: (starts raving) Papa Ferdie! Papa Ferdie! There are communists in the room! They're under my bed! Help! Storm troopers! Seal the Palace! The red menace attacks! Arggh!

Reporter No 6: His brain exploded! That's incredible!

Reporter No 1: Why?

Reporter No 6: I didn't think he had a brain.

TV Anchor: And that wraps up the administration's press con. - GMANews.TV

Foggy financial history of Gloria Arroyo

Foggy financial history of Gloria Arroyo

Multimillion pesos of net growth in stocks, real assets, cash on hand (or in bank), and other personal properties could not be accounted for in the statements of assets and liabilities and net worth (SALNs) that President Gloria Arroyo filed from 1992 to 2008.

With expert help from tax analysts and fund managers, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism mapped President Arroyo’s financial history in the last 17 years she served as senator, then vice president, and finally, President.

The findings:

1992: Mrs. Arroyo declared a P243,936 car loan but acquired no new car. The value of her cars (P800,000) remained the same from 1991. She reported that a residential lot in Antipolo booked at P94,000 but with fair market value of P1.75 million was a “gift purchased” since 1986. Mrs. Arroyo used the term, “pro-divided,” for her pricey house and lot in Baguio City.

1994: The sources of Mrs. Arroyo’s net cash inflow of P595,572 could not be accounted for. The amount includes car loan payment of P533,791, additional P57,411 cash in bank, and P4,347 more in law books.

1995: Mrs. Arroyo declared variable fair market values for the house and lot in Baguio City that she acquired in 1977 for P350,000. In 1991, she said the “pro-divided” property’s fair market value was P14.9 million. In 1992-94, she said it dipped to P4.9 million. In 1995, she raised it to P27 million, for a 450-percent increase in value in just one year. In 1996-2008, she said the property’s value had risen to P67.9 million.

1995: Mrs. Arroyo sold two pieces of property—a residential lot in Las Piñas that she acquired in 1989 for P86,715, but which she said had fair market value that year of P922,500; and an island in Cagayan that she said she acquired in 1970 for P8,000 but did not quote any fair market value.

1995: Mrs. Arroyo bought two pieces of real estate—an agricultural lot in Bulacan for P1.17 million, and a commercial lot in Tayabas, Quezon, for P1 million, but reported no sales or cash inflow amounting to P2.27 million. In addition, she paid P238,010 in car loan, and reported P100,468 more cash on hand/in bank and P500,000 more in stocks. But she reported a P580 decline in the value of her jewelry (P950,580 in 1994, down to P950,000 in 1995).

1995: Mrs. Arroyo’s property purchases and net cash inflow totaled P3.95 million. If she sold the Las Piñas lot at fair market value of P922,500, she should have disposed the island in Cagayan at multiple times its acquisition value of P8,000 to account for her big net cash inflow.

1996: Mrs. Arroyo reported no property sale or cash inflows to account for P2,538,000 in new acquisitions—P1,458,910 worth of additional stocks (P5.8 million in 1996 from P4.4 million in 1995); P180,000 more for race horses (P420,000 from P240,000 in 1995); P148,742 additional cash on hand/in bank (P704,540 from P555,798); P650,000 more in appliances/furniture and office equipment; and P100,000 more in law books.

1997: Mrs. Arroyo bought an agricultural lot in Nasugbu, Batangas, for P550,000 and declared its fair market value at P1.5 million for a 200-percent increase in the same year.

1997: There are no property sales or cash inflows to account for Mrs. Arroyo’s new acquisitions of P5,107,964, and payment of P341.434 in car loan. Apart from the purchase of the Nasugbu lot, her net cash inflow consisted of P2.2 million more cash on hand/in bank (P2,860,711 in 1997, from only P704,540 in 1996); P180,000 more in race horses; P250,000 more worth of jewelry; P150,000 more in appliances and furniture; P900,000 more in law books; P141,090 more in stocks; P399,000 more in cars; and P1.27 million she spent for improvements on her lot in Nasugbu, Batangas; her house and lot in Baguio; and a condominium unit in Ayala.

1997: For the first time, Mrs. Arroyo declared “inherited properties in the process of transfer,” following the death of her father, former President Diosdado Macapagal. In 1997, she booked this item at P5.4 million. She continued to enroll it among her “personal and other properties” until 2008, or for 11 years’ running.

A tax analyst could not figure out why: “It is noteworthy that ‘Inherited Properties in process of transfer’ appears on the personal property column. Properties that are subject to registration are normally real property and shares of stock.”

“These assets started appearing starting 1997 [up to 2008],” the analyst said. “It cannot be land [since it appears in the personal property side]—if it is not land, what is taking them so long to put it in their name?”

1998: There are no sales or cash inflows to account for acquisitions of P10.4 million, including P207,508 improvements on the Ayala condominium; P3.03 million more cash on hand and in bank; P800,000 more in jewelry; P1 million more in law books; P5 million more in stocks; and P1.08 million more in cars.

1999: Mrs. Arroyo’s cash on hand/in bank declined by P2.07 million. But she reported acquiring P500,000 more in jewelry; P3 million more of stocks; and reported “inherited properties in process of transfer, Diosdado Macapagal Sr. and Evangelina M. Macapapagal” at a bigger value of P7.43 million.

2000: Mrs. Arroyo sold her Ayala condominium that she said had fair market value of P23.4 million, and which she reportedly acquired for P619,625 in 1980. Minus the 6-percent capital gains tax on fair market value, her net proceeds would be P12,604,695. Her cash on hand/in bank, however, went up by P32.6 million. Minus the money she raised from the Ayala condominium, Mrs. Arroyo’s net cash inflow of P19.95 million could not be accounted for.

2001: President Arroyo stopped listing three companies she reported in her statements of assets and liabilities from 1992 to 2000 in which her husband, Mike Arroyo, had business interests or financial connections. These are the LTA Inc. (real estate) and LTA Realty (real estate agent), both based in Makati City, and JJ Agricultural Corp. (agricultural family business) based in Bacolod City. From 1992 to 1999, President Arroyo said her husband was also involved in Aviatica Travel (travel agent) and the Arroyo Law Office.

2001: In the next seven years or 2007, President Arroyo enroled not a single company in which she or her husband had any business interests or financial connections.

2001: Mrs. Arroyo’s stocks suddenly went missing. It was last booked at P7.5 million in 2000. In the next four years, or until 2005, President Arroyo declared zero stocks. This would return in a huge way in 2006—already worth P55 million.

2001: President Arroyo’s cash on hand/in bank went up by P 17.95 million (up P54.3 million, from just P36.4 million in 2000). Her “inherited properties in process of transfer” declined in value to P1.4 million, from P5.4 million in 2000.

2001: President Arroyo reduced by half the value of jewelry (P1.2 million) and kept this figure unchanged in the next two years. In 2004, she said her jewelry nearly tripled in value to P3.4 million, a figure that would remain static in her next five annual statements of assets and liabilities.

2001: The horses (last booked at P600,000) suddenly disappeared from her statement of assets and liabilities. If she had given the horses to her sons, without any cash exchange, then she did not raise additional money at all but should have paid donor’s taxes. If she sold the horses, she would have raised P600,000 at least to make up for the increase in her cash assets, but should have also paid capital gains taxes. Whether or not her husband disposed of his shareholdings in the three companies his wife had listed in prior years is unclear from the president’s statements of assets and liabilities. If he did, the proceeds should have been reflected in the president’s succeeding statements, and her husband should have paid capital gains taxes.

2005: President Arroyo bought a piece of raw land in Coron, Palawan supposedly for P2.05 million, but did not indicate its fair market value.

2006: Mrs. Arroyo’s personal assets went up by P 9,303,564.41, her stocks surged all too suddenly to P55.7 million, but her cash on hand/in bank made a big dip of P44,254,143, and her notes payable rose to P2.14 million. In 2005, she reported having cash on hand/in bank of P55,483,015, and the next year, reported this to have thinned to P11.23 million.

2007: President Arroyo’s assets went up by P 7.72 million. She purchased a fishpond in Malolos, Bulacan at book value of P507,800 and again did not indicate its fair market value. Her stocks increased by P7.2 million, even as she did not at this time enroll any companies in which she or her husband had any shareholdings. Her cash on hand/in bank declined by just P37,981, or from P11,228,872 million in 2006 to P11,266,853.

2008: President Arroyo reported record net growth in cash and assets of P45.06 million. This included P26.18 million in additional cash on hand/in bank (P37.45 million, or thrice more than the P11.27 million she declared in 2007); and additional stocks of P51.88 million (P110.47 million in 2008, from P62.91 million in 2007). Mrs. Arroyo also reported taking out a P33-million loan (notes payable) but did not say from which bank or entity.

2008: Mrs. Arroyo sold her agricultural lot in San Rafael, Bulacan, signing with the First Gentleman the deed of sale on December 23, 2008. President Arroyo said she acquired the 2.9-hectare agricultural lot in 1995 for P1.2 million, but said its fair market value by 2007 was only P4.7 million. This is based on her statements of assets and liabilities. In the deed of sale, the President’s husband said he bought the land in 1996 for only P100,000. The Arroyos sold the lot for P41.5 million, or nearly 10 times more than the declared fair market value of the lot nestled in the foothills of the Sierra Madre.

By Malou Mangahas
The Manila Times
Posted 08/10/2009

INQUIRER | Activists storm Palace gates; 20 arrested

INQUIRER HEADLINES - NATION

Activists storm Palace gates; 20 arrested Tina Santos Rem Zamora Philippine Daily Inquirer August 20, 2009 MANILA, Philippines—Those pricey dinners left a bad taste—and an ooze of blood—in the mouth of student activists Wednesday. Militant youth groups denouncing the Arroyo administration’s “excessive” spending, including the costly restaurant meals that she and her party had during a recent visit to the United States, breached Malacañang gates on Wednesday and provoked a brief but violent clash with Palace guards. Authorities arrested at least 20 protesters out of the estimated 200 students who used side streets to sneak past a police outpost at the historic Mendiola Bridge and staged a lightning rally at Malacañang’s Gate 7. Witnesses said some students emerged bloodied in the mouth upon contact with blocking forces from the Manila Police District (MPD) and the Presidential Security Group (PSG). The demonstrators included members of Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students (LFS), Student Christian Movement of the Philippines (SCMP), and College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP). Arrested were students from Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), University of the Philippines (UP)-Diliman and a high school student. Over in minutes The students managed to hold a sit-in rally in front of Gate 7, an opening facing Mendiola, before breaking through at around 11 a.m. They were initially blocked by less than 10 MPD and PSG members. Within minutes, reinforcements increased the Palace guards to a phalanx of about 30. The dispersal lasted only about 10 minutes. The arrested students were first brought to Ospital ng Maynila for medical checkup, then later to the MPD headquarters on UN Avenue where they were detained on charges of illegal assembly. Interviewed two hours after the violent dispersal, SCMP chair Cristina Guevarra said 17 of her arrested colleagues suffered mild to serious physical injuries. Rally resumed Guevarra was leading about 50 protesters—or what remained of the original assembly—who by then had resumed their protest rally in front of the MPD compound, this time to demand the release of their peers. Guevarra identified the arrested students as Mark Gil Gamido (Anakbayan-Culiat High School); Likha Gaia Flores and Karl Villasenor (Anakbayan); Jessa Dulay (LFS); Yasmin Ongay, Charmaine Guevarra, Lia Torres (Anakbayan UP-Diliman); Absolom Eligio, Allan de Guzman, Warren Gutierrez, Michael Non (LFS UP-Diliman); Abriel Mansilungan (Kabataan Partylist-PUP); Giemma Canalis and Kimberly Salas (SCMP-PUP); Elvin Rillo (PUP); Lea Jamayan (LFS-PUP); Anna Usabel Manalang and Andrew Alejo (Anakbayan-PUP); Nida Grefaldo and Anton Perdigon (CEGP). ‘What maximum tolerance?’ Negotiations for the release of the 20 students were still ongoing at press time. “We just want her (President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) to step down. We are here to condemn corruption amid so much poverty. Corruption is their response instead of doing something to alleviate Filipinos from poverty,” Guevarra told the Inquirer. “They suddenly hit us with truncheons the moment they saw us in Malacañang. I thought they were supposed to observe maximum tolerance,” Anakbayan-PUP chair Chaser Soriano added in Filipino. The PSG declined to comment on the violent dispersal. Press Secretary Cerge Remonde and deputy presidential spokesperson Anthony Golez did not reply to Inquirer’s calls. Under fire Malacañang has come under fire in the past two weeks over reports that lavish spending surrounded Ms Arroyo’s visit to the United States for a long-sought meeting with President Barack Obama. Church and opposition leaders have since slammed the President for extravagance and insensitivity amid widespread poverty in the country and the global economic crisis. Critics have pounced mainly on the $20,000 (about P1 million) dinner tab she and her entourage of mostly lawmakers picked up at the classy Le Cirque restaurant in New York and another dinner, costing the equivalent of P750,000, in Washington, DC. Apparently reeling from this public backlash, the Palace early this week canceled a plan to buy a new P1.2-billion presidential jet. With a report from TJ Burgonio

Youth groups launch the 1M New Voters, 1 Pledge campaign

Isang milyong kabataan. Isang panata para sa pagbabago.

Titiyakin natin na magkaroon ng isang milyong bagong kabataang botante sa buong bayan na magpaparehistro para bumoto. Panata ito na determinado, seryoso, at sama-samang aabutin ng kabataan at bayan.

Kolektibong boses, sama-samang panata.

TAKE THE PLEDGE!!!
CLICK HERE

Arroyo nearly declared martial law ---inquirer.net

WHAT WENT BEFORE

Arroyo nearly declared martial law

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:49:00 08/13/2009

MANILA, Philippines—On July 9, Pangasinan Rep. Jose de Venecia told the Rotary Club of Manila that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo could declare martial law should the campaign for Charter change fail.

“If they are unable to get the three-fourths vote necessary to amend the Constitution, their ... fallback position is to declare martial law,” he told an audience that included the ambassadors of Germany, Italy, Indonesia, Thailand, India and Pakistan.

De Venecia, a close Arroyo ally until he was removed as Speaker of the House in a Palace-backed coup last year, had earlier told Inquirer editors and reporters that Ms Arroyo came close to declaring martial law during the November 2007 siege of Peninsula Manila led by Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, and that he was asked by Malacañang at the time to seek US support.

He later corrected himself and said the plan to impose martial law was broached in 2005 at the height of the national crisis triggered by the “Hello Garci” election fraud scandal.

Intimate knowledge

On July 22, speaking before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, former Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz backed De Venecia’s statements.

“What I can say is that indeed, [Speaker De Venecia] has intimate knowledge of these events,” Cruz said, adding that he had also heard former Ambassador to the United States Albert del Rosario narrate on TV a similar version of events taking place “in the last quarter of 2005.”

De Venecia and Cruz cited similarities between the current national situation and that in 1972. Cruz noted that Ferdinand Marcos was also nearing the end of his term when he declared martial law; De Venecia warned that events such as the escalation of bombings and a failure of the 2010 elections could trigger a martial law declaration.

Early last month, bomb explosions rocked Jolo and the cities of Cotabato and Iligan, killing a total of eight people, including a year-old boy, and injuring scores of others.

Calibrated preemptive response

The “Hello Garci” controversy spawned not only the biggest threat to the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration but also three measures that led to fears of a second martial law era.

On June 6, 2005, in order to preempt an alleged opposition plot, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye played to reporters two CDs of purported taped conversations between Ms Arroyo and then Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano on the rigging of the results of the May 2004 presidential polls.

Ms Arroyo subsequently apologized to the nation on TV, saying she was the woman talking to an election official whom she did not name. But she denied attempting to rig the election results, saying she was only anxious to protect her votes in light of the slow canvassing.

The revelation of the tapes led to Congress hearings and street protests. On Sept. 21, 2005, incidentally also the 33rd anniversary of the declaration of martial law, Malacañang announced a “calibrated preemptive response (CPR) in lieu of maximum tolerance” in dealing with protests without permits.

The announcement was made amid reports of purported destabilization attempts.

EO 464

A week later, Ms Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 464 barring government executives and police and military officials from testifying at Congress hearings without her consent.

It drew overwhelming opposition even from her allies in Congress.

Lawmakers said EO 464 could be part of the administration’s push for a unicameral Congress, or a means to maintain the loyalty of the military and the Cabinet to ensure Ms Arroyo’s political survival.

The opposition called it a manifestation of her “paranoia.”

Opposition and administration senators, along with other groups, questioned EO 464’s legality in the Supreme Court.

In January 2006, the five House committees investigating the “Hello Garci” controversy wrapped up work without resolving the issue. Parañaque City Rep. Roilo Golez blamed EO 464 for the failure of the House to get to the bottom of the case.

Presidential Proclamation 1017

On Feb. 24, 2006, during the week commemorating the 20th anniversary of Edsa I, Ms Arroyo signed Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a state of emergency nationwide and demanding obedience to all decrees and orders “promulgated by me personally.”
The proclamation resulted from the military’s discovery of an alleged plot by key officers to join protest marches on that day and break away from the chain of command.

On that day, University of the Philippines Prof. Randy David was picked up at a march marking the anniversary of the Edsa People Power Revolution.

Past midnight a day later, police raided the office of The Daily Tribune, a broadsheet critical of the Arroyo administration, and seized editorial materials.

In a bald warning, the Philippine National Police said it would take over any media organization that would not follow “standards set by the government.”

A number of protesters were arrested in the seven days that PP 1017 was in effect.

Supreme Court moves

On April 20, 2006, the Supreme Court, voting 14-0, shot down EO 464. But it declared constitutional Ms Arroyo’s right to bar executive officials from appearing during the question hour in both chambers of Congress. (She formally revoked the order only in March 2008.)

Five days later, the high court declared CPR unconstitutional by a vote of 13-0.

On May 3, 2006, it declared unconstitutional the arrest of protesters, the forcible breakup of rallies and the raid on the Tribune carried out in accordance with PP 1017.

Voting 11-3, the high court upheld the President’s power to declare a state of emergency, but ruled as illegal a clause in PP 1017 giving herself authority to issue decrees.

The high court assailed the proclamation, saying it evoked shades of Marcos’ PP 1081 which imposed martial law in 1972. Kate Pedroso and Eliza Victoria, Inquirer Research

Source: Inquirer Archives

Bishops still irked over Le Cirque dinner

Bishops still irked over Le Cirque dinner

By Christian V. Esguerra, Dona Pazzibugan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:02:00 08/12/2009

Most Read

MANILA, Philippines—Malacañang may have refused to apologize for the $20,000 dinner of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her entourage at the ritzy Le Cirque in New York, but Catholic bishops are not letting the issue die down.

Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo, who champions the cause of landless farmers, Tuesday called on Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez, who purportedly picked up the tab, to donate the amount (or close to P1 million) to the impoverished.

“We can challenge those who paid for the dinner to also give the same amount to feed the poor,” Pabillo said.

The bishop said it was not right to use money—“whether government money or the money of any rich person”—in wasteful ways.

“Even if it was not the government but someone else, whoever shouldered the dinner tab has a responsibility because money is not only for ourselves but also for others. We are mere stewards,” he said.

Bishop Emeritus Teodoro Bacani said the Aug. 2 dinner “really leaves a bad taste in the mouth, especially for those who have nothing to eat.”

“The Filipino people should tell them, ‘Mahiya naman kayo (You should be ashamed of yourselves),’” he said.

Bacani also said that while Malacañang’s nonchalance over the dinner was unacceptable, the stance was “characteristic of the present administration—the lack of transparency, confusing the issues, and just ignoring even legitimate criticism.”

“Even in their defense, they cannot accurately say who paid for the dinner,” he observed.

Press Secretary Cerge Remonde claimed on Saturday that it was Romualdez who had paid the $20,000 bill reported by the New York Post. But on Monday, the lawmaker’s legal and media liaison officer said it was his brother, New York-based architect Daniel Romualdez, who had done so.

The Romualdezes are nephews of Imelda Marcos, widow of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

‘Obvious story line’

In a briefing Tuesday at the Palace, Remonde assailed critics, particularly the media, for continuously raising questions about the dinner at Le Cirque.

Ms Arroyo flew to the United States on July 29 for a meeting with US President Barack Obama at the White House. The dinner was held on Aug. 2, a few hours before Ms Arroyo and her party embarked on the journey back to Manila to catch the wake of former President Corazon Aquino.

Remonde accused the media of playing up a picture of Ms Arroyo at a luxury dinner in New York while the majority of Filipinos lived in abject poverty.

“It’s so obvious how the story will go. The people are being angered by the idea that while so many are going hungry, the President and her officials are eating rich,” he said in Filipino. “I think that’s already too much.”

Remonde maintained that Ms Arroyo—whose wealth reportedly ballooned from P66.8 million in 2001 to P143.54 million in 2008—was not unaware of the hunger and poverty in the country.

“It’s very hypocritical for people to accuse the President of not being in touch with the hunger situation [when] it is [she] who has done the most in this country to address the problem of hunger,” he said.

Still no talk

Nevertheless, the relevant issues remained unanswered.

Remonde insisted it was Representative Romualdez who had paid for the dinner despite the statement of Nick Esmale, the latter’s legal and media liaison officer, that the generous hand was that of the lawmaker’s brother Daniel.

Malacañang has also yet to state what was on the menu that merited the $20,000 tab, beyond saying that the dinner was “simple.”

And the fact that Romualdez, an articulate lawmaker and a close ally of Ms Arroyo, has yet to speak on the matter is not helping the Palace any.

Remonde explained: “Not all people are gifted with the ability to speak before the media or microphones or reporters.”

He sought to put the controversy to rest, reiterating an earlier statement that the Palace would no longer “glamorize” the issue.

Told that the dinner was a matter of public interest, Remonde said: “That’s a matter of perspective.”

He said that while reporters had that view, “for the many, the media are just whipping up the controversy.”

French food

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who was with the President’s entourage but skipped the dinner at Le Cirque, said it was not all that lavish for “a presidential-level dinner.”

“That’s why some of the congressmen [in the entourage] said, ‘Hindi naman masyadong masarap (The food wasn’t that delicious),” she said, adding:

“That’s because it was French food. Only the rich and famous go to that place because it’s prohibitively expensive.”

Santiago, a former judge, raised legal points that tended to release Ms Arroyo from criminal or administrative liability arising from the dinner.

The senator said the question was whether the dinner was “manifestly excessive” or “nominal or insignificant.”

But this question has become academic, Santiago said, citing two reasons—the President’s immunity from criminal suit and her control of the House of Representatives.

“After all, an impeachment is not a judicial but a political process,” Santiago said.

She pointed out that Ms Arroyo enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution during her term of office and, thus, could not be charged criminally at the Office of the Ombudsman.

“Theoretically, she can be impeached for graft and corruption. But there were some representatives present at the dinner, and [they] would unite to dismiss an impeachment complaint in the House,” the senator said. With a report from Michael Lim Ubac