Joan O. Ongkikoposted toJerry Ocampo 43 minutes ago. ‘Kit’ stands by story, vouches for sources By Francisco S. Tatad | Posted 9/17/13 Despite Malacañang’s official statement describing as “pure fiction” my article in the Manila Standard on President B. S. Aquino’s reported “closed-door conversations” with Janet Lim-Napoles on Aug. 28, 2013, my sources, who are no enemies of the President, stand by their story and I stand by what I have written. Malacañang tried to dispute the story by supplying details of the President’s schedule on that day, which are not in conflict or incompatible with the details in my article. My sources said Napoles arrived in Malacañang, accompa nied by presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda, at 10:30 am and was conducted to the Music Room where she remained closeted with the President, Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas II and the spokesman until 4.30 pm. They were joined by other Cabinet members later. Between 2 pm and 3:30 pm the President left the room three times, my story said. Malacañang says the President was scheduled to be at the 8th East Asia Conference on Competition Law and Policy at Sofitel at 10:30 am. Granted he came on time, how long did he stay there? Malacañang says the President was scheduled to be at the 27th Apolinario Awarding Ceremony at the Heroes Hall at 1:30 pm. Heroes Hall is a couple of minutes away from the Music Room. Was he there at 1:30 pm, or did he show up after the crowd had assembled at, say, 2 pm? Malacañang says the President was scheduled to meet with the Executive Secretary, the Department of Budget and Management, and the Department of Finance at the Study Conference Room at 3 pm, and with the Secretary of Transportation and Communication at 4 pm in the same venue. The Study Conference Room is half a minute away from the Music Room. If the Executive Secretary and the Budget Secretary were in fact with the President in the Music Room, there would have been no need for him to see them in another room. The Malacañang statement contains the President’s proposed schedule for the day, not details of what he did during the day. It does not at all refute the contents of my article. Most important of all, the statement does not deny that Napoles was there. It is now a question of what the public will believe—this writer’s authoritatively-sourced article or Malacañang? Since there is absolutely no malice in my report, I will not respond to any of the argumentum ad hominem
Posted on: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:04:14 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015