Pinoy Penman

Flotsam & Jetsam (30) for Saturday, December 30, 2006


AS OUR American sojourn draws to an end, herewith a small album of snaps from my point-and-shoot Lumix, of people and places I saw, was in, was with, was intrigued by, will miss, will remember. (Click twice on the images for their full-sized versions.)

Flotsam and Jetsam (29) for Thursday, December 14, 2006


I WOKE up this morning to find this in my daily digest of news from home. The other day I’d just received a message from Marites Vitug, our editor-in-chief at Newsbreak Magazine, a statement on the libel case that had been filed against us more than a year ago by one Jose Miguel Arroyo, husband of one Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. I gathered from that statement (see below) that the prosecutor assigned to our case had concluded that there was merit enough for us to be haled to court for trying to “besmirch and impeach” Mr. Arroyo’s reputation (about which I will primly reserve comment, for the time being).

Now comes the news that we’ve been asked to post bail, that an arraignment is coming up, and so on—all while I was 8,600 miles away giving an exam on the American short story. Oh, dear. I always knew I was newsworthy, or at least worth some newsprint, but hardly this way. Now I'm sure I’ll be getting a warm welcome home—from some burly and decidedly un-merry gentlemen with toothpicks twitching from the sides of their mouth.


Statement
Dec. 14, 2006
On the Libel Suit of First Gentleman Miguel Arroyo versus Newsbreak


YESTERDAY, WE received a tip that the Manila prosecutor had issued a resolution charging us with libel in the case of First Gentleman Miguel Arroyo versus the following from Newsbreak Magazine: Marites Danguilan Vitug, editor in chief, Glenda M. Gloria, managing editor, Ricky Carandang, former business editor, R.E. Otico, editorial consultant, Jose Dalisay, editorial consultant, and Booma Cruz, former contributing editor.

The resolution dated Nov. 13, 2006 and penned by Fredy Gomez, assistant city prosecutor (Manila), said that we, the accused, “meant and intended to convey false and malicious insinuations” against the First Gentleman, “imputed… a crime…” and therefore our story was “highly libelous and offensive and derogatory to the good name, character and reputation…of the First Gentleman.”

The resolution further said that the article was “solely prepared, written, and published by the accused for no other purpose than to impeach and besmirch” Mr. Arroyo.

The same prosecutor, in the information, said that our intent was to “expose” Mr. Arroyo to “public hatred, contempt and ridicule…” and that we were “clearly bent in destroying his reputation.”

Clearly, our story is not libelous. It’s amazing that we’ve been singled out for prosecution. The message we’re getting is this: no matter how responsible journalists are, you can no longer seek protection in the law.

It is quite unfortunate that the Manila prosecutor misunderstands the role of the press. Never in the course of our work do we write “solely to besmirch” the reputation of a person. Our foremost duty is to inform readers on issues that are vital to public interest. Mr. Arroyo is only one among many public figures we have written about.

We’re ready to face Mr. Arroyo in court. We worry, though, about the impact of this libel case on our profession.

Background:

The story referred to is a short “Inside Track” item (Dec. 8, 2003) following our cover story on the Arroyos’ undeclared properties in San Francisco, California (November 10, 2003). We said that in the course of our research on the California properties, we got leads from reliable sources about two houses, the addresses of which we provided, allegedly owned by Mr. Arroyo. We said that we searched the ownership and acquisition details of these properties but these yielded names that could not be linked to the First Gentleman. We said that our sources told us that the one who supposedly acquired the properties for Mr. Arroyo was a male relative of his who’s into real estate business in California.

The article was very transparent: we said these were leads and that we pursued them and stated our findings. Our cover story on the Arroyos’ undeclared properties in San Francisco provides proper context to this follow-up article.

Marites Danguilan Vitug
Editor in Chief, Newsbreak

Editors file bail on libel case filed by First Gentleman
By Tetch Torres
INQ7.net
Last updated 10:18pm (Mla time) 12/14/2006


EDITORS OF a news magazine on Thursday posted bail of P10,000 each on a libel case filed against them by First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo.

Lawyer Rizalina Endoso, clerk of court of branch 6 of the Manila Regional Trial Court, said those who posted bail were Marites Danguilan-Vitug, editor in chief; Glenda M. Gloria, managing editor; Ricky Carandang, former business editor; and R.E. Otico, editorial consultant, of Newsbreak magazine.

Only editorial consultant Jose Dalisay and former contributing editor Booma Cruz failed to post bail.

The next step following the posting of bail is the arraignment of the accused journalists, who are among the 43 facing various libel cases filed by the First Gentleman.

The cases have prompted several media organizations, both here and abroad, to call for the decriminalization of libel in the country. A petition to this end has been signed by more than 600 Filipino journalists.

Arroyo‘s complaint stems from a short "Inside Track" item on December 8, 2003 following Newsbreak’s cover story on the First family's allegedly undeclared properties in San Francisco, California.

Last November 13, 2006, assistant Manila city prosecutor Fredy Gomez approved the filing of the libel case before the court saying the article was "meant and intended to convey false and malicious insinuations" against the First Gentleman, "imputed…a crime…" and therefore our story was "highly libelous and offensive and derogatory to the good name, character and reputation…of the First Gentleman."

Gomez also said Newsbreak's intent was to "expose" Arroyo to "public hatred, contempt and ridicule…"

But Vitug, in a statement said, "Clearly, our story is not libelous. It's amazing that we've been singled out for prosecution. The message we're getting is this: no matter how responsible journalists are, you can no longer seek protection in the law."

"It is quite unfortunate that the Manila prosecutor misunderstands the role of the press,” Vitug said. “Never in the course of our work do we write ‘solely to besmirch’ the reputation of a person. Our foremost duty is to inform readers on issues that are vital to public interest. Mr. Arroyo is only one among many public figures we have written about."

"We're ready to face Mr. Arroyo in court. We worry, though, about the impact of this libel case on our profession," she said.

Flotsam & Jetsam (28) for Monday, November 27, 2006


This story was posted today online by CNN, and I thought it was creepy enough to republish here, what with Christmas just around the corner. Read this, then read my piece below it, an essay I wrote 11 years ago.


DENVER, Colorado (AP)—A homeowners' association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs.

He said some residents believed the wreath was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

"Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up," he said in a telephone interview Sunday.

Lisa Jensen said she wasn't thinking of the war when she hung the wreath. She said, "Peace is way bigger than not being at war. This is a spiritual thing."

Jensen, a past association president, calculates the fines will cost her about $1,000, and doubts they will be able to make her pay. But she said she's not going to take it down until after Christmas.

"Now that it has come to this I feel I can't get bullied," she said. "What if they don't like my Santa Claus?"

The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and the board "will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive."

The subdivision's rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything.

Kearns fired all five committee members.

Goodwill to Filipinos
(Barfly, Dec. 19, 1995)


THIS COULD have happened only to Filipinos, and only to Filipinos in the US. The story was told to me and Ishko Lopez at Sam's Diner a couple of weeks ago by film director Gil Portes, and I found it so funny that I got his permission to retell it here in Barfly. I may have embellished it a bit—you'll excuse my fictionist's meddling mind—but Gil swears (and he'll do this again, hand on a Bible) that the essential points of the story are, as they say, nothing but the truth.

We were talking idly about a telesine I was scripting and that he was going to shoot in New York, when Gil remembered that he had to go back to New York after Christmas, to put in a court appearance, as a witness for the prosecution. (Or was it the defense? It doesn't really matter, as you'll soon find out.)

It seems that Gil—who's long been living in Queens—got this call from one of New York's Fil-Am busybodies. “Could you please be a member of the board of judges for the Miss Maria Clara of Lower Manhattan (or some such district) beauty pageant?” the other guy implored. Either feeling extraordinarily sociable or having nothing better to do at that moment but throw the garbage, Gil agreed, asking only that his cab fare from Queens and the cost of having his tuxedo drycleaned—about $40—be refunded by the organizers.

After the obligatory quarter-turns, interviews, talent show, and a slew of musical numbers, Gil and his co-judges picked out a winner—ta-rah, Miss Maria Clara of Lower Manhattan of 1995!—only to discover, as the poor miss did, that she hadn't exactly won, not just yet. The day's black-tie affair was only a preliminary event, prior to a runoff among the top finishers, with the final results to be decided by—what else—ballots to be bought and sent in by the Filipino-American masses of New York. That should've been enough to faze sensible people like Gil, who was understandably miffed (I never got to ask him if he got back his cab fare), but you don't know Fil-Am fathers and mothers.

Ballots were printed and sold like there was no tomorrow (although we don't know of too many Puerto Ricans, Italians, Lithuanians, Moroccans or even Koreans who bought ballots—must've been too busy with their own pageants). With just a day to go, it appeared that the preliminary winner, whom we'll call Miss A, was trailing the original No.2—Miss B—by so many thousand votes.

That's gross injustice in any Fil-Am parent's book, and so Miss A's mother promptly whipped out her checkbook, and dashed off a check—a postdated check, mind you—for an amount enough to put her girl over the top. Hooray! Victory! Justice! Or was it?

Miss B's folks certainly didn't think so, citing a provision in the fine print of the pageant rules, expressly prohibiting the acceptance of postdated checks for ballots. (And what this tells us is that they must've had even funnier experiences with postdated checks.) Miss A's mom asked what the problem was—the check, after all, did clear; she just wanted to make sure that another check she had deposited would clear first.

In any case, what do you think happened next? But of course—Miss B's parents sued Miss A's parents, and the whole feathery and sequinny pageant was soon marching into court—the girls, the parents, the organizers, and the judges, including Gil, minus his tuxedo. There was pandemonium as one family's boosters heckled the other, as the girls whined, as the judges reviewed their choices and vented their displeasure with the process itself, and as the organizers pleaded shrilly for sobriety.

The American lady judge banged her gavel and screamed above the fray: “Will somebody please tell me, what's a Maria Clara???”

The case is still being heard, folks, and—given the possibility that it won't be on CNN or on the cover of Newsweek, although it should—we'll keep you posted as soon as we hear from Gil.

“Here we are trying to work out this silly telesine plot,” I told Gil before he left Sam's Diner, “and you tell me this story. Let's shoot this one instead!”

Meanwhile, let's wish for peace on earth and goodwill to Filipinos—especially Filipinos in Manhattan.

Flotsam & Jetsam (27) for November 1, 2006


I'M EAGERLY awaiting the arrival of my newest "baby": a Pelikan M800 fountain pen I just got off eBay (forced by wintry winds to remain indoors, I had to seek some warmth and comfort online--that's my official excuse). I remembered that this whole column and blog came about because of my insane love of fountain pens (especially truly old ones from the '20s and '40s), and it occurred to me that most of you have no idea what I'm talking about, so here, in their full glory, are some of my favorites in my collection.

From left to right, they are: a Swan Eternal ca. 1927, a Waterman Red Ripple ca. 1925, a Sheaffer Lifetime ca. 1932, a Wahl-Eversharp Doric ca. 1935, a Parker Vacumatic Oversize ca. 1934, a Sheaffer PFM V ca. 1959, an unnamed German pen in black hard rubber ca. 1897, a Parker Duofold Centennial (red marble) ca. 1990, a Parker Duofold International (silver) ca. 1992, a Parker Duofold International (pearl & black) ca. 2000, a Pilot maki-e lacquered pen ca. 1990, a Montblanc 149 Meisterstuck ca. 1980, and a W. A. Sheaffer Commemorative Limited Edition pen ca. 1996. If you have any of these stashed away and gathering dust in a drawer at home (maybe Lolo's weapon of choice?), drop me a line. Click on the image twice for a closer look. Enjoy!

UPDATE, Nov. 2: It's here--it's alive! Ooooh, happiness! This M800 is such a great writer, with a smooth, broad nib. Lookee:

Flotsam & Jetsam (26) for October 30, 2006


Here are some shots I took around San Diego last week with my point-and-shoot Panasonic Lumix LX1. Enjoy!