Many percieved that while Leo San Miguel was lying to his teeth when he faced the Senators at the resumption of the ZTE deal hearing. One can surmise that Malacanang folks on the other end were also gigling, probably ecstatic on his performance. Senators could hardly comprehend the nature of his statement; his testimnonies were taken as rediculous and incredible. Ping Lacson was himself surprised to his surprise witness.
After several meetings with Leo San Miguel, the senator was confident this witness could squeal on the participation of some Malacanang personalities in the busted scandalous ZTE deal. But there was none of it, the audience even uproared to their dismay for repeatedly saying (even under oath) that his participation was limited only to something technical. Yes he admitted that he was with Ben Abalos (accused of brokering the deal) but they never talk anything about finances. Jun Lozada however reputed his statement; in his meetings with Abalos, where Leo San Miguel was also present, they did not talk any technical matter on the ZTE project except their commission. This is where the padding (bukolan ang tongpats) comes in.
Of course Leo San Miguel readily accepted it when challenged by Senator Mar Roxas to undergo a lie detector test. Likewise the other witnesses who greatly deviate in their testimonies to that of Leo (San Miguel) also volunteered themselves to undergo a lie detector test. So everybody wants to be spared from the eyes of the public as lying. But then the question comes, could the lie detection test single out who among the witnesses is lying ? A lie detector test, according to experts and legal luminaries, is an inadmissible evidenc in court. What does this mean ? A lie detector test may not at all that accurate as a tool to ferret out the truth. Any calm pretending subject may easily mislead the findings of a lie detector test. In effect this may save the liar. All the lies said maybe taken then for truth if the subject passes the test.
Here you hear the smart ass quipping: lies save the liar; liars live on lies. Could a leader, whose means of assumption into power was a result of cheating, be forever saved in the throne through lying and cover-up of the truth? The media recently revealed how much was spent in millions of pesos (of those who oppose the president, and of those who support her) for paid ads of their political statements. While the opposition spent hundreeds of thousands in pesos, the president’s supporters spent about 5 millions of pesos. Does it mean that the general public believe more the oppositions than the president, hence the loopsidedness on the amount spent. “Coverups” could temporarily save the liar from prosecutions and other civil liabilites, but never on the lost soul. Jun Lozada had taken the best course in his life, to correct his mistakes in the past and to retain whatever respect that is left of him; then he aimed for the grandiest of them all–to save his soul.
Even if they file case after case of all his supposed corrupt dealings in the past, Lozada can now face the music with open heart undmindful of the consequences. The truth prevails, and the truth will set him free.
The Bible is clear, it is only God who can take away our sins. It is only God who can save the sinner, and sinners can only be pardoned through a genuine repentance. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. Isaiah I: 18. This applies to Leo and Jun, it applies to all us including the President.