Was Jun Lozada kidnapped? Straight from horses’ mouths

BARELY a month ago, the Court of Appeals junked Engineer Rodolfo Noel ‘Jun’ Lozada’s petition for a writ of amparo, finding no proof in his claim that he was kidnapped and threatened by government officials when he returned from Hong Kong last February 5.

The CA decision said that the life, liberty and security of the whistle-blower in the bungled $329-million national broadband network (NBN) deal were never violated or threatened by those whom he accused in his petition — Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, then Philippine National Police chief Avelino Razon, airport security chief Angel Atutubo, and ex-soldier turned civilian agent Rodolfo Valeroso.

There was no evidence, the CA said, that Lozada was kidnapped as he knew the men who were sent to fetch and secure him were sent by Environment Secretary Lito Atienza, his erstwhile superior.

But lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno, national chair of the Free Legal Assistance Group that is now handling Lozada’s kidnapping/arbitrary detention case against the same government officials (including Police Senior Superintendent Paul Mascariñas and Police Security and Protection Office chief Romeo Hilomen) filed before the Department of Justice, said the testimonies of the respondents themselves during the clarificatory hearings conducted by the DOJ investigating panel constitute evidence that the CA did not bother to obtain.

The evidence in this case, Diokno said, “speaks for itself; and it speaks volumes about what really happened to Lozada when he arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport on February 5, 2008.”

The facts brought out during the preliminary investigation of his case at the DOJ are in the memorandum that FLAG, through Diokno, filed yesterday. “I’m pretty sure you will be surprised at the facts that came to light,” he remarked in an email sent to the PCIJ.

Read the full text of the complainant’s memorandum filed by Lozada.

Following are the facts from the memo as borne by no less than the respondents’ testimonies:

Fact No. 1: Valeroso, the man who met Lozada at the tube after he deplaned, who took custody of Lozada’s passport, brought him to a waiting car and “secured” him for the next several hours, was not a government official or employee but a civilian whose job had nothing to do with securing a VIP.

Fact No. 2: When this civilian met Lozada at the tube, he introduced himself as “..si Rod na taong pinadala ni Secretary Atienza na susundo sa inyo.“

Fact No. 3: Respondent Valeroso was a lowly civilian agent who had no background, training or qualifications in security or police work — and yet he was the one entrusted with securing Lozada.

Fact No. 4: While respondents, from the start, claimed that Lozada was a “VIP” and that they acted by the book when they secured him, their very own testimonies show that they were in such a rush to get Lozada out of the airport that they ignored Immigration and Customs; did not even bother to have Lozada’s passport stamped to indicate his arrival in Manila; and brought him straight to a waiting car:

Fact No. 5: While Lozada had pleaded with respondents to take him home from the airport, respondents decided — on their own, without consulting him, and without giving him any say in the decision — to take him elsewhere.

Fact No. 6: Respondents not only refused to take Lozada home, they also told him he could not use his cell phone.

Fact No. 7: While Valeroso testified that as an action agent of the Aviation Security Group his jurisdiction was confined to the airport, he not only escorted Lozada to a waiting car but rode in the same car and stayed with Lozada for the next several hours, in a road trip that took them from the airport to C-5 Road all the way to Calamba, Laguna.

Fact No. 8: While respondents claimed that Lozada consented to the operation, their testimonies during the clarificatory hearings show that they — not Lozada — were the ones who controlled Lozada’s movements, decided where he could and could not go, and who he could talk to.

Fact No. 9: Respondents Mascariñas, Hilomen, Atutubo, Razon, and Atienza were monitoring Lozada’s movements from the time he deplaned. They knew what Valeroso was doing every step of the way.

“Now that the real facts about the arrival and taking of Engineer Lozada have come to light, it is easier to see what really happened on February 5, 2008,” said Diokno. Based on these facts, Diokno concluded that:

• Valeroso was made the point man of the entire operation precisely because he was a civilian. As a civilian, Valeroso was both deniable and expendable.

• The main objective on February 5, 2008 was not to escort and secure a VIP — which would have required them to process Lozada’s travel documents properly — but rather to get him physically out of the airport premises and into respondent Mascariñas’s car as soon as possible. This explains why the respondents brought Lozada out of the airport through the back door, and did not bother passing through Immigration and Customs or having Lozada’s passport stamped.

• Respondents controlled Lozada’s movements and decided where he could and could not go. Despite Lozada’s pleas to be brought home, respondents decided they could not take him home because the presence of the media at his residence allegedly posed a “security risk.” Instead, they brought Lozada to Calamba, Laguna and then to Outback — places he did not wish to go — to meet with a lawyer, Atty. Antonio Bautista, whom he did not know and did not wish to see.

• That Lozada never did get home — and he has not been able to go home since.