INC has nothing to do with licenses supplier, LTO chief’s appointment

2010-10-09T20:44:00.000-07:00

An exmple of actaual malice on the part of Inquirer columnist?

By TOTO CAUSING

Is Neal Cruz, columnist of Inquirer, liable for what he wrote in his September 24, 2010 column where he said that the Land Transportation Office "appears to be the private preserve of the Iglesia ni Cristo" just because the newly-appointed chief and a contractor who won a contract are members of INC?

While I am against the law on criminal libel and that it must be scrapped, the present law makes Neal Cruz vulnerable to the imputation.

Of course, it is a big boo-boo to say that the LTO appears to be a private enclave of INC just because of these two facts, assuming these facts are true.

This is so because it does not necessarily follow. There are many Catholics or Protestants or Muslims appointed to one office where at the same time the winners of contracts are Catholics or Protestants or Muslims, respectively.

By saying so, Neal Cruz makes INC appearing to be using its influence for pecuniary benefit and violating the principle of separation of the Church and the State.

Actual malice on the part of Neal Cruz is evident here. He knew it was incorrect to say so yet he published the same.

Actual malice is defined as an act of publishing a statement despite prior knowledge it is false or an act of publishing a statement that was unbelievable to begin with.

With this, Neal Cruz may also be liable for damages.

However, it is only the Iglesia ni Cristo and the persons mentioned who have the right to file a criminal or civil action for libel against Neal Cruz.

Will the Iglesia ni Cristo do?

Let us se

To understand what I am saying, please read the reaction of INC to Neal Cruz's column:

INC has nothing to do with licenses supplier, LTO chief’s appointment

THE Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) takes exception to Neal Cruz’s Sept. 24 column, which was clearly uncalled for. He obviously meant to provoke the public and promote religious bigotry. There he asserted that the land Transportation Office (LTO) “appears to be the private preserve of the Iglesia ni Cristo because the agency “awards most contracts to members.” His only basis for saying so is the one contract with Amalgamated Motors Inc. (Ampi), owned by Filemon Cuevas, and the appointment of the new LTO chief, Transportation Assistant Secretary Virgie Torres.

The Iglesia ni Cristo is not involved in any way with Ampi, nor with the appoinment of Ms Torres as LTO chief. Why should the Church affiliation of the two he mentioned by name, both of whom are ordinary members, be construed as proof of our institution’s alleged involvement in the LTO? Cruz has associated alleged irregularities and wrongdoing that he said have taken place over several years in the LTO with a chief who as only been there a few months. Is it because she is a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo? He might as well take a census of the religious membership of all government employees, and depending on the numbers he gets, conclude that such and such agency is the private preserve of the Catholic Church, or the Protestants, or the Muslims, and so on and so forth and blame whatever irregularities he finds in those agencies on those agencies on those religions.

While the Iglesia ni Cristo has done no wrong or harm to Cruz, it is his personal right to be prejudiced against any religious organization if he so chooses. What the Iglesia ni Cristo objects to is Cruz’s unprofessional use of his column as a platform to stir up the public to harbor ill-will toward the Iglesia ni Cristo.

BIENVENTO C. SANTIAGO,

Spokesman,Iglesia ni Cristo

Biblioteca

INC has nothing to do with licenses supplier, LTO chief’s appointment

An exmple of actaual malice on the part of Inquirer columnist?

INC has nothing to do with licenses supplier, LTO chief’s appointment