MANILA, Philippines--The Court of Appeals has dismissed Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada’s petition for protection, saying the whistle-blower on the scuttled $329-million National Broadband Network (NBN) deal was neither kidnapped nor threatened by government officials.

In a ruling released on Friday, the court rejected the claim of Lozada, 45, head of the environmental state agency Philippine Forest Corp., that he was abducted by security men on his return on Feb. 5 from Hong Kong. He had gone abroad to avoid summons to appear before a Senate inquiry on the NBN deal with China’s ZTE Corp.

The court, in denying Lozada’s petition for a writ of amparo, said there was no proof that his life, liberty and security were threatened by government officials.

Named respondents in Lozada’s petition were Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, airport security chief Angel Atutubo, Philippine National Police Director General Avelino Razon, and SPO4 Rodolfo Valeroso. President Macapagal-Arroyo was initially named in the case but was dropped by the court, saying she could not be sued while serving her term.

Lozada’s brother Arturo had filed the amparo petition which Lozada later ratified. The writ was adopted by the Supreme Court last year amid concern at a rising number of extrajudicial executions and disappearances to provide protection for victims of human rights abuses.

In a subsequent appearance before the Senate following his return from Hong Kong, Lozada testified that former Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos had demanded a $130-million commission for brokering the NBN deal that allegedly also involved the President’s husband.

Ms Arroyo later canceled the NBN project designed to link the country’s bureaucracy electronically via the Internet. Losing bidder Jose “Joey” de Venecia had earlier denounced the deal that prompted the Senate inquiry.

Lozada has also filed a kidnapping complaint in the Department of Justice against several government officials, including Ms Arroyo and Ermita. Lozada was later placed under Senate custody.

Lozada’s been on tour

In an 87-page decision penned by Justice Celia Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Justices Regalado Maambong and Sixto Marella Jr., the court said it was not convinced that Lozada’s right to life, liberty or security was violated or threatened by what he had experienced on his return from Hong Kong as shown by his subsequent actions.

“It bears stressing that the instant amparo petition does not involve extralegal killings, enforced disappearances or threats thereof. This court also takes note that Rodolfo even attended an interfaith rally in Makati and has been on campus tours, not only in Metro Manila but also other parts of the country,” the court added.

It also said Lozada’s allegations needed to be supported by “substantial proof.”

“Regrettably, petitioner, despite the sincere efforts exerted by his volunteer lawyers in the instant amparo petition, failed to discharge said burden,” it said.

In ruling that Lozada was not “grabbed,” “abducted” or “forcibly taken against his will” at the airport on Feb. 5, the court said he was met at the airplane tube by government men because he had sought help from his then superior, Environment Secretary Lito Atienza, to avoid testifying at the Senate.

No resistance offered

Atienza had told Lozada that he would be assisted at immigration on his arrival.

“With noon-day clarity, this court finds that the reason why Rodolfo was fetched at the airport was to help him avoid the Senate contingent. Rodolfo clearly knew this because at that time, it was still his decision not to testify before the Senate. He agreed with the plan,” it said.

The court also pointed out that Lozada did not try to resist his supposed captors, who did not hold him and were not hostile to him. He voluntarily went with them, chatted with them and freely used his cell phone and got in touch with members of his family and Atienza.

As for Lozada’s argument that he could not connect his alleged grabbing at the airport with Atienza’s promise of help, the court said the two of them talked on the phone and Atienza assured Lozada that the men who assisted him out of the airport were government people.

Too much to accept
The court added that since Atienza was a Cabinet secretary, it would be “too much to accept” that he would participate in an illegal act of abduction of a ranking government official.

Razon’s announcement that Lozada was in police custody could not be deemed a threat either, according to the appellate court.

“Certainly, no person in his right mind would make that kind of media announcement if his intent was indeed to threaten somebody’s life, liberty and security,” it said.

As for Lozada’s testimony that Abalos, in January 2007, allegedly threatened to have him killed, the court said this action could not be attributed to the other government officials he named respondents. It said Lozada should file a criminal case against Abalos instead.

It added that Lozada’s allegation that the respondents sent him threatening text messages indirectly, through “cyber groups,” was “purely speculative and remained unsubstantiated.”

The court also said his rights were not threatened or violated when he was brought to the La Salle Green Hills on Feb. 5—upon his request—until he decided to hold his predawn conference on Feb. 7.

No armed tail
The court pointed out that he failed to prove that the respondents deployed armed men to tail Lozada in places he visited, including the La Salle Greenhills.

Lozada also did not show that the surveillance cameras outside La Salle Green Hills and St. Scholastica’s College in Manila posed an indirect threat to his life, liberty and security, according to the court.

It further junked his contention that government officials were responsible for the bomb threats that hit the areas he visited. Lozada’s inclusion in the immigration watch list could not be considered a threat either, the court said.

As for the filing of supposedly frivolous cases against Lozada and his wife, the court said the petitioner himself testified that he was unaware whether the respondents instigated the filing of the cases.

Court bias rejected
The court also junked the allegation of Lozada’s lawyer Rex Fernandez that the justices were biased against his client, pointing to the court’s supposedly excessive attention to technical details, asking clarificatory questions that sounded like a cross-examination, and putting Lozada down as someone who was making up his story.

It said the allegations were unsubstantiated and disrespectful, and added that Fernandez never filed a motion to inhibit any of the justices.

In seeking court protection, Lozada had said he could be subjected to revenge by people hurt by his Senate testimony, especially after the Senate’s investigation is concluded and the security detail assigned to him is withdrawn.

While he was being driven around Laguna after leaving the airport, Lozada sent a text message to his wife asking her to seek the Church’s help to rescue him.

He also earlier said he became afraid when he heard the men who escorted him talking about bringing him to Dasmariñas town in Cavite since public relations practitioner Bubby Dacer came to mind. The bodies of Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito were found in Cavite in November 2000.