By: Joe Sprite

Jagna news this week featured a news item regarding an alleged anomaly in the construction of the Jagna Public Market. The information tried to show that structural defects had occurred in the construction that some parties may have profited from it. This is already public knowledge and readers might say why this column had been silent about it. It could either be that we are trying to sweep this event under the rug; we are trying to protect someone or we are afraid to expose the so-called anomaly. Anyone is entitled to his own opinion.

Sometime before, a source who declined to be identified handed us papers supposedly a report from a representative of the Commission on Audit stating that there was a structural defect in the building because a portion of the specifications had not been followed. The reinforcing steel bars installed on certain portions were smaller than specified and the concrete on that particular area was porous or ampaw. Together with it are proofs of payment. What was noticeable was that he payments were authenticated while the report was not. When the source was asked why, he could not give any satisfactory answer.

Despite that we went to the authorities concerned and she stated that the defect had been corrected. We were not satisfied and we decided to seek ways to substantiate and authenticate the report, we cannot just go on with a xeroxed copy. Meanwhile, the Jagna Sangguniang Bayan called the COA civil engineer, who signed the report to shed light on the matter. The engineer gave his final findings to a session of the SB. Apparently the SB must have satisfied with the testimony that they called the case closed, as they instituted no further action. Since the COA approved payment for the project we decided to do nothing unless we stumble upon new evidence.

We had been critical of the past local administration and we are silent on this one. In the previous case, there were lapses and anomalies. There was a case, which went to the Ombudsman. In that case, we have seen a copy of the original; in fact, we photocopied the originals for our file in the event that a libel case will be filed against us. This time, only the authenticated copies were proof of payments. Despite that we asked around until the COA engineer answered the questions of the SB. It the informant was not satisfied with the explanation, he could raise the case to the Ombudsman.

We are running a column. It informs, entertains or forms public opinion. Our credibility relies upon our integrity. Since a column has the power enhance or destroy, we have to have social responsibility. We cannot just shoot first and ask questions later. Once a reputation is besmirched, no amount of retraction can restore it to its original state without demeaning ourselves. We cannot just deal with innuendoes or half-truths. Libel cases are not new to the Post. It goes with the territory. But we have to be careful.

News items could be corrected with an erratum or another clarifying item. It is not the same with a column. A single lapse lessens or destroys our credibility. In this case, when we confronted the proper authority up to the extent of having the COA representative clear up the matter, which we would like to believe to have caused, we considered our duty done. The burden of the proof lies with the accuser. If and when an accuser has the ready papers, those that could stand any legal inquiry, give them to us and we will be happy to air them. Journalistic ethics demands that when we publish a column with accusations, we try as much as possible to get the side of the other party. If not we will reserve the next column for the answer of the concerned. We would base our opinions on the preponderance of evidence or logic or on the lack of it. We do have our social responsibility; we try to live up to it. Please do not use us for fishing expeditions.