Does Lacson
favor SM interest?

Since I had already finished my columns until Saturday when I received the forwarded email of Occidental Negros SP member Patrick Lacson on Monday (August 1), I opted to tackle his letter starting today.

I had a hard time trying to get what he was saying because his letter was rambling; his sequence of events is a challenge indeed. Anyway, he declared he is “not in favor of SM over Ayala”. He said he was present during the second bidding (July 7).

To his “surprise the following day without me the committee declared the second bidding a failure...” and “I really do  not know why they felt my signature was neither needed or important,”  Lacson said.

I am intrigued by his claim that on the “following Monday (he did not specify which Monday but I assume it was July 11 after the failed July 7 bidding) they met with all parties and he helped draft the Terms of Reference with SM participating but SM did not sign the “finalized TOR” instead SM went to court and filed for a TRO. SM did not  attend the negotiated bidding on Friday (July 15).

I was wondering why SM, granting Lacson’s claim, would attend the July 11 meeting, help draft the TOR and then turn around and file for a TRO. Did SM participate in drafting the TOR in bad faith? If SM attended the Monday meeting, was it not because it believes the second bidding (July 7) to be above board? What triggered it to file for a TRO to stop the negotiated bidding (July 15)? Or is Lacson pulling our legs, or in the words of a Manila columnist that parroted SM’s claims, giving us a ride?

Was SM trying to delay and delay the negotiations? What was it waiting for? Perhaps the intervention of political patrons to, in the words of Gov. Marañon, “force” the province to give way to SM? Ah! The suspense thickens. 

Now, make some sense into this, as written by Lacson: “I’m coming from. SM is one of the biggest investments in Negros today (employing thousands of Negrenses, Signalling to many other investors that it is feasible to invest here in Negros! And their mere willingness to expand their investments in the province? as a host, I apply the saying, “CUSTOMERS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!” as their “high end lawyers” see irregularities with the process, all the more indeed. we should have paused and at least reflect a bit. It is obvious why I’m caught in a dilemma of easy judgment and intrigue, as its because I’m politically in partnership with Rep. Albee Benitez and I accept that as true, believe me in my own capacity I tried to iron things out since our Congressman (Benitez) is close to the owners of SM.””

What is there to iron out with Rep. Albee? Is it not that he wants to leave the issue to the court? There must be something amiss here that Lacson wants to “iron out” and with whom? Was Benitez hurt by the award to Ayala to the extent that there is a need to mend fences – the task that Lacson has set for himself? This is getting interesting. We want to know, if Lacson pleases, to know what creases are to be ironed out.  

Lacson also writes “for the record I firmly believe in the sincerity, legality and wisdom of the committee headed by Gov. Marañon, as well as the governor’s vision in changing the landscape of Bacolod and Negros Occidental.” That is fine, so why is Lacson sulking as if he lost his lollipop? His words do not match his behavior. Let’s continue tomorrow on Lacson’s long letter.*

Click here to see Patrick Lacson's reply to the SM issue.

back to top