PDI stands by NABCOR report as Erwin Tulfo files P12-M libel suit

The Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) said Monday that it stands by its March 19 article which named two media personalities as alleged recipients of “payoffs” from pork barrel scam-tainted National Agribusiness Corporation (NABCOR).

Earlier in the day, TV5 news anchor Erwin Tulfo, one of the two personalities identified in the article by PDI's Nancy Carvajal, filed a P12-million libel suit against the newspaper before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office.

In a statement sent to GMA News TV's  evening newscast, "State of the Nation with Jessica Soho", the PDI said the March 19 report underwent “careful investigation by our reporters and editors” before it was published.

“It is fully supported by the statement of witnesses and a paper trail showing that actual payment transpired,” the PDI also said.

The PDI article named Tulfo and GMA's DZBB radio commentator Melo Del Prado as having allegedly received P245,000 in “payoffs” from Department of Agriculture's corporate arm National Agribusiness Corp. (NABCOR) in the guise of “advertising expenses”.

The allegation was relayed, in an exclusive interview with PDI, by former NABCOR officials Rhodora Mendoza and Victor Roman Cacal, who had earlier expressed their desire to be state witnesses in the pork barrel case although they are among the 38 government officials facing plunder raps before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Another member of the media who was not named in the article reportedly received about P2 million from NABCOR.

“The word of phrase used by news reporter Nancy C. Carvajal in her item as ‘in the guise of advertising expenses’ is a mere conclusion of facts and a complete departure from the accompanying documents,” Tulfo said in his libel complaint.

“Thus, it falsely and maliciously conveyed to the minds of the readers that I acquired and got [sic] benefited from the people’s money known as the PDAF through fraudulent transaction while I was then serving as a radio broadcaster of DZXL-RMN from 2006 to 2009,”  Tulfo also said.

Named as respondents in Tulfo's libel complaint were editor-in-chief Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc, managing editor Jose Ma. Nolasco, news editor Artemio Engracia Jr, and Carvajal.

Tulfo had earlier admitted in various media interviews that he received money from NABCOR, but he said the transaction was supported by contracts and other documents.

Current NABCOR president Honesto Baniqued said in a separate interview that the advertising payments made to Tulfo and Del Prado were legitimate. He said the payments were made for the advertising of DA's Bagsakan Center and Barangay Food Terminal projects in 2008 and 2009.

“In fairness, legitimate talaga siya. Kumpleto ang documentations nila. In fact, naka-[record] pa ito sa BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue). May tax ito, and then... meron din syang mga kontrata sa network,” Baniqued said in an exclusive interview with GMA News' "24 Oras" aired Monday evening.

Meanwhile, Mike Enriquez, GMA Network Inc.'s consultant for radio operations, said he hopes Baniqued's statement sheds light on the transactions.

“Kung NABCOR na mismo ang nagsasabi na legal ang mga transactions, hopefully this will put to rest all the issues concerning Del Prado,” Enriquez said.

Enriquez also said Del Prado has vowed to submit the all documents related to the transactions.

He added that DZBB continues to uphold the highest ethical standards of its employees, and will continue monitoring such issues.

Meanwhile, in a text message sent to GMA News Online, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) deputy director Luis Teodoro said the libel case between Tulfo and the PDI is very rare.

“Because the libel law is so repressive, it would be ironic if a media practitioner were to use it against fellow practitioners. Conflicts in media could be better resolved through negotiation and discussion,” Teodoro said.

Teodoro also said he sees nothing wrong with the PDI exposing the alleged corruption of media personalities.

“The PDI story was newsworthy; suppressing it for the sake of protecting media people would have been self-censorship and an abdication of the duty to inform the public on matters relevant to it. Whether the story was libelous or not will now be up to the courts to decide,” he said. — ELR/JDS, GMA News