Disbar the First Boor

Thursday, March 8, 2007

Part 3 of 3 "Disbar the First Boor"*

* This refers to the title editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer on March 2007 entitled 'First Boor,' referring to Jose Miguel Arroyo after he challenged to a fight a defense lawyer who was cross-examining him during the trial of one of the several libel cases he has filed against the media. The full editorial is located here.

(Check the Introduction)

IX. DECEPTION

26. When the Respondent Arroyo and Vicky Toh scandal erupted, Respondent contacted petitioner warning her that sh~ would be the next~ target of Panfilo Lacson~s group.

26. xxxxxxxx

b. Respondent then convincingly coerced petitioner to fly to the United States (US) to escape the Ping Lacson group as she might be used also against GMA who was running for reelection.

28. Petitioner was naturally worried and concerned about her and her family’s safety.

29. Respondent promised petitioner that he would support her in the US and take care of her family here in the Philippines. Hence, petitioner left the country believing Respondent would support her and her farrilly when she is gone.

29.1 When petitioner rang Respondent to ask for the support, Respondent promised that it would be deposited in the bank account of Petitioner. However, he renege on his promise.

29.2 Left with no recourse, petitioner had to mortgage her car for her family’s support.

29.3 Petitioner lived like a mendicant in the US, transferring from one friend’s house to another and living on dole outs. Her life was like this for six (6) embarrassing months.

30. Petitioner returned to the country after the presidential elections and waited for Respondent to fulfill his promise for another eight (8) excruciating months.

respondent would not have anything to do of the petitioner anymore as Respondent’s spouse had already been elected nd there is no more use for petitioner.

31. Petitioner was living peacefully without any financial difficulty when Respondent told her to leave for the

S. By acceding to Respondent’s subtle coercions, petitioner’s life was left in ruins. She was not able to work in he US in her six (6) months stay there and eight (8) onths after her return to the country. The proximate cause f all of his was the deception by Respondent perpetrated 3gainst petitioner.

B. ACTS CONSTITUTIVE OF GRAFT AND CORRUPTION

I. The Rice Cartel/Import AlllocationS

32. During the recent liaisons of Petitioner with Respondent, the latter had bragged about his influence and power over the rice importation quota allocations of the country, via the government-to-government purchase of rice through the National Food Authority (NFA).

32.1 Petitioner came to know from “acquaintances”, the li~zes of ~ ~ most of a~

32.2 In one instance, Petitioner tried to ask Respondent if he could help her friend,

a rice importer who had been a regular NFA supplier, with the rice importation quota allocation. Respondent refused to do so and narrated to Petitioner that he was given $5 to $6 per metric ton of importation as commission. Thus, a mere request would not suffice. Furthermore, Respondent would allegedly have to deal with a certain~~ ~ Ngu Yien of Southern Foods Supplies in Ho Chi Mm from Vietnam. A copy of the Affidavit of ~

_________ is attached hereto as Annex”X” and made an integral part hereof in support of the herein affirmative allegations.

IL The diversion of Campaign Funds

33. The acts constitutive of corruption by Respondent did not only extend to public funds but to the campaign funds of the President herself, then a candidate during the recent election.

33.1 When Respondent tried to convincingly coerced th~ petitioner to leave for the United States to avoid an election scandal, Respondent assured petitioner that he will divert campaign funds” far the four(4) Mi~danao~sQJ?ns and send the funds to her in L./ the United States.’ ~This promise was done in the presence of no less than ~ A copy of the Affidavit executed by -~ is attached as Annex “Y” hereof.

C ACTS DETRIMENTAL TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

I. The 737 Bush St., property

34. In view of the fact that petitioner was in the United States and because of her relationship with the Respondent, she was able to gather documents and elicit testimonies that showed the transfer of the real estate property of Respondent to Ignacio Arroyo, Respondent’s younger brother was made after the “Pidal” testimony of Ignacio Arroyo, This was confirmed by no less than Respondent itself to petitioner while Respondent was trying to woo petitioner sometime in January of 2005. In fact, Respondent even bragged to petitioner that he was forced to do so by no less than GMA herself and he totally resents this. A copy of the Deed of Transfer is hereto attached as Annex “Z” hereto and made an integral part hereof.

35. The Respondent also told petitioner that his relationship with Vicky Toh has run afoul hence he cannot just ask Vicky Toh to divert the proceeds of the “Pidal” account; ~hich is now deposited in a bank in A copy of the ~ _1~j~

st tement in the name of Respondent and GMA is attached as Annex “AA” and made an integral part hereof.

II. THE “FIGARO” PROPERTY

35 The ultimate depravity and display of senseless immorality cannot be overemphasized in the blatant display of extravagant wealth while in the cudgels of the power of the Philippine Presidency contrasted by the anguish of the poor majority in suffering the present economic crunch. This is tantamount to the most cruel of crimes one can ever commit. In her conscience, petitioner must admit that the vileness of Respondent’s act cannot be left unpunished.

35.1 Sometime in December of 2004 Respondent purchased a real property at the Marina Area in San Francisco, U.S.A. in the whooping and unconscionable amount of One Hundred Twenty Five Million US Dollars ($ 125 Million). The property was registered in the name of FIGARO (apparently the name really stands for First Gentleman Arroyo). In her desolate abandonrnent by .the Respondent, petitioner was constrained to secure documents of the sale and sworn statements from members of ~ attesting to the presence of Respondent during the payment of the price of t .e property and the instructions by the respondent o register the property in his Acronym- FIGARO. A copy of the Deed and the corresponding swo n statements are attached hereto as Annexes “B et.seq.

36, Definitely, this is the last straw that broke t e camel’s back so to speak. Thee facts enumerated ther in will readily show that Respondent should not e allowed to remain as a Member of the Integrated Bar and as an Officer of the Court. His kind has no place in the annals of the Philippine Bar.

GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT

36. In view of the facts stated herein, it is very cle r that Respondent violated the following provisions of t e Code of Professional Responsibility:

“Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not

engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral

or deceitful conduct.”

CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects - on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave ina scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”

37. Respondent’s cohabitation with petitioner renders him liable for concubinage. Such conduct is not only unlawful but grossly immoral as well. Moreover, such conduct is inconsistent with the good moral character that is required for the continued right to practice law as a member of he Philippine bar. It imports moral turpitude and is a public

Part 2 of 3 Disbar the "First Boor"*

* "First Boor" refers to the title editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer on March 2007 entitled 'First Boor,' referring to Jose Miguel Arroyo after he challenged to a fight a defense lawyer who was cross-examining him during the trial of one of the several libel cases he has filed against the media. The full editorial is located here

III. COHABITATION

11. Respondent housed petitioner first in BF Homes, ~ Parañaque. A certain’ :~ and a ~ who

worked with Country Bankers Insurance Company are only some of those who knew that’ and petitioner made a “love nest” of said house.

12. In 1980, Respondent and petitioner transferred to Greenbelt Mansion, Perea St., Legaspi Village, Makati. They rented Room xxxxxxxx thereof.

12.1 Greenbelt Mansion is just in front of LTA Building which is owned by the family of Respondent.

12,2 Proof of the petitioner and Respondent’s cohabitation thereat are the following:

12.2.1 Rentacolor Philippines, Inc.contract for the lease of television unit addressed to the petitioner at said address and signed by Respondent as surety dated 17 February 1981 and a demand letter from Rentacolor Philippines, Inc. dated 12 March 1982. Copies of the same are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes “H” and “I”.

12.2.2 Statement from Wellington Investment & Manufacturing Corporation Greenbelt Mansion Realty Division dated 21 December 1981 and Provisional Receipt from the same corporation dated 29 December 1981 addressed to the; ~ petitioner. Copies of said contracts are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes “Y’ and “K”.

12.3 The r. at said house, ~ can also attest to the foregoing as she in fact has prepared an affidavit to that effect. A copy of said affidavit is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “L”.

13. Respondent was a regular fixture of the house. Respondent practically lived there as he was there every single day and night. He ate there. He slept there. He had his clothes washed there. It even came to a point that Respondent’s law office staff would bring documents there for his signature since he was always there. C See Annex “A” hereof)

13.1 Petitioner and Respondent would make love everyday, sometimes even thrice a day.

13.3 Unknown to GMA and her children, Respondent rings petitioner when everybody is out and brings her to their La Vista residence in Quezon City.

13.4 Likewise, Respondent’s purported joggings in the morning is just a ruse for him to be able to meet petitioner in ~L house inside the subdivision also ~:,~‘fts a mutual friend of ~ ~and the petitioner, she also held office ~t the JMT Building. The affidavit of s attached hereto as Annex

IV. PROMISE OF MARRIAGE

14. Well settled is the rule that when a member of the Bar seduces a woman to have carnal knowledge with her on the basis of misrepresentation that he is going to marry her is deemed a grossly immoral act. (Almirez vs. Lopez, G.R. Adm. Case No. 481, 28 February 1969, 27SCRA 169). In fact, the acts of Respondent are so corrupt and false and so unprincipled or disgraceful to a reprehensible degree which will justify his disbarment! This is reflected in the that all throughout their relationship, Respondent would always promise to marry petitioner declaring that she was already separated from GMA. The petitioner readily believe the respondent the latter being a lawyer at that. It was only after a while that petitioner came to know that Respondent Arroyo tricked, deceived and used her in order that she would continue in allowing him to ₁have carnal knowledge with her.

15. Respondent told petitio~ier that he was just forced to marry GMA inasmuch as she was the then incumbent President’s daughter. Respondent narrated that he was somewhat duped in marrying GMA as he was told that the latter has a throat cancer which is life threatening. This ruse is clearly so unprincipled and so reprehensible that the Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines would be made the object of mockery should Respondent be allowed to continue spreading this gospel so to speak, in order that he may have carnal knowledge with women other than his legal wife.

15.1 No less than Respondent’s xxxxxxxx was used by Respondent to confirm the throat cancer story aforementioned, such that this convinced petitioner of the gospel truth of what Respondent was espousing.

15.2 It was because of this misrepresentation that petitioner held on to Respondent Arroyo’s promises.

16. Coupled with this is the treatment accorded by xxxxxxxx to petitioner as the former openly accepted her as the other woman in the life of her xxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxx did not like GMA as she was allegedly just forced upon Respondent.

16.1 In fact, xxxxxxxx always picked up petitioner for shopping here and abroad. Petitioner can sincerely say that she is well-loved and liked by xxxxxxxx.

16.2 Respondent even.exerted efforts to bring his children, Mikee and Lull, and petitioner closer. Petitioner went shopping with Respondent’s children, introducing her as his secretary. Mikee was around 7 or 8 years old then. Lull on the other hand became very fond of petitioner.

V~ GIFTS OF “LOVE”

17. During the course of their illicit relations, / Respondent would lavish petitioner with gifts, e.g., the giving of a 1978 Colt Gallant Station WagOn in 1982 as a token of love and subsequently another vehicle of later model.

17.1 Respondent’s ownership and transfer of / ownership to the petitioner is evidenced by a Deed of Sale (obviously simulated) dated 27 January 1982, copy of which is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “N”.

18. Petitioner was likewise a constant companion of Respondent in his travels abroad. Sometimes petitioner even traveled with some of Respondent’s relatives. When Respondent cannot come with petitioner, Respondent would treat petitioner’s sister, xxxxxxxx, to go around the world with petitioner. Some of the places visited were:

18.1 Hong Kong

18.2 San Francisco, California, USA

18.2.1 Photographs of petitioner and FG in the Japanese Garden in San Francisco, California are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes “0”, et seq.

18.2.2 Recent photograph of Respondent and petitioner’s relatives in San Francisco, California is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “P”.

18.3 Oakland, California, USA

18.3.1 Photographs of petitioner and FG in are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes “Q”, et seq.

18.4 Vancouver, Canada

18.5 Toronto, Canada

18.6.1 Ph~tograph of petitioner and respondent in Canada is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “R”.

18.7 Petitioner and Respondent likewise went to Bagulo. Photographs of the same are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes “S” et seq.

18.7.1 Photograph of the petitioner and Respondent in a beach is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “T”.

VI. BETRAYAL BY RESPONDENT

19. Sometime in the mid-1980’s, the relationship turned sour when petitioner discovered Respondent’s secret relationship with Vicky Toh (Vicky).

20. When petitioner could not take it any longer, she entertained other suitors.

20.1 When Respondent got wind of the same, he became very angry and confronted the petitioner.

20.2 Petitioner was the aggrieved party. However, Respondent would like to make it appear that it was the petitioner who betrayed him.

20.3 During a particular confrontation, knowing that she is being made a fool by Respondent, petitioner threw the Ateneo College ring given to her by Respondent to the latter’s face. Petitioner could no longer bear the hurts and betrayal upon her by Respondent.

21.~ Though Respondent was adamant, Petitioner resisted all of Respondent’s attempt to win her back. In one evening, Respondent went to petitioner’s house in Pasig City.

21.1 Respondent was very, very drunk, crying, crawling and vomiting. Respondent begged for petitioner’s mother to help him win back the petitioner.

21.2 Respondent’s theatrics was not able to persuade petitioner’s mother. Ultimately, Respondent fell asleep in his car.

21.3 Suddenly, GMA arrived to pick up petitioner’s mother demanding that petitioner leave Respondent alone.

21.4 Petitioner’s mother retorted that GMA should take care of her husband if she does not want it to loiter around or else she would sue them for trespassing.

22. Respondent still tried to woo her to no avail, as petitioner knew that Vicky Toh had already replaced her in the office and in his illicit sexual life.

VIII 2001 MEETINGS

23. Petitioner had the chance to talk via a phone call to Respondent again sometime on 2001. The purpose of petitioner’s call was only to congratulate Respondent for the victory of his wife. However, because of their previous relationship, Respondent invited petitioner to have breakfast at the Café Rizal which is in Greenbelt 1 to which the petitioner acceded~

23.1 Respondent hugged the petitioner, oblivious of the prying eyes of the public. Days later, Respondent tried to court petitioner again.

23.2 Petitioner however would not have anymore of Respondent’s bravado because he admitted that he could not leave Vicky Toh because of the latter’s help and deyotion to him when he was financially down especially with covering up for his ownership of the “Pidal” checking account.

24. Petitioner was prevailed upon to meet Respondent again. The dinner was at Respondent’s office and lasted from 7-12 midnight.

24.1 Petitioner was not able to control Respondent’s advances. He kissed petitioner behind her ears, caressing and then mashing her breasts with his two hands.

24.2 Respondent however was not contented with the same. He pulled petitioner and had her seat on his lap while continuously mashing her breast and kissing her behind the ears.

24.3 Respondent was doing the above while his staff were just outside the door. The staff includes one one of his xxxxxxxx whose affidavit is attached hereto as Annex “U”.

24.4 PhotographS~ of the petitioner and Respondent in the latter’s office at LTA Builthng, Perea St. Makati, are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes “V”, et seq. The photograph was taken during another occasion.

VIII. 2002 MEETING

25. On 07 March 2002, Respondent came to petitioner’s house at xxxxxxxx Acropolis Village, Libis, Quezon City’ to have dinner. ~t:~ :‘~ ~~~f-~accompanied him (see Annex”A” herein)

251 Respondent’S arrival caused alarm as the security guards fronting the GreenmeadOWS side were asked to open the gate through a vehicle megaphone.

25.2 Durjng the dinner, petitioner angrily confronted~ReSPOfldeflt Arroyo about her discovery that the latter had bought.a house inside Acropolis for his .~ alleged new girfriend, movie starlet xxxxxxxx.

25.3 Respondent corrected petitioner and told her that said starlet was actually tt~e girlfriend of Mikee Arroyo, his son.

— ~.,.. ,~

25.4 A photogra~h of the above visit is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “V’,,’₁

Part 1 of 3 "Disbar the First Boor"*

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

MANILA

MA. CELIA C. SUAREZ,

Petitioner

-versus- A. C NO. ___

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO,

Respondent.

x x

PETITION

FOR DISBARMENT

Petitioner respectfully states:

This is a petition for disbarment against a member of the Philippine Bar instituted in accordance with Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which states:

“SECTION 1. How Instituted. —

Proceedings for the disbarment, stispension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint facts complained, of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. xxx”

Invoking the standards of morality and integrity by which members of the bar are required to comply with, the Petitioner comes to the Honorable Supreme Court to seek the mantle of justice in cleansing the Philippine Bar of a lawyer whose only aim in practicing law seems to focus on immorality, graft and corruption and most of all embarrassing the highest post in the land, that is, the Philippine presidency. In this respect, this Honorable Court should expunge from the roll of attorneys and the ranks of its officers such unscrupulous member of the Integrated Bar.

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner, Ma. Celia C. Suarez, is of legal age, single, Filipino and with postal address at xxxxxxxx Parc Chateau Condominium, Ortigas Center, Pasig City. She is also known as Virginia Suarez, the same being her baptismal name. She began to use the name of Ma. Celia Suarez only when a problem crop up in her application for a U.S. Visa, i.e. her name Virginia C. Suarez was unregistered.

2. Respondent Jose Miguel Arroyo, is a member of the Philippine Bar, of legal age, and currently the Republic of the Philippines’ First Gentleman (FG) being married to the President of the Republic of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-ArrOYO (GMA) and residing officially at Malacañang Palace, San Miguel, Manila where he may be served with summons and this Honorable Court’s processes.

MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT FOR

THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT

3. Petitioner invokes the following provisions of the Code of professional Responsibility, which state:

“Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, .1 — - .t...i~...

life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”

as having been violated by the Respondent and in support thereof states:

A. ACTS OF IMMORALITY

I. INITIAL ENCOUNTER

4. Petitioner met Respondent sometime in the year 1976 or 1977 through her friend xxxxxxxx who happened to have Respondent as one of her clients. Petitioner went along with xxxxxxxx in one of the latter’s business meetings with Respondent at 801 JMT Building along Ayala Avenue, Makati where Respondent h&d office.

4.1 Respondent was then a partner at the Arroyo Barin and Ortile Law Offices.

4.2 The Barin in the firm name refers to Atty. Barin who is the husband of the present Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Fe Barin.~

4.3 Petitioner was a blooming and vibrant 26 year-old lady at that time; Respondent was about ten (10) years older.

5. Petitioner and Pompons hopped into the elevator of the JMT Building and by chance Respondent took said elevator also. Respondent was obviously attracted to petitioner as he lecherously stared at petitioner in the eyes. FG was staring seductively at the petitioner.

6. After having been introduced to each other, V Respondent pursued the petitioner romantically. He lavished the petitioner with flowers and gifts and bombarded her with calls. Thereafter, they dated almost every day.

7. After two (2)or three (3) months of constant dating, they became steady lovers.

7.1 During all this time, Respondent misrepresented himself and deceived petitioner into believing that he (Respondent) was already separated from his spouse, GMA.

II GHOST EMPLOYEE

8. In order to hide their amorous relationship, Respondent made it appear that petitioner was working in his law office. The truth of the matter being that petitioner did not lift a finger in Respondent Arroyo’s office. Years later, this would be the same set up Respondent devised for Vicky Toh. In support of this allegation a copy of the Affidavit executed b~ is attached hereto as Annex “A’

8.1 Eventually, the amorous relationship became public knowledge such that it became known in the whole JMT Building from the lowest employee to the law partners~ Respondent flaunted with this immoral conduct and bragged about his relationship with the petitioner.

8.2 The brother and xxxxxxxx espondent, Iggy and xxxxxxxx and the xxxxxxxx side of the xxxxxxxx family even knew about the romance and relationship.

8.3 subsequently, Respondent even devised a set up wherein every time GMA visits him in JMT Building, the security guard at the reception area would warn petitioner of the same so she could make herself scarce.

8.4 Proof that petitioner “held office” at 801 JMT~ Building, Ayala Avenue is a Notice of Premium Due from The Philippine American Life Insurance Company addressed to petitioner at said office. A copy of said notice is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “B”.

8.5 Further proof, is a photograph of the petitioner sitting on the lap of Respondent, with the latter’s polo unbuttoned and both happily enjoying each other’s company at the law office which is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “C”.

8,6 In fact, right in front of Respondent’s table at the law office was a sofa where Respondent and petitioner would occasionally have carnal knowledge.

9. In many instances, what the petitioner and Respondent did, instead of working, was to engage in drinking sessions every night. They would have this drinking sessions with Respondent’s partners and cousins. Respondent would broadcast to them that petitioner was her “favorita” and would call GMA an “igorota”.

9.1 Respondent would always express that his being a drunkard is to forget GMA, to somehow erase from his memory the fact that he was married to GMA.

10. Eventually, Respondent made petitioner the president of one of his family’s companies, Harmoney Realty and Development Corporation.

10.1 Respondent’s family owns Harmoney Realty as evidenced by Assignments of Subscription between Emmanuel C. Alcantara and Lourdes T. de Arroyo, Inc.; and Evangeline de Silva and Lourdes T. de Arroyo, Inc., both dated 27 January 1981. Lourdes T. de Arroyo, Inc. was represented by Respondent. Copies of said contracts are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes “D” and “E”.

10.2 Proof that petitioner was made President of Harmoney Realty and Development Corporation is a letter addressed to her as President of Harmoney Realty and Development Corporation by S. S. Dario and Company, Inc. dated 27 November 1981, copy of which is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “F”.

10.3 Harmoney Realty and Development Corporation held office at the ₃td floor, LTA Building, Perea St. Legaspi Village, Makati.

Introduction

Read this petition for the disbarment of ‘First Gentleman’ Jose Miguel Arroyo.

This document, along with its incriminating pictures, has been circulating in some sectors of Philippine society for sometime. The petitioner, a woman who used to be closely associated with Arroyo, wants him disbarred as a lawyer for immorality, as well as graft and corruption. Among the information she cited were hints about the infamous ‘Jose Pidal Account,’ rice cartel, and Arroyo’s purchase in December 2004 of a real property at the Marina Area in San Francisco, U.S.A. worth One Hundred Twenty Five Million US Dollars ($ 125 Million). The latter is particularly surprising given that their published statement of assets and liabilities could not have enabled them to buy such a property, and given that their own home in La Vista, QC was almost foreclosed.

Sift through the rather awkward and graphic accounts of the relationship-turned-sour and there will be rewarding insights about Arroyo’s diversion of election funds and illegally acquired wealth. The document does not have the last few pages that would have revealed the name of the petitioner’s lawyers. We have removed the names of people who are not public figures, as well as two pictures that include a minor.

It is not clear why the petition did not make it to court; but it is clear that the document was definitely leaked to Philippine society.

We expect that Arroyo, who has filed 43 libel suits against journalists from various publications late last year, and filed another round against seven journalists only last February 20, will claim that the document below is libelous because it is not a public document and he is not a public figure. One could argue that perhaps he is ill-advised by his lawyers, except that he happens to be a lawyer himself.

No less than the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) on Tuesday added its voice of support to the class suit to be filed by Filipino journalists against President Arroyo's husband after he lodged libel charges against 43 media practitioners. The full story is here.