Garcia’s verbal mannerism came to mind when a mass communications student asked me whether it was okay to rephrase or clean up a quote. He cited the repetition of words by an interview subject and asked if he should edit it. I told the student, no. Hell no. In the case of Garcia, for example, it adds to the color and provides nuance on his personality.

Quotes are sacrosanct. The words between quotation marks should be the exact thing that the subject said. If it is in a different language and requires a translation, the quote should stay as is with the translation provided parenthetically.

Today, it is common to read quotes such as this one in a local newspaper:

“There is no human error when it comes to AI. Its capacity to assess the situation on the field will always be the same, and it will act accordingly to the needs of the intersection,” Jongoy said in a mix of Cebuano and English.

I will bet you a Rhodia notebook that this wasn’t the exact quote. Rather than quoting Jongoy with words that aren’t his, the reporter or editor could have rephrased this into something like: Jongoy said the use of AI will do away with human error. The capacity of AI to assess the traffic situation will always be the same, he said, and the system will act accordingly on what’s best for vehicle flow at the intersection.

The Associated Press Stylebook says that quotation marks are used to “surround the exact words of a speaker or writer when reported in a story.” Exact words.

“Quotes must not be taken out of context. We do not alter quotations, even to correct grammatical errors or word usage,” the AP Stylebook said.

But read news reports and you would often find quotations attributed to speakers who “said in Cebuano” or “ said in a mix of Filipino and English.”

Heck I’ve had a story or two where the quote I used was edited to “he said in Cebuano.” I said a little Latin prayer and made the sign of the cross.

Many of the quotes used in news stories aren’t even “quotable” or worth quoting. Most are better off paraphrased or woven into the report or narrative.

But none is as horrific as misquoting someone in direct quotes. One of the country’s top business leaders was in Cebu for a global event some years back. He gave a press conference. The next day, he read the story that came out in one paper and was aghast that a direct quote attributed to him was not only inaccurate but ungrammatical.

“Did I say this, __? Did I say this?” He asked his company’s local officer.

“Maryosep,” the officer told me. And that’s a direct quote.

The post Why are news reports quoting translations? WTF is “he said in Cebuano?” appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.

The Archdiocese of Cebu still has not received an answer from the Vatican on their Sugbuswak proposal, the name of the plan to break up the archdiocese, Palma said in an interview on the sidelines of yesterday’s press conference on upcoming conferences by Charis Philippines.

But they have gotten comments from Papal Nuncio Brown.

“It’s really, from Rome’s perspective, how the financial proposal could work because so far that’s where they have made comments,” Palma said.

He said Brown wrote him a letter and they talked over the phone about the proposal.

When asked whether the breakup would happen before his retirement, Palma said he isn’t sure.

“I pray it would come before I retire,” said Palma, who will turn 75 on March 19, 2025. Bishops retire when they reach 75 unless the Pope asks them to stay.

The Archdiocese of Cebu submitted earlier this year a proposal to the Vatican for the “birthing” of two new dioceses, the Diocese of Cebu-North and Diocese of Cebu-South. The remaining territory will become the Archdiocese of Cebu Central.

I blog about Sugbuswak. For previous stories, click here.

The post Papal Nuncio: Sugbuswak proposal needs fine tuning on finances appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.

During the event last June 1, 2024, I asked friends and acquaintances their top picks for dishes of the night. Their answers were either one or the other.

So that was how my fantastic, luxurious night went. I would savor a bowl of cold angel hair pasta with ikura, lato, pickled radish in coconut vinegar by Chef David Thien and walk to the other end of the event venue to relish a bowl of hamachi salad – nori-crusted hamachi in spiced soy-biasong dressing and cashew nuts – by Chef Lisa Revilla Thien.

David was at the first table in the Wave Tasting Zone, which highlighted the “freshness of coastal living.” Lisa was at the first table in the Warmth Tasting Zone, which celebrated “Cebu’s pulsating nightlife.” They were at opposite ballrooms, separated by the Peak Tasting Zone, which offered “the comforting embrace of the mountains.”

The two chefs have impeccable culinary skills and experience. They have made their marks in the Michelin scene, according to a press statement by organizers. David is known for his “innovative approach to French cuisine infused with Asian flavors.” Lisa once headed The Dempsey Cookhouse and Bar in Singapore by Michelin-starred chef Jean-Georges.

But that Saturday night, all that we ever needed to know was that Chef David prepared the cold seaweed pasta and Chef Lisa created the hamachi salad.

In between sauntering between the two stations I would have another dish but only because I didn’t want to seem too obvious to the two chefs – how many bowls has this guy taken from my table? I avoided looking them in the eye for fear that I would see an accusatory stare – you again? Yes, me again. Dear Lord, I love your hamachi salad, chef.

Fearing I would get noticed I got a saucerful of pork lechon dolmads – roasted pork marinated in local green mangoes and wrapped in kolis leaves. The leaves taste like arugula, only less bitter. It was by the “Godfather of Philippine Cuisine” himself, Chef Sau del Rosario. The combination was exquisite and I would have reached for a 3rd plate but thought the greens were a deceptive packaging of the perfectly roasted pork inside.

Had I suffered a cardiac incident from over-indulgence, however, these three dishes would have made it a life well-lived.

But I had too much of a good dish, three good dishes in fact.

I was too full to savor and appreciate the other culinary creations: the ngohiong samosa, the tuba-marinated saang sisig tacos, Bisayang Manok, and the tuslob buwa and chicken arancini, which was quite a mouthful for a dish and for a name. I wasn’t able to try the linarang-glazed fish – a dish of salmon with miso and elements of larang or the local fish stew. I have never tried linarang my entire life but then again, I’m not a food writer. Unlike Dr. Nestor Alonso.

Dr. Alonso was the perfect picture of a food critic when he gobbled up the Bisayang Manok or chicken rillettes nestled in crispy phyllo strands. Eyes closed and hunched over, he raised a finger to signal that he was about to speak. The texture was good, he declared. He could taste the chicken.

That night, the age-old question was answered at our table – the egg came before the chicken. You tasted the egg before the chicken. But I was too full even for a small bite of Bisayang Manok.

The balbacua I was able to try as well as the bakasi bonbons, which was a wonderful creation of potatoes, bakasi or saltwater eel and what looked to be its bones. The bakasi is noted as an aphrodisiac and I wondered if the potency was diluted when turned into bonbons. It was an interesting combo but good.

But was it still an aphrodisiac? Later that night a beautiful PR person asked me about goat’s eye. I always thought my Facebook post on pre-colonial Bisayan sexuality triggered that question. But might it have been the bakasi bonbons?

The rosquillos, that famous Liloan biscuit, was made the base of various desserts and I loved, loved the one where it was encrusted in kapeng barako. The bitter-sweet combo makes for a wonderful dessert. Rosquillos were everywhere including, to my pleasant surprise, rosquillos brown, which are slightly overcooked.

I realized it but only belatedly that I was, along with a small group, locked in with all the food. I joined the media preview with Tourism Secretary Christina Garcia-Frasco but did not go out of the ballroom for the formal opening.

I missed Cebu Food & Wine Festival founder Kate Dychangco-Anzani talking about how she grew up in a home where food was a love language. She mentioned that the pandemic project, as her fellow board member Perl Arienza put it, was going national.

I missed the speech of NUSTAR Resort and Casino Chief Operating Officer Alan Teo where he welcomed the attendees to a “wonderful journey.”

I missed Secretary Frasco’s event opening remarks but I was sure she’d mention Cebu hosting a global gastronomy forum in the coming weeks.

I was trapped inside the massive ballrooms debating with myself on an important issue, which dish to close the night with, cold angel hair pasta or hamachi salad?

Wine, the other half of the festival, was out of the question. Perl invited me to have some, an old runner friend beckoned, but I was the designated driver that night. The strongest drink I had was at the “gay drinking station” of Gulf Coast Coffee – a delicious non-alcoholic but caffeinated brew spiked with lemon and served on the rocks.

During the media preview, I asked Secretary Frasco what stood out for her. Which station should we head to after the press conference Ma’am, I asked. She answered with “tanan,” Bisaya for all of them. She then talked about how the dishes showed the world-class quality of Cebuano gastronomy. I was skeptical of her “tanan” answer and thought she was playing politics.

In hindsight, I should have listened to Secretary Frasco and tried “tanan.” Or as the kids put it, “unta tanan,” Bisaya for “sana all.”

Cebu Food and Wine Festival 2024 happens throughout the month of June and will involve 60 pocket events featuring 40 restaurants, 20 hotels, 27 national chefs, and 10 mixologists.

Saturday’s event at Fili Hotel-NUSTAR Cebu was a grand launch that announced a fantastic month ahead for Cebu.

The post How not to write about a food and wine festival launch appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.

Before the priest and I talked, I met with Archbishop Jose Palma and we had lunch. The Archbishop was quick to apologize for what happened and thanked me that I did not think he was responsible for it. It’s true. I have never had any problems interviewing Archbishop Palma if we meet in events.

After our lunch (separate blog post soon), Palma brought me to the room where the priest and I would talk. He thanked me again for coming over and the archbishop left for his afternoon engagement.

The priest apologized for what happened last May 21. That day, I was barred entry to the Archbishop’s Residence and told by the guard I was banned from the premises. The priest denied I was singled out. He said he only left instructions that none from the media would be allowed in.

But the guard was specific that only I was barred. I asked the guard and that was what he told me. Retired publisher Eileen Mangubat independently confirmed this because she asked the guard separately and was told “sa tanan media, ma’m, siya ra ang gi-bawal.”

The priest said a member of the Archbishop’s household was worried that I would be at the parking area even if my request to interview Palma was denied. He said they were worried that I would enter the building and try to interview Palma. Ridiculous.

I told him that that would never happen. I said I respected Archbishop Palma and did not have any problem getting his comment if we met in public. Plus, I had other church officials to contact for the archdiocese’s side. I told him archdiocesan heritage commission head Fr. Brian Brigoli would always answer or return my calls.

I told the priest that I’m very respectful when conducting ambush interviews. I’d signal to the subject that I wanted to ask 1 or 2 questions and if she accedes, then I’d ask the question. If I’m within earshot, I’d explain what I wanted to ask about while seeking permission to interview – this often works because I’m already asking a question anyway. With Mr Aboitiz, I was 2 out of 3 in ambush interviews.

The priest said he realized that indeed I only stayed at the parking area and only interviewed the NMP officials.

Here are some of the points that we discussed during the meeting:

1.) Different roles: I told the priest, “it’s not my job to make the church look good, that’s your job.” I neither set out to make the church look good or bad. What I’m after are interesting stories. I write about the church because I find the subject interesting. I write about whatever interests me. In June and July, something else will interest me and take up my time – COA audit reports because it is releasing time.

2.) Cordon sanitaire: The cordon sanitaire around Archbishop Palma makes him look bad. Shortly after the April 16 meeting between the Archdiocese of Cebu and the National Museum of the Philippines, I was able to interview NMP BOT Chair Andoni Aboitiz at the parking area of the Archbishop’s Residence.

I sent 3 requests for a short interview with Palma but I was told to wait for a press statement from media liaison officer Msgr. Joseph Tan (which never came).

When I wrote the story, all I had was the statement of Aboitiz. I got some details from Fr. Brian Brigoli but Aboitiz’s statements carried more weight because he is head of agency.

The story is what it is because of the material that I had. Had the statement that Palma gave 11 days after at the Minor Seminary press conference been made available, the story would have had a different angle.

His insistence on Church ownership would have been the lead. But how were we to know that? We can’t read the Archbishop’s mind or the mind of any of the church officials. You cannot complain against biased or one-sided reports if you make it difficult for reporters to get your side.

I told him criticisms against Archbishop Palma are unfair precisely because they do not make his statements available. Palma appears weak in pressing the church’s ownership claim over the panels because his voice isn’t heard.

3.) Church reporting is more than just reposting whatever it is the archdiocese media arm releases. Some are okay with that, but not all. I’m not. I have too much self respect. We serve different publics – the archdiocese media updates those already in the church. I write for a general audience. I report, I don’t just repost.

4. In recent months, nobody wrote more about the church than I did. (Pamuyboy portion) In some events, only I bothered to attend. During the vocation month press con, only Vic Kintanar and I were there. Only we wrote about the event for various publications.

Vocation Month launched to address lack of priests and nuns

There is a crisis in religious vocation and formators in Cebu are hoping to encourage more people to consider being a nun or priest.

cebudailynews.inquirer.net

IN PHOTOS | Nurturing Vocations: Efforts to address crisis and inspire youth in central Philippines | Catholic News Philippines | LiCAS.news Philippines | Licas News

The month’s activities will conclude with the “Vocation Jamboree” on February 24 and 25 at the Sacred Heart School – Ateneo de Cebu

philippines.licas.news

During the vocation jamboree, I showed up even at past midnight. None of the other newsrooms bothered to cover these

5.) I’m not in it for the money – some of the payment for my articles are just enough to pay for gas and other incidental expenses in field work. Again, I report on these things because I love writing about them. It’s an act of self-gratification.

I gave away some articles to publications that were not able to cover church events or issues that I deem important. I make money elsewhere to fund the reporting that interests me.

6.) The priest acknowledged my reporting and said some of the stories I write are unreported by others. He cited Baliw-Baliw Festival, which he said they in the church did not know about.

Baliw Baliw Festival in Olango Island, Cebu

Residents of a barangay in Olango Island in Cebu celebrate the Baliw Baliw festival in honor of San Vicente, their patron saint.

www.esquiremag.ph

Church, barangay to suppress vulgarity in Baliw-Baliw Festival in Cebu

Anyone cross-dressing in a bikini, brandishing a dildo, or displaying a tray of cow manure in Barangay San Vicente in Olango Island, Cebu will be removed from the fiesta celebration, its barangay captain warns

www.rappler.com

7.) I asked the priest: why is the archdiocese media liaison team selective on journalists it engages with? As a public institution, isn’t it your responsibility to engage with everyone? Why limit the official chat group media channel to selected outlets? The priest said this was beyond his level. (NOTE: The decision was made by Archdiocese of Cebu Media Liaison Officer Joseph Tan.)

8.) The priest then told me to contact him directly anytime I needed something from Archbishop Palma. He said he will prioritize it.

That was how we ended the short meeting.

The post It’s not my job to make the Church look good appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.

The inventory of the heritage church of Boljoon is missing, its parish secretary confirmed to me this week. They are still looking for it, she said over the phone.

A person familiar with the inventory said it went as far back as to the term of the late Fr. Faustino Cortes, the priest identified as the likely cura parroco when the controversial pulpit panels were lost.

The parish secretary said they have already started the inventory in preparation for the reassignment of parish priests next year. The photo that comes with this post shows Msgr. Arthur Navales signing the inventory when he took over the parish in 2019.

Boljoon has 3 sets of inventories when it was still under the Augustinians. The earliest was the “Libro de Alajas de esta iglesia de Bolhoon” that dates back to 1795. This inventory, according to the paper by NCCA Chair Ino Manalo, is the earliest surviving record and “begins with a record of a splendid trove of golden objects that pertained to the image of the Virgin Mary as Patrocinio de Maria.”

What is missing is the recent one, which, I am told, has not been digitized.

Sources told me it still wasn’t found as of yesterday, April 18. I have not been able to get a comment from Msgr. Navales, who is out of the country. He has also never responded to previous communications to ask questions related to the panel.

I wanted to follow the issue up this week but the parish secretary is no longer accepting my calls. Members of the parish have reportedly been instructed not to provide information.

The post Boljoon parish inventory missing appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.

Barns, in an interview with Rappler, said the ownership of the panels should be discussed separately from its return to the Archdiocesan Shrine of Patrocinio de Maria Santisima in Boljoon. He stood his ground in claiming that the NMP owns the panels through the deed of donation they signed with collectors Edwin and Aileen Bautista.

Sharing pulpit panels

“We can easily have an agreement with the archdiocese that until something happens, let it be National Museum property, but we will put it there,” Barns said. He also repeated NMP’s offer for “sharing” the panels.

Can Cebu Archbishop Jose S. Palma, who issued a statement asserting church ownership of the panels, accept such an agreement?

No, according to separate interviews with officials of the Archdiocese of Cebu.

The canon law, the body of laws and regulations of the Catholic Church, provides a mechanism for church officials to give up ownership of church possessions. But a circular on “the care of the Church’s historical and artistic heritage” bars him from doing so.

“If Archbishop Palma agrees, that is equivalent to alienation of goods,” said Msgr. Raul Go, a canon lawyer with the Archdiocese of Cebu.

Alienation of property

Under regulations of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, an archdiocese like Cebu has P5 million as minimum amount and P50 million as maximum amount of alienation of property, said CBCP Secretary General Msgr. Bernardo Pantin. The monetary value of the properties in question will determine the process and requirements for alienation of goods.

While the pulpit panels are deemed priceless, the monetary value of each is likely above P1 million, a church heritage expert said when asked to give a ballpark figure of their valuation. The amount falls under the archbishop’s discretion.

If the total monetary value of the panels exceeds the minimum amount of P5 million, Canon law sets additional requirements. These are “1) a just cause, such as urgent necessity, evident advantage, piety, charity, or some other grave pastoral reason; and 2) a written appraisal by experts of the asset to be alienated.”

Since the monetary value of the panels fall below the maximum amount of P50 million, canon law does not require Palma to seek the clearance of the Holy See, said Go. He just needs the advice of the admin board, which serves as finance council of the Archdiocese of Cebu.

But the issue on the panels, “is really much bigger than the canon law,” said Go.

Circular on church heritage

Fr. Brian Brigoli, the chairperson of the Archdiocesan Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church, said Opera Artis, a circular issued in 1971, sets regulations on how the church should care for its heritage.

“Works of art from the past are always and everywhere to be preserved so that they may lend their noble service to divine worship and their help to the people’s active participation in the liturgy,” said section 2 of the circular.

“It is clear that the local ordinary can’t alienate items of heritage value and works of art,” Brigoli said.

Section 6 lists conditions for adaptive use of the treasures. “When it is judged that any such works are no longer suited to divine worship, they are never to be given over to profane use. Rather they are to be set up in a fitting place, namely, in a diocesan or interdiocesan museum, so that they are accessible to all who wish to look at them.”

Section 7 stipulates that “precious objects, especially votive offerings, are not to be disposed of without permission of the Holy See.”

For Go, “The fact is clear, it was part of the pulpit, it was stolen, somebody bought it and donated it to the National Museum. I think the law is clear that anybody who buys stolen items is liable.”

If NMP is willing to return it to Boljoon, Go said, “why not donate them to the rightful owner? That is something I really find difficult to understand.”

Permanent loan

Barns’ proposed arrangement is what is called a “permanent loan,” said Dr. Maria Cristina Juan of the SOAS University of London. Juan has an MA in Museum, Heritage, and Material Culture Studies.

“This way (the NMP) continues to take care of the panels, conserve it etc. and protect it from deterioration,” Juan said in an interview via Facebook Messenger.

Such an arrangement, she said, “is a good compromise and everyone contributes a bit to the restitution. The religious, the sting of accountability, the NMP for accepting something without due diligence, and Bautista for not returning it directly to its real owners – basically the parishioners of the church building, not the church order,” she said.

“I feel that the church is not exactly blameless in this and should have some form of accountability,” Juan added.

Palma is scheduled to meet with the NMP to discuss the panels in the middle of April. He held a breakfast meeting on Monday to discuss issues in preparation for that meeting.

The post Can Archbishop Palma set aside church ownership of Boljoon pulpit panels? appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.

The use of “dad” to mean a councilor is apparently based on that old phrase “city father” to mean a council member. It’s so last century, as dated as the word “cager” to refer to a basketball player. It’s a forgotten era – a time when people apparently played basketball in caged courts.

But local newspapers continue to use it along with words like hizzoner to refer to the mayor, apparently a contraction of “his honor.”

Headlinese such as “dad” or “cager” should be retired. Its use is lazy and confusing to people outside the newsroom. How many non-journalists actually understand Dad to mean a councilor? How about a female councilor, should we call her Mom in the headline?

I’ve only read this in local news reports. Dad is a common headline word.

I checked the print version of the story and while space is limited, it could be rephrased in such a way as not to use “dad”:

AFTER CHILD FELL TO DEATH
Check permits
of condo: Gealon

AFTER CHILD FELL TO DEATH
Gealon seeks check
on condo permits

But at the very least, rewrite the headline for the website or social media. These don’t have the space limitations of print. I think one can argue that online headlines can be much longer – closer to a Tweet than a traditional headline. In this story’s case, the online headline could be: Councilor Gealon wants condo’s permits checked after fatal fall of 4-year-old boy.

The post Who’s your daddy? appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.

NMP Board of Trustees Chair Andoni Aboitiz visited the Capitol Friday afternoon to meet with Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia, who gave NMP officials until last week to meet with her.

Garcia said in an interview after their meeting that she clarified with Aboitiz that apart from being religious items, the four panels are also part of Cebu’s cultural heritage and history. She said the NMP should also recognize that both the Capitol and the Boljoon Municipal Government, through their respective legislative bodies, called for the return of the panels.

Garcia said Aboitiz told her that although he was the board chair, “he cannot make the decision alone.” Action on the panels would need a decision by the entire board, which will meet in May.

NMP will meet with Cebu Archbishop Jose S. Palma in the middle of April to discuss the issue of the panels.

In the meantime, Garcia said she will write the OSG to clarify the legal opinion that they issued upon the request of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA). Garcia said that with the way the NMP interpreted the OSG opinion, the National Museum thought it was in their favor.

But she said the opinion was based “on a limited set of facts.” She pointed out the disclaimer in the OSG document, “In providing our comments in this communication, we have relied solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Thus, this comment may not apply to situations with different set of facts.”

Garcia told Rappler that she didn’t think the OSG had a copy of the deed of donation, which identified the panels as having come from the Archdiocesan Shrine of Patrocinio de Maria Santisima in Boljoon.

Garcia said the Province of Cebu “would write officially to the OSG given additional and the more complete facts, which would include (the deed of) donation, which for all the four said the provenance refers to Patrocinion de Maria, and of course the very, very clear letter of Archbishop Palma.”

After the issue on the panels broke out, Palma issued a statement calling for their return, saying their removal was not only unauthorized but constituted a sacrilege. Palma also said the panels were not works of art for public display but instruments of evangelization.

In their legal opinion sent to NCCA Chair Victorino Manalo, the OSG said, “It is only when the fact of ownership, and the theft or robbery, are duly established that the Archdiocese of Cebu can demand for the return of the Panels.”

The OSG also listed four conditions that needed to be established before the NMP could be considered liable for fencing. In an interview with Rappler, NMP Director General Jeremy Barns said the conditions listed showed that they were not liable. In a press conference at the Capitol, however, Cebu Provincial Government lawyers said the conditions indicate NMP liability on fencing.

The post Cebu Capitol to write to OSG over legal opinion on pulpit panels appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.

The article that came out of this interview was published on Rappler: Pulpit panels will be returned, National Museum head assures Cebuanos

For those interested, the transcription was done using OpenAI Whisper. I just needed to do some minor cleaning and correction of the transcription.

Interview with NM Director General Jeremy Barns

April 1, 2024 8:44 pm

JB: Hello, good evening.
ML: Hello, good evening, Director Barnes?
JB Yes. Hi, this is Max?
ML: Yes, Max Limpag.
JB: Nice to meet you. I’ve been reading your stuff. But we haven’t met. Have we met before?
ML: No, no, not yet. I wasn’t there when… Were you in the opening of the Cebu NM?
JB: Yes, yes, last July lang. Though it feels like so long ago already.
ML: I wasn’t able to join that.
JB: Yeah, I met a fair few journalists, so I wasn’t sure if we’d met then. But anyway, yeah, thanks for reaching out. I knew we would probably get to talk one of these days. Yeah, so how can I help?

ML: Is it okay if I record this call? I want to make sure that I get the quotes right. And if you want, I can share a recording.
JB: Sure, I suppose, yeah. I guess we’re both up to date on what happened today in the provincial board. Yeah, so okay, no worries.

ML: Yes, the board gave authorization to Governor Garcia to file, its word, “appropriate case” against National Museum officials and, again from the resolution, any person who kept the said panels after it was stolen. The legal team is currently finalizing the case, but I was told by a source within the team that majority of the team support filing a case for violation of the anti-fencing law. I was also told that they will file an ARTA complaint because the National Museum, according to the resolution, never answered daw the letter of Governor Garcia requesting for the return of the panels. What can you say about it?
JB: Okay, yeah, so that’s quite a lot. And yeah, I’ve been digesting this news. Well, keeping track of the issue in Cebu, we know, well, I know that the prospect of violation of anti-fencing has been brought up before. And we’ve been asked about that in various places and in our discussions with our sister agencies like the NCCA.

And we’ve consulted the Office of the Solicitor General as to whether there might be any basis, (whether) there was a violation of the anti-fencing law. Because when we did our due diligence before accepting the donation, we also looked at that. Because maybe this is a chance for me to make it clear that when the donors approached us with their offer to donate and we got information about the objects, we knew immediately that they were from Boljoon Church originally. So just to be clear, that’s actually what got us excited.

Because we knew about lots of missing objects from Boljoon through the years long ago. And we were excited because, you know, this offer to donate to us would be a chance to bring these back into the public light. Because we know that with Boljoon as well as many other churches that a lot of things left the churches and ended up in private collections and even abroad. And this is a big concern for us.

It’s something that makes us feel quite sad that a lot of our heritage was privatized this way. Even though churches, strictly speaking, are also private property, they have a public character, of course, that we can all enjoy visiting the churches. And most of our churches have already been emptied of all their heritage objects. And, you know, the museum is very mindful that we can, in the course of our work, help to bring things back to the public.

You know, and it’s not the first time that we have helped bring things back to the church. It’s just that in this case, the donor made clear their wish that the National Museum would be the donee and not just to facilitate bringing it back to this church or that church as we’ve done in the past. We’ve helped bring back quite a few objects, mostly from the US, and brought them back to the churches from where they were. Well, usually they were looted during the Philippine-American War, you know, so that kind of case.

So in this case, we, you know, the donor made it clear that they wanted to entrust it to the museum. And the museum was free, naman, to explore with Boljoon, basta, I mean, to, you know, how to bring them there, share them there. These are the terms we use there because it was clear that the gift was to the National Museum and bahala na ang National Museum to protect them, conserve them, and make them accessible, including bringing them to Cebu, maybe our museum there, or, you know, was an option. And or even bringing them to Boljoon.

If we wanted to we would continue to uphold our obligation to preserve and protect and, you know, and so on and so forth. So it’s a little bit tricky. But in my mind, there’s never any doubt that we could discuss and explore this. And initially, we’re excited after unveiling them that we would soon bring them to Cebu City.

And then, and then from there, you know, start dialoguing and reaching out to Boljoon, especially Boljoon because, you know, it’s one of our cherished heritage sites ever since. The National Museum was the one who declared, which declared, it a national cultural treasure. We have been pushing it for World Heritage status. And that, you know, so we really care about Boljoon.

We did the archaeology there with Dr. Bersales and San Carlos team. So Boljoon is one of the places in Cebu we really care about and cherish and want to promote. And so we’re, from the start, we’re really looking forward to that.

And we’re still looking forward to that. And in the statement that my office put out before, I think we only have the one statement, but we were encouraging people to think that, you know, this gift was a really good thing. And it, you know, that it was brought back into the public domain. And the museum is the kind of institution that can work for win-win solutions with the community, with the stakeholders.

And everyone can be assured that, first and foremost, would be the preservation of the objects. And, you know, of course, the original community, original context is important to us. Of course, we look to the Catholic Church as one of our pillars of our cultural heritage, our faith heritage. So, yeah, that’s where we are coming from.

So, of course, we know what happened for various reasons. I think there are really some sense of historical loss. We, you know, a lot of the reaction turned negative against the museum. And, well, we told ourselves that we have to educate everyone or do our part to assure everyone that our role is a very positive role, that we are not just another collector.

We are not in it for… I mean, no one… You know, the museum exists to do good work. And the people we’ve talked to acknowledge that and acknowledge that there’s a process.

We’ve talked to Mayor Derama and Boljoon Sanggunian. I think almost all of them came to the museum in February. My chairman went to visit the governor. And he’s scheduled to visit with Archbishop Palma, who is coming back from Rome. I think he’s been away for a while with the Holy Father. So sometime mid-April, they have an appointment. And we’ll take it from there. We’ll probably be able to announce our action on what we’re going to do sometime in May.

We have a board meeting, and this will be discussed. The board has to approve this kind of thing because we’re talking about an item that is part of our collection. And if we are to do things with our collection, our board needs to approve. That’s why our chairman, who’s also, I think, a well-known Cebuano, is the one taking the lead in meeting with the Governor and meeting with the Archbishop.

So I hope that the impression is that we’re acting on the concerns that have been raised. We’re acting on all the resolutions that have been passed and received by us from Boljoon, from the province, from the diocese, archdiocese, even from the Augustinians in Cebu.

And I know that my colleague, NCCA chairman Ino Manalo, also called on the governor and went to Boljoon. And he reported back saying that he gave assurances that this would work out in a win-win fashion. So we’re quite happy that things are moving in the right direction. We’re looking forward to working things out with the archdiocese as the former or original owner.

Where we seem to differ with a lot of people is our position is that our information, how they were lost from the church, is that the parish priest sold them.

So we didn’t look at it as a theft because this kind of sale by the parish priest is very widely known and happened everywhere and even still continues to happen. So that’s why we object to people saying they are stolen property. What the arch, even the archdiocese or the archbishop in his statement didn’t say they’re stolen. It’s just that there’s no record of any authorization to sell them.

So these are things that we wanted to discuss whether these panels, like many other objects, were unauthorizedly sold. But what is the position of the archdiocese? Are all the priests who did that now going to be, if we’re saying that that was theft, so are all the priests who did that now officially thieves? And we don’t really want to go there.

But that’s something that we would encourage the church to work out so that we can maybe have a policy on trying to recover like the way we’re trying to recover these kinds of church heritage that we think is also like a national heritage. So it’s a bit tricky and that’s why it’s important to have a good meeting with the archbishop and even his brother bishops in the CBCP so that when we settle the Boljoon issue, it will also serve as a model for other churches, other parishes and dioceses.

So because we disagree from the start that they are stolen goods, we disagree also with those who take the position that the anti-fencing law applies. And I think the Office of the Solicitor General, they gave an opinion to Chairman Manalo.

He asked for them to ask whether anti-fencing might apply and they said, well, first the owner or the former owner or the original owner should demonstrate that they were stolen because there’s no doubt in the mind that the panels used to be with the archdiocese in the church. No doubt about that. But then number two, they were stolen. We have to see what is the truth there.

And then number three, of course, for anti-fencing to apply, we had to already know beforehand that they were stolen and yet we accepted them anyway. And that doesn’t follow because we don’t believe that they are officially or legally stolen. And then number four, if I get my law on anti-fencing right, the accuser also has to prove that we did this all for personal gain. And of course, the museum, in accepting this gift, is not in it for any gain, right?

We’re doing it because we see it as part of our mandate to gather together these things for the benefit of the people, which was a no-brainer for us in the case of Boljoon on being such an important heritage site, national cultural treasure, the panels themselves being of a rare and intact kind of quality. And yeah, so I know I’m just talking, but that’s my reaction to the governor’s legal team when they say that there might be anti-fencing bases.

We respectfully differ from them and we believe that anti-fencing will not apply here. Yeah, because yeah, rest assured Max and everyone, all your readers, that we did our due diligence.

We moved to act ethically because we’ve also been accused by some parties of acting unethically, but we differ from that. We did what we thought was our duty, that the higher purpose was to bring back into the public what was private for 40 years through a chain of private owners to bring it back into the public and use our position to share them back with the Cebuanos and if possible with Boljoanons specifically.

And then this would help level up Boljoon because we have other plans there like to help with the museum there, the archaeological site, to level up the place and prepare it for the World Heritage Listing which in the last year we’ve been trying to mobilize World Heritage nominees. So lots of plans, like I promised when we opened the museum in Cebu last year, I said this is the start of many plans or hopes of the National Museum, for the province.

We have plans for Boljoon, we have plans for San Remigio and other sites. Our museum is doing really well, I think, from the feedback I’m getting. So we’re really happy and we’re already hoping to start expanding out of Malacanang sa Sugbu, out of the Aduana, hoping to, well, maybe this part is off the record,

[OFF THE RECORD PORTION]

ML: I was there during the meeting between Gov and NCCA with Chair Manalo and Joebers told Governor Garcia that there was a commitment to return the panels but Chair Manalo said the final decision is with NMP. So the process is…
JB: Yes, yes.
ML: It will be made in May?
JB: Both, you can… All right, we’re back on the record now. I think both are correct. I mean, I think we made our commitment clear.

If we set the ownership issue, whether National Museum owns it or because it can be proved it was stolen, ownership goes back to the archdiocese, we can let that play out. We can let that play out. But while we own it, we are happy to commit to finding ways to bring them to Cebu and Boljoon and share them appropriately. So I don’t…

We maybe we’ll.. form a committee or something, if need be. But we have to assess whether these, and they’re quite fragile, and when we bring them to Cebu, you can look at them, anyone can look at them, they’re quite fragile. And we have to assess whether it’s the best thing to put them back in the pulpit or put them in the museum and make a perfect repro to put in the pulpit while the original is next door in the convento in a controlled environment.

Those are the, that’s why our wording is medyo vague when we say we will share them, we will find ways. It’s because there are ways naman that we can make, I think, all sides happy. We can easily have an agreement with the archdiocese that until something happens, let it be National Museum property, but we will put it there.

So for the community, does it make a difference? For the governor, does it make a difference? Maybe yes, maybe no, that’s why we’ll explore pa. But while they are our property, because they were given to us and the deed of the nation is like a contract, we have to abide by that, unless it’s somehow voided because it’s illegal, or we’ll abide by that, and we will try for a win-win.

And I think from what Mayor Derama told Director Tirol, who’s our director for Visayas, they would be open, or they would welcome National Museum to be in Boljoon.

Of course, we’re already in Cebu City, so I hope like the whole, the whole Cebuanos are happy with what we’ve done so far and that they want more of what we’re doing around Cebu. So that’s kind of the direction. I’m encouraging us to move in, and my boss, my chairman is kind of on the same page, although he’s waiting for his meeting with Archbishop Palma, and we’ll see what we can do. But you can be assured, Max, and everyone who’s concerned, we don’t have any other agenda.

Yeah, we wanna do the right thing by the donors because we believe that they were the owners and they gave it to us and we’re responsible under the terms of our donation. I understand you got a copy of that. So we have to abide by that. At the same time, we are very mindful of what people are wishing for and, well, even demanding for.

So yeah, we’re the, you know, we’re the, all right, don’t quote this anymore because it’s a little corny, but we do try to be the good guys, really. And if I feel bad about anything, it’s like so many people out there are so quick to think so badly of institutions like the National Museum where we’re really trying to do, to make good things happen there, you know?

So- And I don’t know. That’s why when people bring this up with me, I’m like, do you really think National Museum did something wrong by bringing this, you know, these panels into the light, by announcing that they were with us?

I mean, or even by accepting the donation because some people say that was bad. We should have reported our donors to the police or something. And I’m like, really? I mean, do you really think we did a bad thing?

I mean, maybe we can do bad things moving forward, but I’m telling everyone that we wanna do the right thing, talaga. So just wait for it and see because, you know, I think naman we have a good track record around the country that, you know, we’re really a dedicated institution for the national community. And we’ll get there. So maybe people are impatient.

Maybe the governor is impatient. I don’t know. But these things take time. There’s a couple of, you know, different sets of stakeholders.

And, but as I said, the archbishop is available mid-April. And so we’ll talk to him. And then we’ll take it from there. The aim is to get a course of action approved in May by the board of the National Museum.

And then I think everyone will be happy now.

ML: So the question on the return of the panels is separate from the question on the ownership of the panels?
JBYeah, I think so. Because when we say we’re exploring the return, we’re doing it from the point of view that we own the panels.

Therefore, you know, we’re in a position to enforce our requirements, our requirements, you know, like safety and security for the panels, accessibility, and all of that. Yeah, of course it has to be separate because, you know, I don’t think it would make anyone happy if we just say, you know, let’s take it to court and just wait for what happens, muna. I mean, that’s unnecessarily adversarial, I think, because, you know, it’s not our intention to fight the archdiocese or the governor or the mayor or anyone. So, yeah, if these are truly ours, at least for the moment, we need to do our thing and follow our own procedures.

ML: Yeah. Yeah. Has the incident made you go over all your other items and maybe think, because we know, of course, this has been happening for so long, and even the church, well, admitted that some priests may have sold church items in the past, and some of these items may have ended in the National Museum or other institutions.

JB: Yes, for sure, there are many.

Unfortunately, most of our sacred art, as we call it, most of our sacred art, we don’t know where they came from. Some items we do, and we don’t hide that. Like one of our major pieces is a retablo from Dimiao, Bohol. And, you know, the Diocese of Tagbilaran knows about it, and our friends in Bohol, they all know about it.

But they did their fact-checking, and yeah, the priest sold it. Yes, the priest didn’t have authorization either, but they chose, I guess, not to make an issue out of it. And that was highlighted by Jaime Laya in his Bulletin column, Bulletin column, because he was the one who bought it in the 70s. He bought it for the National Museum.

And he knew where it came from. The tragedy is that that retablo was like one of five. The retablo we have was like one of five. It was a retablo menor.

If you go to Dimiao now, there are five altars, all new. There’s the main one, the retablo mayor, and then there’s like two or four minor ones. Ours is only one of the minor ones, so the question is, what happened to the others? And Dr. Laya tells me they were probably broken up, sold in pieces. And, you know, that’s what makes me cry, that for every piece that’s preserved in a museum or a collection, there are many others that were just broken up, and their provenance is gone, lost, forgotten. There are many places you can buy items that obviously came from churches, but there’s no information that goes with them. Kung san galing.

And it’s really sad. There are other national government collections that have more than we do. You know, the Intramuros Administration, their collection is the richest when it comes to sacred art. And that is all, you know, all from different churches from different parts of the country. Some identified, some are not, or most are not, but maybe with more crowdsourcing and more dissemination, we can find out more about where they originated.

ML: Among the solutions that they discussed here, and I think it was upon the suggestion of Commissioner Henares, was the setting up of like a registry or even using the existing heritage registry to list all these stolen items. What do you think about that?
JB: Yeah, I’m all for it. No, I mean, before my friends went to Cebu, we met. I offered to join them, but they said, just in case NCCA has to be impartial. Yeah, no, this is, we’re all agreed that, you know, there’s a lot of work to be done and that successfully resolving this case with the Boljoon panels could give a lot of public, lead to a lot of public awareness. And if it’s handled right, meaning that like our donor, halimbawa, is not demonized, you know, sana would encourage more private collectors to donate, and if they don’t want to donate to a church, then donating to somewhere like National Museum should be a good option, because then National Museum will work on it and research and try to identify and bring back, you know, in some way.

But again, I’m being vague about that because we still haven’t resolved this one and we don’t know yet how it will go exactly, especially if the governor is going to, if, you know, if the governor is gonna be upset like this, I don’t know what I can do to tell her that we’re working on it. I know that, so you were in the meeting with Chair Ino. I mean, he gave assurances and I told him he could give assurances on National Museum’s behalf, and I understand he did. And so, well, if the governor wants to file a case, then, you know, we respect her right to do that.

But I have to say that respectfully, we’re quite secure in our legal position that anti-fencing does not apply in this case and that we, if it did, we would not have, we would not have entered into this donation, that we did our due diligence, that we have the highest respect for her, but we will do our part to defend against that. And at the same time, we will continue to do what we said we would do and continue the dialogue with the stakeholders, which includes the province. So we will do what we need, our lawyers will do what we need to do on this particular case if it pushes through, but we will still do our work and that will, as I’m telling you, involve exploring how we can get this done.

ML: Yeah. I think that’s good. Yeah. I think I have enough, I think.
JB: Yeah, I mean, maybe if you’re going to write the article as a response to the provincial board and what the governor might do tomorrow, if there’s, or in the next days, it’s just, what I’d like to get across is that we have the highest respect for the governor and we’ve tried to demonstrate our commitment to the province of Cebu with our new museum, which is the best one we’ve done yet. And we have a lot of plans and we’re really committed. National Museum is also Cebuano as well as Ilocano, Tagalog. We’re also passionate for Cebuano heritage and we will do the right thing for the people of Cebu, for the nation.

We will be true to our mandate. We’ll be ethical and sensitive and always listening, always responsive. So I hope somehow the governor can be assured that whether or not she pursues this legal course of action that the National Museum will continue. And I hope she, in the end, will be gratified because we are respecting her call to act and maybe it’s not happening exactly the way she wants or as fast as she wants, but we’ll get it done.

And I hope she, in the end, will be as pleased as anyone else. Okay, thanks. One more thing, Max. One more thing, Max. There was this ARTA thing, yeah. I don’t understand, well, yeah. We understood that the governor’s office was looking for a reply to her letter.

ML: Yes, February 27.
JB: Yes, we pointed out that our chairman, Aboitiz, went to see her and you reported on that. We pointed out that that was our response and that chairman said he would handle it personally because he’s a known figure there and he would be able, his assurance to the governor would mean more than mine or anyone else’s because he’s the highest authority in the museum and he’s also someone she knows and so whatever assurances he gave would be the strongest that we could give. So we pointed that out, but the governor’s office was adamant that a written reply was expected, nonetheless, from me. And so we sent her a letter.

It was received by her office last Tuesday. Okay. And I have a copy that, I guess, I don’t mind sending to you, but yeah, so I don’t know, that was last Tuesday, so not Wednesday before Holy Week, but it was Tuesday. We know it was received by the governor’s, I forget her name, her executive assistant, the governor’s office, yeah.

And so I don’t know if the provincial board were aware or if even Gov read it, but we did send a letter because even though our chairman had met and that was our response, they insisted still that a letter would be appreciated, so I wrote one last Tuesday. And I can send you the letter because it’s quite straightforward. In which we updated the Gov that, you know, but my feedback is she wasn’t happy with the letter, so I apologize for that. Okay.

I apologize that she’s not happy. I don’t know why exactly, but again, all I can say is we’re acting in accordance with what we’ve been telling people, and now I’m telling you. Maybe she’s not happy with it, and I’d be willing to learn how we could make her happier. I don’t know, but it’s moving in the direction that she wants, I can assure her, and I just don’t want to add to her burdens, you know?

She should be, if I were her, I would just like, you know, I would suggest she just have a little patience and see if we make good on our word, that we were, you know, and I assure her, I assure everyone that we’re doing it. So no one likes to see anyone upset, and I don’t, I hope maybe Max, you can help me out and just try to, you know, if there are upset people out there, including the Governor, that we can just give them the assurances. We’re not in, we don’t have any other agenda.

I mean, we, you know, the path forward is medyo clear. It’s just the finer details have to be worked out, but the general objective is clear, and that’s why NCCA is on the same page as us, and NHCP, we’re all agreed that they have to be shared back in a meaningful way that we’ll kind of go back to the integrity of Boljoon church, you know? Yeah. So I think I answered everything at great length. I’m sorry if I rambled on a little bit, but if we do this again, you’ll learn it’s my style.

You have to cut me off if I’ve given you enough, but anything else, Max?

ML: No, no, that’s it. I’ll text you my email address, so if you can send your letter response.
JB: Yeah, sure, sure. Okay. Yes, I’ll do that now. Okay, well, yeah, I’ve read your stuff. Your writing is like kind of sharp and to the point.
Yeah, I’d be interested to see whether what, you know, what I’m really trying to convey to you is borne out. I hope, you know, you, I’ve asked, you know, before I texted you back, I asked other people whether you’re a fair reporter, and they all said that you were. So, so that’s great. And, you know, I love any opportunity to get, you know, to try to clear things up and give assurances and promote what the museum is trying to do.

So I hope to see that kind of, well, what I, you know, in whatever article you write. Yeah, please, please try to get what I’m trying to say across, and I’d appreciate that very much. Okay, we’ll do that. Thanks.

Cool. All right, I’ll email you that, and then if you need anything else, just let me know.

ML: Okay, will do. Thank you.
JB: All right. Thank you, Max, maayong gabii.
ML: Yeah, good evening.

The post Transcript: Interview with NMP Director General Jeremy Barns appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.

The Cebu Provincial Board (PB) approved via a unanimous vote in its regular session this afternoon, Monday, the authorization for Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia to file the “appropriate case” against NMP officials and “any person who kept the said panels after it was stolen.”

There is no information yet on the nature of the case and how many will be filed but a source told me it will be related to the Anti-Fencing Law and the Anti-Red Tape Act. Apparently the NMP never answered Gov. Garcia’s letter. (Disclosure: I haven’t been able to verify this piece of information with the governor’s legal team. The person who shared this, however, is an insider.)

The resolution, filed by 5th District PB Member Andrei Duterte, had the title “Resolution authorizing Governor Gwendolyn F. Garcia to file the appropriate case against National Museum of the Philippines officials who refused to return the stolen pulpit panels to the Archdiocesan Shrine of Patrocinio de Maria Santisima Church in Boljoon. Cebu and against any person who kept the said panels after it was stolen.”

The PB resolution said Gov. Garcia sent a letter to the NMP last February 26, 2024 “urgently requesting for the return” of the panels. The NMP never responded to that letter, according to the resolution.

Officials of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) led by Chairman Ino Manalo, Commissioner for Cultural Heritage Ivan Henares, and Cultural Properties Protection and Regulation Division Chief Joseph Patrick Lee met with Gov. Garcia at the Capitol last March 13, 2024. During that meeting, Gov. Garcia was told that a commitment was made to return the panels.

“There was a commitment to return” the panels, Dr. Jose Eleazar Bersales told Garcia at that meeting. Bersales is the Provincial Government’s Consultant on Museums and Heritage. He accompanied NCCA officials during their visit to Boljoon to talk to town officials about the panels.

Manalo, however, told Garcia that the final decision will be made by the NMP.

NMP Board of Trustees Chairman Andoni Aboitiz is scheduled to meet with Cebu Archbishop Jose S. Palma in the middle of April to discuss the panels.

Aboitiz met with Gov. Garcia last February 27 at the Capitol. In an interview with Rappler, Aboitiz said they wanted to look into how the panels were lost from the church and ended up in the hands of private collectors Edwin and Aileen Bautista.

The Bautistas donated the panels to NMP and its exhibition as a “Gift to the Nation” triggered the outcry for its return to Boljoon. Both Palma and Garcia, along with legislative councils in Cebu, said the panels were stolen and should be returned to Boljoon.

Garcia told NCCA officials during the March 13 meeting that the panels were stolen because they belong to the church. “So any stolen item, even though years may have passed and these are eventually officially donated, are still stolen items.”

Palma, on the other hand, said in a statement he released to call for the panels’ return that these were not works of art but sacred objects of the church.

The post Cebu Capitol set to file case against National Museum officials over church panels appeared first on Leon Kilat: The Tech Experiments.