Is PNP director inutile or on the take?



Is the PNP Provincial Director in Pangasinan inutile that he can not shut down the illegal gambling in the province, or is he on the take from its operators for allowing them to continously operate under his very nose?

Few months ago, residents and some religious organizations in Pangasinan reported to me through text messages that illegal gambling, in the guise of mini-carnivals or “peryahan”, have mushroomed in the said province.

I immediately called the attention of Sr. Supt. Marlo Chan, the PNP Director of the province, who promised me that he will close down these gambling joints right away.

But lo and behold . . . illegal gambling continue to exist in Col. Chan’s area of responsibility four months after I reported it to him and it even got bigger.

Aside from the “peryahan”, “tupada” or illegal cockfighting and “video karera” “or video horse racing, are now rampant in Chan’s terriroty or jurisdiction.

I have been trying to contact Col. Chan these past few days and weeks to ask him of his earlier promise but he refuses answer my calls.

I wonder what’s taking Chan so long to close these gambling joints in Pangasinan?

Are you simply inutile, Col. Chan . . . or on the take? Just asking!!!

* * *

Councilor Ang reacts
I almost fell from my seat laughing when I read the letter of Manila Councilor Bernardito C. Ang’s lawyers threatening to file a libel suit against me.

Here’s the excerpt of that letter:

“Our client, his friends and colleagues read the said article. They wonder why a reputable newspaper allows a libelous article published without first verifying the truth, except to destroy his reputation and the institution he represents”.

“To set the record straight, two years ago, the woman in the story asked our client for help. He refered the woman to a lawyer, who filed a case for violation of R.A. No. 9262 against her husband. As our client was not privy on what transpired then, he has no knowledge what happened in the case”.

“Last January 2013, the family of the husband went to the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerece, Inc. To seek arbitration. They offered to pay the damages done to the woman. Ourclient is not a privy to the transaction and mediattion that happened between the woman and her husband. Thus, it is unfair and libelous to claim that our client asked money for the help he extended to the woman and to bribe any government officials for one million and two million pesos. Our client niether demanded nor received any money”.

I can not recall writing anything about Manila Councilor Bernardito C. Ang mulcting money from a Chinese couple.

However, if Ang is refering to the article about “Councilor Birdie Angry last week, I think its his problem because “Birdie Angry” is a fictitious name that I came up with, unless it is the nickname or alias of Councilor Ang.

Likewise, is Councilor Bernardito C. Ang admitting that “Coucilor Birdie Angry” and himself are one and the same? . . . oh my, then that’s another interesting story.

Lastly, can someone remind the councilor that there are stories in this world that are identical yet they are very different from each other.

“Konsehal Ang, ikaw basa mabuti muna bago ikaw react kasi madami na patay sa mali akala”.

I really wonder up to this point why Councilor Ang reacted to my column?


Please follow our commenting guidelines.

Comments are closed.