“Could have, would have, should have” – also known as “coulda, woulda, shoulda” – is an idiom or common expression meaning: An expression of dismissiveness or disappointment concerning a statement, question, explanation, course of action, or occurrence involving hypothetical possibilities, uncertain facts, or missed opportunities. (This stems from expressing that someone could have, would have and/or should have done something).

“The order of words in this delicious morsel of dialect varies with the user. . . .” William Safire writes in his New York Times column On Language in 1994. “In this rhyming compound, a triple elision does the hat trick: although each elision expresses something different, when taken together, the trio conveys a unified meaning. Shoulda, short for should have (and not should of, which lexies call a variant but I call a mistake), carries a sense of correctness or obligation; coulda implies a possibility, and woulda denotes conditional certainty, an oxymoron: the stated intent to have taken an action if only something had not intervened. . . . Taken together, the term means 'Spare me the useless excuses.'"

This is a recurring expression in the “Judge Judy” reality TV show when dealing with small plaintiffs or defendants who try to weasel their way out of the claims they purportedly make under the most ridiculous of reasons.

And this is a recurring idiom that kept going around in my mind as I watched the Facebook Live airing of the hearing of the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability on House Resolution 1040 on Monday, January 18, 2021.

CNN Philippines’ July 29, 2021 report summarizes the case succinctly: (Rodante) Marcoleta and (Michael) Defensor were also among the signatories of a House resolution directing the Committee on Good Governance and Public Accountability to investigate an alleged loan condonation or write-off by the Development Bank of the Philippines in favor of companies affiliated with the Lopez family.

The other lawmakers were Dumper PTDA Partylist Rep. Claudine Bautista, ACT-CIS Partylist Rep. Eric Yap, Cavite Reps. Jesus Crispin Remulla and Elpidio Barzaga, and Presidential son Paolo Duterte of Davao City.
House Resolution 1040, filed on July 9, claimed that Lopez Holding Corp., which was given rights over ABS-CBN Corp. shares, benefited from a large write-off from the DBP, along with other companies controlled by the Lopezes.

The allegedly condoned loans may exceed ₱1.6 billion, an amount congressmen claimed could have been used by the government for its COVID-19 response.

So far that’s three hours of my life I will never get back. First of all, it is apparent that HR 1040 was triggered by the Duterte administration’s absolute hatred for ABS-CBN and its efforts to kill off its majority owners – the Lopez family – just as it did other business and political foe. The HR claims the Lopez companies were given “loan condonation” or “write-off” of its loans with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) more than 14 years ago. The implication is that the Lopez family got sweet deals that got them out of their loans with government as a special favor.

First of all, and the House hearing bears this out, that in 2002 and 2003 Congress – that means the House and Senate – created and passed the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) law. Simply put, the SPV law allowed the formation of limited life entities or companies to whom banks and financial institutions will be allowed to sell their Non Performing Loans (NPL) and Non Performing Assets (NPA). This was still in rehabilitation of credit givers greatly affected by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.

Second, the total amount that DBP allowed to go through liquidation was some P9.6 Billion involving some 2,000 accounts (or loans or companies, whatever).

Third, the Lopez connected loans were for Bayantel – then a Lopez controlled telco – and Central CATV under Home – parent of cable operator Skycable – that’s two out of the 2,000 loan accounts. The Lopez connected loans amounted to P1.6 Billion out of the total P9.6 Billion sold to SPV – a mere 17 percent.

The loans were sold at a discount to SPV-formed Ph1 and Ph2, owned and operated by capitalists Lehman Brothers. All the entities, apparently, a defunct (unless I heard the hearing wrong, but a quick Google search would reveal the status. Not that it matters in the proceedings.)

What is clear is, according to the regulators’ representatives like the Commission on Audit (COA) and Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the DBP that everything was done according to law.

However, could it be that the anti- Lopez group congressmen and Duterte minions are following the same logic and script by which they killed ABS-CBN? That, despite all the supportive statements, records, and available evidence of the various government agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and many others they chose to ignore and even throw these all away to the wind as having no weight or bearing.

And now here they are again, digging into a 15 year old occurrence totally covered legally by a law crafted by Congress, but at the same time denying it had anything to do with the ABS-CBN franchise issue and expressing much concern that the P1.6 Billion is relevant because of our current COVID-19 situation.

The saving grace of the hearing were the resource persons, professionals in their field, and the new Committee Chair Michael Edgar Aglipay whose patience and methodical and non-showbusiness process fully controlled the proceedings, as well as the sober congressmen like Lito Atienza and Ria Vergara. In fact, there were others who were just pandering to the gallery and displaying a shortage of gray matter.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. Amazing that Rodante Marcoleta, Michael Defensor , Claudine Bautista, Eric Yap, Jesus Crispin Remulla, Elpidio Barzaga, and Paolo Duterte saw the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Perhaps they were in consultation over 15 years ago with Madame Auring or Master Hanz… for the younger set, it was probably Madam Bola.