April 14, 2008
Dear Graham,

This act of Mr. Pangilinan is filled with deceit and BAD FAITH that FIBA should be informed about these acts. Maybe BAP member organizations should pass a resolution condemning such acts of betrayal. Mr. Manny Pangilinan and his cohorts are not out to unite Philippine basketball but to destory it. Their interest in Basketball is simply for the money and not for its development. They at the SBP have been allowed to handle our international commitments but failed miserably. We have sent a team of American players, spend so much for their training but got routed but a lowly Iran team whose national sports is not even basketball. Despite the media build up of how strong our team was prior to the Olympic qualifier, it simpy was mediocre because of the lack fo integrity and commitment of the players to play for flag and country. It was very clear and you can see it in their eyes that nothing for the country was there to fight for.  We continue to wallow in mediocrity and has been the laughing stock in Asia and the world for not getting our acts together. This happened because of individuals trying  to advance their selfish motives.

The PBA is now is chaos that even the network covering their games have hinted that they are not joining the bidding for next year's coverage because of unfair business practices. From the beginning the PBA has not been very fair, what with 4 out of 10 teams playing owned by one mother company.  I'm not saying games are  fixed but  definitely results are suspicious. The commissioner dining with team owners in a time where a crucial decision is going to be exercised, after which James Yap was suspended  for one game in a very crucial  stretch of the series  simply leaves a bad taste of how the league is being  run.  

In the professional league, the word delicadeza does not exist because its stakeholders do not have a sense for it. All policy decisions are based on what the market demands creating scenarios that will produce intrigues that will tickle the public's perceptions so that they will watch the games and produce more revenues to the detriment of the paying but innocent public. Their maketing strategy is clear and simple that even the SBP BAP conflict is pursued as such so that drama will unfold. Debates will then happen in the streets and in the homes para MAPAG-USAPAN, then panonoorin sila. Parang SHOWBIZ ba! Very CHEAP di ba!  But they can not fool the public all the time. It's time for them to fold up.

Meanwhile, lovers of Philippine basketball should not take this sitting down. We have to fight the EVIL that is in our midst. They (SBP) had their chance but blew it. And not even their media drumbeaters and so-called EXPERTS can ignore the fact that we are still rock bottom in development in the game of basketball. While others are already looking at systems in defense and offense and its other facets, we in the Philippines can not even have a true basketball organization that will pursue its progress that will allow us to be competitive with the rest of the  world. If we do not do something, WE DEFINITELY SUCK! Remember, "EVIL WILL TRIUMPH WHEN GOOD MEN DO NOTHING!

GOD BLESS US ALL!

DR. ILDEFONSO O. MEDINA, JR.
SURIGAO CITY

PS
Sana you can relay this to all our members. maybe they have comments too.
Thanks!

                                                   Republic of the Philippines        
                                                    House of Representatives
                                                  Quezon City, Metro Manila
  
                                                                                                       04 April 2008
 
MR. MANUEL V. PANGILINAN
BAP-SBP, PLDT Building
Makati City
 
Dear Mr. Pangilinan,
 
          This is a reply to your letter of 28 March 2008 .
 
          Let me state, at the outset, that your letter commented only on three (3) of the seven (7) items which I mentioned,  inter-alia, as the breaches that were committed on the Bangkok Agreement which you signed on 04 February 2007.
 
          If you will act only in good faith and give value to your signature to the Bangkok Agreement, the clear intention of said Agreement is to provide the governing framework for the BAP and the SBP to work together, within the transitory period of one (1) year to unify the principal stakeholders in Philippine Basketball as represented by BAP and SBP.
 
          This Bangkok Agreement was reached under the auspices of FIBA and FIBA (Asia) such that Mr. Patrick Baumann, Secretary-General of FIBA and Sheik Saud Bin Ali Al-Thani, President of FIBA (Asia) and Dato Yeoh Choo Hock, Secretary-General of FIBA (Asia) were also signatories to the Bangkok Agreement.
 
          There is absolutely no intention to abolish BAP but to organize a “functional merger” of BAP-SBP.  Indeed the Bangkok Agreement expressly stated that the corporate name of SBP shall be amended to read “BAP-SBP”, with BAP, the 71-years old organization being given precedence and prominence in the corporate name.
 
          Contrary to the letter and spirit of the Bangkok Agreement, the allegations of your media propagandist which posed the question in a press write-up on 03 April 2008 : “Will the BAP forced to extinction by POC (?) be allowed to resurrect?  Will the BAP-SBP be finally rid of the BAP albatross and progress as just SBP?”, if not denied by you and if your actions do not belie such intriguing innuendos, then you could rightfully be charged that you affixed your signature to the Bangkok Agreement not with clean hand.
 
          But let me focus on the specific issues you raised in your letter of 28 March 2008 including the press reactions of your “boys” to my letter of 27 March 2008 which you released to media before we could thresh out the issues involved as internal matters to BAP and SBP:
 
1.    It is absolute  falsehood  for  you  to claim that my assumption as  Chairman  of BAP-SBP 
       can be made effective only upon a vacancy being created in the BAP-SBP Board.
 
       I say that you are not being truthful because:
 
       a.   The Bangkok Agreement was very express  and categorical in  stipulating  that  the  BAP  shall
               have the right to nominate the Chairman of the BAP-SBP Board of Trustees;
 
       b.   At the Unity Congress held at the Dusit  Hotel, Makati City on 05 February 2007, I was one of
             the twelve (12) BAP nominees allocated to BAP under the  sharing  arrangement agreed  upon.
      
             A copy of the list  of  BAP  nominees is hereto attached  as  Annex “A”, as duly submitted to
             and  received  by  Atty. Marievic  R. Añonuevo, the  Acting Corporate Secretary of the BAP-SBP
             Unity  Congress and  the  interim  Board  of Trustees of BAP-SBP;
            
      c.   The   Minutes  of  the  Meeting  of the BAP-SBP organizational  meeting  in implementation  of
            the Bangkok Agreement reflected the following:
 
                       “Upon nominations, duly made and seconded, the following
                          officers  of  the  Corporation  for  the year 2007-2008 and until
                          their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified:
 
                                    Chairman                      -   Luis R. Villafuerte
                                    Vice-Chairman               -   Victorico P. Vargas
                                    President                      -   Manuel V. Pangilinan
                                    Secretary                      -   Marievic R. Añonuevo
                                    Treasurer                      -   Christian D. Tan
                                    Legal Counsel               -   Bonifacio Alentajan
 
                   The aforequoted  minutes  of  the  Meeting  was duly ATTESTED with the  signatures  of  
                   Manuel V. Pangilinan and Marievic R. Añonuevo.
 
       d.   It should be emphasized that the organizational meeting to implement the Bangkok Agreement
             was to constitute the Board of Trustees of the BAP-SBP, and not of SBP merely.  Hence, the
             new composition of the Board of Trustees and the new set of officers were the proper subjects
             of the nominations and elections.  Any attempt to subvert and undermine the letter and intent
             of the Bangkok Agreement during and after the meeting should be construed as transgressions
             and are null and void.
 
      e.   In  the  light  of  the foregoing, it is  very clear that I, as duly nominated and elected Chairman
            of  BAP-SBP did  not  and does not need a vacancy to  be  created before I could assume
            the  Chairmanship of  the  BAP-SBP  Board  of Trustees.
 
     f.    But  even  granting  arguendo  that a vacancy need  to be created in the Board of Trustees,
           before  the  Chairman  of  the Board could be filled-up,   there    were    already several
           resignations that have already been tendered which you ignored.
 
2.    It  is  grossly  misleading, at the very least and an absolute falsehood, at worst, for you to 
       claim that the new nominees  of  BAP  to the BAP-SBP Board cannot be  recognized 
       unless an incumbent “BAP- nominee trustee” agrees to resign or to step down.

        From  the  very  outset,  you  and  your     “boys” maneuvered  not to recognize the twelve (12) 
        nominees of the BAP-SBP Board.  What   you did was to retain the original  Board  of  Trustees      
        of  the  SBP,  which   Board members   were  already  superseded  by  the  BAP-SBP Board, as     
        envisioned in the Bangkok Agreement.
        Should you  invoke   “technicalities”  to  nullify   the    Bangkok Agreement then again it could  be 
        said that you acted in bad faith when you signed the Bangkok Agreement.
 
        Even for the sake of argument without conceding it that vacancies must be created before they 
        are replaced, it is on record that from the original Board Members prior to the  BAP-SBP  Bangkok 
        Agreement  there  were   Board members  that  already  resigned,  namely  Mr. Joey Lina and 
        Lito  Alvarez.  Mr. Fritz Gaston  resigned  as  BAP Director,   but  he  was  still   retained  as BAP-SBP 
        Board Member because he professed to shift  his loyalty  to SBP.

        Messrs.  Michel Lhuillier  and  Raul  Alcoseba were and still are no longer affiliated with BAP and 
        were not nominated by BAP under the BAP-SBP Agreement, but both of them are still in the 
        BAP-SBP Board of Trustees.
 
       These  are  some  of  the  irregularities  that you perpetuate,  such  that  instead  of fostering 
       cooperation between  BAP  and  SBP,   there  is  disunity, distrust and animosity.
 
3.    With respect to the third point that pertain to the alleged donation  of  funds  from  TAO 
       Corporation and NOKIA you falsely alluded to  me that I insinuated that said funds, to quote you  
       verbatim “are diverted for a  purpose other than  National  Basketball  Youth Development,  to 
       the detriment of the BAP-SBP”.  If you will only re-read my letter there was absolutely no 
       suggestion of “diversion of funds” for a purpose other than  “National Basketball Youth
       Development”. I never said such  words and phrases.
 
       What I implied was that  BAP-SBP,  as  a corporate entity, was not made the direct beneficiary of the 
       funds, as  said  funds  were  not deposited to the BAP-SBP bank account  where  the BAP-SBP 
       Treasurer in the person of Mr.  Christian  Tan    could  be  the   signatory  of checks whenever         
       disbursements of the donated funds would be made  for  purposes  required  by  BAP-SBP 
       programs or projects.
 
       The question that remains is that if no corporation was created as a conduit for the funds, are the 
       funds being directly disbursed  to  activities  or events without passing through the BAP-SBP bank 
       accounts or is  there  a  new  BAP-SBP    bank account  that excludes Mr. Christian Tan as signatory 
       or that Mr. Tan  being  the  Treasurer  nominated  by  BAP in  the BAP-SBP arrangements is being           
       by-passed by other signatories.
 
       If, as  you  claimed  in  your  letter  to me that “ TAO Corporation and Nokia have required that     
       all  funds  disbursed are to have dual signatories – one from their side and the other from  BAP-
       SBP” then  it  is  clear  as sunlight  that  the funds, purportedly   already  donated,  are  not  yet  in a 
       BAP-SBP bank account, but in a bank account where the signatories consist of an  alleged BAP-SBP 
       signatory  that  excludes  its Treasurer, Mr. Christian Tan   and  an  outsider from  BAP-SBP  
       represented by the donors.
 
       If, as claimed that donated funds to BAP-SBP are handled with “full transparency”, then you, Mr. 
       Pangilinan, better disclose  fully all  the  details of the arrangements made with the donor entities.
 
       We, in BAP do not care where, for what, and how much are  to  be  expended “for the sports
       basketball,  but  let  us follow procedures that will provide full disclosure if needed the funds 
       are for BAP-SBP projects as announced or only SBP projects. If it is only for SBP projects or for 
       Manny Pangilinan proposals, let  it  be and we, in BAP, if properly clarified, will put the issue at rest.
       The point at issue here is that: is there really a  BAP-SBP rapprochement or there is none, in
       spite of  the pretensions  brought   about  by  the  Bangkok  Agreement. Is there really a plot to 
​       render BAP extinct?
 
       As I said in my letter to you of 27 March 2008 , I agreed to participate  in  the BAP-SBP arrangement
       because I thought that you  and  I could  be  honest  brokers  and objective mediators of the 
       differences between   BAP  and SBP.   I  have  no  personal agenda  to  pursue  other  than  to  
       contribute to the efforts to unify  BAP-SBP.   I  am  even  willing  to  bow  out after a sincere and 
       meaningful unity is achieved.
 
       I believe   that  one (1)  year  transition  period provided by  the  Bangkok  Agreement  would be 
       adequate  to  arrive  at workable  solutions  where harmony and cooperation will prevail in an
       atmosphere where those from BAP and from SBP will look at themselves as one.
 
        But based  on  your actuations and behaviour, it is very obvious  that unity  is but an illusion, 
        unless  you reconsider your maneuvers   against  the  BAP. If you allow yourself to be dominated   
        by  your “boys” or that  in fact what your “boys” are doing  are  upon  your  instructions,  then the 
        letter and spirit of the Bangkok Agreement will be brought to naught.
 
        You will hear from me again on other related matters but in the meantime, I shall await your reply.
 
 
 
                                                                                                            Very truly yours,
 
 
                                                                                                         LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE
                                                                                                               Chairman
                                                                                                         BAP and BAP-SBP
 
Copy furnished:
Congressman Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., BAP President
BAP Executive Board
Mr. Bob Elphinston / Mr. Patrick Baumann, FIBA
Shk. Saud Bin Ali Al-Thani, FIBA Asia
Dato Yeoh Choo Hock, FIBA Asia
Mr. William Ramirez, Philippine Sports Commission
Mr. Peping Cojuangco, Philippine Olympic Committee
Mr. Robert Aventajado, Philippine Olympic Committee
Mr. Eric Buhain, Games and Amusement Board