Attached herewith are copies of: (1) my letter-to-the-editor of March 20th, which was published in Midday (Mar. 25) and (2) my letter of Apology, dated today, which I have sent to Midday in the hope that it will be published.

The first letter criticized Bishop Erano Manalo for enjoying "the free use of a Mercedez Benz 450 anomalously withdrawn from the Bureau of Customs"

Between the time I wrote the letter and the time it was published, the bishop’s spokesman had pointed out that the initial report was in error and had plausibly explained how the error might have taken place. In fact, columnist Jose Burgos, Sr., who criticized Bishop Manalo on this very point, was willing to concede that the original report might have been wrong.

The question I would like to pose to you, gentlemen, is this:

Given that the factual basis of my criticism was either non-existent or at least, far weaker than it seemed at the time I had written it, shouldn’t Midday’s editors have taken the initiative and thrown my letter into the wastebasket?

The publication of my letter, with no indication of date on which it was originally written, picture me as the kind of unreasonable person who persisted in attacking the bishop, despite his plausible explanation.

I don't mind this personal embarrassment that much. I accept it as the risk I take when I write a letter to the editor. What concerns me more is the further embarrassment my letter might have caused Bishop Manalo, who probably did not expect any more criticisms after he had explained his side.

Shouldn’t this latter consideration have prompted the junking of my letter?
 

MARISSA GUINTO