The decision was unfair. But then, there was enough unfairness to go around?emanating from both sides? in l?affaire Valley Golf.

The family of Delfin de la Paz was quick to call the decision to expel their dad from the golf club for instigating the celebrated Christmas week brawl unjust. Delfin himself said he was shocked by the verdict, because he had been expecting a mere suspension, at the most.

Assuming that Delfin did start the melee by poking one of the sons of Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman with an umbrella, there is just no way that this act merited permanent banishment from his club. An umbrella cannot be called a deadly weapon, in the same way that Delfin?s action should not be interpreted as an attempt to maim or kill any of the Cabinet member?s family, friends or armed bodyguards.

On the other hand, the same intent to seriously injure or even take the lives of the members of the De la Paz family by the Pangandamans, their friends and retainers cannot be said to be missing. When the younger Pangandaman started mauling Delfin and his son after getting hit with rain gear, it wasn?t self-defense?it was intended to beat them to a pulp.

And when one of the secretary?s bodyguards flashed a handgun in the second part of the brawl, at the Valley clubhouse, it was with the intent to cause serious harm on the De la Pazes?or at least to threaten them with it. Even assuming that other members of the De la Paz family arrived with a baseball bat and a knife, that ?show of force? was still laughable when ranged against a firearm-wielding bodyguard.

Of course, it has been repeatedly said, even by the De la Pazes, that the Cabinet secretary never participated in the mauling. But not even the Pangandamans nor any of the club employees called in by the Valley board as witnesses can say that the secretary and concurrent peace negotiator lifted a finger to stop the beatdown.

If Delfin de la Paz can be expelled for hitting someone with an umbrella, then the Valley board should have given the same punishment to the elder Pangandaman for his sin of omission, as the Catholics call it. That, and not the two-year suspension slapped on the secretary, would be fair?and the Valley management would have come across as the tough, no-nonsense administrators that they probably wanted to portray themselves by dropping De la Paz from the membership.

The punishment, as Valley spokesman and lawyer Tim Abejo knows, must fit the crime. And being tough on the umbrella-swinging Delfin de la Paz while letting the non-peace negotiating Secretary Pangandaman get away with a slap on the wrist is unfair.

* * *

But it?s unfair for the De la Pazes, as well, to make it appear like they did nothing wrong. In particular, the way they exploited the Internet and roused the blogging lynch mobs to libel the Pangandamans, Muslims, government officials and anyone even remotely connected to the controversy left much to be desired?especially when it turned out that the blog entry that got everyone so riled up didn?t really match the facts as Valley management and other investigators discovered them.

For instance, Bambee de la Paz obviously wrote from her outraged heart when she posted the original account of the events at Valley in her blog. But the revised, edited and sanitized post that went around later (and which superseded her original expletive-laced narrative in her blog) was obviously intended to demonize Pangandaman with an eye to gaining sympathy from the community of bloggers by ever-so-slightly skewing the story.

As it turns out, according to investigators of the case, no Pangandaman ever said ?Kilala mo ba ako?? [Don?t you know me?]?the remark that fired up a lot of people and painted the image of a power-mad war-freak Muslim bureaucrat. That remark was actually uttered by Delfin de la Paz during the confrontation with one of the Pangandaman son at the fifth hole tee house.

The investigators also turned up the fact that 14-year-old Bino, the age-group champion golfer, was pretty handy with the driver?not just to stripe balls down the fairway, but also to hammer people with. (On the other hand, most people didn?t know that a Pangandaman bodyguard also had an M-16 rifle in a suitcase, which was never taken out, thank God.)

But the blog-feeding frenzy was on, and few were willing to stand up to it?online or otherwise. And when the inconvenient truths about the case started to come out, the ?blogosphere? quieted down several notches.

A few bloggers, like someone called BrianB, were more thoughtful: ?Concerned citizens cannot keep doing this...,? he wrote. ?There?s no progress in this sort of unprincipled advocacy. The blogosphere shouldn?t be used as an extension of your family connections and friendship networks? In my thinking this can be a more powerful medium, something that will actually change policies and attitudes.

?When the politicos were going after the poor, their lands and their rights, what did the middle class do? Nothing. When the politicos went after the press, what did the middle class do? Nothing. Now they are starting to come at you and your previous apathy has made you as weak as [a] puking baby. The lack of ethics and honor, I always say, makes all of our punditry and political cause-orientedness hypocritical.

?The upper middle [commits its] own injustices and contributes to the misery of the poor. I?m sure you are witness to this at least a few times in your life. Instead of just ?making-kampi? to the De la Pazes, which is what we are doing here, we should use this incident to change policy [like] the use of bodyguards in public spaces.?

Unfair? Yes, on both sides. And the truth?and fairness?probably lies somewhere in between.