Constitution 101 for the President

by Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino

Manila Standard

October 18, 2010

Reading what was obviously a speech prepared for him by his unhelpful band of lawyers, Noynoy Aquino implored the Supreme Court—in a tone that was clearly not plaintive but ominous, especially when he referred to a narrowly averted “crisis” between the Court and Congress—to be more respectful of otherbranches of government. He was bemoaning the “status ante” order (“status quo ante” is a confusing juxtaposition) issued by the High Court in respect to one of the so-called “midnight appointees”. He was peeved, it was only too clear, that the Supreme Court of the land had dared intrude into his relentless and merciless purge of all those wearing colors in any way associated with the hues of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. That is how infantile our national leadership is, and like a brat, he threw a tantrum at the court’s order.

We derisively referred to a “subservient press” in the Marcos days. Is it any better now? True, journalists may not be arrested or surveilled but they are no less as subservient, especially when in the employ of media enterprises that have a stake in the present administration. In this regard, the reported resignation of Maria Theresa Ressa is most telling. You do not need lengthy paragraphs to read the story of a shamefully subservient media—the very same media that calls the Supreme Court “the Arroyo Court”—clearly an attempt to denigrate it and to detract from the people’s trust in its judgments. Why was that epithet not used of the Court when it ruled repeatedly against GMA during her incumbency? It diluted her power to restrict the appearance of executive officials before congressional hearings by distinguishing between those conducted in aid of legislation and those pursuant to the oversight functions of Congress. It denied her the power to take over public utilities owned by private corporations in times of national emergency, ruling that this was a legislative, not an executive prerogative. It called her declaration of a state of emergency nothing more than “the calling out power” already granted a president by the Constitution, and it declared the “calibrated pre-emptive response” illegal—if it meant more than “maximum tolerance”. These were serious reversals. To GMA’s tribute—and I will pay her tribute even if it may not be politically sound these days to do so, she had the decency and the statesmanship to submit to the orders of the Court. This is the first time, in modern times, that a President castigates the Supreme Court, of course while wearing the same smile he wore when talking about the massacre of the hostage victims!

Fundamentally, separation of powers and checks and balances serve to uphold ”popular sovereignty” that, in discourse theory, means that it is not the say-so of any ruler, that makes a law valid but the power of rational exchange. In this respect, communicative action—that action that takes place when members of society, treating themselves as equals, engage in collective will-formation—is said to be “juris-generative”, generative of binding law. The Supreme Court must check on the Executive, as it does all other branches, agencies and instrumentalities of government, under what is commonly known as the broadened “certiorari” power of the Supreme Court, so that every use of that force that is reserved to the State is justified and legitimated by valid law. This forestalls the appropriation of power for reasons and purposes not sanctioned by law. In this particular case, the petitioner had asked the Court to determine whether or not P-Noy had wielded the tremendous powers of the presidency consonant with the Constitution and the laws in booting him out of office. What is so offensive about that? In fact, the Court has not yet ruled against the executive issuance; it has only asked that it be allowed to determine where rights lie.

I am profoundly disturbed by the unease of a president with judicial review, especially when he has not exhibited a superior degree of mental acuity and juridical sophistication! True, there are democracies that do not provide for the extent of review our courts presently exercise. But if that is the way we wish to go, then let us go about the long-delayed task of amending the Constitution, something that P-Noy has repeatedly said he is not too eager about! But for as long as the fundamental law of the land defines judicial power in terms of the duty of the courts to determine whether any branch, office or agency of government has acted with grave abuse of discretion, then it is not possible for the court, without seriously breaching the constitution, to renege on its bounden duty by being more deferential and yielding!

The President said that he kept mum when the Supreme Court issued a similar order against the Lower House in regard to the impeachment processes against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Clearly, he was suggesting that he did the Court a favor in keeping his peace. That was no favor. It would have been wrong of him to order his minions in the Lower House to ignore the Supreme Court. One thing however is clear: When a president refuses to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court, or abets disobedience by others—including the public—of such orders, when a President warns of a crisis when his gambit is interdicted by the High Court on constitutional or legal grounds, that, to my mind constitutes a “culpable violation of the constitution”.

Rather than play this childish game of “keep off my back and I will keep off yours” it may be more intellectually challenging to pay heed to the logic of justification. The Legislature justifies measures it passes into law by appealing to the norms in the life-world that are then thematized to the extent that they are referred to in the process of justification. We changed the “default” property regime of married couples from conjugal partnership of gains to absolute community because that has been the unwritten but acknowledged norm of property relations between Filipino spouses. At other times, in the end, legislative justification must provide such reasons as will allow all those affected by the law to accept it (on rational grounds) and that will respond to challenges and to objections. The justification of a judicial decision is quite something else. The primary audience of every judgment consists of the parties that come before the court, but because judicial interpretations of law form part of the legal system, the ultimate judicial audience is in fact broader: the entire body-politic. But a decision is valid that has been rendered pursuant to established process by a forum vested by law with jurisdiction (in all its aspects). While legal formalism may not be the most ideal theory or position, consistency is nevertheless a principal criterion of the validity of judicial decisions—consistency with the entire corpus of laws and with that body of juridical convictions we call jurisprudence. Equally compelling however is the demand of reason that judicial decisions pay homage not principally to the letter of the law but to the fairness and justice—difficult concepts, to be sure—that every law intends. It is this that discourse should be concerned with, not turf. I wish that Malacañang led the nation in more intelligent discourse than embroil branches of government in petty turf wars!

rannie_aquino@rannieaquino.com

Constitution 101 for the President

by Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino

Manila Standard

October 18, 2010

Reading what was obviously a speech prepared for him by his unhelpful band of lawyers, Noynoy Aquino implored the Supreme Court—in a tone that was clearly not plaintive but ominous, especially when he referred to a narrowly averted “crisis” between the Court and Congress—to be more respectful of otherbranches of government. He was bemoaning the “status ante” order (“status quo ante” is a confusing juxtaposition) issued by the High Court in respect to one of the so-called “midnight appointees”. He was peeved, it was only too clear, that the Supreme Court of the land had dared intrude into his relentless and merciless purge of all those wearing colors in any way associated with the hues of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. That is how infantile our national leadership is, and like a brat, he threw a tantrum at the court’s order.

We derisively referred to a “subservient press” in the Marcos days. Is it any better now? True, journalists may not be arrested or surveilled but they are no less as subservient, especially when in the employ of media enterprises that have a stake in the present administration. In this regard, the reported resignation of Maria Theresa Ressa is most telling. You do not need lengthy paragraphs to read the story of a shamefully subservient media—the very same media that calls the Supreme Court “the Arroyo Court”—clearly an attempt to denigrate it and to detract from the people’s trust in its judgments. Why was that epithet not used of the Court when it ruled repeatedly against GMA during her incumbency? It diluted her power to restrict the appearance of executive officials before congressional hearings by distinguishing between those conducted in aid of legislation and those pursuant to the oversight functions of Congress. It denied her the power to take over public utilities owned by private corporations in times of national emergency, ruling that this was a legislative, not an executive prerogative. It called her declaration of a state of emergency nothing more than “the calling out power” already granted a president by the Constitution, and it declared the “calibrated pre-emptive response” illegal—if it meant more than “maximum tolerance”. These were serious reversals. To GMA’s tribute—and I will pay her tribute even if it may not be politically sound these days to do so, she had the decency and the statesmanship to submit to the orders of the Court. This is the first time, in modern times, that a President castigates the Supreme Court, of course while wearing the same smile he wore when talking about the massacre of the hostage victims!

Fundamentally, separation of powers and checks and balances serve to uphold ”popular sovereignty” that, in discourse theory, means that it is not the say-so of any ruler, that makes a law valid but the power of rational exchange. In this respect, communicative action—that action that takes place when members of society, treating themselves as equals, engage in collective will-formation—is said to be “juris-generative”, generative of binding law. The Supreme Court must check on the Executive, as it does all other branches, agencies and instrumentalities of government, under what is commonly known as the broadened “certiorari” power of the Supreme Court, so that every use of that force that is reserved to the State is justified and legitimated by valid law. This forestalls the appropriation of power for reasons and purposes not sanctioned by law. In this particular case, the petitioner had asked the Court to determine whether or not P-Noy had wielded the tremendous powers of the presidency consonant with the Constitution and the laws in booting him out of office. What is so offensive about that? In fact, the Court has not yet ruled against the executive issuance; it has only asked that it be allowed to determine where rights lie.

I am profoundly disturbed by the unease of a president with judicial review, especially when he has not exhibited a superior degree of mental acuity and juridical sophistication! True, there are democracies that do not provide for the extent of review our courts presently exercise. But if that is the way we wish to go, then let us go about the long-delayed task of amending the Constitution, something that P-Noy has repeatedly said he is not too eager about! But for as long as the fundamental law of the land defines judicial power in terms of the duty of the courts to determine whether any branch, office or agency of government has acted with grave abuse of discretion, then it is not possible for the court, without seriously breaching the constitution, to renege on its bounden duty by being more deferential and yielding!

The President said that he kept mum when the Supreme Court issued a similar order against the Lower House in regard to the impeachment processes against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Clearly, he was suggesting that he did the Court a favor in keeping his peace. That was no favor. It would have been wrong of him to order his minions in the Lower House to ignore the Supreme Court. One thing however is clear: When a president refuses to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court, or abets disobedience by others—including the public—of such orders, when a President warns of a crisis when his gambit is interdicted by the High Court on constitutional or legal grounds, that, to my mind constitutes a “culpable violation of the constitution”.

Rather than play this childish game of “keep off my back and I will keep off yours” it may be more intellectually challenging to pay heed to the logic of justification. The Legislature justifies measures it passes into law by appealing to the norms in the life-world that are then thematized to the extent that they are referred to in the process of justification. We changed the “default” property regime of married couples from conjugal partnership of gains to absolute community because that has been the unwritten but acknowledged norm of property relations between Filipino spouses. At other times, in the end, legislative justification must provide such reasons as will allow all those affected by the law to accept it (on rational grounds) and that will respond to challenges and to objections. The justification of a judicial decision is quite something else. The primary audience of every judgment consists of the parties that come before the court, but because judicial interpretations of law form part of the legal system, the ultimate judicial audience is in fact broader: the entire body-politic. But a decision is valid that has been rendered pursuant to established process by a forum vested by law with jurisdiction (in all its aspects). While legal formalism may not be the most ideal theory or position, consistency is nevertheless a principal criterion of the validity of judicial decisions—consistency with the entire corpus of laws and with that body of juridical convictions we call jurisprudence. Equally compelling however is the demand of reason that judicial decisions pay homage not principally to the letter of the law but to the fairness and justice—difficult concepts, to be sure—that every law intends. It is this that discourse should be concerned with, not turf. I wish that Malacañang led the nation in more intelligent discourse than embroil branches of government in petty turf wars!

rannie_aquino@rannieaquino.com

Is Rico Puno P-Noy's FG?

DEMAND AND SUPPLY by Boo Chanco (The Philippine Star) Updated October 18, 2010

There was a time early in the term of Ate Glue when she found it necessary to send FG into exile because he was attracting so much flak that’s affecting her ability to govern. There was the conventional wisdom at that time, long before we realized it was a conjugal conspiracy, that Ate Glue was a hardworking President who meant well but her husband was getting in the way.

So the FG went into exile to San Francisco. But it didn’t last long. Besides, the exile was more symbolic than anything else… a PR gesture to ease pressure on Ate Glue. With existing technology, he could be anywhere and still make his influence felt back home if he really wanted to.

The case of the President’s “significant other” supposedly causing problems of governance is nothing new for us Pinoys. During the Marcos regime post-Dovie Beams, it was said that the Great Dictator could no longer say no to the Imeldific. What Imelda wanted, she got.

So that even if he was essentially a simple man who prefers to eat saluyot and pinakbet over caviar and foie gras, the Marcos regime was associated with the excesses of the First Lady. That means frequent shopping trips to the best shops in Europe and America and flashy parties with celebrities abroad.

In the case of Erap, there were those who said the man is simple and well meaning enough and whose concern for the poor is genuine. But he was waylaid by his midnight Cabinet who got him linked to jueteng payoffs, corporate takeovers and stock market manipulation in the BW scandal.

It was such that I once suggested our next President should be a monk, on the assumption that a celibate President will not have the normal distractions of family and lovers as he manages the country. No wonder P-Noy presented so much hope because he was seen as inherently honest. Best of all, he is a bachelor, so there is no chance of a spouse and her family peddling influence or worse. And it was very encouraging that he had the reputation of not having too many friends. But no one saw the danger of his close friends, kabarkadas, turning out to be his Imelda and FG.

We are now finding out that P-Noy is extremely loyal to his friends almost to a fault. It is now entirely possible, after reading the account of an interview USec Rico Puno gave a daily newspaper, that P-Noy may even resign the Presidency if push comes to shove and the public forces him to fire any one of his friends. He in fact, took several bullets of public criticism for Mr. Puno in the hostage fiasco and the jueteng expose.

Puno boasted in that article that the ties that bind him with P-Noy run deep and go way back. By Puno’s own account, P-Noy would think twice before letting him go. And from all indications, it is apparently not an empty boast.

I don’t know how P-Noy felt after reading that article. But any normal person would feel betrayed that someone he considered a close friend would publicly humiliate him by claiming that he has him tied neatly around his little finger. Puno made P-Noy look weak, hopelessly needy and totally dependent on him. The implication for us who voted for P-Noy is simply, we actually elected Mr. Puno.

Is friendship all that holds Mr. Aquino to Mr. Puno? According to the article, Puno was so indispensable to Mr. Aquino so that he got the special assignment at DILG that circumvents the legal head of the agency. “Puno said he didn’t want to go through the arduous confirmation process of the Commission on Appointments,” the article explained.

WOW! That explains another boast Puno made in another media interview that he could have been DILG Secretary. He settled for Usec because he didn’t want the scrutiny of the confirmation process. I wonder what he is afraid of exposing to the light of a public review.

In case the reader missed his point about the power he holds over P-Noy, Puno told the daily that his work went beyond “what is written” in his job description… From the affairs of the state to the affairs of the heart, Puno seems to know the bachelor President all too well. Almost sounds like blackmail to me… in street lingo, hawak sa balls.

In fact, Puno told the daily, he was among the few people who could “tame” Mr. Aquino. Puno pointed out that nothing has changed in their relationship as friends despite the firestorm he’s now facing. It will take more than just a jueteng exposé or a hostage fiasco to even make a dent on their relationship, Mr. Puno boasted to the daily.

Mr. Puno sounds like a national security risk, if it is true, as he implies, P-Noy is just his puppet. We are now being told Mr. Puno is effectively Mr. Aquino’s FG… the person P-Noy cannot say no to and will defend to death. That means he will be blind to Mr. Puno’s faults and P-Noy will take personally any questions against Mr. Puno.

Too bad none of us realized that voting Noynoy is a “vote one take one” proposition with Mr. Puno as part of the package. This sounds like a breach of contract over which we can do nothing about but hope for the best outcome.

What else is new?

Editorial : Pathetic saber-rattling

Philippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: October 18, 2010

Is President Benigno Aquino III getting the proper legal counsel?
First, the Malacañang review of the report of the Executive inquiry into the Aug. 23 hostage-taking incident watered down the findings and recommendations of the fact-finding committee led by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima. Since the review was made by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Eduardo de Mesa, it is presumed that the apparent whitewash of the case, the President himself announcing it live on television, had been their doing—or should it be undoing?
Now comes the President fuming before the Malacañang press over the Supreme Court’s order stopping his removal of a “midnight appointee” of his predecessor, and accusing the tribunal of blocking his program of reform. The sight was unseemly as it was dangerous. Here was the President pushing the country to a constitutional crisis, and over what? Over the petition of Bai Omera Dianalan-Lucman of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos seeking a stop to the implementation of the President’s Executive Order 2 rescinding the last-minute appointments of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The petition is just one among less than 10 petitions filed by so-called midnight appointees to contest the new President’s order of revocation. And it is the only one on which the high court has provided relief. “The fact that it covers only the Lucman petition shows that it is a class of its own and it cannot be invoked as a blanket remedy for all the so-called midnight appointees,” the Court’s spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said.
But just the same, the President, with none of his legal staff or star-studded communications staff speaking on his behalf, brought to the public his ugly displeasure. “This order will embolden hundreds of similarly situated appointees of the past administration who had already been replaced, resigned or recalled, to demand that they be reinstated or retained,” he said. “And having returned to their obtained posts, what can we expect from people who accepted illegal appointments?” The President’s remarks are fraught with non sequiturs and contortionist logic. How could those who have already resigned return to their posts? Why would they demand to be reinstated when in fact they had given up their offices? The last remark is particularly inane: “. . . [W]hat can we expect from people who accepted illegal appointments?” But has the Court restored them to their “illegal” posts? What indeed can we expect from them when none of them has been reinstated? Perhaps they themselves are at a loss, that’s why some of them have run to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not their appointments are legal.
And alas for Malacañang and its legal pundits and communication whiz kids burying their heads under the sand like ostriches and letting the President make a fool of himself before the public, none of the alleged midnight appointees can be stopped from running to the Supreme Court. The high court after all is the constitutionally empowered authority to rule with finality on legal and constitutional issues. To its credit, the Court, despite very obvious perceptions that it is beholden to the former administration that appointed the overwhelming majority of its magistrates, has carried itself with correct deportment on the issue. It has refused to issue a temporary restraining order against any of the three executive orders which the President has issued against the former administration’s late appointees. And among the late appointees’ petitions contesting the executive order that rescinded their appointments, only Lucman’s was granted relief.
The Court did not expand its powers and intrude into Executive prerogative when it issued the order. The order is just part of the power of judicial review that is the Court’s by virtue of the mandate given it by the Constitution. Through the judicial review, the validity of the appointments could be ascertained or disproved. In rescinding the appointments, the President believes that the appointments were made beyond the March 11, 2010 deadline imposed by the Constitution. If it has the goods, the administration must show them to the Supreme Court, along with other evidence. If it does not, then it should shut up. Saber-rattling is a sure way to push the nation into a constitutional crisis. And with the President doing it alone, bereft of correct advice from his legal staff and communications powerhouse whose jobs the President himself is doing single-handedly, the whole thing is pathetic.

Aquino amnesty should have come after verdict

By Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:57:00 10/16/2010


MANILA, Philippines—President Benigno Aquino risked earning the ire of the court when he announced amnesty for Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and his group of military rebels two weeks before the court promulgates its verdict on their coup d’etat case, some legal experts said Friday.
The office of Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Oscar Pimentel has said that Pimentel will proceed with the promulgation of his decision on the case as scheduled on Oct. 28.
“The question is the timing. I cannot see what is the strategic or tactical advantage with the President coming out with it (the amnesty) now. That is the part I don’t get at all, unless there is a deal that people don’t know about,” one of the experts—a private lawyer respected in legal circles—said on the phone.
He said an amnesty announcement after Pimentel shall have handed down his verdict “would have been the proper time” for Mr. Aquino because at the very least, “the court has spoken” after seven years of trial.
And if Pimentel handling the coup case eventually convicts Trillanes and the other accused, Mr. Aquino may have a hard time getting Congress to concur with his amnesty proclamation, the experts said.
These are the situations that confront Mr. Aquino as a result of his “act of grace” toward the military rebels who tried three times to overthrow the government of then President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, according to two legal experts interviewed by the Inquirer.
The experts declined to be identified—one asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitive position he holds as an official in the government. The other expert is involved in the coup cases against Trillanes and the so-called Magdalo officers.
The lawyer said that he saw no direct legal impact of Mr. Aquino’s early announcement of amnesty but he pointed out that the Chief Executive risked antagonizing the courts.
Better to have waited
Had Mr. Aquino waited for Pimentel to resolve the coup cases, the lawyer said, the President would not be antagonizing the courts and the prosecutors would not have gone “berserk” (hindi nag-alburoto).
The lawyer said Mr. Aquino’s announcement could also provoke the ire of Judge Pimentel.
He noted that Trillanes and a number of Magdalo officers already offended the judge when they walked out of their court hearing on Nov. 29, 2007, setting the stage for the Manila Peninsula hotel siege, where they again demanded the resignation of Arroyo and ended up being slapped with more criminal charges.
And if Trillanes, et al. were acquitted?
The lawyer said: “Then that would render the amnesty moot and academic.”
In a separate interview, the government official said that Mr. Aquino could grant amnesty to Trillanes and the others even after the promulgation of the case.
Chance for the opposition
The official surmised that perhaps Mr. Aquino amnestied Trillanes and the others before the promulgation of the verdict because it might be harder for him to get Congress to concur with his amnesty proclamation if Pimentel convicted the military rebels.
The official said the political minority, especially the allies of Arroyo, would have a chance to pummel the proclamation and urge their colleagues not to concur with it especially “if the judge hands a very powerful and strong decision” on the case.
Magdalo spokesperson Ashley Acedillo said on the phone: “What’s important is that the President granted the amnesty. We are eagerly awaiting both Houses of Congress to concur with it.”
“Good or bad timing, we leave that to the legal minds,” Acedillo said.
Separation of powers
A Palace official said that Pimentel was well within his authority to decide the coup cases against the Magdalo officers.
“We recognize the separation of powers. We are not questioning his promulgation of the case,” Communication Operations Secretary Herminio Coloma said. With a report from Norman Bordadora

Magdalo lawyer joins critics of presidential amnesty for mutineers

October 14, 2010
Even if his clients stand to benefit from President Benigno Aquino III's amnesty proclamation, a lawyer of some of the Magdalo soldiers on Thursday joined critics of the move.
Rights lawyer Theodore Te said the timing of the amnesty not only gave the impression that Malacañang was preempting the courts, but can also demoralize the judiciary.
"The promulgation for the Oakwood takeover is on October 28, 2010. Perhaps the more prudent way forward would have been to wait for the promulgation and, if necessary, issue the amnesty proclamation; if necessary, meaning the accused are convicted. Issuing an amnesty proclamation ahead of the promulgation sends a clear message to the prosecution: the seven-year trial doesn't really count for much," Te said on his web log.
Te sits as counsel to four of the accused in the Oakwood takeover in July 2003.
"I am confident that my clients will be acquitted. My comments on the propriety of the timing of the amnesty proclamation are my own, not my clients'," he said.
On Monday, Aquino signed Proclamation 50, which grants amnesty to over 300 soldiers linked to three military uprisings against the Arroyo administration.
The soldiers linked to the three uprisings included detained Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.
Malacañang has maintained that there was no attempt to preempt the judiciary when Proclamation 50 was signed. — LBG, GMANews.TV

Get Real Again

By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:47:00 10/16/2010

MANILA, Philippines—Twenty years ago, the Davide Commission was tasked to investigate the failed coup d’etat of December 1989, during which 91 people were killed and 570 were wounded. After a year’s work, during which it investigated not only the 1989 coup attempt but the six previous ones against President Cory Aquino, the Davide Commission issued a 734-page report which, among other things, recommended “dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all benefits, in valid instances allowing the attachment of their properties, and punishment to the full extent of the law for those found guilty as principals. Those with lesser offenses should be meted out graduated punishment.” In other words, throw the book at them.
The Davide Report exhaustively analyzed the politicization of the military as a complex, long-term problem, with no quick-fix solutions. It wasn’t keen about granting amnesty to coup plotters, having seen how the rebels let off with light slaps on the wrists (or made to do push-ups), cropped up like bad pennies, mounting coup attempt after coup attempt against Cory. The government, it warned, “should not allow itself to be stampeded into a generalized program ‘to start with a clean slate’ since that argument was used as a ploy in past coup attempts to merely preempt prosecution of incorrigible rebels.” Furthermore, amnesty should be “judiciously applied,” and extended only to “young officers (majors and below) who are not principals and who have exceptional service records, provided they renounce all coups, pledge not to have any involvement in any recruitment or planning for a coup, and agree to resign from the armed forces.
You can’t get much clearer than that.
Yet, President Fidel Ramos, Cory’s successor who, as her Armed Forces chief of staff, recommended push-ups for the rebels to work off their misplaced energy, did the exact opposite of what the Davide report advised. He not only left unheeded many of the Davide Report recommendations; in 1995 he granted an unconditional amnesty to 3,731 military officers and soldiers who participated in the 1987 and 1989 coup attempts—including full reinstatement for 153 officers, and 1,675 soldiers who requested for them. Some were even later promoted, such as Army Col. Jake Malajacan who, flushed with triumph, was quoted as saying, “Coups are a thing of the past.”
Famous last words. Because, of course, the Oakwood coup attempt occurred on July 27, 2003 (as well as the subsequent Manila Pen and Marine stand-off incidents), this time led by junior officers, like Antonio Trillanes. Another fact-finding body, the Feliciano Commission, investigated Oakwood and found that, contrary to Trillanes’ assertion that it was “spontaneous,” Oakwood was the result of months of planning. Moreover, it cited the involvement of then former Sen. Gringo Honasan who also led coup attempts against Cory, and was a beneficiary of Ramos’ unconditional amnesty. Oakwood, according to the Feliciano Commission, was a coup attempt, the goal of which was to remove by force incumbent government officials as well as senior military officers who would not voluntarily give up power.
The Feliciano Commission again strongly recommended: “Enforce the law against all violators—erring officers, troops and civilian partners in coup plots must be treated in accordance with law to control and reverse the culture of impunity.” Why? Because “...failure on the part of the Government to enforce the law deprives the law of its power to deter, particularly among those who had engaged in previous coup plots …. but who were granted unconditional amnesty in 1995 without prior punishment.” Citing the historical evidence, it continued: “A number of former coup plotters who had been punished for their participation in the coup attempts of the 1980s and returned to the military after the 1995 grant of unconditional amnesty…. have turned their back on military adventurism. Members of their units did not join the Magdalo group in Oakwood. But some of those who received unconditional amnesty without prior punishment were on the list of members of the National Recovery Program Council. This suggests that consistent enforcement of the law may be a critical factor in neutralizing the coup virus.” (emphasis supplied)
You can’t get much clearer than that, either.
The two commissions make the point that civilian participants should be prosecuted because they are part of the problem of military adventurism.
Now comes President Aquino, with Proclamation 50, in effect turning his back on the findings and recommendations of both the Davide and the Feliciano commissions, in spite of the lessons of history. And again granting amnesty not only to the military involved, but also “supporters” (presumably civilians), whoever they may be. And while the coup plotters are not to be reinstated, they get their retirement and pension benefits.
His stated reason that there is a “clamor from certain sectors of society” urging him to grant amnesty; and “in order to promote an atmosphere conducive to a just…enduring peace…” Hogwash. The only ones who were “clamoring” were some senators who have ulterior motives. And, of course, the coup plotters themselves. And as the Davide and Feliciano commissions point out, this is not the way to neutralize the coup virus and military adventurism.
The real reasons? How about personal, partisan political considerations? In any case, it looks like P-Noy has stepped off his bruited straight and narrow path. Again.

Where is the justice?

Manila Standard
Wednesday, October 13, 2010Editorial
IT’S been a busy week for the President. Sadly, it has not been time well spent.
First, he finally took action on the Luneta hostage fiasco, three weeks after the investigative panel submitted its detailed report on the botched rescue that killed eight Hong Kong tourists.
As many of us feared he would do, the President spared his friend and shooting buddy, Interior Undersecretary Rico Puno, and pinned most of the blame on Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and four police officers.
His decision came a day after Mr.Puno—who has direct supervision of the police—bragged to the press that, given their long history together, the President would indeed have to think twice before letting him go.
The timing of the President’s announcement seemed to cloak Mr. Puno with extraordinary power and influence. Here was a man who could do no wrong, who could walk away unblemished from a sorry mess in his own backyard.
In watering down the recommendations of the investigative panel, which had called for administrative sanctions against Mr. Puno, the President also demonstrated a lack of confidence in the one person who demonstrated competence throughout this whole sad affair, his own Justice Secretary who led the investigation.
A day later, the President moved to grant amnesty to military rebels who had tried to overthrow his predecessor, in the mistaken notion that any enemy of the previous administration is a friend. Sometimes, they are simply arrogant enemies of the state who are eager to grab power by using armed force. That they wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism and proclaim themselves heroes should offend all who uphold democratic principles, regardless of party. That the President should now say what they did was all right is repugnant, particularly since the leader of the mutinous soldiers had supported him during the last campaign.
In two short days, the President proved there is no impartial justice in his administration after all. There is a vengeful justice against all who were connected with the previous administration, and a gentler, kinder “justice” for friends and allies. How is that taking the moral high ground?

Leila’s head may roll

Lowdown
by Jojo A. Robles
Manila Standard
October 13, 2010


In the end, as President Noynoy Aquino promised, heads may actually get to roll. But they’re just not going to be the heads people expected, based on what really went down at the Quirino Grandstand.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima says the thought of resigning has crossed her mind after the recommendations of the committee she headed to investigate the Rizal Park hostage fiasco were largely watered down or ignored altogether by Malacañang. De Lima didn’t say that just to get the attention of President Noynoy Aquino—the Justice Secretary is a principled, much-admired Cabinet member whose quitting will be a big loss to this administration and who is known (unlike other Aquino officials) to mean what she says.
But we can’t really blame the Justice Secretary for feeling insulted to the point of wanting to leave government. Her committee’s proposals to file criminal and even serious administrative charges against many of the officials involved in the tragedy were set aside by the two-man Malacañang review panel, which apparently took almost as long as De Lima’s committee to figure out how to clear the people involved.
And Aquino, who declared that “heads will roll” in the aftermath of the hostage-taking, must once again take the blame, this time for pretending to want to punish those who embarrassed the entire nation when all he really wanted to do was to protect his officials. The promise of so many heads rolling has since been replaced by the presidential statement to the effect that his officials are human, after all – with heads that remain securely connected to their bodies.
Clearly, this administration doesn’t deserve De Lima, who is not a member of any of the in-house factions in the palace and who is one of the most enlightened choices for the Cabinet made by Aquino. And unlike so many of her fellow appointees, De Lima will not have a problem finding a job outside of government—a job that will pay her more and give her the satisfaction of being trusted enough to impartially pin the blame on those who richly deserve pinning.
Early on, when Aquino said he would order a review of the report of De Lima’s committee, the Justice Secretary got an inkling that a whitewash (not an impartial probe) was what Malacañang was really planning. “I am aware of the fact that certain people from certain quarters have suggested, if not prodded me, that I tender my resignation as early as when the President directed a review,” she said.
De Lima’s suspicion that she was just being “played” by the Palace—along with all the rest of us—probably grew when the President, under pressure to act since the committee submitted its report, released only the De Lima panel’s narration of events, omitting its recommendations. The Palace could not give a sufficient explanation for this strange disclosure, especially after it was made known that the full report had been submitted to the Chinese embassy in Manila.
True to independent form, De Lima announced that while she respected the results of the Palace’s review, she certainly did not like the way the committee’s punitive recommendations had been watered down to mere slaps on the wrist. “Isn’t that obvious?” she said. “Some of the recommendations were substantially adopted but the degree like gross incompetence being degraded to neglect of duty and then no criminal case or charges...”
De Lima didn’t have to finish the sentence. She had become the latest victim of the “fine-tuning” experts of Malacañang —although she seems about ready to stop becoming a victim again and again.
* * *
It is to De Lima’s credit that she will not allow herself to be sent on a fool’s errand, to serve as window-dressing to an administration that says one thing and then immediately revises it to suit the whims of a President held hostage by his cronies and political backers. And even if she stays on, she will be less effective that she was, since Aquino now knows that he cannot trust his justice secretary to separate his propaganda from his actual intent.
(Late yesterday, De Lima told a press conference that she was not consulted by Aquino when he decided to grant amnesty to the Oakwood mutineers led by detained Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV. The exclusion of the Justice Secretary seems to have already begun in earnest.)
Even during the darkest nights of the Arroyo administration, De Lima —as chairman of the Commission on Human Rights—was able to shine. And Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had the good sense to know not to bypass and insult a valued official who knew exactly what she was doing, and who had both a stellar, unblemished record and a passion for improving the people’s lives by working in the government.
Of course, if he’d had his druthers, Aquino probably wouldn’t want to bitch-slap De Lima as he’s done, either. But Aquino, as we all now know, cannot free himself from the tight grip of his cronies, sycophants and all the other people who hold the presidential ear captive.
The length of time it took the President to “fine-tune” De Lima’s report speaks volumes about the problems he and his minions must have encountered just to make everybody in his close circle happy. But in the end, Aquino may not really have loved De Lima less—it’s just that he loves his cronies a whole lot more.
Can anyone really blame De Lima, then, for wanting to quit before she becomes the token righteous person in the circle of fools, knaves and incompetents that Aquino calls his Cabinet? How straight can a path be, after all, if De Lima gets off it as soon as she tries to do the right thing?
In the end, it’s not unreasonable to expect that the only officials who will remain in this administration will be those who cannot get jobs anywhere else, who are just looking to make side deals to enrich themselves and whose only real talent is staying in the good graces of the President.
And here we were nearly convinced by this new, big-talking administration that those were actually the hallmarks of its predecessor. What a letdown.

Damaso, at the end of the day

By Antonio J. Montalvan IIPhilippine Daily Inquirer, p. A15First Posted 04:52:00 10/11/2010
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20101011-297078/Damaso-at-the-end-of-the-day

“AS CHINA’S population ages and the wages slowly rise, the government is becoming more concerned about who will take care of the elderly than about a destabilizing surge of young people unable to find jobs . . . . Experts worry that Beijing is unprepared for the sheer speed at which China will age. The United Nations predicts China’s working-age population will peak in 2015 and plunge by 23 percent by 2050.”

That was a Reuters report, datelined Beijing, in the Inquirer issue of Sept. 27, just about the same time that the Philippines went delirious over a Carlos Celdran in a bowler hat, he who could have demonstrated his wrath against the Chinese authorities for imposing a one-child policy. Except that Celdran was “demonstrating” against “overpopulation” in the Philippines which, if we heed his call, will very surely follow the path of China some years from now—remorseful for controlling population gone hopelessly geriatric.

Watching Celdran’s chutzpah acting on television screens and listening to the hosannas heaped upon him only convinced me that indeed, we have forgotten what Padre Damaso represented. Celdran was clever but his interpretation was, sadly, very literal. It is as if the world has not post-modernized after more than a hundred years of the “Noli.” Filipinos do not take their history too well.

Damaso was the quintessential schemer, a liar who was corrupt and adulterous, abusing his self-imposed, enlarged clerical power to exact vendetta. What he represented is very much real and existent in the flesh today, but not necessarily among the clerics. There are Damasos in media, and there truly are Damasos in government. The Damasos constitute a legion among our politicians. Celdran certainly missed the metaphor of Rizal’s parody.

One hardly finds the Damaso memory alive in Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, the father of Pondong Pinoy, the low-key archbishop of Manila who is painfully aloof with the cameras. Celdran could have searched elsewhere. The script’s setting and dramatis personae were certainly skewed right from the start.

Post-Celdran theatrics, the debate has now shifted to the question of when life begins, as if this has not been answered by science yet. Of course, that is part of the script. And part of the script is the lie that many artificial contraceptives are not abortifacient. It is incredible that one does not know this in this wired age when a wealth of information can be accessed at the flick of a finger. May I invite readers to www.epm.org/articles/bcp3300.html.

Damaso’s expertise was deception. It should not be hard then to find where the Damasos are in this debate.

Surveys are part of the ruse. Majority of Filipinos are in favor of legislating the use of artificial contraception. Right. But the Church is not in this for popularity reasons. Little support or otherwise, it is the role of the Church to point out the moral moorings of public policy, no matter if that is not what the majority says. If the majority says we shall legalize jueteng, do we expect the Church to follow suit? We might as well ask the Church to support drug abuse and women trafficking if and when the majority says these are okay. Never has the Church been daunted by a rampaging mob in its 2,000 years of existence, or it could not have survived this long. And survive it will, with due respect to Amando Doronila.

The Church should not meddle in government? Damaso was hardly the yardstick for that. He lost his moral ascendancy as a perpetrator of colonial abuses, among which were deception and hypocrisy. As pro-life and anti-death advocate, the Church has the responsibility to safeguard the tenets of the faith, which politicians should not leave at the doorstep of their houses when they go to Congress or Malacañang. The Church as a domain of faith is not limited to territorial boundaries. Faith is a sea without shores. The bedroom is part of the Church. Which the hypocrite Damaso denied, hence his dalliances that brought forth the tragic Maria Clara.

Media was in a frenzy over the Celdran performance. “Strictly Politics” of Pia Hontiveros at ANC joined the “fray of friars”—unfortunate for an intelligently straightforward talk show that had once outwitted an unguarded Erap Estrada into admitting that he indeed had signed the bank transfer for Jose Velarde a foot away from Clarissa Ocampo. That was a feat for the probing Hontiveros. That was history at its best.

In the merriment anti-life advocates went into to celebrate Celdran, a hapless John Carlos de los Reyes, the pro-life presidential contender in the May 2010 elections, was ganged up on by a cabal of known pro-death advocates—Beth Angsioco, Krip Yuson, Ricky Carandang and a revealing pro-contraceptive Pia Hontiveros—who only revealed their ignorance of “Humanae Vitae.” Balanced media reporting? Ricky Carandang, now a Cabinet secretary, has been a known anti-life advocate from way, way back. Now a public servant, Carandang remains anti-Church and anti-life. Call that democracy. Damaso would have relished that.

At the end of the show, Hontiveros unfolds a Damaso T-shirt. Everybody giggles and finds it cute, never mind if Delos Reyes is flabbergasted. At the end of the day, who is the real Damaso?
* * *

Comments to montalvan_antonio@g.cu.edu.ph

Reclaiming Our Right To Initiate Change

Norberto B. Gonzales
October 10, 2010
The Political Challenge

A “do nothing strategy” is probably the safest political position today. There are strong indications that the current government could self-destruct sooner than we expect. But this position is alright if we are merely after seeing an end to the present reign of hypocrisy.

We cannot assume that an acceptable process of government change will automatically happen. That the prevailing system can still be relied upon to effect a non-violent transfer of political power. Add to this is the questionability of the last election. While majority of our people may for now believe the announced results of the last election, we know that manipulation and cheating did take place on a major scale, and that sooner or later the legitimacy issue will come out. If we are to undergo another leadership change let us make sure the process remains non-violent, democratic, and truly leading to the kind of change our people need- systemic change rather than a mere change of leaders.

The Shadow Cabinet

Political practice in the Philippines is focused primarily and one-sidedly on electoral victory, to the neglect of preparation for governance. The disastrous consequences of such a skewed political practice should be obvious by now.

Our choice to put up a shadow cabinet to lead our political initiative underlies our conviction that preparedness for governance is as important as, if not more important than, winning elections. What is electoral victory for if we end up bungling the future of our people?

There are many variations of shadow cabinet in various countries of the world, especially in states where the parliamentary system is the established form of government. Our version of the shadow cabinet in the Philippines will be similar with those existing elsewhere simply in the matter of intent: we will prepare to govern, as we strive to secure state power. Our governance will be cabinet-led and our political initiative will be led by a shadow cabinet.

Philippine politics is still elitist in character and this is reflected in both the theory and practice of governance in our country. The people are actually reduced to mere spectators. There are no formal organizational structures and mechanism linking people and bureaucracy as a symbiotic forces for nation building. The adjective “social” in social democracy emphasizes the need to correct this defect in Philippine politics. Social democrats believe that governance is a symbiotic responsibility of government bureaucracy and organized citizenry, and that prosperity and progress for all will not be achieved without the active and formal participation of at least the great number of the people.

Mobilization is at the core of our efforts. Our shadow cabinet-led organization model will allow us to mobilize our people and together we shall secure state power, govern well, and build the future we deserve. We shall be a combined force of the governed and those who will govern.

We will be joined by authentic mass leaders with proven love and true knowledge of the nationalities, classes, and sectors of our people. We should not begin from zero in the matter of human resource in governance. We will gather the experience of those who have served and are currently serving in government. We will reverse the vindictiveness of the present government leadership and their unjust condemnation of our civil servants. We will give just punishment to the bad but in the same vein we will provide our public servants the proper system, the correct government philosophical framework, and most of all the respect and the honor every public servant presumably deserves.

We will also invite the leadership of strategic sectors of our society to lead with us. The strategic sectors of our society should be made aware of the dangers threatening our democracy and how the revolutionary situation can be used to advance selfish ambitions through the continuing deception of our largely uninformed public.

Our Vision

Becoming a First World nation is our vision of tomorrow. Many of our woes are because we are poor and have internalized the attitudes that produce and perpetuate poverty. We continue to be a poor nation because we continue to allow the persistence of the deep and vast divide between rich and poor in our country. We are not about to trigger a war between rich and poor or to suppress and eliminate either group by class war and persecutory force. We accept that there will always be distinct levels of financial status among people in societies. But what is essential is for government to pursue a universal public policy standard common to both rich and poor and for our society to pursue and commit as one, to a vision with guaranteed set of universal benefits for all.

Preferential option for the poor is one way of expressing our people’s adherence to the common good. As a matter of policy, in our society, benefits available to our poor should be of a quality good enough for our rich. Anything public should have a universal character, meaning its effect or result does not distinguish between rich or poor. The object for example of our education and health budgets is to make sure that the quality or standard of our education and health services is at least on par with accepted international standards and accessible to all.

We must view our economy as jointly owned enterprise of all, where every citizen, rich and poor, contributes his or her talents, effort, and taxes. It should not be said that the poor are mere beneficiaries or dependents of society. Taxes, whether direct or indirect, should be paid by all. Taxes are not mere obligations extracted from the people by law. Taxes are our joint investments to create more and more wealth.

Our Strategy: Principles and Tasks

In summary our strategy will be guided by several principles:

· The quest for state power is a period of preparation to govern well;

· Nation building is a symbiotic effort of the governed and those governing;

· Creation of public wealth is by all, and the application of benefits derived from it is universal.

We cannot build the kind of nation we deserve unless we succeed in acquiring state power in the manner that we prefer. “The way we win elections will determine how we will govern.” If in our efforts to win control of government, we decide to participate in the cheating, the bribery that has been rampant and remains prevalent today, what will prevent us from doing the same when we are in government?

To say the least, our electoral and voting system is flawed. And yet this is the democratic option to gain state power and the basic mechanism if the nation needs to change its fundamental systems. We need to ensure that our electoral and voting system is effectively reformed. And this is not just about corruption in the COMELEC or the highly disputed automated elections of May 2010. Significant segments of our society already question these extremely serious flaws of our electoral and voting system, and are campaigning for major reforms/changes therein. We should support these campaigns for these urgent reforms.

In relation to our electoral and voting system, and particularly in relation to the May 2010 elections, we need to raise a moral issue. Our society is already accepting that cheating, selling, and buying of votes are normal to Philippine politics. Blaming poverty for this implies that we cannot expect this practice to go away in the near future. And this kind of reasoning, in a way, is loading the blame for the corrupt and violent election and voting system on our poor again. Not raising this moral issue means allowing vested interests and the moneyed to continue manipulating our electoral process.

We should not allow our people to be deceived into treading a “straight road” to a problematic future at the hands of a leadership with neither the competence nor the character to govern well. Yet we cannot also go about proclaiming ourselves as the authentic agents of change without clarifying where the change that we are promoting will bring us.

The direction of that change should be made clear from the beginning. We need to reaffirm with our people our common vision of a good society and a truly great nation founded on the effective and consistent pursuit and promotion of the common good. We have to make sure that this vision of society, nation, and common good becomes the foundation of our way of life and our laws, especially the fundamental law of our country- the Constitution. Arriving at a consensus among our people on these issues is therefore a prerequisite to changing our Charter in a manner that favors the renewal and reinvigoration of our life as a nation.

The time for change in our country is upon us. The people are increasingly impatient with the dysfunctions of Philippine society, and so the process of change cannot be stopped. But it can be guided towards a better future. Let us end the hypocrisy that holds government and nation in its grip, and reclaim our right to bring about the change our people deserve.

Alcoholism, lechery and graft

By Ramon Tulfo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:26:00 10/09/2010

Filed Under: Benigno Aquino III, Graft & Corruption
MANILA, Philippines—The people gave President Benigno Aquino III a very good net satisfaction rating 100 days in his presidency: +60.
Aquino’s honesty and integrity as a leader is beyond question.
The President took after his late mom, the late President Cory, who was as pure as driven snow in personal integrity and honesty.
But the public knows very little about Aquino’s leadership style; otherwise it wouldn’t have given him such a high rating.
Little by little, though, the public is becoming aware of Aquino’s weak leadership: his standing by Interior Undersecretary Rico E. Puno who was given charge of the Philippine National Police but didn’t know what to do during the Luneta hostage crisis, and who was linked to numbers game “jueteng” payoffs.
* * *
Perhaps Aquino doesn’t know this, but those close to him are running circles around him.
Unimpeachable sources in Malacañang told me about a high Palace official who allegedly charges P5 million from prospective appointees for the position of undersecretary and P3 million for assistant secretary.
The money is coursed through his close aides.
Another Malacañang official was allegedly confronted by one of the President’s sisters after she learned that the official was demanding P1 million from applicants for the government’s prosecution service.
Many Cabinet members are complaining that they are not consulted on new appointments in their departments; new appointees are forced down their throats.
New appointees who don’t pay for their positions are either fraternity brothers of two top Palace officials or classmates of the President.
* * *
Incidentally, former Sen. Ernesto Maceda’s allegation of drinking sprees that last until the wee hours is true, according to my little birdies in the Palace.
One of Aquino’s Cabinet members, who is also a close friend, is an alcoholic, said the little birdies.
Most of the time, this official is drunk or reeking of liquor during office hours, according to my sources.
The same official is seen in public places very drunk, which is unbecoming of his stature.
The bacchanalian feast in the Palace is reminiscent of the time of President Erap when he and his cronies consumed bottles of expensive wines until the wee hours.
If the drinking spree doesn’t take place in Malacañang, it’s held in a building on Edsa where a whole floor has been loaned by the owner to the Palace official.
In that building, women of ill repute entertain the Palace official and his buddies who play high-stakes gambling while drinking expensive wines and liquors.
If you think that alcoholism, lechery and graft were gone with Erap and Gloria, you have another think coming.
* * *
Heard from the grapevine: Undersecretary Puno and Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa are forcing the appointment of former PNP chief Jess Verzosa, who retired recently in humiliation, as secretary of interior and local government.
If that’s not callous shamelessness, I don’t know what is.
* * *
Two officials close to Aquino allegedly contributed P200 million each for the President’s campaign expenses, according to very reliable sources.
These officials are now trying to get back their investments by committing graft, said my sources.