My column for today is The 2010 Movement . It’s in response to Jesuitic placebo by Manuel Buencamino and Filomeno Sta. Ana III, which appeared in yesterday’s Talk of the Town. See also Communal action must target Gloria by Leloy Claudio. While my personal position is for the President’s resignation, I support both proposals criticized by Buencamino and Sta. Ana: impeachment and an independent counsel. Impeachment, because I have been convinced for some time that it is the preferred option for most people (or a large chunk of the public, anyway), and a special prosecutor, as I’ve outlined in the past, because it will, indeed, strengthen institutions and accountability.
Whether those advocating impeachment in October are doing so out of sneakiness -it will just postpone things until the crisis solves itself on June 30, 2010- or out of a genuine belief that we shouldn’t burn down the barn to get rid of a rat, is, of course, another question altogether.
Of course, if the Supreme Court weighs in, we could have an impeachment, sooner than in October. Hope springs eternal.
In the column I also refer to trench warfare, wars of attrition, etc. So you might want to visit First World War.com.
Yesterday, Teodoro, Esperon ask Arroyo to pardon 9 junior officers although the Inquirer editorial said, it’s time to Pay the piper. It will be interesting to see how the President’s boosters justify a pardon without bringing up uncomfortable (for them) reminders of the President’s pardon for former President Estrada. With regards to the professional officers’ dilemma concerning dissent, Dissent and Strategic Leadership of the Military Professions by Don M. Snider makes for relevant reading. See pub849.pdf
mlq3, try as i might, i found nothing in the report (which you kindly furnished me) about any suggestion of an implied amendment to r.a. 2400. what i did find is a reaffirmation of the prohibition against admissibility as evidence of wiretapped materials, and the state of the law as it is.
the only way to resolve all the conflicting opinions (of eminent legal scholars some of whom may have political bias for or against the president) is for an actual case brought all the way to the supreme court touching on all the issues presented.
i personally think a statute is not automatically amended, just as it is not rendered ineffectual, by a deliberate violation of its provision by any one individual or group, including members of a congressional committee or the media. i maintain that, in a government of laws and not of men, no one is above the law.
Bencard, why look for a case citation when you have a statutory citation?
Section 4 clearly states it is only inadmissible when the information was obtained or secured “in violation … of this Act.†So a ruling by a judge for admissibility of the “Hello, Garci†tapes -because he may be legally convinced to a point of moral certainty, as many Filipinos are, that RA 4200 does not cover cellphone conversations – stands unless overturned.
In the same manner, Congress, in acting as an institution as pointed out by Manolo, (or by way of its oversight function, as I see it), to interpret its own policy as contained in RA 4200 in a manner different from the executive branch’s interpretation, and in pursuance thereof, playing the tape in its proceeding despite Section 4, has deemed the information “admissible†for its purposes. Unless successfully challenged, the congressional action, like the judge’s ruling for admissibility, according “legal utility†to the tapes, has legal and binding effects.
Now, let me be the one to put you on the spot. Would you have a better chance of prosecuting the judge who rules for admissibility of the “Hello, Garci” tapes and the members of Congress for actually playing the tapes than Secretary Bunye for being among the first ones to have been seen publicly in possession of those tapes?
Please let me clarify this point again one last time. It is basic in Constitutional Law (and certainly by plain common sense) that acts of Congress for example, whether in the form of statues or other legislative undertakings such as the discipline of its members, are certainly not merely “conjectural†simply because of a supposed absence of “judicial imprimatur.†Legislative acts are valid and final and binding upon all covered by them including the members of the Supreme Court, with or without the imprimatur of the same Court. It is so because while judicial review may be considered “awesome†it is very, very narrow. The Court can only act when they are ask to act in appropriate cases. Hence, the Court is essentially toothless and powerless when not so asked. Meanwhile those congressional acts, which run into thousands of volumes by now, notwithstanding the lack of “judicial imprimatur,†confer real rights, impose real duties and afford real protections. I hope I will not belabor this issue again.
abe, without a binding judicial pronouncement, your propositions are just that, propositions. just another lawyer’s opinion that doesn’t settle the issues with finality. you can use all the esoteric legal jargon you can muster but it would not change the present state of the law on the subject we are discussing.
too bad, you cannot cite any jurisprudence because there is none. the statute is not the be all and end all of the law. it is subject to judicial interpretation; until then people with opposite views can wrangle over it’s application and interpretation, as we are now engaged in.
you have added topics alien to the discussion. it seems to me, and manolo can bear me out on this one, that we were discussing the utility of the alleged garci tapes as evidence that gma cheated, or had improper conversation with garci. i say no, because it cannot be admissible under existing law. and there can be no “judicial imprimatur” on those tapes because they will never be before the court for adjudication of its contents; ergo, if the tape is the only “evidence” being relied on to prove election cheating, or improper conversation by the president, tough luck.
your theories and hypothesis are interesting, though.
How do like to wrangle over this one, guys?
Without a binding judicial pronouncement, a proposition is just a proposition and a conjecture.
‘That Bencard is man’ is a proposition without a binding judicial pronouncement.
Ergo, the proposition ‘That Bencard is a man’ is just a proposition and a conjecture.
Sori Bencard. But don’t you worry, it’s just an interesting hypothesis. But, but if you can cite any jurisprudence to the contrary, I will gladly withdraw the proposition.
scalia, what we have until the miracle you demand takes place, is tatad’s sworn testimony as published in the joint report of the house committees:
And also, Paguia’s:
bencard, this was the portion i was referring to:
thanks, mlq3, i saw that the first time but i gave it just a passing interest because i thought it (the idea of an implied amendment) was just one of the many “what ifs” of the entire controversial proceedings. the joint committees finally concluded a need for congress “to legislate a legal exception for itself”.
they then concluded (in the dispositive portion of the report) that r.a. 2400 remains unchanged in its entirety.
watchful eye, that’s cute but “bencard is a man” is not the subject of any legal dispute (well, so far). if it becomes one, assertions that it is true or false will have to be proven or else they will remain just assertions for purposes of the controversy.
“That Bencard is a man” is just an assertion since it is not the subject of a legal dispute? Really?
“That Manila is in the Philippines” is just an assertion for the same reason? Wow!
Do you really have to be ludicrous to win an argument?
watchful eye, you can do better than that in terms of comprehending a simple statement. what did i say? can you read my lips? that “bencard is a man” becomes a mere assertion once its truth or falsity becomes a subject of legal dispute between two contending parties. each party will have to prove his /her side of the issue. that may sound strange, even “ludicrous” to an unsophisticated mind.
Can you not find truth without thinking in legal terms? Truth is simple, Bencard. It doesn’t have to be the subject of a legal dispute or sophisticated all the time.
I will say it again for your own sake: Get out of your legal straightjacket. It may not be healthful to you. Take care buddy.
watchful, i heard that one before (recently, from abe), buddy. you were the one who raised the question, high-fiving yourself rather prematurely, and thinking you got me. sometime even simple “truth” gets disputed in court like “a slave is a human being”.
Ben, my “other†(this other) has been known to you, cvj, Upn (who also post as “anonieâ€Â) and others for quite some time. I have intentionally revealed it here in my exchange with Upn and with you several posts ago, if you recall. So, what’s news? The exercise is actually about the idea of the “self,†or “self-consciousness†which I believe is what’s driving the philosophy of “blogging†anonymously. It is a very interesting notion in terms, for instance, of the conception of “selfhood†and “statehood†and maybe “anarchy†(the original meaning). Do you remember when I asked you before if you could find the State inside your pocket? It’s about that buddy. I’m right now organizing my thoughts on the way to it, with a view to attempting to create a new “public†for our country. It’s an ambitious project but I’ll try to give it a shot soon.
Meanwhile . . . “sometime even simple ‘truth’ gets disputed in courtâ€Â, TRUE. But most of the time you find truth outside of a court of law. So, try sometimes separating yourself from the Ben the lawyer, from Bencard (or was it Titanium?) the great commenter, once in a while. It’s an interesting experience as many of the commenters here will probably bear out (sometimes unconsciously, I guess). All the best! I got to go for now.
btw, in Dred Scott, a judicial pronouncement by the US SC, it was held that a black slave is a property. Today, US may potentially have a “property” for a president.
mlq3,
i wonder whose fault is it that the ‘miracle’ did not take place when it should have taken place, back in 2005.
too bad Sen. Tatad’s later testimony could not recover the potential ‘KO punch’ the tapes could have given gloria had the tapes been played on time by a neutral 3rd party, as Sen. Tatad had originally intended.
kaso, sorry na lang kay Sen. Tatad, he entrusted (wrongly) the tapes to an eager beaver gustong magpakabayaning si Alan Paguia.
kaya ang naging resulta – nakaupo pa rin si gloria
Bert,
ang tatalino kasi ng mga oposisyon. tapos gusto nyo pang sila ang mamuno ng movement against gloria. susmaryosep!
talagang HU-HU-HU-HU…hikbi. sino ba naman ang di maiiyak sa katalinuhan ng mga oposisyon, as personified by Trillanic and Guingonic, and by their supporters tulad nina……
scalia, you’ll recall at the time i quoted teodoro locsin jr’s observation that the opposition did two things: 1. it was overconfident and so went along with the majority’s proposed rules, which were subversive of the proper way to investigate an impeachment complaint and 2. it kept trying to force the pace of events, as he put it, “to manufacture a people power moment.” i’d add that the hyatt 10 bucked cultural norms and attacked the president whose cabinet they belonged to -without, however, taking the risk of incriminating themselves or their post-government careers (particularly the case with the economic managers, the others like dinky said all they had to say but it wasn’t a smoking gun).
add to that the oversight that proved fatal: not involving fvr in the ongoing discussions; not wanting to be frozen out, he gambled on supporting the president (only to lose out later on, along with jdv). add to that, the inability of civil society (or the parts thereof that left the president) to reach an accomodation with the veep, and then the reluctance of the catholic church to weigh in, forcefuly. this gave the president time to rally the political old guard and convince them her survival was linked to theirs.
“talagang HU-HU-HU-HU…hikbi. sino ba naman ang di maiiyak sa katalinuhan ng mga oposisyon, as personified by Trillanic and Guingonic, and by their supporters tulad nina……”
kawawa naman kami, anthony, kaming 80%+ ng taong-bayan (ayon sa survey) na nato-‘throw-up’ na sa inyong mahal na presidente. kayo lang ‘ata ang anak ng diyos, galit kaya ang diyos sa 80%+ na bobo?
ay, oo nga pala, mali yata survey, survey nga uli.
mlq3, in addition to the opposition’s miserable failure to make a case against gma, i think you overlooked the internecine rivalries within the anti-gma forces, i.e., the natural incompatibility of the erap fanatics and the b& w movement; the ideological differences between the far left (batasan 5 & their respective groups) and the ultra right (magdalo group, trillianes, et al.; and, of course, the political rivalries among the opposition, e.g., lacson vs. fpj supporters. i also think the one biggest factor that caused unbridgeable divide was the confusion and fear as to who would receive the mantle of power in a post-gma scenario. every group has its own idea and every one mistrusts each other, and in turn, the rest of the nation doesn’t trust them. ergo, no “tipping point”, no edsa-style “people power.
Bert,
****falls from seat****
ano?! kayo, representing 80% ng taong bayan?!?!?
****makes the sign of the cross****
kilabutan ka naman!
oo nga, talagang kawawa naman kayo! pinagpipilitan pa rin ang people power! pareho din naman ang resulta – pfffffffttttttt!
magtanim na lang kayo ng kamote! makakatulong pa kayo sa ‘food crisis’!
kuwarta na naman for you-know-who! kakainggit talaga sila!
biruin mo – ang isusurvey lang 1,200, tapos representing buong nation na! masaya na sa resulta ang sponsor ng survey from the Genuine Opportunists, pero mas masaya pa ang mga may-ari ng survey firms kasi………..
kuwarta na naman!!!!!!
talagang engot ang mga Genuine Opportunists. Di nila alam kinakwartahan lang sila nina you-know-who!!!!!!!