Toots Ople and I arrived at Makati City Hall yesterday late in the afternoon, when news of the Court of Appeals TRO had already broken. So it was pretty jolly in the vicinity except for the area around the old city hall, where the Palace-appointed New Order was supposed to have set up shop, and where many lost-looking military people were standing around scratching their heads and texting.
We alighted in a sidestreet and made our way through the kind of courtyard in front of the new city hall, jostling through boiled peanut vendors fish ball vendors and milling crowds of delegation, some standing, some seated, around a stage, from which was blaring “Handog ng Pilipino sa Mundo.” A barker was calling the roll of the barangay delegations:
Barker: “East Rembo!”
Left corner: “Hoorah!!”
Barker: “West Rembo!”
Right corner leaps to its feet: “Yippee!”
Barker: “Palanan!”
Sizeable group stands up and roars: “Yihee!”
Barker: “Poblacion!”
A huddled group waves its arms: “Yehey!”
Barker: “Forbes Park!”
-silence, and then giggling from the huddled masses.
Barker: “Tejeros!”
Right corner: “Hoorah-yippee-yahoo-yehey-yihee!”
Hordes of energetic senior citizens circulated, apparently braced to fight for free dentures, movie passes and birthday cakes to the death (democracy hath no fury like a constituent defending his entitlements). Massed lines of traffic aides in yellow were in formation at the entrance, but people were going in and out of the city hall freely.
Inside (and it was my first time to visit the Makati City Hall) the relentlessly-marbled first floor, the windows of various offices were open and there were people patiently sitting waiting for whatever-it-was-they-were-there-for to be attended to. We were directed to the elevators and finally rode one up to the 21st floor, where people milled about or clustered in corners depending on their political affiliations. Various barangay delegations would march in and out to demonstrate their loyalty to the mayor, who was seated in one of the smaller board rooms.
We dutifully shuffled in and said hello to Binay, who was on his cellphone but would cup the receiver to acknowledge his visitors. After a few minutes there was a minor huddle and then Binay disappeared into his office, apparently to take a look at the TRO.
“Si Gloria, si Gloria!” the crowd suddenly murmured. It turned out to be Gloria Diaz.
Newsbreak carries a report on the TRO, and pictures of the celebrations later that evening. Borrowing a phrase you first saw here, folks, Amando Dorinilla says the Palace is engaging in brinkmanship. Ellen Tordesillas thinks the Palace decided to defuse an explosive situation. It could have gone out of control, as a deadline for action today loomed. It could afford to give the opposition a temporary sense of victory -without, however, proving things either way.
Is the Palace merely trying to save face? It remains defiant it seems. Binay’s people expect more attempts through other means (Sandiganbayan or even the Ombudsman) to remove their mayor.
Meanwhile, more moving of the chess pieces by the Queen. A Binay aide told me the most nerve-wracking moments were early in the standoff and yesterday morning. Early on, they were virtually defenseless in city hall; yesterday morning, they were also unsure if people would stand up to a military assault on city hall. Perhaps their opponents sensed, too, that they’d moved too slowly and the besieged mayor had managed to turn public opinion and the political momentum against them.
Overseas, the Guardian reports that even the Bush administration’s admitted, for the first time, that it’s facing a Vietnam-like scenario in Iraq:
The admission from President Bush that the US may have arrived at a turning point in this war – the Tet offensive led to a massive loss of confidence in the American presence in Vietnam – comes during one of the deadliest months for US forces since the invasion.
Yesterday the number of US troops killed since October 1 rose to 73, deepening the sense that America is trapped in an unwinnable situation and further damaging Republican chances in midterm elections that are less than three weeks away.
No surprise then that the Republican Right and its fellow travellers are using the “vote Republican or Dubya will be impeached by Communists!” argument to hold the base together.
In the punditocracy, the Inquirer editorial delves into the pressure being applied by the Palace on the Supreme Court.
Dr. Rene Azurin of One Voice pens a warning to those who’d willfully ignore history.
Max Soliven declares war on Mark Jimenez.
In the blogosphere, people weigh in pro and con regarding Binay. In the good riddance corner are Unsent Postcards and joeydaninja, while in the it’s persecution corner are The Write Stuff, and Mental Pornography and El Bisyador and Manila Boy and My Sanctuary; a Makati City resident, shh…. the mind is talking… says they didn’t notice much (and explains why they like their mayor):
well, bilang isang mamamayan ng dakilang lungsod *ehem* ng Makati, masasabi kong maganda naman ang pamumuno ni Binay… nararamdaman naman namin na bumabalik sa amin ang binabayaran naming buwis… hindi literal na bumalik sa amin ang perang binayad ng mga magulang ko, bagkus, sa mga serbisyo at mga proyekto ni Binay para sa mga taga-Makati (o mga Makakati… ehehe)… kasi hanggang sa pagsilang, unang picture ng baby saka ng nanay pagkapanganak, health service tulad ng Yellow Card at diskwento sa gamot sa mga Senior Citizen at iba pa, hanggang sa mga cakes para sa matatanda, pati sa kabaong ng namatay at bulaklak, sagot ng pamahalaan ng Makati… madami pang mga pa-eklat na proyekto na talagang kapakipakinabang… masasabi kong alam ni Binay ang “kiliti” ng masa… kaya hindi ako magtataka kung patuloy pa rin siyang iboboto ng mga tao dito…
A Texas showdown is what it is, Pala-isip says. An OFW in Hong Kong takes a look at the brouhaha over Binay’s wearing a military jacket, something lilac republic also comments on. Philippine Commentary had lawyer Alan Paguia as a guest blogger and that got reactions, too from Buddy Blogs and Upoytaoism. Also, Confessions from the Edge says the Department of the Interior is courting contempt.
A pox on everyone’s houses, courtesy of Alternation101: he says everybody, without exception, is guilty of something-or-other sooner-or-later. earl_johnm paints his views on Philippine television in equally bold strokes.
Technorati Tags: constitution, media, military, One Voice, people’s initiative, philippines, politics, president, war, Washington DC
cvj, re your 2:55 addendum: maybe we are both makulit, but I also pointed out to you previously that, in an adversarial system, each side proves his/her case and if one prevails, it doesn’t mean that she “obstructed” justice. If one accuses you of murder, it’s not obstruction that you refuses to confess, even if the cop promises you that you would be treated leniently. That’s the way it is and there’s just nothing that you can do about it.
Bencard, in your analogy, the alleged murderer and his accuser can rely on an impartial judge or jury. That crucial element seems to be missing in the current political situation. In our case, the balance of power is with the accused. mlq3, in his response to you (from last October 10 at 2:36am) has described the challenge facing those who adhere to legal procedures to obtain justice:
“…every move has been for the palace to redefine the law, reinterpret it beyond what’s previously been agreed upon are the parameters for political engagement, and finally, to eliminate laws and procedures and even institutions so they can be reordered and reinvented in a manner that eliminates the chance to even appeal to these things in the future.”
“on the whole, every defeat in the public arena has been met with a committment to doing better next time -as clear and resounding a dedication to the rule of law as can be demanded of anyone. every victory, however, by the palace has accelerated efforts to prevent those mechanisms ever being used again -and instead, try to put in place a new kind of rule of law, in which only they have and make the laws.”
The above context and details renders your straightforward court room analogy inapplicable.
vic, nothing in Bong’s impressive credentials (which i don’t dispute) entitles him to say:
“we are prepared to lose our freedoms and our rights just to move this country forward.”
As it is, too many Filipinos have given up their lives just to regain those rights and freedoms. Although a great majority of his writings are balanced and reasonable, on that occasion, he went primal. How can you get more rabid or irrational than that? On this matter, he has to publicly retract, or otherwise explain himself. So far, he has just evaded the issue.
Anyhow, in the rest of your comment, you have summarized well the challenges facing the opposition.
CVJ and Bencard,
I hope your exchanges won’t end up like Carl and MB’s,or mine against sleeping and or joselu…pikunan tapos deadmahan na…
But please do go on,wala lang personalan.
Bencard, there has been many more instances of GMA’s obstruction than just her refusal to confess. Read properly mlq3’s remark from 12:42 AM and perhaps you’ll understand.
Melvinsky, I don’t quite get your raising the spectre of a “tyrannical parliament”. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m not aware of many instances when that would really happen. On the other hand we have seen numerous presidents turn dictators by way of curtailing their respective parliaments.
cvj, there you go again… all I’m asking how can you be so sure that my group is not the “silent majority” among those who defend GMA, or even the whole nation. As usual, you are mischaracterizing it as “claiming to echo the sentiment of the so-called silent majority”. Yes, facts are stubborn things but you cannot conjure up facts from nothing which you have a penchance for doing. That is misrepresentation. You cannot squeeze blood from stone.
All right !to each his own,let us respect each others opinions as Carl said one time in another blog to me”You cannot convert the converted”……Yes, I had ugly exchanges with my namesake ,which lead to other commenters getting pissed the hell off me,well others got pissed off, even before Carl got to respond…and believe it or not it is about the same topic..for heaven’s sake! Or was it about bile,or someother internal secretion and honey…???Whatever!
One says, facts are stubborn and further adds that one cannot conjure facts out of nothing,out of nothing????
Come On! ????????
?…So,I won’t eat my own words,I will respect your opinion, no matter how hard and difficult it is..
CVJ and myself use to be for GMA believe it or not,but not because of conjoured up facts from thin air,that made us change our mind,not just because of the news and the blogosphere,it is because we are not stubborn and arrogant to change our minds and Deskarte namin yon,may sarili tayong mga deskarte.
Karl said: “I hope your (cvj and Bencard) exchanges won’t end up like Carl and MB’s, or mine against sleeping and or joselu …â€Â
It’s somehow a letdown because I’m really learning or having fresher outlook from the exchanges of Carl and MB (as from among of the many commenters here). In the end, we are all doing this exercise for the benefit of our country, aren’t we? Take it sweet and easy guys.
Ok, Abe,I will look at the brighter side of things and learn from all the comments…
Carl, has a lot of metaphors that often catches attention and to return the favor as he called me once,he is perceptive..,MB ‘s opinions are also so insightful , informative and based on experience.
Sorry if I got affected by CVJ’s and Bencard’s and Carl and MB’s exchanges…(My Bad!)
If cvj and Bencard and Carl and MB decides to slug it out one more time…..
Let’s Get it on!
MLQ3,
The human life span is so short, that except for the most especial of men, ordinary lives have indeed a linear predictability from birth to life to death. This is not to say that a man cannot behold all of history within his brain, but unless he is a great writer, a surpassing inventor, or God’s only Begotten Son, his life falls easily within the measure of a century, and for most far less.
Therefore we should not put too much into the analogy that nations are like human beings in the stages and dynamics of their life.
The Lost Generations of which you have spoken in this post are not actually lost. It is just that their individual life histories took roots and paths in a different soil and foreign climes. For Marcos DROVE whole generations to seek their fortunes elsewhere. By marking every nook and cranny of the Archipelago with His Scent, or that of his Royal Bitch & her minions, many intelligent and ambitious people made lives elsewhere.
I think there are now for example AT LEAST 4 million Filipinos in America. Many of them are truly pillars and exemplars of American society. Mark Jimenez is actually a Bird of Return that portends the many rich doctors, dentists, lawyers and their progeny that are millionaires in America, who will return like him and discover that a nest egg of even half a million dollars is a fabulous fortune of 25 million pesos here. Capital for a business venture. Or a political career. It wouldn’t even take too many of him or halves of him to transform this desolate patch into a blooming field.
Oh! I’ve been reading Thomas Mann, Joseph and His Brothers (Joseph und seine bruder) which all Fil-ams should read. For it is about them…
“we are prepared to lose our freedoms and our rights just to move this country forward.â€Â
cjv, a person should be judged by his life achievement or his overall intention. That single statement of Mr. Austero, could have been taken out of context or could have been rationalized as choosing between the two extremes; a downtrodden, economically impoverished populace with all the “freedoms’ in the world, except the freedom from fear of hunger, sickness, and uncertain future for their children or to lose those freedoms and rights as we have known them in exchange of “moving forward†( the phrase and mantra, which I believe is credited to him), he’d prefer the later.
In one of the subject of my blogs, is about the man who was chosen as the Greatest Canadian of all Time, Tommy Douglas. In it, I stated that Mr. Douglas submitted a thesis for his Master Degree entitled the ‘Problem of Subnormal Family’ (and was in Eugenics) – and suggested sterilization for mentally and physically handicapped Canadians and send them to camps. That one work alone could had lead the public to proclaim him as racist or anything but, but his accomplishment as a politician, a Baptist minister, and the father Canada Universal Health care, overshadowed what was some of his undesirable works, (he later rejected the theory upon visiting Nazi Germany before the war and seen the reality of his Theory).
I could visualize Mr. Austero, looking at the model of Singapore and today’s China, where freedoms and rights are limited, but the majority of the people seem to accept it as a price to pay for the economic freedom and prosperity that it brings. The Pilipino people as you stated regained those ( I believe you meant after overthrowing the dictatorship of Marcos) with lots of sacrifices, but the freedoms and rights regained was again lost in the midst of a succession of a free, but irresponsible regimes. If the masses is given a choice which one would you think they’ll prefer?
mlq3 said: “. . . it is difficult to judge a successful revolution by the failures of the regime established by that revolution.”
I don’t disagree. But I believe in looking at the big picture and not being overwhelmed only by present circumstances. There is a saying: “From those dusty roads come these muddy tracksâ€Â. And I believe that failure to pave the dusty roads during the dry season (when it was more opportune) led to the muddy pot-holes of today. It is not just 20/20 hindsight, it is trying to analyze what went wrong so that history will not be repeating itself.
And inasmuch as I acknowledge the shortcomings of the present situation, I do not believe in taking an alarmist attitude because I see it all as a natural consequence of the sins of commission and omission that happened in the past. I also believe it is counterproductive when some quarters try to put their spin on the past, as if it was glorious and unsullied, because that would make us oblivious to the reasons why we are in such a mess today.
If the masses is given a choice which one would you think they’ll prefer? – vic
At one level, you are asking the masses whether they are able to live with a prosperity built on the blood of some other people they don’t know. I think that is contrary to the principles followed by civilized countries including your own adopted country, or is there a different set of human rights for Canadians (or Canadian-Filipinos) and another set for us 3rd world Filipinos?
From a practical [and amoral] standpoint, in a society where inequality is the main problem, the choice between individual freedoms and economic development is a false one. China, Singapore (and Vietnam) are economically successful because they used their dictatorships to ruthlessly (in the case of China and Vietnam) address the problem of inequality first. Over here, a dictatorship which concentrates power in the hands of the few and leaves class structures in place will not result in an economic take off. If we want to follow the example of China, the kind of dictatorship that will work for us is a communist one (dictatorship of the proletariat), not a right-wing dictatorship where the soldiers just function as private armies for political warlords. (Of course, i am also against such a dictatorship because of the human costs.)
In your example of Tommy Douglas, he would not have been chosen as ‘the Greatest Canadian of all Time’ if he did not reject his earlier theory. As it is, Bong’s statement still hangs over his head.
Bencard@4:54am. Since you believe that you are part of the silent majority, and since you are not silent, then it is just right to say that you are echoing their sentiments. Where’s the mischaracterization in that? And just because you continue to ignore the existence of certain facts because you don’t want to admit them through your legalistic filter, it does not mean that i have been conjuring them up.
“or is there a different set of human rights for Canadians (or Canadian-Filipinos) and another set for us 3rd world Filipinos?”- by cjv
There is no different at all. But if we follow history, I believe these rights that we are enjoying now, only came lately, and there are so many limitations on them. On paper, the Pilipino people have more individual rights than us. The Philippines constitutions grant the absolute rights to its citizens in regards to speech and more, while ours are all subject to limitations. The difference, is ours is applied equally, and that we only have one class of citizen and we stop using hypen to distinguish one from the other.
Now back to the issue at hand. So many great thinkers have put forwards numerous road maps on how to move the Philippines Politically and Economically forward, instead of the status quo or worse stepping back in time. Some would argue that it is the politicians not the structure of governance, while some will say the opposite. Some will simply say that it is the mind set and mentality that was handed down from the past and we just want to maintain and hoping that it will eventually work by itself. Then we have the others that would like to see a total changeover, but the people as a whole due to the geographical reality can not put together a cohesive and doable plan of actions to achieve its finality. And then, when a chance was offered right on a silver platter, everyone suddenly lost all their senses and we are back to square one.
Now that we are back at square one, all ideas and views are just as good as the others or vice versa. We can not question the motives and intentions of the proponents of differing views lest the question ours. Well, for those who are obviously had bad or criminal intentions, that is where the test of how well the freedoms and rights are true or false.
vic, it is good for you to point out that it is in the enforcement aspect, i.e. the equal protection of rights, where the Philippines could stand improvement. Our people deserve no less. As for any limitations that may be attached to Filipinos’ rights, we have to wait until Filipinos are in more or less equal footing (as is the case between Canadians in Canada) or else the dynamics will favor the few who hold the most power.
As for the core issue we’ve been discussing, i don’t think we are back at square one. We have more history behind us and one of the reasons why i choose to read mlq3’s weblog is because he is able to serve as a guide through our history. He cannot do that if as you say, ‘we are back at square one’. While i don’t question Bong’s good faith, i question his good sense. We know from our history that we give up our rights and freedoms at our peril. Let’s try to make more use of our historical memory and avoid relearning the lessons of history the hard way.
cjv, now that we can agree on something, we all put our collective efforts towards that end. Because, in my own experience, living in both worlds, an individual or group of individuals no matter how great and noble the intentions, can not by themselves, without the sacrifices of all can make that one important step forward. thank you..
cvj, I stand corrected on the original authorship of the alleged 2 classifications of GMA “defenders” which is you, not John Marzan. After our exchanges on the subject (in “Get Out of Jail…” thread) I thought you would be perceptive enough to know that there are those who entertain, in their mind, my point of view on the issue of GMA’s alleged guilt or innocence.
I hope you were not just being dismissive of opinions that are contrary to your thinking. Rare or not, it is not a matter of numbers of believers. The point is, it exist whether you like it or not.
But I can see why you want to ignore it. You are convinced, and you want otherwise open-minded individuals to think, that GMA “cheated” beyond a shadow of doubt, so there is no room for a contrary conclusion.
In your mind, you can disregard anything. But you cannot deny the existence of something that you are trying to ignore.
Bencard, i have no problems acknowledging your existence.
People who like the idea that Bong Austero painted in his acclaimed article should re-read it again.
Even before Austero had an experience with checkpoints showing how small a freedom he realy wanted to give up; his very own article already showed the inconsistencies that would later be revealed.
For one, he didn’t exactly state the kind of liberties/freedom/rights he or his group wanted to give up. He at least should have stated that getting impeded at checkpoints wasn’t one of them.
Austero didn’t view the VP as a viable alternative to replace PGMA. Otherwise he would have stated so. I can understand the opposition if they didn’t want the VP to replace PGMA but I wonder why Austero shared that same vision even though they were practically from opposing camps and the VP was on PGMA’s side.
“In the absence of true and genuine moral leadership, many of us have decided to cast our lot with the President, even if we do not like her.” Obviously, Austero accused the VP also of not having true and genuine moral leadership!
He stated that as the “We”- “we are prepared to lose our freedoms and our rights just to move this country forward.â€Â
But when he was the “I”- “I assure you that when I feel that my rights and my freedoms are at a peril, I will stand up and fight for them myself. I have done that in the past, and I will do it again when I SEE THE NEED FOR IT, not when you tell me to do it.”
As a member of the “We”, Austero is prepared to relinquish the “We’s” freedom and rights.
But as the singular “I”, Austero would fight for his freedom and rights.
So when the “I” met the Checkpoint; well, we already know what happened.
cvj, I think, therefore, I am. But do you have a problem acknowledging that people who don’t believe GMA is “guilty of cheating” exist? That, sir, is the question for you.
If the whole nation became Austero-types, sure, we may all be marching forward…but with Gloria’s whip as the marching prod.
bencard, that’s what i meant above (at 1:49am). i have no problem believing that there are those like you, who honestly don’t believe that GMA is guilty of cheating. where we differ is in our estimate of how many of you there are.
phil, that is where austero’s way of thinking is useful to the present administration. If enough people look the other way, then GMA’s wish for her to be able to stay in office would remain feasible. It’s all about constructing an alternate reality.
thanks cvj, you should have said it in the first place, and at the first opportunity, so there would be no need for us to go around and around. As to how many are there who have the same take as mine on the question, who knows?? Remember.. silent majority?
bencard, count me in as one who would give GMA the verdict if I were on the jury trying her guilt or innocence. Even if the so-called Garci tapes could be allowed as “evidence” under the rules, the alleged conversation between what sounded like GMA and Garci could not, of itself, support a charge of cheating. An expression of a wish to win by a certain number of votes, without more, must be deemed just that – a wish, and would not be reasonable to rule it as an illegal act. To those who would dismiss this position as “legalistic”, what other standard would you use to resolve the issue? The rule of Law is the only equalizer that puts the weak and humble in equal putting with the high and the mighty, albeit administered and applied, every now and then, incorrectly and unjustly. As every citizen knows, our’s is a government of law and not of men and we should always strive to keep it that way.
so that makes two…
Was Garcillano confirmed already at the time?
If he has not been confirmed by the CA then he was under the mercy of the appointing power and that would be PGMA.
It is not beyond PGMA to reverse an appointment when the appointee has “upset” her by not giving in.
THere were some cases when Sec. Ermita served as the “berdugo” in appointee’s cases and even in one where the said person had security of Tenure.
If it was another way around and Garcillano (with no security of tenure) cried harassment and claimed that a superior “wished” to win by a certain amount of votes, and a tape of the conversation was produced, how would things look out?
The wish would not just mean a wish then.
But then Garcillano’s claim could be the “more” that others are asking of.
I guess the case would be helped a lot if Garcillano talked the “talk”.
justice league, good point but just one of hundreds of possibilities, none of which are conclusive “evidence” of guilt. Since you seem to understand the workings of the law, you would probably agree that the burden is on the opposition to properly present its proof, not with PGMA. Failing that, they should stop calling her a “cheat” or “thief” and resorting to extra-legal means to achieve their failed power grab.
Bencard,
Proof must be presented either way but beyond reasonable doubt is used in criminal proceedings and does not necessarily apply in administrative ones. If you are referring to an impeachment; an impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
justice league, I disagree with due respect. In any kind of adversarial proceeding (criminal, civil, administrative, court martial, or impeachment), the initial burden of producing evidence is on the proponent of a factual issue. Any one calling another a “cheat”, “liar” or “thief” must present evidence to that effect, and the other side could then rebut it by contrary evidence. The burden shifts all the time but the original proponent has the first burden.
I happen to agree with you that impeachment is not a criminal proceeding but a political one (decided by numbers). Upon this consideration, PGMA won fair and square, and, I might add, overwhelmingly.
p.s. I never suggested that “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is required in this stage of inquiry on GMA’s alleged cheating, lying or theft of votes. That standard of proof would be proper only if and when she is criminally indicted, if ever, for those alleged offenses.
“p.s. I never suggested that “proof beyond reasonable doubt†is required in this stage of inquiry on GMA’s alleged cheating, lying or theft of votes. That standard of proof would be proper only if and when she is criminally indicted, if ever, for those alleged offenses.” – Bencard at October 28,2006 12:30am
“cvj and U.P student, those are mostly unresolved issues that you have enumerated, not proof of “offenses against human decency†as you insist. In human terms, you need evidence that will stand up in a court of law to prove an assertion and arrive at the “truth†– human truth, not the kind that Brother Villanueva and Bishops Bacani and Cruz presumptiously invoke. It is too easy to make accusation but too hard to come up with admissible proof. Justice is not a matter of asserting: “you are a thief because that’s the way I perceive you to be, so prove to me that your are notâ€Â.” – Bencard at October 7, 2006 4:01 am
What’s the difference between ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ that you ‘never suggested’ and ‘evidence that will stand up in a court of law’ that you said was needed three weeks back?
cvj, I will try to explain it in simplest terms. “Evidence that will stand up in court” is that which a court will admit after applying the rules of evidence. “Proof beyond reasonable doubt” is the degree of proof that is required for conviction in a criminal case. That is the difference, and you may ask Mr. Harry Roque of U.P. if you are still confused.
Thanks Bencard, that was helpful. Harry Roque of UP is welcome to assist, but my confusion has less to do with the above definitions than with your approach in using these two concepts. With your clarification, i see that our differences do not lie in the ‘standards of proof’ required for conviction (preponderance of evidence vs. proof beyond reasonable doubt), but with something more basic, i.e. the ‘admissibility of evidence’ and the [missing] role of ‘probable cause’. In attempting to understand our positions, i have enumerated below an idealized ladder of reality with six levels (labeled from ‘A’ to ‘F’) so i can map where our differences lie:
**********************************
A. Figment of the imagination -> the realm where you assign the allegations of cheating.
B. Real world events -> e.g. existence of tapes, Gloria’s I’m sorry etc.
C. Probable Cause -> an interpretation that there are enough real world events that would justify initiating an impeachment.
[Beyond this point, lawyers are needed since legal procedures and standards would apply.]
D. Admissible evidence -> opposing parties present their evidence and counter-evidence in impeachment court.
E. Preponderance of evidence -> (as per Justice League above) enough to convict in a civil case or an impeachment.
[At the completion of this stage, Gloria is either removed from office or acquitted.]
F. Proof beyond reasonable doubt-> enough to convict in a criminal case.
[If it gets to this point, Gloria is either jailed or set free.]
**********************************
From the above, it looks like i have all the while been trying to justify getting from ‘B’ to ‘C’, which i believe is the reasonable way of going about things. In contrast, you have been switching between insisting that the opposition is still at ‘A’ (by summarily dismissing allegations of cheating as a figment of the imagination) and on other occasions challenging us to produce something at the level of ‘D’ (evidence that will stand up in court).
In place of a reasoned discussion aimed at the moving from ‘B to C’ or ‘B to A’, you are quite content (as shown from your comment at 12:20am above) to let GMA’s allies outrightly prevent this from taking place by sheer numbers, in effect, substituting deliberation of facts with a straightforward exercise of collective power. My question is why you, as a reasonable person, would consider this fair?
cvj, because, as I said in response to justice league’s comment that impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, it is a political exercise decided by numbers. Congress, in the exercise of its prerogative (under pre-set rules), has made the determination that your so-called “real world events are insufficient to find “probable cause”. To end this interminable debate, let me just bring you back to the main point: You cannot rightfully call GMA a “cheater”, “liar”, or “thief” of votes, until and unless you surmount your level “C” (which you did not) and satisfy the requirement of your level “D” which obviously you could not. My compliments to you for organizing the sequence of an impeachment process, but I don’t agree that “preponderance of evidence” is the correct quantum of proof required in an impeachment trial (but we don’t have to debate on that at this point).
bencard, cjv, you may be interested in the late justice rehnquist’s book on impeachment.
my understanding, based on that book, discussions we had with mr. locsin at today newspaper at the time of the estrada impeachment, and reading the quirino impeachment case is as follows.
first, we should remember the purpose, the objective, of impeachment. it is to preterminate an otherwise fixed term. in a president’s case, it is both the instrument of last resort when a president is percieved as either criminal or incompetent, and the only means to reverse or void an electoral mandate once the term has begun (an electoral protest if succesful would result in there being no mandate at all).
therefore, an impeachment is not easy (because voiding a mandate shouldn’t be easy), it requires serious charges of great magnitude, and evidence. but it is also as much about clearing the air, as it is accomplishing a political upset. what matters less is actually succesfully impeaching someone, but that questions of legitimacy and competence are resolved without the need for a revolution.
now each congress, we should recall, passes its own rules; most congresses will readopt the rules of the previous legislature. but not always. the quirino impeachment rules, patterned after american rules, for example, required evidence first, then determination of whether the charges should be pursued, after; the rules adopted by the 13th (present) congress did the reverse: determine the appropriateness of the charges first, and then deal with evidence second. of course that defies logic: how can you know charges are grave enough, and deserve prosecution, and thus, trial, unless you see the evidence?
the admin argued that in its cocksureness that it could create a people power moment in 2005, the opposition decided to put the charges first and evidence later, because it knew the charges were explosive but the evidence not yet there. the majority gamely went along knowing that if the initial momentum was dispelled, this lack of sense would fatally flaw any impeachment effort. they’ve been proven correct not once, but twice, in their calculations.
Bencard, just because the majority in the House cannot or would not ‘make a determination’ of probable cause (i.e. arrive at ‘C’ after evaluating ‘B’), it does not mean that the rest of the Filipino people are unable or unwilling to do so. It is our capacity as individuals to look at the available facts and freely arrive at a judgment that gives us the right to call GMA whatever we see fit.
mlq3, thanks for the book recommendation, i’ll look it up. With your account above, it does seem that the opposition has been outflanked by the majority. Among the decent admin congressmen (like perhaps Locsin), do you get the sense that they know what they are getting into, our is everybody more or less just playing it by ear? Our representatives may be flawed human beings but i think (or at least hope) they are circumspect enough to be able to listen to the words of Theodor Adorno:
“The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power, a process that truth itself cannot escape if it is not to be annihilated by power, not only suppresses truth as in earlier despotic orders, but has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false, which the hirelings of logic were in any case diligently working to abolish.” (Minima moralia: Reflections from a Damaged Life. 1974)
Is this really the road that they want us to take?
It sounds to me that the 13th-congress rule — decide the appropriateness of the charges first and evaluate the evidence later — favors the accuser.
cvj, speak for yourself and your fellow travelers (if they authorize you) but please do not generalize the ”
Filipino people” because you do not speak for me and those who share my belief. You can call GMA whatever you see fit at your peril. She has personal civil rights too even if she is the sitting President of the Republic, you know.
mlq3, thanks for your elucidating comments. I just think that Congress has the power to do what it did, and if the air was not cleared thereby, it is part of the imperfection of human governance. In any event, no one can second guess Congress in deciding the issue one way or the other. Some will not agree with it but why should it result in a revolution. ?
cjv, locsin is a bad example because other congressmen often get irritated by him as he’s the resident intellectual and they get the feeling he’s always lecturing them.
my sense from dealing with some of our congressmen is that everything is ad hoc except in the case of the leadership (sometimes). the other problem is that there’s a difference between what everyone knows they ought to do, and what they end up doing, because of pragmatic political considerations.
bencard, i’d agree to the extent that the citizen can find ways to apply pressure on his representatives, but the representative precisely represents -and does not parrot or totally do as he’s told. but certainly everyone can second guess any politician -it is part of the process involved in the thinking citizens evaluation of politicians, to decide whether to vote for them or not.
the reality is any political crisis has the potential for sparking revolution in societies in which the different sectors either distrust each other, or are actively in confrontation against each other. it is the ability of the system to be responsive and resolve issues, that either strengthens the institutions and integrates sectors into the political process. there will always be hotheads and radicals.
what seems clear to me is something that first surprised most political actors in 2000-2001: the public has shown a strong bias for resolving leadership questions through the constitutional process and by elections. while a minority demanded estrada’s resignation, survey after survey demanded an impeacment where the people could see for themselves. and it’s why estrada fell, and no one was there to catch his fall -the impeachment drama educated everyone and put estrada on the defensive.
in 2005 the public remained consistent. they wanted to see a trial, that’s been born out by the surveys. they wanted to see the evidence. but getting neither, they are also not prepared to take further action but instead, to bide their time. so the surveys which in the end are the only means for us to say we understand how “the people” thinks, show an adherence to the constitutional process, but also a dissatisfaction with how it’s been applied. yet their response to the february attempt to withdraw support also shows they strongly oppose a military or transitional government but also aren’t happy with executive actions affecting civil liberties.
so the result? condemnation of any extraconstitutional solutions; condemnation of overly harsh presidential responses to the crisis; a preference for the 1st and 2nd impeachments to have gone to trial; a preference for a snap election if possible; and most interestingly, a desire to turn all of these into criteria for deciding who to support, both locally and nationally, in 2007. which the palace senses and so is moving heaven and earth to head off.
mlq3, thanks for sharing your impressions based on your direct dealings with the congressmen. i suspected as much, but needed the confirmation. i guess the ‘pragmatic political considerations’ has a lot to do with the sources of their compensation described by the pcij article that UP Student linked to in his comments to the ‘8-7’ thread. As for your sense that the people have ‘a desire to turn all of these into criteria for deciding who to support, both locally and nationally, in 2007.‘ – i can only hope you (and the palace) are right.
bencard, i only speak for myself, but i can also generalize for the whole Filipino people as to everyone’s right to form conclusions based on a given set of facts. as mlq3 has said above, ‘everyone can second guess any politician‘. as for Gloria’s personal civil rights, we have to distinguish that from her rights as an employee of the people. personally, i think she misrepresented herself and should be dismissed with cause.
cvj, every person has a right to form an opinion but not a right to presume that every one shares his “conclusion”. So, just confine yourself to what you believe, and don’t assume all the Filipino people think the way you do.
mlq3, I agree that “everyone can second-guess any politician” but not the Congress, as a body, when it has acted in a way consistent with the rule of law.
bencard, you’re refuting a straw man version of my position. At no point did i assume that ‘all the Filipino people think the way i do‘. There are others who share my views though, which accounts for my use of the pronoun ‘us’.
As for your injunction against second-guessing ‘Congress, as a body’, why not? Is ‘Congress, as a body’ vested with some sort of papal-infallability which makes them immune from criticism? What if they pass a law which mandates that underwear should be worn on the outside? Should i then refrain from second-guessing ‘Congress, as a body’ because it acted ‘in a way consistent with the rule of law‘?
In any case, the opposition’s criticism is directed, not at ‘Congress as a body’, but at the group composed of 172 congressmen who voted down the 2nd impeachment.
cvj, excuse me for inferring a “straw man version” of your statement. I guess I’m just leary of individuals using “the people” in general when they mean “the opposition” when expressing their personal points of view, as when they claim that GMA “stole” the 2004 election.
I define second-guessing as substituting one’s judgment to that of another. It is not the same as criticsm where one merely expresses disapproval of one’s action or lack of it, or attitude. Second-guessing connotes complete rejection, even defiance, whereas criticism implies obedience, albeit with some degree of reluctance or doubt. When you still insist that there is “probable cause” when Congress (as the official authority empowered to make such a finding) says there isn’t, you are second-guessing it.
The 172 congressmen, as the overwhelming majority, constitute
the “Congress as a body”.
Your reductio-ad-absurdum agument about the underwear doesn’t work simply because a law to be valid must first meet the primordial element of reasonability. You wouldn’t have to second-guess the maker of a law that is void ab initio.
I have to be honest with you, cvj. Although you are not doing too bad articulating legal points as a layman (Did I understnd you to be an engineer by profession/occupation?), I don’t mean to sound presumptuous but I feel its not fair for me (who practice law for a living for over 20 years both in the Philippines and U.S) to take you on in this type of argument.
I, however, respect all your opinion and I enjoy exhanging ideas with you, legal or otherwise.
Bencard, the example i cite may sound absurd today but i consider ‘reasonability’ to be a function of a society’s norms. It is my belief that the current administration is pushing the envelope when it comes to these norms such that our society is being driven more and more towards a culture of impunity that increases the chances of its eventual breakdown.
Thanks for the honest feedback and I appreciate your patience in responding to my comments. (I am a CPA by training, but have been working in the IT profession for the past 17+ years.) I can relate to how you feel as this is what normally happens when experts in a field (you) encounter bricoleurs (like me in this case). There are inconveniences on both sides during such encounters but in our increasingly specialized world, it is something that has to happen to get things done.
bencard,
“The 172 congressmen, as the overwhelming majority, constitute
the ‘Congress as a body’.”
Do you mean the Lower House and not Congress as a whole?
What’s your basis in the Consitution for saying so?
I don’t think it’s an accurate statement. The Majority may dominate but cannot “constitute the ‘Congress as a body’.”
jm, Congress (the Lower House) as distinguished from the Senate (the Upper House). The two Houses constitute the Legislature. If you don’t agree with that and with the rule of majority, suit yourself.
bencard, the definition provided by jm is more in keeping with the 1987 Constitution:
Article VI, Section 1. “The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives…”
cvj, jm, I stand corrected. Thanks.