My column yesterday, Impotent reassurances, was inspired by blogger Uniffors saying PDI gets it wrong, horribly wrong. The blogger was reacting to what would eventually be reported by the paper as No cut in US military aid. the report insists that an earlier ABS-CBN’s report, which said that the State Department had lowered its proposed funding for projects in, and assistance to, the Philippines, was false. Uniffors says the ABS-CBN report was true, and why it’s true.
I found the debate interesting because it seemed to me (and this is what I wrote in my column) is that too much ado was being made about a fairly low-level junket by US congressmen. The result was that the junket suckered reporters on the ground into thinking it was an important thing for Filipinos, when it may have had some importance for American troops, but was at best, negligibly important in terms of Philippine interests.
the US congressman who hammed it up for reporters was Silvestre Reyes, whose website shows him a master of pork barrel politics (that’s a good thing, for a congressman). But even if he was obliging to reporters, a little background check (and Wikipedia, for all its limitations, is pretty handy-dandy and useful as a preliminary step in this direction) would have tipped off reporters that the guy is something of a joke.The other Democrat members of the Congressional party weren’t very much more impressive, either: Gregory Meeks (D) is a lightweight; Charles A. Ruppersberger III (D) seems a solid party man, but one who doesn’t have clout relevant to Philippine interests, even if he sits in the Committee on Appropriations (and he kept discreetly quiet during his Philippine visit); and boy, oh boy, look at the Republicans: Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R), never mind being a good ole dynast, had the dubious distinction of having a ficus plant run against him (a stunt pulled by Michael Moore); and Heather Wilson (R) is under investigation for an inappropriate politically-motivated call to a state attorney (she should have said “I. Am. Sorry.”).
I think a marvelous opportunity was lost to report on the American equivalent of the kind of congressional junkets Filipino reporters like to skewer our own politicians. But seriously, the nature of the beast determines its place in the food chain, no? If most of the junketeers were members of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Reyes is the chairman, Meeks, Ruppersberger, Wilson are members), then you know their visit was more about US interests than anything RP-US related: specifically, are American troops getting adequate intelligence, or the means (including equipment) to secure it? If, as Uniffors argues, the group that counts for Philippine interests is the United States House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, and if its appropriations proposals are already at the conference committee level, then we can conclude a couple of things: 1. Reyes isn’t the go-to guy; 2. matters are already at a stage where Senate, and not House, intervention is what will matter; 3. whatever anyone says, the real issue is that the White House has lowered its intended allocations for Philippine-related programs and the only way that can be countered is through earmarks.
The idea of how Earmarking works goes to the heart of what Uniffors pointed out: just because our political system resembles that of the United States, direct correlations shouldn’t be made. This is particularly crucial when it comes to figuring out where our country stands, in terms of White House priorities, and those of the US Congress.
Three pieces, I think, thoroughly explore why the country keeps returning to the issue of the Garci Tapes.See Hello Garci and Philippine democracy by Randy David; Hello again by Conrado de Quiros; and The continuing skirmishes by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ. the best the Palace can do, is trot out its supreme Lackey (the confrontation over the Attorney General of the Unted States, and the aftermath, see With Gonzales gone, US Congress girds for new battle, is instructive: read All the President’s Flunkies; these Republicans are really something else, take a look at their efforts to replace with the Electoral College with a system that taps into their gerrymandering of districts, all the while passing it off as “reform”. It’s in Deformed Reform).
Anyway, the Senate’s Committee on Rules has voted ‘Hello Garci’ sent to Senate committee of whole (one lawyer’s arguments as to why it can do so, in Newsbreak). Senator Lacson has telegraphed the line of questioning that will most likely be pursued:
Lacson surmised that the Cabinet official whom he did not name most likely had a rift with former Cabinet secretary Michael Defensor, who himself was included among those covered by the wiretapping operation codenamed Project: Lighthouse.
“Who ordered Danga? We should find that out. We can only speculate at this time. I can only speculate the order could have come from somebody at the level of Cabinet member, someone who had access to Danga and is close to the President,” said Lacson.
Lacson said that while “we can zero in on a few people,” Defensor’s inclusion among those to be wiretapped was the key to knowing who the master of the operation was.
“What prompted me to have that kind of speculation is the involvement of Defensor. Who among the Cabinet members had a tiff with Defensor? Did Defensor and (Executive Secretary Eduardo) Ermita get along pretty well during those times? Defensor was the odd man out among the group that was wiretapped,” said Lacson….Ermita and Defensor had several run-ins during the latter’s stay in the Palace because the multi-tasking presidential chief of staff encroached into many territories.
“I don’t know if Danga is already retired. Maybe we could get this information from him. If there’s a lot of compartmentalization in this particular operation, only Danga would know who ordered him to do the wiretap operation,” said Lacson.
Lacson said he also believed that President Macapagal-Arroyo was kept in the dark about the covert operation. “No way (that it could have been the President]. They started in 2003, but it went on.”
In other words, now there’s a chief suspect to zero in on, in terms of the wiretapping itself. I suppose the Palace is betting on the President being unable to throw anyone to the wolves on this new line of questioning.
Do watch Partition – The Day India Burned, also linked to in my Inquirer Current entry for last night.
Technorati Tags: constitution, Hello Garci, law, military, philippines, politics, president, Senate
Thank God,finally the embattled GONZALES of the Department of Justice has resigned! He will leave behind a Justice Department battered by allegations that partisan politics has infected its law enforcement mission.CNN claims that Gonzales was probably the worst ever DOJ head.Gonzales had long been a lightning rod for critics of the administration’s harsh interrogation policies,
Sayang! This is another Gonzales(U.S.Attorney General Alberto Gonzales).At least he has more “delicadeza” than the local Gonzalez who has done a similar damage to the reputation of our Department oF Justice.
This is Raul Gonzalez on the tapes (from his column in Business Mirror)
“The problem with these people is they never accepted my challenge to them several years ago that we submit all these tapes, from the “grandmother tape†to the “grandchildren tapes,†for verification by experts from abroad to ensure partiality.
Archbishop Angel Lagdameo was present when I issued a challenge to the CBCP to agree to safe-keep all these tapes so that no one can claim that these tapes were tampered with while in their possession.
I also challenged Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, together with other senators right in the Senate during one of my department’s budget hearings, to look for experts from abroad, whether Japanese, Chinese, American, Russian or German. But they answered by asking me, who will pay for the cost?
I replied that if we are all interested to know the truth, we will all contribute, and I was willing to contribute my one-month salary for the purpose.”
Naknampucha, one months salary lang for the tapes? How much would his 10,000 for every town that voted 7-0 for Team Unity amounted to?
Dyan pa lang kitang kita na natin kung ano talaja priority nita – The perpetuation of GMA in power.
Wait, was it Raul Gonzalez, our Gonzalez, not the U.S. Gonzalez who resigned?
Will somebody please find out how Mike Defensor is taking the info he was one of the victims of eavesdropping. Expect Lacson to hammer down hard on this and hope to drive a wedge among GMA allies. Then he’ll tell GMA: no we’re not after you but those who made a mockery of your office! Haha! Naughty boy this Lacson.
“Dyan pa lang kitang kita na natin kung ano talaja priority nita – The perpetuation of GMA in power.”
Manuelbuencaminio,
the problem is, some people still expect these politicians to have a silver lining in their character. My recommendation, whether they do have a silver lining, expect the worst in human nature. people in power should be distrusted at all times.
wag ka nang umasa Brian. It’s the US Gonzales who resigned. not our own. kahit di ko pa binasa link ni Manolo, obvious naman eh. apog ba naman non mag-resign? kapit-tuko nga eh.
Devils and Brian,
Henceforth I will refer to Gonzalez Raul U.Gonzalez. U for Unresigned.
Anyway, Lacson should pursue the investigation and see who ordered Danga to do Project Lighthouse.
That will put GMA in a spot,
Will she have them prosecuted?
Parang she has to because if she doesn’t then people will conclude she is obstructing justice and not enforcing the country’s laws. And those are serious crimes.
Right now she will do everything in her power not to find out who ordered the tapping
GONZALES RESIGNS!
1)Under the leadership of Gonzales, the Justice Department has “suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence.”
2)People have questioned Gonzalez honesty and competence at the helm of the Justice Department.
3)”It is a shame, and it is the Justice Department, the people and the dedicated professionals of our law enforcement community who have suffered most under Gonzales.”
4)”The Justice Department has become the political arm of the President!
5)”He oversaw the formulation of this administration’s extreme views of unfettered executive power and unprecedented government secrecy.”
The above were comments about the now resigned Atty Alberto Gonzales of the U.S. Justice Department.
SirRaul Gonzales kailan ka naman magreresign????
four senators said pushing through with an investigation would violate Republic Act 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law………
Well, it is up the committee of the whole then.
I would like to see sec bunye,do the same stuff he did last 2005,but I am more interested in Defensor since out of office na sya, mas masdali na yata sya isummon o bigyan ng warrant kung ayaw.
As to one blawger said his legal advocacy tells him that truth has to give way to certain legal principles.
If it applies to this case, that we will see.
As to US Interests;
I do not believe that they are after china,because Most US manufacturers moved there. Although we see an attack in terms of exposing piosonous toys and the likes,they can not control corporate America’s decision to stay there.
If there is one thing similar with regards to US and RP is: Corporate America controls their congress,and ours as well even though the number of businesses here has reduced like manufacturing, they still control the pharmaceuticals and whatever.
As to whether it is for our interest or not, I do not know.
And as to the notion that they are after china so setup a base here,for now i don’t think so. but,who knows?
Karl,
As to those poisonous and potentially lethal toys from China which we are also banning, I can think of one. ZTE. It’a a toy for DOTC and poison to us
“Will somebody please find out how Mike Defensor is taking the info he was one of the victims of eavesdropping. Expect Lacson to hammer down hard on this and hope to drive a wedge among GMA allies. ”
——————————————————–
Oh yeah, lets hope he really deleiver this time. Andami ng inumpisahan , binuksan ,inimbistugahan ni Lacson. Wla namang proper closure.
My feeling is that, 2010 election is very near and Lacson needs Hello Garci resurrected for his media exposure till election presidential election
Oh happy day…Joma’s coming home to stay…
BTW, I used to believe that GMA ordered her own wiretapping. But that would be quite illogical and foolhardy for President planning to do massive cheating operations.
Still Isapf’s got lots of toys and perhaps its been going on a long time. But if you exclude GMA, who would be the prime suspects and why?
The wiretapping was done because the Mastermind of the election wiretapping operation did not trust V.O. Garcillano, who was a well known among politicos to be a veteran Mindanao cheating operator. He could easily have sold out to the charms of FPJ and Erap, who might have tried, in the mind of the Mastermind to get to Garci through Mike Defensor, then close to the President at all times in the Palace, as well as the normal conduit to Joseph Estrada, having often performed the role of a go between.
Anyway these are just musings, and I am still wondering who might the Mastermind be, if it isnt GMA?
ZTE was plunder!
“But if you exclude GMA, who would be the prime suspects and why?”
FVR, simply bec he always has to be included in the usual suspects. and hey, he’s made his point to Gloria. I can take away your chair or save you whenever it takes my whim. don’t cross me. kumbaga e gulpe de gulat lng ang Garci. tinakot si GMA, tapos sinalba rin sa huli.
for sure, the motive for the wiretapping was blackmail. i wonder if what the blackmailer wanted was already given? Malacanang’s refusal to fully investigate the matter speaks a lot. well, there you go. if we want our presidents or presidency to be prone-free of blackmail, we only have to do two things: elect a president that will be above blame, or wiretap our president ourselves and broadcast the tap 24 hrs.
Realizing that FVR’s tit could be in the ringer on this one, I think Miriam has effectively joined the Opposition on the issue, her shrill Ilongo-American accent (with Latin aphorisms) notwithstanding. She has adopted the position that the Senate can go after the wiretappers, but with utter disregard and even suppression of the tantalizing content relative to election fraud. She does not actually join with biazon in admitting this is about national security, but I think it’ll come to the same thing as the investigation gets going.
YES!.
Joma needs to be locked up. He has become deadly.
Ideology is lethally boring.
I hope people will now stop listening fanatic ideologues.
Sadly, the printed word can never do justice to Brenda’s pompous
ilong-glish.
How can it ever capture Brenda doing an impression of a lousy high school orator complete with cliched hand gestures and inflections on the wrong syLLable?
MB,
I ve posted audio of the privileged speech of Miriam. Laugh at her accent (I do) but marvel at her logic when she realizes FVR could get his tit in this ring! Listen to the whole thing and you will realize she has actually joined the Opposition on the idea that the Garci thingy should be investigated to get at the Mastermind of the Wiretappers and to punish them under the Antiwire tapping law. Now which fanatical ideologue has been getting you to agree to that beautiful idea and just give up on the electoral fraud angle, (for now)?
MB,
Ideology stands for those beliefs for which we would lay down our lives and give the full measure of ourselves.
Let us not take that away from Joma, or from ourselves.
But if you are trying to say that you do not believe in anything, or that you believe in everything, or that you take both sides in any question, or that you are not willing to give up your life for anything, that you have NO ideology, or can believe in any ideology, then may Allah have pity on your sorry Liberal soul.
Oh, talking about jail, what do you think we should do when we find the abductors of Jonas Burgos?
DJ.
I think you confuse ideology with principles. One can be a good and decent person without any ideology but he cannot be one if he does not have principles.
One can believe in a certain ideology one day and adopt a different ideology the next without being called unprincipled and/or unscrupulous. You know that from your personal journey when you traveled from Joma’s embrace to the arms of neocons.
But one cannot abandon principles without losing one’s scruples as well.
Anyway, you did show me the cat could be skinned through the wiretappers themselves. And since I consider election fraud as great as threat to national security as wiretapping, I welcome the use of the wiretapping law to get at Gloria who was caught on tape committing electoral fraud and condoning kidnapping.
Matter of fact, I will be pushing the wiretapping law and national security angle because that would require authentication of the tapes. Each recording will be one count so each and every one will have to be authenticated so the tapes will have to be played.
Also get a copy of today’s International Herald Tribune or google an article called “The CIA’s Open Secrets” by Joseph Weisberg, once with the CIA’s directorate of operations. He offers an interesting thesis, upheld by a US federal court judge, regarding classified material. I hope and pray the ISAFP does not read it and get ideas about how to avoid answering any questions regarding the wiretapping. It goes beyond executive privilege and all that. I think you will find the article’s argument very interesting and I’m really curious if it will work in the Garci wiretap case.
Finally, the abductors of Jonas should be imprisoned. They should share the same cell, they belong to the same circle of hell as Joma, for putting ideology above basic decency.
Basic decency over ideology. The sanctity of life and human rights over ideology. That applies to all regardless of ideology.
DJ,
I guess a paraphrase of Robert Wilson’s words is in order re: Miriam “joining” the opposition –
“Of course she’s crazy, but that doesn’t mean she’s wrong.â€Â
Or, to quote Sheila Ballantyne – “You can always trust the information given to you by people who are crazy; they have an access to truth not available through regular channelsâ€Â
DJ,
What say you about Miriam’s threat to TRO the majority?
“Joma needs to be locked up. He has become deadly.
Ideology is lethally boring.”
Manuelbuencamino. I have long suspected (not too long, maybe two years) that the hacienderos imported communism so they have a scapegoat. Communism has been bad for mass struggle. Ikaw banaman kunan nang religion at suporta nang pamilya mo? Para ano? Para lang labanan mga mayayaman?
We need the church, the family and even the Americans to fight the corrupt. If we don’t have these elements backing us, madugo ang rebolusyon.
Er, notjust American but foreign opinion, that is.
What say you about Miriam’s threat to TRO the majority?
The threat is a copout and a terrible faux pas of a self-described constitutionalist. It reads: “Congress of which she’s a part is the lesser among equals.”
mb, abe,
Remember that mIriam supports the investigation as long as it is centered on the wiretapping (she believes it is FVR and his men who did it!)
I agree with Miriam! They should go for a TRO if they insist on playing the tapes BEFORE a legal basis and predicate has been laid for doing so.
Please everyone, listen to her entire privilege speech It is actually a lesson in Constitutionalism and the work of a great legal minds that only suffers from a speech disability. Her whole point is that WIRETAPPED MATERIALS are dangerous not only to Gloria but to our very own freedoms. I am with her on that.
The reason I agree with her lies in JPE’s warning to “future lawmakers” and investigators of wiretapppings, that one day, the shoe could be on the other foot.
What if tomorrow, ISAFP or the Palace secretly releases and disseminates all sorts of embarrassing wiretaps of all sorts of politicians, editors, reporters, senators, etc?
We would have nothing but the very antiwiretapping law to protect us. And Miriams tightrope walk along Lorenzo Tanada’s beautiful poem of a law!
Altho she is playing a rear-guard action for the Palace, believe it or not, her inherent intellectual integrity (not political!) has forced into her speech MANY aspects of the law that will actually come to haunt her patroness, and does indeed make a significant contribution to the earnest legal thinking about this case.
I agree with you MB about the distinction you have made between “ideology” and principles.
BTW: I do predict now a flood of new wiretappings to be released as a major counter-attacking tactic. It’s what I would do!
DJ,
“They should go for a TRO if they insist on playing the tapes BEFORE a legal basis and predicate has been laid for doing so.”
But didn’t Chiz say, we have to establish the authenticity and illegality of those tapes first, and until we do that we are allowed to play them?
I’m not arguing with you. I’m just trying to find out who said what.
But regardless, of who said what first, I think Abe is right. A TRO is not the way to go because it diminishes the Senate.
I can’t believe Miriam and company are so poor they cannot come up with a more creative way to obstruct the investigation.
But I agree with you that it’s really dangerous if we let ISAFP and everyone who played a role in the recantation of Doble’s original statement get away with it.
We don’t want ISAFP or any police or national security agency exercising the same clout over our national life as J Edgar Hoover did when he headed the FBI and used the products of illegal surveillance to blackmail everyone who crossed him
Once again an issue of extreme national importance will hang on the literal interpretation of the law.
mb,
as i said, we should all listen to what miriam actually said, because she actually is defending against the day when the shoe is on the other foot.
In other words, what would our position be if the wiretapped conversations were of NGO leaders just joking around discussing a coup d’etat? Or conversations among public persons like media people and senators, congressmen, in which they are seen as philanderers, cheaters, or seem to be plotting something big? And then of gloria and garci just mixed inseparably among such other conversations?
What would our position be in other words if the shoe were on the other foot and the CONTENT of the conversations are not what WE would want divulged illegally.
We only feel and see the inherent unfairness of a recorded, eavesdropped conversation when WE are its victims. We are only too willing now to force the Garci Tapes out in the open (again!) because the conversations are not OURS but GMAs and Garci’s.
Her main point was EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
In contrast to the paeans of praise The Philippine Commentary is heaping on Sen. Chiz Escudero, I think he got swatted like a pesky fly by Brenda. Chiz was basically arguing that the tapes be conditionally admitted as evidence subject to a declaration of inadmissibility in case it is subsequently proven to be wiretapped material. What? In effect, he suggests that the Senate accept the tapes, play it, analyze it, turn it upside down, and when they are sure that it is wiretapped, declare that it is inadmissible as evidence. Doble comes to the Senate presenting alleged wiretapped material and the Senate says, “Ows, baka naman spliced lang sa studio yan? Hane, tingnan natin.” Such sophistry, Chiz! No wonder DJB is beginning to worship at your feet.
Frankly, I cannot understand why the opposition senators insist on playing the tapes. Everybody who cared to hear it has already done so. An inquiry in aid of legislation that intends to prevent or discourage “wiretapping” need not go into the contents of the tape. They need to ask Doble who he did it with, how it is done, with the help of whom, how extensive is the operation, who orders it, etc. They will not find the answers to such questions listening to Gloria telling Garci, “Yung dagdag, yung dagdag.”
Yeah,that ZTE
I revise my statement that instead of US commerce controlling our congress, With Frapport(Germans)Some foreign mining firms,power firms,sea ports,rail firms,and now internet connectivity firms.
I will go back to the word lobbyists, for an international touch.
MB,
Nice one, that ZTE as a poisonous toy.
Karl,
my (unfinished) take on the fixed term of the CSAFP is posted in my blog. you might want to check it out.
In her column, Belinda Cunanan writes about talking to Rep. Frelinghuysen (R) about the cheap medicines bill. While the bill is noteworthy, it is also annoying that Bel Cunanan seems to think that she is now a representative of the Philippine government when she wrote regarding Frelinghuysen’s concern on intellectual property rights: “I replied that the Philippines, as a signatory to the international agreement on intellectual property rights, would take such rights into consideration and that the research angle is a valid concern.”
Who does she think she is speaking for the government of the Republic? It only proves in my mind that she is a paid hack of GMA considering that her husband is the Chairman of SSS.
“Frankly, I cannot understand why the opposition senators insist on playing the tapes. Everybody who cared to hear it has already done so. An inquiry in aid of legislation that intends to prevent or discourage “wiretapping†need not go into the contents of the tape. They need to ask Doble who he did it with, how it is done, with the help of whom, how extensive is the operation, who orders it, etc. They will not find the answers to such questions listening to Gloria telling Garci, “Yung dagdag, yung dagdag.—
———————————————————
That is why Jaxius, I really believe that this “reopening” is not really about in “aid of legislation”. It is in “aid of something else”……….
“Everybody who cared to hear it has already done so.”
oh but don’t you lawyers want to set all things on and for the record?
indeed, indeed, there would be no need for it if only those involved will have the delicadeza to own up the act and stop desecrating the electoral process, as well as the positions they are holding on.
I like this quote:
“”The problem with the Americans is that they are overpaid, oversexed, and over here.”â€ÂMiriam Defensor Santiago, multi-awarded scholar and public servant,
is now on her second term as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines.
“Congress, of which she’s a part is the lesser among equals”.
abe, as a lawyer you must know that when the sc issues a tro, it does so under authority of the law and the constitution. this does not mean that the sc is asserting its own supremacy over the branch to which the tro is directed. what it is asserting is the primacy of the constitution or the law that authorizes its action. the three branches of the government are co-equal to, and inter-dependent from, each other but all three (both individually and collectively) are subject to the law.
in fact, when one branch checks another, it is the law at work (as determined by the final arbiter), not a super body lording over a “co-equal” entity.
“Her main point was
mb, DJB,
I am unable to access Manolo’s blog earlier, so I posted my reply in my blog instead. Anyway, here are my thoughts and questions:
First of all, Republic Act No. 4200 (otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law) is a CRIMINAL statute that penalizes violation of PRIVACY as defined by it.
Second of all, the Act also LEGALIZES wiretapping under conditions prescribed by it.
Third of all, what the statute prohibits to further discourage the acts penalized is the ADMISIBILITY IN EVIDENCE of the “communication or spoken word or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the (communication or spoken word) or any part thereof, or any information therein contained†so obtained or secured in violation its provisions.
On the first point, as a criminal statute, RA 4200 should be construed strictly against the state and in favor of the accused.
On the second point, if the communication is not private, the statute is not supposed to apply. Now, is a communication between the President and a COMELEC official about the conduct of a presidential election private? (Note: I am focusing my question to this and only this portion of the recorded communication in the tape).
On the third point –
a) If the record of the communication or spoken word is used in a “judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation†but not introduced in evidence, and therefore there is no occasion to consider its ADMISSIBLITY, is the statute violated? (This could essentially be the point of Chiz Escudero in another dimension as further elaborated by Jaxius above.)
b) If the introduction in evidence of the so-called “poisoned fruit†is being attempted in such a trial, hearing or investigation, who is the proper party to object to its admissibility?
c) May the objection be waived or is the right to object on ground of admissibility essentially waivable since it is a PRIVATE right?
d) In the case of PGMA, if her privacy right has been violated, is she not deemed to have waived it by virtue of her public acknowledgement of the content of the recording in the “lapse in judgment†speech? Or as the country’s chief law enforcer, should she not waive her private right in the public interest?
e) Is President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo deemed to have authorized the wiretapping by her conduct of not faithfully executing the law against probable violators and therefore barred from availing of the benefits under the law, if any?
f) Since Garci denies he is the same person whose voice is recorded on the tape in question, could he be at any time an improper party to object to its admissibility?
g) When is it seasonable to object, at any time reference is made to the tape or only at such time that the tape is being introduced in evidence, which the tape being essentially a “real†(not a testimonial) evidence should at the “offer of evidence†stage of the trial, hearing or investigation?
FINALLY, considering the well-nigh plenary nature of policymaking by Congress, may the SC interfere via a TRO with congressional hearing in aid of legislation? On the other hand, may Congress assert its prerogative to cite anyone in contempt who is enforcing such TRO, if so issued?
call this an ignorant or even stupid question Jaxius, but what if we change admissability and inadmissability of evidence with presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise of a suspect.
Are evidences not scrutinized first before junking it. Or is it for you, that the evidence is automatically an instrument to prove if something is or otherwise ,beyond reasonable doubt.
Nothing has been unproven beyond reasonable doubt yet,and if you say that the senate is not the right forum?why not wait till what this leads to first,then remind us again,later.
tagakotta, that saying about the americans is very old -it was popular during ww2 in britain and australia.
Lawyers should stop acting as if they have a monopoly of reality. The illegality of the tapes must be separated from the issue of the fact that they exist. (It would be another matter if the argument is that they were fabricated.) If one accepts that what is contained in the tapes is an actual conversation, then that fact has to be taken into account. Simply declaring the tapes illegal and pretending they are not relevant is to deny an important part of political reality which is normally not a good thing for any society to do.
So DJB, in your examples of the shoe being on the other foot (at 6:49am above), if someone illegally wiretapped or videotaped a husband (or wife) committing adultery, then perhaps that person cannot be prosecuted on the basis of those poisonous fruits. However, there is nothing stopping the aggrieved party from leaving his/her partner.
As a concession to the incommensurability between the legal and the political system, but as an acknowledgement of an important aspect of reality in the interest of justice and fairness, i agree that Gloria Arroyo can be administratively (i.e. politically) dismissed because of the tapes, but not criminally prosecuted on the basis of the tapes alone. She does not have inherent right to be President but she does have the right to equal protection under the law as an ordinary citizen.
What would be JPEs or Miriam’s position on wiretapping if the content were about a dastardly crime committed against ,say, a son or a daughter, the only evidence that could be had being the wiretap material gathered under the same circunstances? Would be interesting to know. What inducement or incentive indeed would make one take a principle over the other?
In aid of legislation or election? Who knows what motive hides inside Lacson? But how bloody easy would it be for Lacson’s enemies to shred him into tiny pieces before the elections– ohh if only those wiretaps were just spliced, with manufactured contents courtesy of technology. If only we know deep in our hearts the Hello Garci tape were a fake, what could a thousand Lacson do to unsettle and destabilize?
“Her main point was EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.”
spot on, djb. i’ve been telling this people here that the rule of law goes both ways. what seems to be against you now may be your refuge tomorrow. justice is blind (for good reason), but she can feel in her hands which side the balance tilts. justice is not necessarily on the side of the one who cries the loudest, or the most repetitious, or who can spit the more lethal venom.
when, oh when, can people learn to accept defeat graciously? even JESUS bowed to the judgment of the unjust and accept ignominious death on the cross.
Can somebody tell me the logic/rationale of the unlikely political alignment of BOTH Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago
and FVR to GMA?
Ha ha ha, what an apt analogy. Coming from a quintessential specimen of the legal profession, i believe you’re saying more than you mean to.
cvj, before you laugh your tail off, read and analyze the quote: you people won’t accept the outcome of the two failed impeachment attempt, and the decisions of the independent electoral commission and PET on the matter of PGMA’s election. JESUS (God in His own right for those who believe) had the power over His condemners, but he humbly accepted their unjust verdict, according to their (human) law, and died for it. you can probably see that i am not drawing an “analogy”, i am contrasting.
pray, tell me, what has my being a “specimen of the legal profession” got to do with anything? or are you trying to pull a fast one again as you are in the habit of doing?
I appreciate that you’re too embedded in it to notice.