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
BTW Bencard, when i get the time, i intend to consult a lawyer to determine whether what you said above “are you trying to pull a fast one again as you are in the habit of doing?” and similar statements coming from you in the past constitutes grounds for defamation.
Abe,
Let’s admit, for the sake of argument, that the “Garci tapes” fall outside the scope of RA 4200 (I have argued otherwise), a criminal statute being strictly construed against the State and liberally for the accused.
However, just for clarification, is it your position that if it falls outside the scope of RA 4200, the tapping of cellphones is a perfectly admissible evidence? I would argue that it is not. If it indeed it falls outside the scope of RA 4200, what this simply means is that such act is not punishable under the said law.
It remains inadmissible as evidence because tapping cellphones is clearly a violation of the privacy of communications and correspondence. The Constitution expressly provides so (Section 3 paras 1 and 2, Article III). Only a “tortured analysis” of this issue, as per Brenda, would yield an answer that says otherwise.
As to your third point, let’s do it one by one:
a) definitely, yes. the aim of the prohibition is not just to discourage the practice of violating the privacy of communication and correspondence. it is also to protect such privacy. even if you do not admit such tapes as evidence but you play it for all to hear, where is the inviolability there?
b) the witness is already claiming that the evidence he is presenting is obtained illegally, why would you agree to indulge him? This is not simply a rule of evidence. It is a constitutional directive that such right be inviolable, except in instances allowed and provided by law. you only need to object if the offeror claims it is admissible evidence, not when he already admits it is inadmissible.
c) no need to object. the constitution directs the courts, quasi-judicial and legislative bodies not to accept such evidence.
d) no need to waive. the evidence illegally obtained is barred absolutely. however, on the issue whether the President can waive her privacy right by virtue of her office, it can get complicated. how would wiretappers targeting the private communications of the President be able to distinguish it from her official communications protected by the “state secrets” principle and the doctrine of executive privilege? I once suggested making it admissible evidence but the wiretapper should still go to jail and should not be granted immunity.
e) impeach her. but how?
f) As with GMA, no need to object. Barred.
g) As with the foregoing, no need to object. the court, quasi-judicial or legislative body is directed to reject it.
As for the last, I think Bencard answered it already.
On why we cannot accept the verdict of the two impeachment attempts? It is just like you having to go to a doctor and without being examined you were told that you are OK, and again same goes with another doctor. It is the chance to undergo and go through with the “right process”. She has not been cleared by these two impeachment attempts rather only escaped from it.
“Her main point was equal protection of the law.”
For lawyers and those pretending to be one, is it the right of Miriam to claim equal protection of the law on behalf of Gloria? And since that is (your interpretation) the apparent justification, should it not be incumbent upon Miriam and the Gloria herself, as public officials, to equally demand and do everything in their power for the equal application of the law and seek remedial legislation so that such abhorrent conduct will not be repeated? For one who people claim to have been aggrieved by the alleged illegal wiretapping, Gloria is not complaining. If she is not, what right have you?
Come to think of it. Maybe it’s a good thing to let the “shoe on the other foot” threat hang on our politicians’ heads. It may force them to stay on the straight and narrow.
Maiba naman tayo.
On India:
60 years of Independence with three generations of leaders assasinated,but look at them now. A power economically,militarilly and most of their 1 billion are degree holders.
There is still poverty,but what nation has not(generally).
They are completely indepedndent from the Brits.
good for them.
I caught a glimpse of the explainer,and it reminded me of the words derived from sanskrit like mahal,karma and etc.(mental block)
“BTW Bencard, when i get the time, i intend to consult a lawyer to determine whether what you said above “are you trying to pull a fast one again as you are in the habit of doing?†and similar statements coming from you in the past constitutes grounds for defamation.”
forget it cvj. banters to our liking or not comes with the blogging territory. if anything, we do know who have myopic view of things here.
INE, part of me agrees with you 100%.
mlq3,
On “Impotent Reassurances” you are quite right about your assessment on where the US Congressmen are in the “food chain”.
But I am puzzled by one thing: when we do get high level emissaries in here like Negroponte or when Ambassador Kenney does big important things, then the charge of “being mercenaries” America is brought up.
You’ve come up with the opposite. When the media invents or imagines stuff like “aid cuts” people say that America is only looking after her own interests and is about to abandon the Philippines!
So which is it?
The fact of the matter is, the Philippines is really like a jilted lover, and America has many other interests. Unlike us, they’ve already long accepted that we are NOT their colony any more. Long ago! Yet we cannot give them up either as saviors when we realy need them, or as our favorite excuse for our own failures, our most beloved grievance and alibi for our own irresponsibilities and illusions.
I think the expressions of friendship and support that came from these Congressmen do mean something though. It does mean a lot more than you think, because America appreciates the vast majority of the filipinos who, for some inexplicable reason, put their full faith and trust and hope in America. Perhaps because only America has really kept its promises to them as people, as human beings, even if our ruling classes don’t seem to be satisfied with what THEY got from America.
But we ARE very important to America in a world that even you folks say is turning anti-American. Negroponte himself said so, which means that at the highest levels, this completely unexpected, if unrequited love that the vast majority of our people have for America, has not gone unnoticed.
Our sacrifices, our steady faith in Democracy, our suffering is not ignored. It is not diminished.
And when once more America comes to help us in our dire need, I will hide every copy of columns like this that I can find from our truest friends!
sabi ko sa prevous blog that in six months malilimutan na natin ang Mindanao issue, as if I was born yesterday,everything is forgotten the following blog.
That is unfortunately how we describe Blogosphere interest.
Note that I did not say National or public interest.
Now what about public order as one senator’s campaign theme for the week seems to be?
We should bring closure according to this, as one senator (also on campaign mode)said,then some say if you want closure give closure to your case first.
Call them innuendos,as they truly are!
Til next blog topic comment thread.
DJB, you talk like that French skunk in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Come to think of it, I know why PDI had to try and make something of this stupid story. It is because they have to prove that the so called extrajudicial killings testimony in the US Congress actually had some effect. They need to prove that all their work assiduously building up the MYTH of extrajudicial killings has worked.
Yet will they put in big bold headlines the truth about JONAS BURGOS when that all finally comes out. Will they trot out the 100 point type when it comes out that it was the NPA itself that has probably kidnapped poor, poor Jonas Burgos?
I highly doubt it.
This explanation is better than “misinterpreting” somebody elses news report, or some other such balderdash.
I know those guys too well. They are devious liars and make stuff up because they think that even lying is allowed by freedom of the press to get at “the truth”.
They are so transparent and disgusting that way you know. And if they think they are fooling a lot of people a lot of the time about things like “US Combat troops in Mindanao”, perhaps they should do some surveys in Leyte and Bicol, or even Basilan!
The people who hate America actually hate themselves for being such utter failures at building a nation.
We should accept that everything that happens to us is our own responsibility, not Americas. That is the comfortable old shoe no one wants to give up. It’s a 61 year old man still blaming his grandfather for his fate.
DJB’s generalized law of responsibility for us Filipinos:
Rule No. 1: We should accept that everything that happens to us is our own responsibility, not Americas.
Rule No. 2: If not true, go back to rule No. 1.
Attention Iraq (what’s left of you), heads up on the above.
cvj,
What did your mother ever do to deserve you?
What did America ever do to deserve us?
Attention Lola of CVJ–it’s your fault he is such a heartless intellectual who loves to play with his tongue.
benigs,
any reaction on this as an ozzified filipino-not?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/death-in-the-outback/2007/08/26/1188066944904.html
DJB, i think the only topic of interest to people other than me (or you) is your second question above. The history books might help in answering that.
DJB: It is naive to think that there is a place for altruism in international relations or American relations. The US government does not deal with the Philippines with the latter’s interest in mind but with their own interest first and foremost. If ever they coincide, you can be sure that it is more by design than by act of fate. You may benefit from a lecture by MLQ3 on realpolitik, specifically the politics of international relations. And do not confuse governments with its people.
DJB: Oh, you may want to look at the fate of the Filipino veterans and see whether their “sacrifices”, their “sufferings are not ignored. Not diminished.”
cvj,
all three statements make EXACTLY the same point.
And I think your agreement to consider even just the second question proves that point.
In what possible sense, other than deranged resentment, can such a question even be considered “interesting”?
But you may indulge yourself in your favorite “history” if you wish, such indulgence being proof, precisely of my criticism of MLQ3’s column.
But let me be a lil plainer and less obtuse.
The logical conclusion of observing people resent America whether she is doing “A” or “Not-A” logically means they do not resent America at all, but only themselves.
To expend such creative energies on such weird antinomy reveals something even more amazing: these folks are angry at America only because they expect better of her than she seems capable of delivering. Which further means they have a high standards notion of what a great nation should be and are sorely disappointed that the real America is not what they expect it to be?
Final paradox: Where could such expectations have come from? Who put it there in their hearts and minds? Who taught such passion for perfection, such perspicacity in pursuing the great ideals of humanity?
The very language they use to express their resentments, the very idiom of their eloquence, these are clues to the provenance of their genius. They go it too from America!
They are the worst and the best kind of colonial mentalists.
Resentment is the thorny vine that grows from the seed of envy felt by every failed ruling class.
Beancurd,
Perhaps you should address your points to mlq3! Of course America acts always in its own interests. That is what their Constitution requires of every American government!
So why are we such crybabies when some innuendo is put in 100 point font by a communist newspaper about some hiccup in the US Congressional budget deliberations? And why, when they spend hundreds of millions building bridges and schools and doing the things that OUR rulling class should be doing for OUR people, we say they are violating our sovereignty and interfering in our internal affairs?
Beancurd,
yet there they are, proud Filipino Americans, gerontocratic veterans with their fealty unrequited, unrewarded, there they stand in full uniform of memory that eventually, We Shall Overcome. Their faith you see is deeper than those like us who have not actually fought for America in the field of battle. Their faith is in the CORRIGIBILITY of America, the belief the Negroes taught them, of America’s greatest strength: the ability to change!
And what of us? Do we have such a magnificent virtue to match? We who so vociferously attack a great people who are united to their government and can only be severed from it by intellectuals?
We the most corrupt nation in Asia?
We the rapists of our own daughters, seven times a day on the average?
We who overthrow democratically elected Presidents and call it People Power, and send the beheader to New York for a retirement of cocktail parties?
We who cannot settle insurgencies any better than the Shia and the Sunnis?
We, whose garbage ends up in our food and water as we flush it out to sea?
Is Manila’s traffic really George W. Bush’s fault too?
We, who are multiplying like rats and rabbits and wonder why there is poverty and hunger, blaming it of course on you know who?
We, who demand that no matter how big a mess we make of things, America must make it good because if it doesn’t it will hurt her too?
We who dry our rice on asbestos strewn highways but are more incensed by Genetic Engineering’s miracles and beat our chests at the environmental damage caused by the West?
We whose vices are never mentioned as we berate poverty caused by imperialism: our love of ginebra, shabu, whores that are man, woman and child, jueteng, masiao and all sorts of escapism–and then say they are the effect and not the cause of poverty!
Are we so blameless for our fate?
“…will they put in big bold headlines the truth about JONAS BURGOS when that all finally comes out. Will they trot out the 100 point type when it comes out that it was the NPA itself that has probably kidnapped poor, poor Jonas Burgos?”
Hey, Dean, care to explore the possibility that Jonas was kidnapped by the NPAs? Strange behavior of the AFP if indeed the NPAs did it, don’t you think?
I still can’t get into your comment box. I think you banned me hehe
ricelander, just because i was once banned by some culinary blogger doesn’t mean that i would engage in the same mean immaturity. But you know what, my advanced degrees in physics can’t get me into ellentordesillas or pcij blogs either for some reason, and I know they aren’t among the Immature. Ive tried and tried and tried. something about wordpress maybe.
have you tried getting a new blogger account, maybe? only takes a second you know. (doesn’t work for me on those other blogs coz it almost looks like you have to be a DIFERENT wordpress account for EACH blog. Frankly though I just haven’t really tried hard enough.)
I think IF Jonas Burgos was kidnapped by the NPA, and that is proven, it would be the end of the extrajudicial killings thingy. And what Joma’s arrest by the Dutch proves is that there IS a deadly internal struggle in the CPPNPA, which makes the AFP’s claims that at least some of these deaths are done by them on each other.
Since Jonas Burgos mother (I weep for her, I really really do!) has made such a big case of it, the Left certainly cannot afford to have it blamed on them.
Therefore I am supremely interested in the truth of that case, which truth, I certainly do not know now.
No one said that we are blameless. But have you ever heard of the theory of dependency? Do you know why the IMF-World Bank were conceptualized just as WWII was about to be concluded? Do you know why Manila was reduced to rubble unnecessarily? Do you think we have escaped that already? Do you think a poor farmer in the provinces has already gotten over the notion that an apple is more nutritious than a guava? Or that the former is more desirable? Do you think many Filipinos have been given the opportunity to really be able to make such objective comparison? Have you ever thought of who finances our kids’ textbooks in the public school system and who participates in approving their content?
Just because you have made it big in Big Apple does not mean that everyone or even a majority of the Filipinos living in this country can also make it big here.
Oh, that line “Their faith is in the CORRIGIBILITY of America, the belief the Negroes taught them, of America’s greatest strength: the ability to change.” Really? And you think that is justified? My impression of American history is that changes in favor of minorities were forced upon them, by arms if not by public opinion. It is power that dictates change. Change is not some ability inherent in its society. And Change does not happen there because of the justness of one’s cause, the Filipino veterans’ cause included.
No, cvj, DJB talks more like benignO.
Regarding the three persons who’ve come forward to claim that they were NPA recruits along with Jonas Burgos and that the NPA itself “arrested” Burgos (a la Kintanar and Tabara) has to bear a lot of weight in court because, like Vidal Doble, their testimony would be against self-interest as they must admit to being NPA members themselves. Now the fact they have requested to be a part of the Witness Protection Program could cloak the reality that they are “army” witnesses.
What I am waiting for the AFP to do is get the police to charge person or persons unknown for the kidnapping of Jonas, put these guys in as witnesses, and carry out a trial somehow in absentia, as a response to the urgent pleas of Ma Burgos. If a judge finds them credible enough and they present believeable testimony, I know that in her place my grief would not be assuaged, but my anger would be redoubled, my energy to punish the guilty trebled and my faith in justice confirmed.
less than that we get par for the Filipino course.
beancurd,
never heard of the theory of dependency, sorry. please explain it and apply it to Philippine American relations.
DJB, why not start by asking the Army Provost Marshall to release the report on the loss of the license plates?
djb, america is an ally, filipinos are generally, apparently tuned into the republican way of thinking, republican washington views the philippines as fairly important but i think it’s safe to say that its enthusiasm for the present administration has been “waning, waning.”
where the country stands in the american scheme of things is probably not very high in general, though not insignificant in certain respect, specifically, mindanao; but uncle sam can afford to take a long view of things and juggle its finances and military commitment with long-term interests in mind, without investing too much in the present government or any government.
personally i don’t subscribe to the notion the americans want to set up a vassal state in mindanao; i don’t think they’d go very far to preserve democracy, either, not if it offered prospects of a firmer alliance from a successor government. but i also think we stand more to gain by not rocking the boat with washington -and the government’s increasing friskiness with china is not a good thing (i think the region’s attitudes are more stand-offish).
but uh, dean, what are permissible activites due to our alliance with the usa is one thing, saying the americans are united with their government is not true. close to half want dubya impeached and more than half want the veep impeached. and america is one scary place ever since the neocons started holding sway. and i for one don’t think it’s wise to get carried away with what the current bush mafia wants to do, considering their time may be running out and that they’re just plain scary. i mean, look, every trick gma’s pulled seems straight from the republican playbook.
cvj, be my guest. do, consult a lawyer and sue me (make my day!) in fact you should consult with a lawyer before you pretentiously post “legal” inanities here as if you know what you are talking about.
btw, if you can “dish it out” you should be able to take it.
Manolo, both Bush and GMA have the same political advisors too, didn’t you know?
DJB,
“Come to think of it, I know why PDI had to try and make something of this stupid story. It is because they have to prove that the so called extrajudicial killings testimony in the US Congress actually had some effect. They need to prove that all their work assiduously building up the MYTH of extrajudicial killings has worked.”
You have it backwards.
The PDI story actually says Congress would not cut aid. That means the extrajudicial killing testimony had no effect on Comgress.
The PDI simply does not understand the foreign aid process. That lack of understanding led them to a wrong headline.
If anything, PDI played up that story to discredit their favorite peeve, ABS CBN. Notice how they pointed out tht the ABS CBN report was false.
Here’s the thing. The TV network said aid was cut based on the State Department budget request for FY 2008 while PDI based its report on the marked-up bills coming from both Senate and House Appropriationd subcommittees on Foreign Ops.
And that brings us to your other misinterpretation.
“But we ARE very important to America in a world that even you folks say is turning anti-American. Negroponte himself said so, which means that at the highest levels, this completely unexpected, if unrequited love that the vast majority of our people have for America, has not gone unnoticed”
First, Negroponte cam only speak for the Executive Branch or the President as it were. He cannot speak for Congress.
Second, Negroponte may be a high official in the Exec. Branch but when it comes to foreign policy Condoleeza Rice outranks him.
Now, understand the budget process in the Exec Branch. Condi will not submit a budget request to Congress that has not been vetted and approved by the President (theoretically).
Now, Condi’s budget request for items related to foreign military spending and anti-terror funding for the Philippines suffered deep cuts.
So you have to reconcile what Negroponte said with what Condi actually did, asked for less money for military spending and anti-terror programs for the Philippines, because one must put his money where his mouth is and in the case of Negroponte there ain’t all that money in his mouth.
Everything I said above is in black and white. It can be found in the State department budget request for FY 2008 and both the House and Senate versions of the foreign ops bills, which by the way, are now in conference committee because the Senate chose to raise FMF for the Philippines while the House merely went along with the reduced budget request of State.
I have a pretty good understanding of how this budget process works. IIncluding the nuances in language. Don’t take it wrong but I am offering to explain the budget process to you, if you are interested. Dom’t hesitate to call, you have my number. Only one condition – we talk only about the budget process and we avoid discussing the anti-terror bill and the goings on with the reds and the jihadists because on those topics we will never stop arguing. But buzz me if you want the lowdown on foreign aid process. The process divorced from politics. Just the nuts and bolts.
mlq3,
Americans don’t consider George W. Bush THE government. I certainly don’t, even if I support W.
I have said it many times before. America’s greatest virtue is her corrigibility, her evolutionary potential, her ability to adapt for survival.
Every American knows they CAN change the administration of their government. They may dislike or even hate any given administration, but there is no confusion in most american’s minds that the government is what the administration is a mere tenant of.
this is the subtle reason why I say Americans are united with their government, even if you are right that GWB is no longer popular.
I think it has to do with Democracy itself being an adaptive, evolutionarily powerful meme. The difficulty of course is that it’s natural timescale is slightly longer than a human being’s lifetime when it comes to MAJOR changes that have to occur, like slavery, women’s right, and now how to deal with a threat so powerful , it could indeed physically destroy the nation, and not just the govt.
Regarding the neocons and how scary they are, just wait till the paleolibs get back in there.
Remember the lessons of the 20th Century. The Democrats have got far more blood on their hands in nearly all of America’s wars.
DJB, i believe you are partially right in that resentment towards America comes from unfulfilled expectations. When the Cold War ended, the United States really had a chance to lead the world into an era where war could be made obsolete. Instead, its ideologues just replaced the ‘Cold War’ with a manufactured ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Well into the first decade of the 21st century, we have now retrogressed to the rhetoric of the Crusades. Sayang talaga.
JAXIUS: Let’s admit, for the sake of argument, that the “Garci tapes†fall outside the scope of RA 4200 (I have argued otherwise), a criminal statute being strictly construed against the State and liberally for the accused.
However, just for clarification, is it your position that if it falls outside the scope of RA 4200, the tapping of cellphones is a perfectly admissible evidence? I would argue that it is not. If it indeed it falls outside the scope of RA 4200, what this simply means is that such act is not punishable under the said law.
It remains inadmissible as evidence because tapping cellphones is clearly a violation of the privacy of communications and correspondence. The Constitution expressly provides so (Section 3 paras 1 and 2, Article III). Only a “tortured analysis†of this issue, as per Brenda, would yield an answer that says otherwise.
ABE: First, let me say I feel like Rene Saguisag here defending a human rights violator.
In defending the devil, these things are worth pondering. If the accused is Doble it may be a good defense: that wiretapping a cellphone is not criminal. Hence, if charged in court, his first remedy is a motion to quash on the ground that “the facts charged do not constitute an offense.†If his motion is denied, and the case goes to trial, what evidence will the prosecution introduce to prove illegal wiretapping if the mere possession (not to speak of replaying, communicating the contents or furnishing transcription) of the “illegal†recording by “any person†is criminal?
Now, if the lawyers were sleeping and somehow, the recording was replayed in court, when is the seasonable time to object to its “admissibility in evidence� Supposing the parties whose communication were wiretapped waived their rights to privacy, may the prosecution continue to object to its admissibility at the “offer of evidence�
Supposing that the persons accused are the parties whose communications were tapped, let’s say they are coup plotters/conspirators. If the only proof of the supposed conspiracy are the illegal tapes and the introduction of those tapes were seasonably objected to (“seasonably,†meaning at the proper time) then the prosecution will fail and the plotters will go scot-free. This is a case of the state punishing itself for the malfeasance of its agents.
If the accused is a blogger at PCIJ (e.g. Alex P.) for uploading the tape in PCIJ.org, Alex may raise the issue of freedom of the press and the people’s right to information of public concern. Alex may also claim: Who says it is illegal, isn’t Isafp or its agents presumed to be in the regular performance of their duty (intelligence gathering), i.e., authorized by the chain of command including the President of the Philippines as Commander-in-Chief? In the meanwhile, brave Alex stands firm: I will allow others to have access to the contents of the communication because free speech, the people’s right to information of public concern and ultimately political sovereignty and political equality that underlie the very essence of our democracy trump any pretense to privacy (between Garci and Ate Glo).
Here’s a good twist. If the captured conversation is between Ate Gemma and Kuya Manny suggestive of the latter’s relationship with … hmmm Ms. Malu but the recorded communication was really out of context because in actuality the loving couple were really just teasing each other, and if Ate Glo and Kuya Manny are willing to waive their right to privacy in order to pin down the wiretapper, should the court still deny the replaying of the recorded communication upon a claim that it is a “constitutional directive that such right be inviolable, except in instances allowed and provided by law†(and unfortunately Ate Gemma and Kuya Manny are not the law) and on a further claim that the inviolability is not only for the Ate Gemma and Kuya Manny now but for the Ate Gemmas and Kuya Manny’s of the future?
On whether “shall not be admissible in evidence†has other meaning than what the plain language of RA 4200 says, I wish to spare at this juncture the other participants here of the technical discussion on the matter.
As to Bencard’s thesis, needless to state, his simplification is what we take for granted. I am in a way provoking a more nuanced discussion of the issue. For a starter, here’s what I have written when the SC handed down Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives (November 10, 2003):
The mainstream media in the Philippines has allowed only a token contest against the arrogation of “judicial supremacy†by the Supreme Court in the decision involving the several petitions filed before it to stop the impeachment of Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. This to me has the effect of affirming the unfortunate state of an enduring Filipino culture still indicative of the social indoctrination that has run deep from the friar system. Hence, far from the pretense that the colonial umbilical cord has been cut, as the Supreme Court proudly asserted, the decision succeeded only in preserving the skewed cordage now interwoven into the more complex and still dominant American system except that, instead of subservience to the pulpit of the friary, obeisance is also being rendered, although imperceptibly but incrementally, towards a nimbler competing elite faction, the secular High Tribunal.
To frame the larger question in Platonic dialogues: Is the Philippines inching closer to the “alternative†rule of the philosopher-kings all in the guise of upholding procedural stability and constitutional supremacy?
Bencard, I haven’t consulted a laywer, but i’ve done some reading and from what i gather, slander can only prosper if what was being said was said knowing it was a lie and with an intent to do grievous harm. More importantly for my case, it also has to take into account the environment in which it was said. The following example (which i got from someone commenting on the PZ Myers libel case) is instructive:
Going by the above illustration, your accusing me of having ‘a habit of pulling a fast one‘, given the context in which it was said, cannot qualify as slander and can be simply considered a rhetorical technique (in inidoro’s terms ‘blog banter’).
i think you should also realize that truth is the best defense in libel or slander (legal truth, at least), but i’m glad you saw the light. see what you can do when you really try?
abe, but you still haven’t addressed the issue you were raising re whether in issuing a tro, sc is asserting “supremacy” of the judiciary over its co-equal branches, and my contention (which you label a “simplification”) that it is actually the law which the sc is applying that is supreme. do you agree with my “thesis” or not? if not, why?
Bencard,
Malu Fernadez ran and won for president of the Philippines and her first act was to issue Executive Order 101. EO 101 requires all returning OFWs before re-entry to sign an apology letter to Miss Porky and to wear Jo Malone. Failure to do so according to the EO shall result in the returning OWF being considered as only ¾ of a Filipino. Tingog challenged the constitutionality of the order. The SC unanimously upheld validity of the EO 101. Did SC uphold the supremacy of the law and has the decision form part of the law of land?
abe, i’m frankly disappointed that you evaded answering my question categorically by whipping up this ‘absurd’ hypothetical. for the sake of argument, however, i will take it on.
in the classical sense, a law to be valid, must meet the test of reasonableness. as the final arbiter, the sc, and sc alone, has the constitutional power to determine that. therefore, its decision becomes part of the law of the land until either (1) the statute, upon which the decision is based, is amended, modified or abrogated in its entirety by the legislature; or (2) the sc, in a subsequent case, overrules or modifies its previous decision. meanwhile, dura lex sed lex.
assuming that the highest court is acting in accordance with its constitutional mandate, its decision, no matter how bad in the eyes of the adverse party, has the full force of law. it is so, not because the sc is by and of itself possessed of super power, but because it was so endowed with such power by the constitution and the law.
Bencard, i take it that your short answer to Abe is ‘yes’. It’s fair game for Abe to whip out absurd hypotheticals to demonstrate the ultimate implications of the ‘supremacy of the law’ in general and ‘judicial activism’ in particular. In modern society, no system (whether legal, political or economic) can be so self-contained as to be considered Supreme. That’s the basic flaw of all fundamentalisms.
Bencard,
I addition to cvj’s point, I just want to point out also that the assumption of judicial supremacy being a necessary adjunct to the supreme character of the Constitution is a misplaced one, since – when placed in the wrong hands – it could potentially lead to the pitfall of judicial despotism as in the Pres. Malu Fenandez hypothetical. This false assumption must perforce bow to the fundamental principle of coequality among the three branches of the government in a tripartite system that presupposes reciprocal limitations. This constitutional value has to be engrained in our psyche, otherwise it would be too tempting for men and women elevated to the highest court of the land to treat the Constitution as merely marking out the skeletal form of the government but they will flesh it out as they please.
As regards the TRO, I am not sure if the SC would be happy sharing with Congress its power to decide cases brought before it in the same manner that Senate and House members – at least those who fully comprehend the magnitude of the trust reposed in them by the people – would welcome the SC sharing with Congress the power to make laws or policies or to improve on existing ones like the Anti-Wiretapping Law. If the SC can issue a TRO to Congress in matters of lawmaking, what will prevent the SC from issuing a mandamus to the Commander-in-Chief to launch an all-out war in Mindanao? It is very alarming that for sheer partisanship elder senators like Santiago and Enrile are all too willing to repair to the SC like cry babies at the expense of the co-equal standing of the Legislature. Like Malu’s EO 101 in the above example, the adult members of the Senate must defy this TRO if ever the SC arrogates the power it does not have to issue it.
cvj, in “modern” society, what is the alternative to “supremacy of the law”? if you believe that there has to be an ultimate authority in a society to maintain order, who or what would it be? do you want it (the ultimate authority) in the hands of a man/woman, a group of men/women, the military, the clergy, a junta? do you think it would work if you put it in the entire populace and make an election or plebiscite a daily exercise to ascertain its will?
are you saying that law is outdated, a fundamentalist idea and, therefore flawed for being so?
abe, who said sc has to share judicial decision-making with the legislature, and congress shares its law-making power with sc? that’s a red herring! the two branches, and the executive, perform their respective prerogatives and functions only by virtue of the constitution and the law of the land – nothing more, nothing less. no amount of nice wordplay or clever prose, or “absurd hypothetical” could obfuscate that reality.
“abe, but you still haven’t addressed the issue you were raising re whether in issuing a tro, sc is asserting “supremacy†of the judiciary over its co-equal branches, and my contention (which you label a “simplificationâ€Â) that it is actually the law which the sc is applying that is supreme. do you agree with my “thesis†or not? if not, why?”
Isn’t the job of the judiciary only to interpret? Congress makes laws, the judiciary interprets these laws and interprets the constitutionality of new laws. I see the system as very logical. The real problem is the executive and its power to manipulate, coerce, blackmail congress and the judiciary.
brianb, anything under the sun, including power, can be abused. the executive has no monopoly of that. the legislative, by interminable “investigation in aid of destabilization”, the judiciary by unwarranted “judicial legislation”.
Bencard,
Historically, the scope of what is considered as awesome and delicate but vastly unsaid powers of the supreme Judges was defended by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, No. 78, during the campaign for ratification of the US Constitution, by arguing that “the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them†unlike the executive who has the “sword†and the legislature the “purse.†According to Hamilton, “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts†which is “so arduous a duty.†The defense was characteristically Hamiltonian. He was countermajoritarian and during the constitutional convention, delegate Hamilton was quite straightforward about his preference for a constitutional aristocracy, if not monarchy. Luckily for the Americans, he convinced no one but himself.
The inevitable watershed in Constitutional Law, which was Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803)â€â€in turn the progenitor of what was pronounced by our own Justice Jose P. Laurel in the leading Philippine case of Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936)â€â€was borrowed from the above arguments of Hamilton whose idea of the emerging constitutional democracy in America had not been shaped as then by actual experience. Consequently, it did not presage the decision of the US Supreme Court 50 years thereafter in Dred Scott v. Stanford (1857) to the effect that black people were not US citizens (because they were in fact not humans but property), heightening the political tensions that attended the American Civil War and thereupon costing more American lives than World War II, or in Roe v. Wade (1973), which established a woman’s right (to privacy) to terminate her pregnancy (as well as necessarily tens of millions of potential livesâ€â€and sure enough, the counting is still on even at this very moment).
(The actual, hence not “absurd hypothetical”, cases in Dred Scott and in Roe, were not OFWs not wearing Jo Malone being threatened to be demeamed as ¾ Filipinos but human beings, Negroes, actually reduced to property, and potential lives, unborn children, cheapened to “fetusesâ€Â).
Among the first to fear “judicial despotism†was Abraham Lincoln, arguably one of America’s greatest presidents. During his inaugural address in 1861, Lincoln, assailing Dred Scott, said: “ . . . if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers . . .. â€Â
Bencard, your question “if you believe that there has to be an ultimate authority in a society to maintain order, who or what would it be?†coming from a smart lawyer like you is a bit of a disappointment to me.
The abuse of “judicial review,†or all governmental powers for that matter, can be tamed if we make it easier for the people via initiative, referendum and recall, to make judges, lawmakers, political parties, professional politicians and the laws and the Constitution responsive to changing necessities of the time in the promotion of the common good contrary to our “jurisprudential colonial mentality in constitutionality law†(to borrow the fighting words of Senator Santiago) that’s been drilled to us by the practitioners of “democratic elitism†in America.
Manolo has a wonderful proposal to institutionalize “People Power†along the foregoing line which he thinks is “underutilized and yet profoundly democratic†that needs to be revisited. I hope Manolo will republish his idea or provide us a link to it again here.
I mean “jurisprudential colonial mentality in CONSTITUTIONAL law†… sorry Senator Miriam