Earthquake news (Batanes, Catanduanes, and eastern Bicol) dominated AM radio last night; see the nifty Inquirer.net Earthquake Map.
There was an interesting observation made by Jove Francisco in his blog. He noticed that last Friday, the President held a mass oath-taking at the Palace, to which the military noticeable didn’t turn up. This helps explain, perhaps, why the President decided to sit out the Makati rally in the confines of Camp Crame. Read the whole entry, it’s a fascinating peek into what was going on in the Palace last Friday (see also his entry on the arrest of hecklers and continuing nervousness in the Palace; see the related news item, Rains abort unity walk of 77 mayors ).
Have fun with diagrams: See Romulo Neri’s cluttered booty capitalism chart. What’s interesting is his focus is on six captive industries, revolving around Alcantara, Aboitiz, Razon, Tan, and Gokongwei. The bubbles are, apperently, his view of “circles of influence.” For a detailed example, see PAL controls gateways through CAB, say experts.
On to today’s main event. Yesterday Amando Doronila pointed out that Battle arena over NBN shifts to SC. Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments, with one report saying it will be a Close call on Neri case. Last night, however, I ran into a former cabinet member with a formidable reputation as a lawyer, and he said that the case was really an open-and-shut one. He was confident the Supreme Court would divide along the lines shown by its decision on prior restraint. While a loyalty vote is possible, he viewed it as improbable. The reason is that everyone knows this will be a decision avidly studied in the schools, and the Justices know they’re deciding a landmark case with near-unbreakable precedents. They wouldn’t risk their reputations on this one.
Last night, the former cabinet member said the sensible path for the Justices to follow, would be to question Neri in an executive session. The news, today, is troubling: Neri a no-show as SC starts oral arguments. One has to wonder if this is of Neri’s doing or a Palace strategy, to deny the Justices information.
Read Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ’s An E.O. 464 Catechism. He explains what the legal issues to be determined by the high court will be. Particularly relevant is the so-called “Nixon Doctrine”:
Q. Must every claim of executive privilege based on the above enumeration be honored?
A. No. The Court in Senate v. Ermita said that in determining the validity of a claim of privilege, the question that must be asked is not only whether the requested information falls within one of the traditional privileges, but also whether that privilege should be honored in a given procedural setting. Thus it is not for one claiming executive privilege “to unilaterally determine that a duly-issued Subpoena should be totally disregarded.”
Q. Who then determines whether the claimed privilege should be honored?
A. The Court. Thus, for instance, when the Nixon administration claimed privilege for certain tapes about the Watergate break-in, the Court, after looking at the claimed privilege behind closed doors, held that the tapes were not covered by privilege and should be released.
For this reason, our Court also said that “Absent then a statement of the specific basis of a claim of executive privilege, there is no way of determining whether it falls under one of the traditional privileges, or whether, given the circumstances in which it is made, it should be respected.” The lack of specificity renders an assessment of the potential harm resulting from disclosure impossible.
Speaking of E.O. 464… Let’s look at the the demands that have been made by three groups. The CBCP in its pastoral exhortation, the Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan of the Ateneo, and the group of former government officials in their statement issued today.
Here are there demands, arranged in terms of their connection with each other:
They are, on the whole, reasonable demands, that address present problems as well as the need for institutional changes. What the demands lack, however, is a timetable (except for the ex-government officials). This is a serious problem, because, as Edilberto de Jesus points out, today, the President continues to be ambiguous if not actually dissembling:
Arroyo made the following points in the interview:
1. Corruption angered her as much as it did the people.
2. As soon as there was talk of anomalies, she immediately took a step to cancel it.
3. As soon as an informant complained to her about corruption, she looked for a way to cancel the project.
4. She only received the report about corruption the day before the signing of the supply contract.
5. She could not see her way to canceling the project the night before the signing of the supply contract because another country was involved.
What she did not say also deserves attention.
1. She did not identify the whistle-blower(s).
2. She did not explain the anomalies in the deal.
It is not clear whether the “pag-uusap na anomalya” (talk of anomalies) and the “nagsumbong” (informant) referred to the same source. But her action, contrary to what the trio of Cabinet officials tried to convey, indicated that there was more than just loose talk of anomalies from tattle-tales.
Arroyo could not simply say that she heard talk about anomalies; she knew about the specific attempt to bribe CHEd Chair Romy Nery. Did she learn about other anomalies from other sources? In any case, she must have found both the whistle-blower(s) and the report credible. Despite assurances from her officials that the deal was clean, she eventually (not immediately) cancelled the project.
Let us grant that the confusion about Arroyo’s radio interview arose in part from language problems or from multiple voices interpreting what she said. She can quickly clarify the issue by explaining what she had meant to say in the interview. She knows which pieces belong to the puzzle and how to put them together.
At this point, however, what is important and what will contribute to the complete picture is no longer what she said or did not say, but what she did and did not do.
If she is as “galit sa katiwalian,” why did she not act, agad-agad, to investigate the anomalies and to punish their perpetrators?
Why has she not supported the Senate investigations? Why has she not provided the Senate with the documentation of the deal?
Why has she allowed officials who could shed light on the corruption to invoke E.O, 464?
Why has she not held to account those of her officials who continue to maintain that the ZTE-NBN deal was aboveboard?
There are appeals for the Truth, but no threat of consequences if the demands aren’t met. I respect the position of the bishops that they aren’t the ones who should be making threats, but if that’s the case, it’s incumbent among the groups pushing for a more centrist, moderate, resolution of current problems to come to a consensus on a timetable.
I understand that there are some natural dates and pressure point events that various groups are considering:
1. The decision of the Supreme Court on executive privilege, 3-4 weeks after today’s hearing of oral arguments;
2. Income Tax day in April;
3. The expiration of Gen. Esperon’s extended tour of duty as AFP Chief of Staff in May;
4. Labor Day;
5. Independence Day
6. The opening of the new session of Congress in July;
7. The expiration of the one-year ban on impeachment complaints in October (deliberations, including passing better rules, can begin in July);
8. pressure point event: if the government attempts a “same dog, different collar” tactic to achieve the same purposes as E.O. 464 while formally revoking it;
9. pressure point event: if the administration, even if faced with a S.C. decision clarifying executive privilege, continues to be uncooperative vis-a-vis the Senate;
10. pressure point event: if the administration attempts to revive Charter Change;
11. pressure point event: if members of the economic team resign from the cabinet.
The 6-7 month period from April 15 to October is more than enough time for even the most moderate groups to firm up what they will do, if the President proves more inclined to pursue dilatory tactics.
I believe, in light of the above, the urgent need is for:
1. The middle forces to consolidate and pursue a consensus;
2. And having forged that consensus to consider that while some are more focused on the President, and others on longer-lasting and more wide-spread reforms, the two are not incompatible if their goal is a Reform Constituency that can challenge the Right and the Left not just now, or 2010, but beyond. John Nery puts it this way:
The strategic value of the 2010 elections lies in that deadline; a transfer of power is already in the schedule. The more our aspiring presidential candidates prepare for the May 10, 2010 contest, the more any cancellation or postponement of the elections (say, through a manufactured people’s initiative) will be resisted. No Filipino politician, not even Ferdinand Marcos, has struck it rich by betting against the Filipino’s passion for the vote. So let Mar Roxas hawk more Tide laundry products, or Manny Villar visit more provinces, or Dick Gordon play coy with Cebu’s Gwen Garcia–their ambition serves democracy’s purpose.
At the same time, the outrage over the official impunity and immoderate greed revealed by the NBN scandal must continue to be expressed. Even if people power seems unlikely, protesters must still take to the streets, fill up the churches, organize school forums, reclaim the public square.
It’s possible that such “communal action,” in the Catholic bishops’ hopelessly ambiguous term, may provoke a confluence of events that will lead to an earlier day of reckoning for the Arroyo administration. Well and good. (We must be open to surprises.) But even if it doesn’t, what of it? The important thing is to do our part.
Father Rector Rolando de la Rosa of the University of Santo Tomas asked Lozada and former president Corazon Aquino and the others who attended the Mass for Truth at the university last Sunday to consider the best way to return integrity to government: “the best way is not through a “rigodon” of leaders who are forcibly removed through people power, but through an enlightened, educated and conscientious electoral process. We have 26 months before the next election. We have enough time to prepare ourselves so we can vote wisely. Let us use people power during election time, not only before or after.”
Some extremely thought-provoking entries in the blogosphere: the most thought-provoking being Writer’s Block’s A Comprehensive Proposal for an EDSA Reform. I do think, though, that when it comes to politics, personalities can never, and never ought to be, separated from the issues, because it is a human activity and not a science. Also, getting rid of the Senate is extremely unwise, though the process for electing its members can stand review. I disagree that Federalism goes hand-in-hand with the parliamentery system; it is, to my mind, even better suited to a presidential and bicameral system. As for proposals for the redistribution of wealth, I’ve long advocated the manner in which Britain broke the power of the aristocracy: through Death Duties. The accumulation of wealth in one person’s lifetime, is to be commended; the destructive effects of inherited wealth is what the British looked at and solved, by making it very difficult to pass on fortunes without greatly diminishing them. This democratized Britain in a generation without stifling entrepreneurship.
The following entries look into the various constituencies that are participating, or not, in current events. New Philippine Revolution on current and future configurations (see also an interesting entry of his on the Vatican position). Mon Casiple calls it the “elite dilemma.” Scriptorium asks, is impeachment better than People Power?
pastilan! reproduces a paper that gives us an insight into how the Left view the middle class, and ongoing debates on how to engage it -or co-opt it, or neutralize it. {caffeine sparks} looks at those who proclaim that being apolitical is a virtue. The need to take a stand, but not get used and abused, is tackled by abashet.
Sonnie’s Porch, and What Do We Care?, and Bayen’s Living Room, and I’m A Baby! and Ang Kape Ni LaTtEX express the reasons behind their misgivings concerning People Power. A Simple Life takes up the cudgels for loyalists. smoke has an interesting entry on what she perceives to be a war of political attrition. Peryodistang Pinay on image-making on media.
I completely agree with Fr De la Rosa. We should concentrate our efforts in electing better leaders and making sure the electoral process is not compromise.
There we go. Something I agree with. 2010 is the logical deadline for this administration, it is the time wherein the electorate, if it is willing, can actually do some good.
In fact, the electorate (us) can do this as early as July. I’ve read of some people picketing in front of their congressmen’s houses. If this is a way to make them heed the will of their constituents, why not? There are of course letters and emails and what have you.
Put aside the fact that the people we have in the legislature may not be the ones we wanted to be there. Whoever it is, remind them who put them there. We don’t owe them a damn thing. In fact, it’s quite the reverse.
I see it as a matter of “parallel processing”, as it were. In computing, it’s when a large number of relatively weaker processors work together to do the work of one large powerful one. Why bank on a singular action that has a real chance of overheating (as with processors), when an entire series of smaller, more focused, actions will do the job? What’s better, a lot of smaller protest actions will be too much for the media to cope with (which one to hype, which one to sensationalize, oh no!)
Now, as for the other means to change the leadership. Why not? As long as these means are pursued within the architecture provided by the State, then why the hell not?
But this revolution must primarily be one of thought.
Focused, passionate, deliberate, thought.
Unity walk, schunity walk. The media actually sends reporters to cover people… walking in formation? Anak ng… Enough, pwede ba?
The media in this country will cover anything.
hmmm… i just read the article, and it sounded like “we are supporting the President so that we will get support in our localities.”
that’s a lot of conviction there.
Finally…thanks for the pointer to Neri’s chart! In my industry’s terms, that would be the ‘As-is’ Architecture diagram. That would be a good take-off point for future spring cleaning.
eto na naman tayo, media na naman ang sinisisi. we don’t have a perfect media in this country but to nail them on the cross while the real sinners are laughing on the sidelines? give me a break. sila ba ang dapat binabatikos habang ang mga nakaupo tinatrato with kid gloves? i simply don’t get it. i read the blogs, i saw the news items on TV last nite and read the major broadsheets, i am an avid follower of the news and i believe statements like “The media actually sends reporters to cover people… walking in formation? Anak ng… Enough, pwede ba?” (eh bakit di ka magalit sa mga may pakana ng unity walks? nakita ko sa news kagabi na umuulan pa kahapon kaya di natuloy ang unity walk ni gloria, nabasa ang media, gusto ba nila yun o task nila yun na dapat gawin?) and “The media in this country will cover anything” are quite unfair. the ones who covered them are reporters assigned in the presidential beat, they are there to cover whatever happens in the said beat. if they will be selective, di ba parang shortchanged tayo sa karapatan natin sa impormasyon? besides, manolo had always mentioned here in his blog that it is important to see what’s happening in the halls of power dahil dun natin ibabase ang ating opinyon sa mga isyu. ilagay nyo anger nyo sa tamang kakainisan.
Sonny: sila ba ang dapat binabatikos habang ang mga nakaupo tinatrato with kid gloves?
I suppose youre new here, Sonny but if you look at the comments section in the other posts, the nakaupo arent being treated with kid gloves.
‘Nagagalit’ ako sa may pakana ng unity walks kasi ang corny. Kung sino man ang nagpauso nun, anak ng…
Sonny:
alright, maybe the approach was a bit to shotgun. maybe i should direct it at the high-profile news anchors and grandstanding field personnel who just looooove to hear the sound of their own voice. i agree with you. it’s the press’ obligation to report the news. what i don’t agree with is when reporters try to make themselves part of the news.
i agree, corny na nga. di na cute panuorin.
ahhh tonio, tama maski ako inis sa mga news personalities na in love sa sarili nilang boses. may tama ka!
and Jeg’s right. the crowd here (with a few outstanding exceptions) doesn’t use kid gloves. the tar-soaked bandages dipped in broken glass (supposedly what underground Muay Thai fighters use) is more the style here.
now back to that walk… it was supposed to be the third one na pala. sheesh.
Parallel processing…or, in other words, attacking on as many fronts as possible. But of course–no argument there.
However, we have to be realistic: while GMA keeps these congressmen well-fed, and the police keep shooing away/arresting small bands of protesters picketing these congressmen’s houses, there probably won’t be enough pressure to change their votes on impeachment.
On the other hand, only 80 are needed…
gma’s track record in making good on words or promises are at best spotty. what we have to look for instead are her actions.
words: made a promise not run for president in front of gat rizal’s tomb.
action: run (and cheated in the election) after God told her that she will has to lead this nation
words: the guilty will be punished
action: nobody still got punished for any crime, pardoned erap after being convicted after a fair trial.
words: will cooperate with the congress after the “hello garci” scandal.
action: had her lapdogs in congress block impeachment.
those are only few examples that if it is translated into a business transaction no one will do business with her.
word: i will step down 2010.
action: charter change. shift from predidential to parliamentary. gma will run for batasan and will remain prime minister!
there is trend here. and to her credit gma is very consistent and very predictable. if this is a lottery i will surely bet all my savings and will be guaranteed a very modest return/winnings at least the jackpot price!
Mike:
then it goes down to the numbers again then. at worst, 80 coordinated campaigns against specific members of Congress. in the US, that’s what lobbyists are for. they’re the ones who “make gapang” each and every legislator. it’s just that in this case, the special interest represented is the health of the nation.
and while we’re at it, can someone please make sure Lozada doesn’t get file another nuisance complaint in October?
Sino ang papalit kay Gloria sa 2010?
But the campaign shouldn’t just be focused on the impeachment. I can think of a whole lot of other things… you know, things like the proper disbursement of the pork so that it goes to the district and not to the legislator’s pocket.
The congressmen must be made to realize that no matter how their victory was gained, they still owe their jobs to the people of their district.
Sino ang papalit kay Gloria sa 2010?–j.mariano
easy. nobody. gloria pa rin! (as marcos pa rin- i still have one of those shirt, using it as wash rag, very good reminder of what was then!)
Jon:
Ikaw, pwede? don’t tell me you can’t do a better job than Gloria.
MLQ3
Are the hecklers still in jail/custody? I can’t seem to find a verified report anywhere.
cheers,
nash
Wow, I will be the first president coming from OFW ranks then!
Seriously, who can be president in 2010?
nash:
same here. did they get beat up?
things like the proper disbursement of the pork so that it goes to the district and not to the legislator’s pocket– tonio
did you not know? that is how the so called legislators make their kickbacks, through so called pork barrel projects. what’s the on going commission rate? 20% i think. eliminate pork barrel altogether i suggest.
trust me this is true. a friend of mine who used to contract projects for the government told me this. he also added, to have a guaranteed modest return rate in a business is to do contracting business with the government where everything is grossly overpriced and materials substandard. he quit because his conscience bothered him too much! guilty conscience that is!
Jon:
personally, I’d like this person to be an unknown. maybe even someone from the diaspora. someone with an outsiders view, but with the balls to stand up to the established power blocs in the country.
someone who knows his business well enough to understand the long-range planning required to grow an economy, but one who also knows that in the short-term there are great iniquities to be addressed. one who understands that you can’t bring economic indexes to the dinner table.
someone who respects the rule of law. not the wishy washy legalistic side, but someone who knows that the laws are there to protect the people. one who believes in making the institutions of this country work.
i can’t give you a name, right now. but come on, don’t tell me that such an individual doesn’t exist. such a Filipino even.
a wise man said – there are two kinds of people in the world: those who have something to say, and those who have to say something
media people have to say something. thats the reason why they will report/cover anything.
kaya intindihin na lang natin ang media. i just wish that they stop their rhetorics/pontifications on media being a watchdog or having the responsibility to ‘tell the truth’ or ‘tagapagtanggol ng katotohanan at inaapi’ or other similar ek-ek. para naman kasing they have the big picture of anything
People Power is nothing but liberal fascism. Let’s call a spade a spade already. From now on, we ought to demand that all people power results be ratified by the People at plebscite!
People power is not at all harmless, even if it is sanctimonious. To me it IS evil bred by evil.
Spade!
tonio,
Finally, a profile! I’ve been waiting for that for the longest time. 🙂
anthony:
i guess there are some people who report the news who wish to be heroes as well.
who knows, there might be an elected position in it for them.
ramrod:
a profile?
So there is somebody who can replace Gloria after all? Akala ko wala ng ibang pwedeng maging prisidinti kaya di pwiding palitan si Gloria! 🙂
Proof that people power is fascism lies in the simple fact that it rejects, implicitly and explicitly, the principle of one man one vote. Here it’s one Cardinal one vote. One Chief of Staff two votes. And one Chief Justice three votes.
But I would support any call for people power that also guarantees it will put its results to a plebiscite. That would be legitimate “revolution.”
sa dami ba naman nating Pilipino…
come on guys, the “if not Gloria, then who” argument is the most “gasgas” of all the arguments used by her supporters.
ever.
So DJB, was the American Revolution also a form of ‘fascism’?
tonio,
A profile for the next leader, if we’re to look for a new one we might as well know what to look for, right?
I met a Korean last week and he was extremely proud of their new President Lee Myung-bak. He comes from a poor family, put himself through school, became an active student leader (activist), worked at Hyundai, became Mayor of Seoul…so on and so forth…
But the wiki didn’t say, this Korean did. After graduation, he couldn’t get a job anywhere because of his activist past. So he wrote a letter to the President then, the guy was impressed, and called up Hyundai to give Lee a job, of course not after warning him to do good because he’s watching him.
gusto ko pumalit kay gloria sa 2010 hindi lang galing sa senado. ayoko nang biglang sumulpot sa politika dahil may pangalan sa showbiz.
gusto ko galing sa probinsya at may successful experience sa local governments.
ramrod:
ah… smoke has a policy areas (and a list of don’ts for the next president) on her blog. i think manolo’s linked her up somewhere. i’ve read them and they make a lot of sense.
oh, and if possible, i’d like this person to be utterly unpredictable with the mass media. far too many of our politicians suck up to it.
i prefer someone who won’t give a whit about what the media says, so long as his (her) actions respect the law and are good for the people.
Ah, but DJB, universal suffrage is one of the cornerstones of fascism. In fact universal suffrage wasnt even on the minds of the framers of the American experiment. What they had in mind was People Power.
But I would support any call for people power that also guarantees it will put its results to a plebiscite. That would be legitimate “revolution.â€Â
Wait, what? If GMA resigns because of PP, we have to have a plebiscite to determine if the people accepts the resignation?
What they had in mind was People Power.
As in all power emanates from the people.
Going by the same principle, would you also support an armed coup that is immediately followed by snap elections?
Jego,
You know darn well that resignation is constitutional and so are calls for her to do so. I happen to support calls for her to resign, futile as they are.
But we cannot treat our social cancer with the anti-democratic voodoo politics of people power. Instead, we have to reboot the institutions that were destroyed at Edsa DOS. Like impeachment. If not we will have to do radical surgeries every couple of years.
That is exactly what they call a Banana Republic. What the diehards seem entirely oblivious to is the observation of ordinary people that hey, aren’t those the same people that put Gloria in to begin with?
It’s not fatigue the People feel, but DISDAIN. I think political maturity is setting in for the Filipinos, but some people just can’t accept institution building as the path to true reform, because it doesn’t fit into their wider agenda or even more radical revolution.
cvj,
No i would not support an armed group that promises snap elections. Why, does People Power include the use of armed struggle?
cvj said,
You got that right cvj. Now we know who or what the problem in the system is, now we can focus on facing these evils in society. Now we know who to fight.
Now I thought about the other question, for whom should we fight for?
If interested I have a new 3 part blog article, titled: Amidst the Flags and Banners, For Whom do We Fight For? (Part 1) and For Whom do We Fight For? (Conclusion)
DJB, i ask because i’m trying to understand your logic.
– You believe that people power is an undemocratic exercise because it violates ‘one-man, one-vote’
– You will, however, support people power that submits itself to ‘one-man, one-vote’ (aka a plebiscite).
So if a plebiscite restores the democratic character of a given undemocratic exercise such as people power, why wouldn’t it not restore the democratic character of another such undemocratic exercise such as an armed coup (or a revolution)?
sino tatakbo?
hmmm…i’m thinking of supporting….
Manny V. Pangilinan….
pros? cons?
I’m afraid that there will be a repeat of the Raul Roco-syndrome.
Cvj, what’s a raul roco syndrome?
gusto ko pumalit kay gloria sa 2010 hindi lang galing sa senado. ayoko nang biglang sumulpot sa politika dahil may pangalan sa showbiz.
gusto ko galing sa probinsya at may successful experience sa local governments.-mita
Can you give as an idea as to who? meron ka bang napipisil.
cvj,
The logic is simple. We cannot accept any regime change that is not democratically approved of by the people, one way or another. But a plebiscite does not cure the illegitimacy of violent means employed for totalitarian ends, for example, since by definition there would be no democracy there at all to approve of it, save in the Orwellian sense.
Plebiscites can however reestablish constitutionalism after a revolution like Edsa One.
This line of logic is really meant however, to expose the essentially undemocratic character of an event like Edsa Dos, in which the Rule of Law was sacrificed and institutions designed to enforce public accountability were demolished by People Power putschism.
Now we want to take some more poison to cure a toothache when what we have is cancer.
I tell ya, the people are wiser than the people power people, people!
alas ka dora, maybe it’s better to call it the Raul Roco-voter syndrome. When Hello Garci came out, I noticed that a lot of otherwise decent folks just can’t be bothered with the cheating that was exposed by Hello Garci because they voted for Roco. (I remember that’s one of the things Austero mentioned in his open letter.)
The mentality goes like this… “i voted for [so and so reform candidate], however the rest of you voted for [so and so celebrity or trapo]. Therefore, i do not care if you guys got cheated”.
…or something like this…”i voted for [so and so reform candidate], however you voted for [the cheater who became President]. Therefore, it’s your fault that s/he’s there and it’s not my fault nor is it my responsibility to hold him/her to account“.
It’s as if their civic responsibility (at the national level) starts and ends with picking the right person during elections and failing that, they tune out. I bring this up because the chances of a reform candidate winning in 2010 is not that high, at least not as high as the chances of someone engaging in wholesale cheating.