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.
yeah, he does not have to show up. he says he was under the weather…hehehe probably too stressed out to face things of his own making.
istambay_sakalye,
Empire builders often show how “great” their civilization is while they hide the numbers of people they massacred and conquered. The land they exploited are limitless and they impose upon the rest of the world their own culture and values. Southeast Asia before was a prosperous area; while there are the normal skirmishes between kingdoms, most are content and even have a good life.
When the Dutch came, they started fomenting wars, monopolies, subjugations, and eventually conquest. Other peoples like the British, Americans, and a host of other European nations followed suit and wrought destruction upon an area which once harbored largely peaceful peoples who prospered courtesy of a lucrative spice trade. These conquerors even controlled the once free rice trade just to control the nations and rulers within. Now the ones who control us are Oligarchs, rich neighboring nations and unscrupulous leaders who now control the mechanisms of law, and check and balances within the democratic system. And still even if these facts are rubbed to the very faces of some people, they still insist on Rule of Law which is already perverted in the first place.
So if there are people here who do not wish to have another People Power in their hands, then REMOVE the blocks to a fair and honest investigation of anomalies in government. If not, then don’t complain of another People Power and chide how dumb Filipinos are. The Filipinos ceased to be dumb ever since they recognized that the laws are twisted by the powers that be; by this disgusting Oligarchic Syndicracy and their apologists.
“but remember though all of those issues that you’ve put forth are not only for the President to solve. i think it’s time for comprehensive change, in everyone.” – tonio
Very true. Genuine change starts from accepting responsibility, we also need to start with ourselves.
Another consideration, should our leaders be “politically sophisticated?” I mean, should they also have the skills of “wheeling and dealing” to be effective in the group dynamics of government bureacracy? I’m looking at Ed Panlilio, he won based on his own merits, but he’s now under seige by his mayors, etc. being led by this wife of Bong Pineda. She cannot accept defeat, she spent millions, Pineda had no money – he’s not supposed to win elections? Bottomline, without support from the group, the leader may not be effective also?
kabayan,
I’ll check out your blog na…see you…
looking for a president?
who is not tainted and with courage to deal with oligarchs? i have one person in mind, sc chief justice reynato puno.
mlq3,
Off-topic, to be sure, but…..
There are two recent B&W claims:
1. The Lozada/”Why Neri is Afraid?” letter was written months ago (and given to Enteng then)…and it was not edited since. The released version was bona fide.
2. Leah’s claim that Erap’s on-stage appearance was a surprise to her/B&W, and that she believes Binay’s explanation — that he brought them up just to prove to people that they were really there (as texts were claiming otherwise) — is truthful.
Do you categorically accept these claims to be 100% true?
Whether this “ideal” person exists or not is actually not the issue. The issue is whether the society itself is of a nature that can actually recognise this person when he/she does emerge, and capitalise his/her ideas, visions, and approaches if/when he or she gets to sit in Malacanang.
Are Filipinos of the sort that can readily capitalise on an asset sitting within their midst?
Very unlikely. Not in a society where the wrong arguments usually win and the wrong approaches (such as shortcuts) are the favoured mode of operation.
Take our natural resources, for example.
The Philippines was and is “blessed” with ABUNDANT natural resources.
What did we CHOOSE to do with these resources? Export them raw (quick results, low added-value).
On the other hand, countries like Japan, Korea, and Singapore were and are relatively poor in natural resources.
Yet their economic power utterly dwarfs that of the Philippines (long-haul results, high added-value).
Japan and Korea had their own share of bad-apple leaders too. In fact the degree of corruption that stains some of these Japanese and Korean leaders makes this whole NBN/ZTE circus look like child’s play in comparison.
And yet they are vastly more prosperous societies.
That Filipinos would pin their future fortunes on the improbable existence of an “ideal president” merely highlights the utter improbability of a prosperous future for Pinoys collectively.
Kabayan,
back to the question again: just what exactly will your people power accomplish? no more oligarchs afterwards? no more corruption?
geo:
1. yes, the letter was given at the time enteng says it was. we do not have control, however, over versions not originating from us. the version posted in pinoypress.com, for example, was edited by the blogger.
2. yes, because there was a clear agreement among the organizers as to what would take place in the program. the agreement was clear and arrived at after much, often furious, discussion. you cannot probe into binay’s thinking/motivations as to his excuse. you either accept it or you don’t. we chose to accept it. the other groups have been made aware of our feelings concerning such things happening again, though.
kabayan,
Re “For whom are we fighting for?” thanks, its true, a picture paints a thousand words – REAL PEOPLE, REAL NEEDS.
mindanaoan,
Its not getting rid of Oligarchs, its breaking monopolies by Oligarchs…then we’ll see some changes…
benign0,
Its not that the Filipinos are just sitting on their asses, most of them are busy making a living. We’re working on it, but we’re not going to undergo self-flagellation as you always propose.
Thats why I’m rooting for you to run as President nga eh, you’re not ideal, but you have so many ideas of how to do these things. When would you want to be naturalized? Please set a schedule.
ramrod,
breaking monopolies by oligarchs through people power? isn’t that wishful thinking?
Japan and Korea had their own share of bad-apple leaders too. In fact the degree of corruption that stains some of these Japanese and Korean leaders makes this whole NBN/ZTE circus look like child’s play in comparison.–
benign0
in japan or korean when their leaders are accused of corruption and other anomalies or they failed to do what they promised, they either resign or take their own life to protect their and their family’s honor! it will never happen here in philippines, pakapalan ng mukha, like that bansut in malacanang. also, in korea or japan they actually sent their leaders to jail and actually gets punished for the crimes committed. here they get sent to town house, attend parties and when found guilty, gets pardoned ASAP.
right, mindanaoan!
edsa 2 also ran on anti-corruption and change causes.
from the shouts we hear, we’re not sure where they’re coming from? “for change!” “for the country!” “for the truth!” could as well be coming from the pride, from the ego, or from the hubris.
let’s be circumspect. it may take generations to correct the consequences if we don’t get this right it again. the sons paying for the sins of their fathers.
what’s wrong with looking for something (or someone) to believe in?
the “ideal president” for me would serve as an example. the key for other people to finally liberate themselves of their debilitating mindsets.
istambay_sakalye,
We have the same wavelength, I’ve also posted this suggestion before.
==========
ramrod,
Hope my blog will touch the conscience of some people especially those in power. Leaders tend to forget those in the bottom rung of the totem pole.
“breaking monopolies by oligarchs through people power? isn’t that wishful thinking?” – mindanaoan
Pastilan gyud ka bay. Ang people power para pag bag-o lang sa liderato, sunod niana pagpanglimpiyo sa sistema, dayon kining mga bag-ong liderato ang mohimo ug mga paagi para mabongkag ang monopolies. Nakasabot kana? Ang katawhang gahum (tama ba yun) usa lang sa mga paagi para masugdan na ang mga pag bag-o na dugay na natong gihandum…
Oops, over break na yata ako. See you later guys… 🙂
past people power are mistakes then that we should not make again? is that right maginoo?
it is wrong then to get rid of marcos? it is also wrong then to get rid of erap?
does everyone agree with that line of thought?
what was wrong was the people who benefitted from the people power, such as gma, did not use it for the good of the entire filipino nation. instead she took advantage of it use for her own greed. same with cory, she was a good person but the people around her, kamag-anak inc., was her ruin.
we do learn from these. this ain’t a perfect world. but what is worse to tolerate the evil that is arroyo because we are scared of the future.
mindanaoan,
The 2nd people power failed because the Filipinos just forgot about monitoring democracy and honest governance once Gloria sat down. Right now, the struggle is not simply in removing Gloria. Removing Gloria is just half the fight, the next level would be rooting out the evil people in governance and those people who manipulate our society using their money, power and influence. Then next would be bringing back decency, honesty, and good basic values that has been destroyed by this present regime. It must be a continuous advocacy and must be instituted to the very core of governance, systems and education.
As I have said before, the price of freedom and good governance is eternal vigilance.
Kabayan:
but according to some dimwitted, commie-symphathizing, advocates of armed struggle on this thread (scroll up, you’ll see it, the one who idolizes Mao Zedong and the Ayatollah Khomeini) nothing will ever come out of our efforts in the Internet.
as they say, “wussy geeks” can’t do a damn thing about the situation in the Philippines.
it’s a great piece though, it makes the issues clear to intelligent people, anyway.
which is symptomatic of the way Filipinos dealt with things back then, everyone was (and for the most part is) dependent on a “bigger, stronger” leader to represent themselves, the “poor, small helpless victims”.
i hope that this time around, that people recognize the power that resides within them. and go out and gain the knowledge with which to use that power to effect real change in this society.
tonio said,
Well nothing will come out of the ideas we are posting in the internet if we fail to act on it and educate other people about it.
Let’s say that the internet promotes “advertising” of thoughts and ideas. But it is still nothing if what we read are not acted upon by those who believe that the idea is right; even if they read it hundreds of times.
tonio
Oops omit the word “said”,
Yes, we as a nation should cease to be lazy and complacent the next time around.
mlq3,
Thanks for the quick reply.
Enteng said that Jun L wrote the letter in Oct. But he never clearly stated when he received it from Lozada. Has he ever categorically stated when he actually RECEIVED it?
Why would he hold on to it until Feb anyway? There was no “compelling reason”??? For him and B&W, who are so focused on this type of issue? Seems like the public would “deserve to know” earlier rather than later, no?
Where is an on-line copy of the unadulterated letter? Pinoy Press, btw, says their version is unedited. I couldn’t find it on the B&W site. Actually, have we ever seen the actual, original hard copy?
Geo, i wish you have that same fervor for transparency when it comes to Gloria Arroyo’s secrets.
geo, i don’t gather the significance of your questions. you can review the various statements enteng has made about his discussions with lozada and they will place the article, etc. in context. same for enteng’s comments, reading it firmly places the writing and his receipt of the letter more or less around the same time, else, no need to raise as he did, enteng’s judgment as to the timing of the releasing the letter when he did. it seems sensible to me that the decision on the timing was based on many considerations, including potential harm to lozada at a time when he hadn’t even decided whether or not to come forward as a witness. and that release was justified in helping explain why that decision was fraught with danger and agonizing.
thanks re: correction re: pinoy press. reviewing my entry on the article:
https://www.quezon.ph/?p=1672
you can ask pinoy press but i recall that when it was originally published, it had been edited for clarity.
mlq3,
The significance is that I’m simply looking for the truth.
It is not at all clear who wrote the letter, nor when, nor when Romano received it…nor if it was edited.
Neri has stated that the letter didn’t sound like Lozada.
If Romano got the letter in October, it’s a bit strange that he’d keep it under wraps. And no, I couldn’t find any clarifications on the timing via googling. Has he actually ever clarified this?
Why would Enteng worry that Lozada might get in trouble? The directions were supposedly to “disseminate without attribution” at whenever/wherever Romano wanted. No, Lozada wouldn’t have had problems…the administration would have though!
So why hold back? Makes no sense.
CVJ — I’m an advocate of transparency, dude. Rest your fangs. I was actually surfing for something else when some inconsistencies at B&W struck me. Since I have direct access to someone actually in the know (mlq3), I’m asking questions. Okie dokie?
geo, the background as to the relationship between jun lozada and enteng is provided here:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080207-117255/Affidavit-A-vs-Affidavit-B
according to what enteng told me, the only error in the inquirer article is that lozada approached enteng, and not vice-versa as the report had it. otherwise, it’s an accurate account.
the context is that lozada and neri feared for their lives. they were fearful because their knowledge was, in both their minds and it seems, of the palace, was quite harmful and so, liquidating them prior their surfacing would have been worth it.
you might also note that lozada has had ample opportunity to belie the circumstances surrounding the article but has not done so to date.
therefore, while both lozada and neri prepared post mortem testimony, in a sense, it would not have been wise to release any information coming from them. that’s because it wasn’t clear whether they would validate, in public, what they were prepared to intimate in private, and it remained unclear whether releasing anything might actually place them in additional harm’s way.
this is based on an assumption you may not share, but which we firmly believe: we are dealing with a ruthless administration that won’t have any compunctions about liquidating people who aren’t in the limelight yet.
@bencard
“and who the hell do you think you are? so what if you “can’t let it passâ€Â? it stands, whether you like it or not.”
So you endorse the inaction of our government to these killings? Have you ever had any of your friends or family threatened? Or these killings are inconsequential to you as they only involve ‘peasants’? GMA is top of the chain of command and yet here we are, Raul Gonzalez as Justice Sec, instead of letting Palparan be investigated she appoints him as consultant….even in this wretched ZTE deal, did she fire anyone after she was made aware it was anomalous? Complicity by inaction at the very least!
time and time again, you have proven you are a man of LOW LOW standards.
It’s probably why you are a small time “lawyer” posting pseudo-erudite BS on this comment box. Otherwise, if you espoused any decent standards at all, we’d be kissing your feet as justice or something.But noooooooooo.
Bencard for CHR Commisioner!
cheers
kabayan,
exactly what i was talking about. ‘feel good’ platitudes instead of realistic assesment, wishful thinking instead of a concrete plan. i won’t be surprised if you’ll miss your cloud-target, and we woke up with a junta instead.
the 2nd people power failed, yes. but it succeeded in nourishing the delusion of political shortcuts, that a segment of the population can dictate it’s will on all of us. still another people power might turn it from a delusion into an institution, then we will need your eternal vigilance just to keep our government from falling apart.
Mindanaoan, if the 4th People Power lacks follow through, then it will fail just like the 2nd. It’s the follow through that’s important. Your ‘realism’ accommodates plunder, state-sanctioned kidnapping and treason. Hardly the kind of reality we would want to live in.
“you do not need a legal basis to ask a president to resign. you only need what lawyers call a moral certainty she is unfit for office. your legal basis is what is required to deprive her of life, liberty, and property. but depriving someone of office, which isn’t a god-given right, is something the citizenry can do at any time for reasons unrelated to what passes for the law.”
Bulls eye mlq. Your argument is enough to debunk those legal zealots who have been saying that we need incontrovertible proofs before GMA is kicked out of office. When GMA ran in 2004, did we ask her to present incontrovertible proof that she is better over the other candidates? Did we apply the rules of court to validate her claim of supremacy over the other presidentiables? Look at prime minister abe of Japan, he resigned after he saw his ratings went down. Another example is US senator Larry Craig. He resigned amid the growing perception that he is a gay. That’s political maturity. Unlike our politicians here, they’re leeches.
it is clear that he is a rider, an opportunist. The last time , he initiated the rally, he did not get much crowd and he is not convinced either of the sincerity and commitment of the group that he assembled. Pwede ba yon pag pressured na umattend?
So if there is a rally of this kind ,bakit nga naman hindi niya isisingit ang kaniyang mga alagad eerm, panginoon.
I think you are spending more time here than in your work.
just concerned. Hindi ka ba nasisilip ng mga bosses mo?
Kung ikaw man ang boss, bad model yan sa employee.
That encourages dishonesty, stealing wasting man-hours due to blogging or engaging in a forum.
The Cat,
Sorry madam. Sa gabi na lang ako magboblog next time. 🙁
Kung hindi si Mita, si Ca T pala ang maninita. Teamwork. 😀
ang hirap sa mga Pinoy, ayaw maniwalang pwedeng umusad even with corruption around. hihintayin pang maging corrupt-free ang bansa bago may gawin.
worse, baka nga iniisip pa ng mga Pinoy eh kapag corrupt-free na, mahuhulog na lang sa langit ang prosperity
i already anticipate rebuttal of the fans of “activist government” with “forward looking policies” to highlight a “myopic lameduck government” but not taking issue with the lack of personal responsibility and initiative of each Pinoy towards financial independence
the usual refrain of many OFWs – “the government can’t provide decent jobs so we have to go abroad”
Re: …this is based on an assumption you may not share, but which we firmly believe: we are dealing with a ruthless administration that won’t have any compunctions about liquidating people who aren’t in the limelight yet. mlq3
I think it won’t too off the mark to say that this belief is shared by a vast number of Filipinos.
the essence of the “kami naman” Genuine Opportunists.
the Genuine Opportunists should be banned from any and all anti-gloria rallies.
gloria is sure to step down in 2010 if Genuine Opportunists keep on showing up in every anti-gloria rally
no, its way off the mark
Freedom of expression allows:
“……this is based on an assumption you may not share, but which we firmly believe: we are dealing with a ruthless administration that won’t have any compunctions about liquidating people who aren’t in the limelight yet. mlq3
In my opinion, above-sentence is very provocative and may be near-equal to ColdKing’s rantings about revolution.
nash, i’m responding to you if only to “educate” people here who have the same mindset as yours. what do you mean inaction? are you sure the government is “not” doing anything? the problem is that you want everything railroaded, and damn due process and the rule of law. yet you don’t want pgma to be a dictator who can fire or jail anyone on suspicion of dereliction of duty or wrongdoing based on bare allegations, do you? also, are you holding the president personally responsible for every crime that happens in the country?
whether i am a “big-time” or small-time lawyer is neither here nor there. i am a lawyer and i owe it from nobody that i am one. it’s not subject to your approval or recognition, whatever or whoever you are.
btw, i think if i said something against “gloria”, you would not only kiss my feet but my ass too. right? cheers.
jason borne, resignation is purely voluntary. no need for any basis, not even “moral certainty” – whatever that is.
if gma resigns, that’s exclusively her own decision, not because any one or group asks her to do so. resignation based on force, duress or intimidation is not valid.
buencamino, take my advice. try to learn to accept defeat.lick you wounds and fight another day, maybe after 2010. btw, if the laws and constitution have already been gutted, why are you still writing canards and out of jail?
Actually this argument can underpin all arguments that highlight the essential flaw behind the moronic ‘Patalsikin na Now na’ mentality.
Then again this is Philippine society — where all the wrong arguments win hands down. 😀
Bencard,
they blame everything on ‘Hello Garci’
so for them oil price hikes, rising prices, high inflation, glorietta blast, unemployment, OFW exodus etc. are all caused by ‘Hello Garci’
@Nash
I beg to differ. Norway is a democratic country. In fact, Norway has been consistenly in the top 10 of the Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index. In 2006, Norway ranked fourth. Click here to see the full list of full democracies: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf
They also ranked the Philippines among the “flawed democracies”.
Thanks,
Lester
Bencard:
“…resignation is voluntaryâ€Â
I agree sir.
In some cases but not in general. For example, you work in a company and was caught stealing, lying and cheating. Your boss wanted to sack you but he considered your long service; so, he allowed you to have a graceful exit. He advised you to resign or get fired. is your boss’ act invalid?
Same thing with GMA, she lost her moral ascedancy to govern. So the people pressure her to resign.
Prime Minister Abe of Japan, Tony Blair and US Senator Larry Craig stepped down for alleged corruption and lapse of judgment, which were moderate compared to the numerous scandals GMA is facing. In the case of Abe, he took his first cue after his ruling party was routed in last year’s election. Why? Because of delicadeza. Because of political maturity and love of country. Putting public interests paramount over theirs. Unlike our politicians, they’re leeches.
DAY 8…
jason born, in both the u.s. and philippine jurisdictions, private employment, in the absence of contract to the contrary, is at will, meaning that you can be terminated for no other reason than your employer doesn’t like you anymore.
if he gives you a chance to save face by resigning, that’s good. of course that’s valid.
but i thought we were talking about the president of the land whose tenure is fixed by the constitution. “moral ascendancy”, what is that in constitutional or legal context? and how is it determined that he/she has it or not – by poll surveys, blog comments, newspaper editorials, 10, 20,30, 50 thousand rallyist, statements of some priests, bishops and nuns and/or lozada?
just because some foreign leaders quit because of political heat is not reason enough to oust “gloria”, i think.