Well, it’s in the news: please see MILF MOA added to impeach raps vs Arroyo: Intervention filed at House Earlier today and Groups want MOA-AD in Arroyo impeach raps and Bloggers comprise secod batch of complainants in new GMA raps. There’s also Impeachment and the MOA-AD in Filipino Voices. Also, Arroyo foes try for ‘online revolution’ (visit Oust the Imp).
The official (legislator’s) response came pretty fast for some: Intervention a new complaint -solon:
Representative Matias Defensor, chairman of the committee on justice that will hear the complaint, announced that deliberations to determine form and in substance would begin on November 18.
“Since the MOA-AD is a new issue, it should be treated as a new complaint against the President,” Defensor said in a phone interview when asked about the fate of the petition.
“We cannot accept it as an additional charge to the original complaint, otherwise, anybody can just file any motion and add a new charge to the complaint,” he added.
However, Defensor said the motion filed would have no effect on the original complaint.
A line echoed in this snipped from the Philippine Star report linked to above:
But the latest impeachment complaint didn’t sit well among members of the 28-man House minority bloc, particularly Bayan Muna Reps. Satur Ocampo and Teddy Casino, who both endorsed the De Venecia impeachment complaint.
“We who endorsed the first complaint respect the right of the proponents to include the MOA-AD, but we refrain from endorsing it lest it prejudices the complaint we endorsed,” said Ocampo, former spokesman of the communist wing National Democratic Front.
“This is because any addition or amendment to the original complaint will most likely be treated by the (House) justice committee as a separate complaint, as was done in prior cases,” he pointed out.
In the past I’ve written in my column about my belief that the BJE-MOA should have been included in the impeachment complaint. Together with some bloggers and other individuals, we decided to do something about it.
So this is what we filed this morning:
Final Complaint in Intervention MOA
Please read this document. We have signed it. We stand by it. We submitted it, today, to the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives so that it may fortify the impeachment case against the President of the Philippines. I cannot express the reasons why we had to do this, better than The Marocharim Experiment did, in his blog entry for today:
Clenched fists mean a lot of things, not the least of which is fighting. The clenched fist is a symbol of resistance. To clench your fist means to stand up for what’s right because you believe in it, not because you feel like it…
…I think that when you blog about political issues and social issues, you cannot treat citizenship, political participation, and social obligation from your blogging. When we say something or write about something, we should be able to act on it when the situation calls for it. Our words shouldn’t be empty; we should be able to stand by our principles. It’s not a matter of winning or losing, revolution or insurrection, cost or benefit…
…I was just doing what any free-thinking Filipino will do. I was just doing things out of principle. I signed that document because of my convictions, not for money, not for ambition. I’m just a twenty-something who makes an honest living.
I signed that document because I believe that it is right, and I believe that it is time. Revolution? To some, yes, but to me, it was a simple matter of doing the right thing.
It’s not easy to stand up for what you believe in. Sure, it’s easy to blog about your political beliefs, but it’s not easy to stand by them when the time calls for it. After all, people will just accuse you of being “used by power-grabbers.” People will call you names, people will look down on your convictions, perhaps even spit on it.— Or mock it. Or tell you to shut up, because you can’t do anything about it…
…The question is not who we will replace the President with, but to find the President guilty or not guilty of the charges pressed against her. Not the least of which is the charge that she deceived the public – and compromised the integrity and sovereignty of the Philippines – through the BJE MOA-AD. If she is, I believe that she should face the fair and just consequences of her actions. I believe that justice is not about personalities, but about doing the right thing.
Those are the things I believe/ I believe in doing the right thing. I may not do it all the time, but when I signed that document – even with painful hands – I knew I did the right thing. If I didn’t, what would be my excuse? It’s not because I’m a hero or because I’m a martyr, but because I am a Filipino…
…Had you been there, you would have felt the same thing, perhaps even made up an excuse to chicken out and forsake your responsibility to this nation. I know: I was that close to doing it. What motivated me was not a sense of blow-hard patriotism, but a sense of obligation. People lived and died that this country remain whole, united, strong, and be held under one flag. What, I ask, prevents me from doing the same thing?What’s my excuse? What makes me think for one second that only heroes and patriots, or politicians with official ambitions, have the right to speak out against the injustices and excesses of the regime?
Now, I think it’s time for our honorable Members of the House to do the right thing. It is not right to wait for the President to finish her term; what is right is whether she has two years left or two days left, she should be held accountable. The Members of the House should know that justice is not about numbers or pluralities, but about morals and sensibilities. It is about fairness, justice, and freedom: words and perspectives that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo no longer represents, at least in my eyes.
Let me tell you about what transpired after the brief press conference concluded. We went to the Secretary-General’s office, but once there, a problem came up. She was, at first, reluctant to receive our document. Closed-door consultations took place, phone calls were made, at times, our legal counsel were asked to wait outside.
Everyone tried to keep themselves entertained.
The elder intervenors texted or chatted.
The media and I exchanged notes on House procedures, and I decided to have a bit of a look-see.
So much for the separation of Church and State!
But what I found most interesting were the items posted on the Secretary-General’s cork board.
Various official notices, and a page of statistics on the current composition of the House; and most intriguing of all:
This editorial cartoon on the BJE-MOA!
As media people hovered outside the Secretary-General’s door, the wrangling continued.
From what I gathered, the Secretary-General first asked for time to “read the document,” then a legal wrangle ensued over whether she had “jurisdiction” over the intervention. Now the Secretary-General is in charge of the secretariat of the House, and her job is to oversee the expeditious reception, filing, transmission and filing of documents. She is not supposed to make judgement calls about the documents themselves.
In the end, after close to 45 minutes of bringing our lawyers in, sending them out, consulting upstairs and sideways in the House hierarchy, the Secretary-General announced she would receive the document, as the intervention was “unprecedented,” and leave the fate of the document to the relevant committees of the House.
And so she received them, and everyone got to go home.
A word on the role bloggers played in putting this document forward for the consideration of the House.
Among those who signed this document are the following bloggers, who have decided to take their personal stands not just in the blogosphere but in the institutions of our nation.
PANAWAGAN
Ang Kongreso ay may dalawang bahagi – ang Kamara de Representates, at ng Senado.
Bilang mga pangkaraniwang mamamayan, bilang mga blogger, beterano, sibilyan, Kristiyano, at Muslim, kami ay naniniwala na obligasyon namin na patibayin ng husto ang mga paratang laban sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas.
Tinutulan ang BJE-MOA na ito ng maraming residente ng Mindanao – lalong-lalo na ang mga Kristiyano at ang kanilang mga opisyales; ang iba naman, tulad ng ating mga Kapatid na Muslim, ay umasa na may kongkretong usapan sila ng Pangulo ngunit sila ay basta na lamang tinalikuran. Maaaring wala talaga siyang intensyon na ipatupad ang kanilang usapan, at sinadya niyang itago ang kasunduang ito sa mamamayan upang masabi niya na hindi naman nya ito maitutuloy sa dahilang hindi pa hinog ang panahon.
Ang ibig sabihin nito ay ginawang laruan ng Pangulong Arroyo ang buong Mindanao dahil lamang sa paghahanap ng malulusutan upang isulong ang pag-amyenda sa Saligang Batas o ang Cha-Cha.
Kung kaya’t dahil sa mga ikinilos at ginawa niya; sa paglabag niya sa Saligang Batas; sa pagtalikod nya sa kanyang sinumpaang obligasyon na protektahan at depensahan ang Saligang Batas; sa paglihim niya sa mamamayang Pilipino ng mga patungkol sa mga probisyon na nais niyang isulong sa kasunduan; sa malinaw na panloloko niya sa mga kapatid nating Muslim; sa maraming nasawi or nabawian ng buhay na sibilyan at militar; at dahil sa kaguluhang idinulot nya sa Mindanao; ay pinaninindigan namin na dapat maisama sa impeachment complaint ang usapin na ito.
Ayun kay Atty. Neri Colmenares, kailangan lang namin ma-isumite ang interbensyon na ito, upang maaksyunan ng Kamara. Hindi na daw kailangan i-endorse ito ng sinumang diputado o kinatawan. Kami ay naniniwala kay Atty. Colmenares at sa mga kinatawan ng oposisyon sa Kamara.
Ngunit nananawagan pa din kami na kung maaari, sa darating na Lunes, ika-17 ng Nobyembre, ay i-endorse pa rin ng mga kinatawan ng oposisyon ang aming inihahain na dokumento na siyang pinagaralan namin at nilagdaan bilang pagpapatunay na ito ay ang aming panindigan. Kung kaya’t umaasa kami na sana ito rin ang maging panindigan ng mga kongresista sa oposisyon at ng mga kinatawan na miyembro ng mayoriya, na tumutol sa kasunduang BJE-MOA.
Sa paraan na ito, ay mawawakasan na ang bangayan sa ating lipunan, mabibgyan ng pagkakataon ang Pangulo na sagutin ang mga paratang sa kanya, at makakasiguro ang Kongreso at ang taong-bayan na hindi nagtatago ang Pangulo sa likod ng kanyang mga patakbuhin.
Ang impeachment ay hindi nasasakluban ng executive privilege. Walang executive privilege ang impeachment. Kung tatalakayin ng tapat at ng walang kinikilingan ang mga paratang na nasasaloob sa impeachment complaint, kung pakikinggan ng wasto ang mga testigo, at kung pag-aaralang mabuti ang mga ebidensyang inihain ng mga complainant sa Kamara, ay makasisiguro tayo na magwawakas rin ang alitan ng administrasyon at oposisyon at ang pagkakahati ng ating mamamayan.
Nananawagan po kami sa sambayanang Pilipino na sana ay suportahan ang aming interbensyon.
Nais po naming magpasalamat sa lahat ng mga tumulong sa amin, sila Joey de Venecia, ang mga bloggers na lumagada, ang mga kapatid naming Muslim na siya ring lumagda, ang mga taga iba’t ibang hanay ng oposisyon na tumulong upang maging masustansya at matibay ang interbensyon na ito.
Pagkatapos naming isumite itong intervention na ito ay padadalhan namin ang bawat miyembro ng oposisyon ng kopya ng dokumento.
Kami ay nananampalataya na sa Lunes ay i-endorse na rin nila, kahit hindi kinakailangan, bilang pagpapatunay na buo ang loob at sentimyento nila na panagutin ang Pangulong Arroyo sa kanyang paglabag sa ating Saligang Batas at sa mga katiwalian niyang ginawa at patuloy na ginagawa.
November ___, 2008
Hon. _________
Representative, ____ District, ________
House of Representatives
Quezon City Dear
Rep. ________:
Today, together with ____ other intervenors, I have filed an intervention to add the Memorandum of Agreement concerning the proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity to the impeachment charges being considered by the House. Our intervention is based on the following premises:
1. That the House of Representatives, in deliberating upon the charges against the President of the Philippines, should strive to put together as strongand comprehensive a case as possible, in order to properly and thoroughly address all the issues that demand accountability from the chief executive.
2. That the citizenry is obligated to do its part to help fortify the case against the President of the Philippines.
We are of the opinion, and submit for your consideration and endorsement, that:
1. The President of the Philippines must be held accountable for violating her oath of office in authorizing and supporting an agreement that has been proven to be contrary to the Constitution. Any President is duty-bound to operate within the parameters established by the Constitution, and when a President deliberately disregards our Constitution’s provisions, there must be an accounting made to the citizenry.
2. The President must therefore be held accountable for what the Supreme Court has ruled to be an agreement that violated our Constitution.
3. That furthermore, the President must be held accountable for setting back the peace process; and for placing ordinary citizens, Muslim and Christian alike, in Mindanao, in peril because of the recklessness and faithlessness, with which she conducted the negotiations for the agreement. She has done grevious harm to the prosperity and tranquility of Mindanao and the entire country and her doing so is a violation of public trust and her Constitutional responsibilities.
She betrayed the public, and all the parties that participated in the peace process in good faith and with a historic resolution of ancient grievances in mind. We believe that we have made a strong case for including the BJE-MOA among the charges against the President.
We believe that this is a matter of such seriousness as to require the House of Representatives providing the President with an opportunity to explain herself to you, our representatives, and through you, to an alarmed and outraged public.
We further believe that the President will find it impossible to satisfactorily explain herself and that as a consequence, the House will find it necessary to include our intervention among the impeachment charges.
May I respectfully invite you, then, to endorse our intervention, so that ample opportunity may be provided for the President of the Philippines to air her side, and for the public to be informed, through you, once and for all, about the circumstances surrounding the agreement.
I am confident that you will respond to the overwhelming clamor of the citizenry, throughout the country but particularly in Mindanao, for public policy to be conducted in good faith, without recklessness and imprudence, and with the true interests of the nation at heart and not just partisan political convenience for the administration.
May I also invite you, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Jarius Bondoc and William Esposo of the Philippine Star, Ellen Tordesillas of Malaya, and Manuel Buencamino of The Business Mirror, to state, for the record, your response to these two questions:
1. How do you intend to vote on the impeachment complaint already filed before the House? Will you be present at the committee level and plenary voting on these charges?
2. Are you in favor of including the BJE-MOA among the impeachment charges, and why or why not.
We trust you will give your answer to us by Wednesday so we can publish them.
And we further trust that you will find our intervention meritorious and worthy of your endorsement.
Respectfully yours,
Manuel L. Quezon III
mlq3,
You know that I’m anti-anti and I have always called for the rule of law.
I dislike what the anti-GMA types have done. It has been bad for business, bad for the people, bad for the country.
From Day 1 it was “oust Gloria”…and doing things legally/constitutionally only became a resort when the overthrow didn’t occur. Henceforth, it was noise over reason, accusations rather than proof.
This has never really been about anything other than a power grab. It was pursued by using the media to amplify the various small groups who harbored various fantasies. That wasn’t obvious before…but it has increasingly become clear.
All this noise, all of this wasted time…for nothing.
“Boxes and boxes of evidence” never appeared. Yet the only scrap of paper ever produced by Cayetano led to his gross embarassment.
The Supreme Court’s recount of the vote debunked the legitimacy charge…though people keep slinging the accusation despite hard evidence to the contrary.
Scandals after scandals are never shown to be more than recriminations.
mlq3 — You and the BMW gang keep warning us of things that don’t ever happen… and claim things that are never proven to exist. For how many years will you be wrong until you admit you might be wrong?
Sadly, I fear you are being mislead — and are being misleading — at the same time. You are feeding a moster which has no appreciation of your lofty goals and inspirations.
BTW, I am no one’s legionaire. I am my own Caesar.
Gloria is not my master. She is simply the current President…who will soon finish her term and make way for a new Prez.. If ever there is proof that she did eggregious wrongs, then jail her for all I care.
But the same cast of characters screaming the same old stuff…sheesh.
geo, then let’s begin with your definition of the rule of law. and from there go on to whether your definition permits any of things, say, i’ve done. it will be pointless to keep hammering away at things without our figuring out if we’re arguing apples and oranges.
and from there go to your single-sided assertion that all damage to the economy is done by the critics of the president, as selective a mentality as scalia’s “they don’t even create jobs” which immediately has him cutting off any non-entrepreneur, non-big business owner since most people are employees and not employers.
abd i’m sure interested of warnings of things that didn’t happen -might there be a cause and effect there? or do you, a priori, refguse to recognize that possibility?
there is no shortage of proof that gma committed all those crimes she being accused of! there are/were several attempts to show or prove these to the filipino people by legal means. however, all these were being blocked by gma’s minions in congress who said nothing about the truth but impeachment being a numbers game!
if gma has nothing to hide then why use every means and resources in congress and SC to hide the truth. let neri talk. don’t intimidate witnesses. let he opposition present their argument and proof.
if she and her minions allowed the truth to come out and proved to all that the oppositions are nothing but noise after all. give them the venue to present their case and be heard and then we can all move on. why stone wall and prostitute/bastardize the law of this country.
gma is bad for our country, bad for economy and bad for us filipino people, actually an embarrassment!
if you doubters still don’t see this then nothing we can say or do here will make you see the truth. “mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan”!
MLQ III,
How about starting a meme on this? I think this will catch on pretty well with bloggers………
PJ
geo on, “Impeachment is a dead end and unconstitutional means.
Wrong. You should read your constitution. It is the only legal remedy against corrupt president and ease transition of power to the vice president for the remaining term.
There is also no need for people to go to the streets to remove sitting president if the House do its mandate. Pork checks, however are proven more important to lawmakers than their constitutional duty.
In addition, the constituents(you) continued to support lawmakers that tolerate corruption. Borrowing your “its the economy stupid” is a good enough reason for the general population to swallow GMA selective handouts to majority poor while she is milking the country with 12%VAT.
With general population preference to do nothing, the cycle of corruption continues to the next president.
For us who cannot tolerate, we left the place a long time ago. But we continued to support our families who are left behind with our foreign remittances.
Because of constitutionalist-Bernas-opinion on MOA-Ad (constitutionally sound, no different than treaties that are inoperative without consent of Congress), I believe that the better places to put efforts to nailing GMA-to-the-wall will be evidence-re-Garci, evidence-re-Macapagal-highway, evidence-re-Lozada. Also because the intervention-CD arrived just days ago, I agree with Activist and Representative Satur Ocampo [..and any other congressmen who] are not endorsing the complaint for fear of doing prejudice to the other complaints filed prior to Quezon’s Intervention.
“I dislike what the anti-GMA types have done. It has been bad for business, bad for the people, bad for the country. ”
GMA is running the whole country. You can only blame her, if it is bad for business, bad for the people and bad for the country.
During the rice crises, foreign business analysts blamed GMA for driving up the rice prices with her huge rice tenders of whatever supply in the open market.
And “nail-to-the-wall” is less of “—bring in 20 more boxes of evidence” than it is to getting to get the members of the lower house to vote to forward the impeachment process to the Senate.
MOA-Ad, to me, is not only the same as “bring in more boxes”…. MOA-AD is not as heavy-duty a box as “Garci” is.
Geo on, “All this noise, all of this wasted time…for nothing.”
True for passive Filipinos and the general population who let others (the likes of Marcos, Estrada, Arroyo, et al) determine their fate. There is a saying “Beggars can’t complain” much less scrutinize same old stuffs. Unfortunately such self-inflicted wound can’t define the brave few like MLQ3 who chose to do the right thing.
“You know that I’m anti-anti and I have always called for the rule of law.”
Wrong Geo. You mean you have always called for the rule of GMA, it’s on record, read them again, even right on this thread.
mlq3,
“…just say you’re for her and be done with it.”
as if one has a choice. whether for her or not – nakaupo pa rin si gloria
all the anti- people can shout and blog ‘patalsikin na now na’ ad nauseam and the result is still the same – nakaupo pa rin si gloria
as if being anti- can move gloria one centimeter close to falling off from her seat.
you can’t blame the ‘anti anti’ school. they (we) see the ‘anti’ school as no better than gloria.
and the worse nightmare of them all – all presidential wannabees are good for nothing beyond being anti gloria
Bert :
“You mean you have always called for the rule of GMA, it’s on record, read them again, even right on this thread.”
I wonder who’s really doing the country good.
The people who maximize the time waiting for 2010 by helping create jobs. or
The people who say “the heck with job creation lets kick out gloria first and worry about jobs later”
UP n,
tama nga sina Satur dun. baka ma-technical yung impeachment complaint.
sayang, if the allegations on BJE-MOA were included in the JDV-endorsed complaint, the “complaint-in-intervention” can serve as supporting evidence.
kaso hindi eh.
haay naku. for all we know, baka makasama pa yung “complaint-in-intervention” sa complaint already filed.
bulilyaso na naman. it really shows how fragmented the anti gloria school is. wala man lang coordination. di man lang pinaghandaan since last year. di na natuto sa “Pulido complaint that’s not pulido”
mlq3,
Sorry for the delayed response, it was past my bedtime.
The rule of law is the rules on the books…and not what an individual (or group) claim is “justice”. The law includes what some people call “the technicalities”.
I’m not aware of you breaking the law.
I’ll accept that the political screeching and illegal activities and legislative inaction can not be the ONLY negative effects on the economy. But perhaps you can accept that those activities did not create positive effects on the economy in the last 4 years.
Did your warnings of imminent Martial Law actually prevent it from occuring? I guess you can argue that. I recognize the possibility. But that’s a pretty shaky argument; it is improbable. You’d have to *prove* that martial law was about to be implemented it, but the leaders called it off because of your article or BMW’s stroll down Roxas Blvd.
“I dislike what the anti-GMA types have done. It has been bad for business, bad for the people, bad for the country.”
But, Geo, it seems you like what GMA have done, even if it has been bad for business, bad for the people, bad for the country, inspite of your denials, else why your hate for the anti-GMA types?
Why bad for the people, you may ask. You ask the Filipino people themselves, your countrymen, why GMA is not their favorite, unless you are like anthony who don’t believe in surveys and statistics. Or you are blinded enough by your admiration for your idol you are not able anymore to discern and feel the pulse of your country and your people.
This is neither an accusation, Geo, nor a lecture, just an observation lurking in my head, asking the likes of you why, because I am puzzled. Why Geo?
Bert,
“…unless you are like anthony who don’t believe in surveys and statistics.”
why should I? SWS and Pulse Asia surveys are less than poor yardsticks
“…because I am puzzled”
me too! Im puzzled for your persistence on “patalsikin na now na” , “people power” and “impeachment other than Art 11 sec 4” which are becoming synonyms for “running in circles” and “broken record”
Filipinos never learn.
Why don’t we follow the examples of the USA? Bush is extremely unpopular there, but they bided their time and waited for the elections. They have a very strong democratic system that’s why they’re able to wait until Bush ends his term.
Impeachment, in this tough, trying, dangerous times, will make things worse. It’s bad timing. The new impeachment filed against GMA is nothing but a rehash of the old version, with the BJE-MOA and Bolante scandal added as sweeteners. The House will throw it to the garbage bin just like the previous ones.
Why not wait for 2010? It’s just around the corner. Sure, it does mean that GMA and her allies can enjoy their stay in power until that time (and some say will continue to loot the treasury and commit grave abuses). But in my opinion that’s preferable to seeing this country going to, God forbid, civil war.
Just my thoughts.
scalia, ther anti school needs to go back to school because you cannot see the frest from the trees.
there is only one president. there may be many comparisons to make but only one person holds the job and so there is only one set of standards by which that one person can be judged.
you can do better than give me the sort of sneering argument marcos noted in his diary: “nothing succeds like success.”
Geo there are many ways to achieve a meeting of the minds, even between people asserting polar opposites. but it begins with trying to meet half way, which you never do. you are welcome to review this blog and see that I try to do that from time to time.
istambay,
You do not seem to know what “proof” is. There hasn’t been much proof ever offered (only referred to).
Let’s review:
1. A copy of a tape which could have easily been edited vs the Supreme Court’s opening and counting of the ballots. Which one is “proof”?
2. North and South Rail — no proof.
3. ZTE — The only facts to emerge was that Lozada is a thief and, according to the Supreme Court, was not kidnapped or under threat by the government..
4. The JMSU and territotrial issues were non-issues…not treason.
If there is any real proof, it is still lacking.
Claiming that it is all being blocked (which would a hell of a feat), doesn’t make it so. One can’t run a country based on your claims of knowing the truth.
scalia, i’ll say this: satur and casino are operating from a party position they have espoused clearly and forthrightly. i respect them for that not least because they haven’t tried to deceive anyone about it. no one should ask of them to betray a party position, particularly since they are some of the rare politicians who generally act according to the party stand and not individual scheming.
and again, i criticized the non-inclusion of bje-moa and this intervention was meant to do something about it. what the rules do not forbid, they can be assumed to allow.
the assertion of other oppositionists is -well, i have yet to see their views. this is what we’ve challenged them to do. indeed if one problem is that if there are undesirables in the administration there are also undesirables in the minority bloc, then it’s best for all concerned for the public to see if they are all cut from the same cloth or not.
you can read the following, by lawyers:
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2008/11/12/why-intervention-in-the-impeachment-case-is-proper-and-should-be-allowed/
geo, let me ask you, a supreme court decision, is that proof?
Bert,
The rule of law says that GMA is the President. It also says that Bayan Muna is a political party and that Teodoro Casiño is a congressman. Like it or not.
I have liked some of GMA’s policies, but not all. I certainly appreciate that passing the VAT — though politically damaging — was a crucial and beneficial move which turned around the country’s balance sheet.
Many investors have hesitated and/or by-passed investing in the Philippines because of the images formed in their mind — this is a politically unstable country with leftists, puschists and political oppositionists all trying to unconstitutionally remove an elected President using unconstitutional means.
This negative perception means less investment, less jobs, more poverty. That’s bad for the people and bad for the country.
You understand?
GMA is not my idol and I am not blindly supportive. The surveys you cite don’t have any relevance — liking her or not is by no means a reasonable metric for measuring the effects of her policies.
The claims of GMA being “bad” for x, y and z have been screamed loudly and often. But the intelectually/logically sound analysis to support such claims has been lacking. Emotions have ruled over facts.
and this is what really bugs me about those critical of impeachment. it completely ignores how this is one way things could be resolved once and for all.
when president quirino became the first president to face a serious impeachment attempt, his reaction was swift. he instructed the malacanan records office to immediately make available any records his critics wanted. he personally asked the leadership of the house to convene a bipartisan panel to investigate the charges and asked for an opportunity to vindicate himself.
the house, to its credit, convened the panel and invited everyone concerned to present their evidence first, and then, in a public manner, collated and went through the evidence and then went through the proposed charges one by one to see if the evidence was there to back the charges up.
then, and only then, did it end as everyone had expected it to end, with a party vote the president won. but guess what. the process by which it was handled cleared the air and accorded quirino a venue to defend himself.
now if the technicalities exist there are many who can take the blame, opposition and majority both for putting them in and in anything involving lawyers the technicalities are par for the course. but it does not lead to a satisfying conclusion which is what any political process is meant to achieve. because a technicality invoked by lawyers can never clear the political air like a forthright prosecution and defense.
if you sneer about the boxes of evidence the opposition claimed previously you can’t ignore the refusal of the majority to call their bluff. they never did. and no prosecutor will tip his hand particularly if outnumbered in a political matchup.
the whole strategy has been for the palace to assert it is also defending its interests by not tipping its hand and providing testimony or access to anything until things reach the point of the adversarial confrontation of defense and prosecution -while relying that the house majority will never even call the bluff, if it’s indeed a bluff, of the president’s critics. it prevents things reaching the point that a formal presentation and rebuttal of evidence ever takes place.
note that carefully. and stop wondering why this only fosters the strong impression that the president could not withstand a scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence presented in a public forum. because the precedents are ample and its in the nature of an impeachment process to disqualify invoking executive privilege.
remember the process does not necessarily require or will ultimately lead to, the passing of articles of impeachment. but a thorough andc public review and confrontation might just possibly expose which are baseless charges and which charges are ironclad. now why would someone confident they have right and justice on their side, decline to take that opportunity? considering that the bedrock of any presidency’s effectivity, is the appearance of legitimacy.
mlq,
Sure, the Supreme Court’s rulings are facts.
Impeachment is an inherent right. The rules were designed on purpose — it is not easy to impeach because a system cannot operate if it is constantly attacking/defending its managers.
If there is ample hard evidence…and one knows that the House will vote down impeachment…I would assume that the evidence would find the light of day after several years.
Where is this proof, mlq?
You say it’s still being held in secret. Please. There is nothing there or we would have seen it by now. You even hint that you just want to go through the process even if nothing comes out of it. Perhaps because the proof is sorely lacking?
But isn’t it that you want it to make it all the way to the Senate? And the Senate has been the paragon of virtue during these past several years, right? And they can be trusted to be the blind arbiter of justice, right?
From the very beginning, ousting GMA was more important than facts, processes or whatever. And the Senators made their prejudgements and political predispositions obvious.
The Senate doesn’t need facts. The anti-GMA’s don’t have facts. Many Senators are oppositionists and/or want the Presidency themselves. A match made in heaven. That’s why the Antis, the Media and the Senate have all been in bed together.
Now if you were the President and were innocent, would you want the impeachment to go to the Senate? If you were a Congressman and you thought that the anti-GMAs were full of hot air and bad intentions, would you vote to pass the ball to the Senate?
Conversely, if they were all guilty, they wouldn’t want an impeachment to go to the Senate either.
I understand your desire to clear the air and put this to rest, but impeachment ain’t the way. That’s why the anti-GMAs need hard evidence..and to show it. But still…to date…wala.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has shown that the 2004 voting was legit. But you still throw around the “legitimacy” question. Can you see how you seem to be spinning in circles, making a lotta noise, proving nothing and ignoring the proof that DOES exist?
You demand a forum which will oust GMA without hesitation, that’s all. When you don’t get it…and can’t show any proof…you get frustrated. You scream louder. Rinse. Repeat.
quezon the 3rd,
“scalia, ther anti school needs to go back to school…”
oh yes!
“.. because you cannot see the frest from the trees.”
takes one to know one sir
“there is only one president. there may be many comparisons to make but only one person holds the job and so there is only one set of standards by which that one person can be judged.”
true. whether the leader falls by that standard or not, she is still the sitting leader
“you can do better than give me the sort of sneering argument marcos noted in his diary: “nothing succeds like success.â€Â
my goodness, the anti gloria school insists on doing the same things all over again yielding the same results!
now let me see something which really results in gloria’s ouster! its been 8 years!
by golly, don’t tell me you’re not aware of the glaring fact that gloria’s continued 8-year stay in malacañang is courtesy of the competence of the bright boys of the ‘united’ opposition
(now what is that quotation on a person expecting a different result yet not changing what he’s doing?)
“scalia, i’ll say this: satur and casino are operating from a party position they have espoused clearly and forthrightly. i respect them for that not least because they haven’t tried to deceive anyone about it. no one should ask of them to betray a party position, particularly since they are some of the rare politicians who generally act according to the party stand and not individual scheming.”
true, but did you ever think of the consequences of filing that “complaint-in-intervention”?
“and again, i criticized the non-inclusion of bje-moa and this intervention was meant to do something about it. what the rules do not forbid, they can be assumed to allow.”
noted. but that will be treated as a new additional complaint.
seems you didn’t clear that one with Harry Roque.
“the assertion of other oppositionists is -well, i have yet to see their views. this is what we’ve challenged them to do. indeed if one problem is that if there are undesirables in the administration there are also undesirables in the minority bloc, then it’s best for all concerned for the public to see if they are all cut from the same cloth or not. ”
but still, the desired result of kicking gloria out is not realized.
and may i remind you the public does not need to see now if the undesirables from both sides are cut from the same cloth. they already know that they are! that’s why all efforts of the ”united’ opposition in unseating gloria go pffft because the public does not want to support them!
quezon the 3rd,
i hope you’re not grouping me with those “critical” of impeachment.
i made the very first comment on this thread.
i suggested how to do an impeachment right
what i am critical of is the “one-complaint-deliberated-by-the-justice-committee-then-referred-to-the-plenary-for-approval” approach
I salute you Manolo and my fellow bloggers for your courage to do this thing. In a time where most Filipinos wanted to play safe, you made the bold move.
I have lost hope of ousting GMA but with your action, my flickering hopes rekindled.
I support you all the way especially the lone Mindanaoan on the list, Ria Jose of Alleba Politics.
Mabuhay Kayo!
mlq,
Maybe I should clarify something. I am not against an impeachment effort, per se. I am not sure if you can add your BJE-MOA, but it seems futile either way…especially since the treaty was never implemented.
I am against the same old groups trying the same old thing — with nothing new to add — when the end (negative) result is already known.
The 5 Bishops, the left, the Hyatt, the BMW, the Man/Sundalo, etc, etc are launching a unified attack again, knowing that the only thing that can be accomplished is to muddy the waters and to cast Gloria — AND THE COUNTRY — in a bad light.
“If you were a Congressman and you thought that the anti-GMAs were full of hot air and bad intentions, would you vote to pass the ball to the Senate?”
Geo, you intentionally have forgotten that the congressmen never said the anti-GMAs were full of hot air and bad intentions. You also deliberately forgot that the reason the congressmen voted not to pass the ball to the senate was because they were invited to the palace guest house bearing with them glossy, glossy paper bags when they went out of the guest house. This is documented, but knowing your penchant for not seeing true facts, of course you did not notice.
geo, scalia. there are only a few ways to do things, when it comes to politics. there are only a few ways to both retain power and kick someone out of power. this is why things often end up eerily similar to whats happened before. and why the arguments often end up echoes of arguments that took place long before. the arguments we are having now are quite similar to the arguments that took place during the time of marcos. then, as now, what will probably break the logjam isn’t anything actually planned, but something totally unexpected.
at the heart of your assertions is that evidence does not exist, that if it does, it’s not enough, but that overall you think there’s no real evidence and it’s all a bluff.
i say otherwise and this blog has pointed to where they’re concretely there and where a strong circumstancial case can be made that with further inquiry would reveal them. the best you can do is simply assert that it’s not there, and using the argument that goes, she is there, therefore there is no evidence because if there was, she wouldn’t be there, and besides which there shouldn’t be such a search because i’d rather have her there than anyone else so don’t bother me please.
that’s a total rinse lather and repeat cycle right there.
to geo’s point, a president armed with counter-evidence -and this where her supporters conveniently become blind, because if you doubt the existence of evidence for the prosecution then why not do us a favor and enumerate the evidence for the defense? but that’s too much of a bother when you can sit back and ignore everything everyone’s been doing because you can simply shoot it down by saying there’s nothing and i don’t believe you- will move to kill an issue once and for all, knowing it can be fully and indisputably killed once and for all. for her part it doesn’t have to reach the senate but it doesn’t have to be in a perpetual state of limbo, either. now why would you prefer limbo to a forthright resolution? again, a lawyer will be happy with technicalities but that isn’t how the political process works. dubya won on a technicality and one could argue filipinos ended up like americans, content to stay within the parameters of the system and building up for the day of reckoning later. indeed that’s generally the opinion here at home, except the day of reckoning seems once more to be a moveable goal post but that’s a different story (though one related to many other things, including the bje-moa which suddenly moved forward when the president sensed it gave her an opening by justifying constitutional amendments).
of course i want her out. i thought she had to go when she began refusing to make a categorical assertion of innocence and instead began laying down a legal smokescreen to both buy time and to reduce the fight to one she could win -by technicalities, which is a form of victory but leaves everything where it is -a wasteland of political scorched earth. by now, even if her other options work, either to amend the constitution and continue as pm, or ensure the victory of a pliable presidential candidate in 2010, our institutions have been so enormously weakened from within as to make rational and effective governance that much more difficult in the years ahead.
she should go. she should have gone by relinquishing power herself. she should have gone by being stripped of her job and then fight for the preservation of her life, liberty, and property in the courts she no longer controlled. she should have been vomited out of office by a great upheaval among the people. she remains in office as much because of an instinctive desire to remain within at least broad parameters of peacefulness among her critics because she has been far less shy about respecting those limits herself, for which it was foreign pressure more than domestic opinion is to be thanked. the europeans and americans accomplished what domestic opinion could not: challenge then severely curtail the intengan-gonzalez scheme of liquidating the left, imposing martial law, etc. things that domestic public opinion raised in foreign venues becuase it was hard-pressed to find ways to use domestic institutions to work as they should (though at times they still do).
geo, even if one believes the supreme court settled her 2004 elections, for my part if you review what i’ve written, i believe there is ample reason enough to demand accountability for everything she has done since 2005. things have moved past that particular question too much for you to pin any hope on recognizing the validity of her election by means of a supreme court decision on that. for the same reason that nixon won by a landslide but had to leave office for a cover up he undertook after that landslide, out of anxiety over the acts he undertook prior to it.
geo, scalia, in addition, for the record, i respect you both though we obviously have different views. and i don’t think you’re stooges of anyone, but i do think we are arguing apples and oranges most of the time.
geo, incidentally i’m also quite curious regarding your assertions re: investors. or scalia’s fetish for thinking the president creates jobs.
regarding investors: the high cost of power, the vulnerability of official policies and regulations to regulatory capture, the weakness and corruption of our justice system, the weak coordination between national and local, poor infrastructure in general, too high labor costs, a lack of predictability in official policies and unreliability on official decision-making, are what are often cited. political noise and so forth are par for the course anywhere and you don’t see investors backing out of south korea where the clashes are more violent, or malaysia or thailand indonesia and taiwan for such superficial reasons. nor have i encountered any foreigner anywhere who thought the president or her critics are reasons on their own to have blanket opinions of filipinos or their country.
regarding scalia, the lack of regulation on our educational institutions means theyre more nimble in adjusting to market demand, eg. the shift from pt to nursing when those were hot, now to programming, multimedia and even biotech as these occupations get hot; the bpo industry too is more of a case of entreprenurial innovation and timing in the space accorded by a vacuum in government regulation and thus, interference. yet take cebu, with its well established export industries that were hard-hit by the president’s fetish for a strong peso, which may have good reasons behind it but which the cebuano exporters, fairly enough, complained was killing them and killing the jobs people held in them. to be sure cebus economy compensated for it but as one such businessman told me, you had workers who had steady jobs, were paying taxes, were productive citizens here at home and what do you do, you wipe them out, throw them out of work, and just hope they or their kids can scoot abroad and become contractual laborers somewhere. not a good way to take care of your own, and there were concrete steps the president could have done to help keep those productive jobs at home, but she didn’t do it.
and while the president got credit for the e-vat, you have to look at the reasons she had to impose it, and it had less to do with rational economics and more to do with pandering in aid of election. namely, bloating the debt of napocor rather than let public irritation over electricity costs harm her election chances in 2004.
Bert,
I certainly do recall hearing many Congressmen stating that the anti-GMAs were full of hot air and bad intentions. You don’t? Din’t you watch the all-night debates in the House?
The glossy bags thing was inconclusive. Anyway, that wouldn’t explain the 1st impeachment go-around. Also, I think a Congressman’s vote to stymie an impeachment would be a whole lot more than the figures being thrown around about those bags.
Oh, and wasn’t that at a meeting of LGU types, not a meeting with Congressmen? Anyway, claiming that the House was bribed to not impeach is a claim, not a fact.
But go ahead, tell me what was “documented” exactly.
mlq,
Now you have a better approach than Bert. I agree that the lack of enough solid evidence does NOT mean that GMA is innocent.
But I take exception to what you wrote:
“the best you can do is simply assert that it’s not there, and using the argument that goes, she is there, therefore there is no evidence because if there was, she wouldn’t be there, and besides which there shouldn’t be such a search because i’d rather have her there than anyone else so don’t bother me please.”
That’s not at all my argument. Mine is: If you really have evidence, let’s see it. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If you don’t have any, then don’t pretend you know for a fact that someone is guilty. And maybe after 4 years, you should step back and re-evaluate.
I don’t recall seeing the concrete proof you’ve presented (I probably disagreed about it’s firmness), but I’ve seen many attempts at trying to connect various circumstances in order to demonstrate something ot other.
I’m sure our differing opinion on those “facts” is one of the very roots of our overall disagreement. Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure you haven’t shown any facts that could withstand a formal trial. But go ahead, remind me…..
Here’s another quote of yours: “…except the day of reckoning seems once more to be a moveable goal post but that’s a different story”. Once again, this is an accusation that has no merit in facts. Just who is proposing to move 2010 back? Just who is proposing to keep her in power after 2010?
This is just like saying “Martial Law is around the corner!!!” Fear mongering. Accusations that can never be proven to be false (but have never proven to be true).
Here’s another of yours: “i thought she had to go when she began refusing to make a categorical assertion of innocence and instead began laying down a legal smokescreen to both buy time and to reduce the fight to one she could win -by technicalities,”
She said that she did not cheat in the elections, but she admitted she called Election Officers (as did many others, it seems). Her office and spokespeople have repeated that often.
The antis were in the street demanding an immediate removal from office without any due process. So she said: “take it to court” (impeachment proceedings). What the hell do you want an innocent (or guilty), bona-fide (or not) President to do??? Her actions did not reveal innocence or guilt.
But you — and your pals — immediately claimed — with full confidence — that she was guilty. Based on what, exactly? Ahhhhh, the Garci Tapes. That, my friend, is the height of naivete…or perhaps you (like many) were just looking for any, ANY, excuse to oust her. I don’t know.
A bunch of idiots and criminals and savvy power players took to the streets first. How can anyone be shocked that the accused resorted to safer, calmer, less-emotional avenues?
And when the accusers didn’t provide any evidence, they went back to the streets again!!! As if that is their right! Problem is…it turns out that the antis had very little support in real life. So now it’s been accusation after accusation, noise on top of noise. All without facts, proof.
And again you write: “she should have been vomited out of office by a great upheaval among the people.” Ummm…even though the vast majority of the country has proven that this is unacceptable? Once again, you and the BMW types claim to be able to rule the country properly…and as Leah Navarro has said — the rest of us are too stupid to understand what’s right and wrong.
Lastly, do you now agree that the Supreme Court reviewed the ballots and that the vote cheating charge was shown to be without merit?
“What if I swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth but I LIE ? “Joke2 BOLAnte
mlq,
I am aware that you are more a student of history than of business. I am a businessman who studies history/current affairs as a hobby. First, let me respond to your words…..
You wrote: “regarding investors: the high cost of power, the vulnerability of official policies and regulations to regulatory capture, the weakness and corruption of our justice system, the weak coordination between national and local, poor infrastructure in general, too high labor costs, a lack of predictability in official policies and unreliability on official decision-making, are what are often cited.”
Exactly. Same during Aquino, Ramos, Erap and GMA1 and 2.
Post-9/11, also include islamo-terrorism.
Now, add the ouster of Erap and the counter-demonstrations up until 2004. And throw in on top of it all the street scenes and screaming faces on ANC (which leads to more CNN and BBC coverage) who demand the elected President be ousted and….voila! This country looks to be CHRONICALLY and DANGEROUSLY unstable.
Demonstrations after demonstrations, soldiers and tanks in the street, impeachments after impeachment, frothing politicians and Harry Roqueses and Trillaneses on TV, threats of coups, revolution….. This is much different than the other countries you mentioned, as you know. Only recently does Thailand look worse (a lesson for us here).
I certaily know many foreigners who have not invested here because of the perceived political instability…and who WOULD invest here if they felt those days were gone for good. Many.
I take it you are aware of travel warnings repeatedly emanating from foreign embassies, yes?
i think those who challenge others to present evidence pledge to do their bit and present their own evidence, too to assert their own claim.
nakakatawa itong bolante fertilizer scam, another circus in the offing. just like other senate investigations it will come down as a flop once again.
liquidation of the money from the fertilizer funds was done by local government officials and congressmen. how come those presidentiables are not screaming for the heads of those local executives. hmmmm they are probably afraid of not being supported by them come election time eh…. what a waste of time, they want to blame GMA and yet they come embarassingly unprepared for joc joc bolante. they look so lost as joc joc run circles around them.
Geo, you are a very good lawyer, if you are a lawyer, and you know how lawyer goes, they have a reputation. Please take this as a compliment.
But this forum is not a courtroom even if you treat it like one. The fact remains that you are a defender of GMA, your president, even if you consistently have been denying it.
We, the vast majority of the Filipino people, not to forget that you agreed we are the majority, do not approved of what your president had been doing to our country and to our people. In time there will be a period of reckoning. If it be the 2010 presidential election, or other, so be it.
But patience has its limit.
Geo,
PGMA once issued PP1017.
It was supposed to be calling out power of the President to the AFP and PNP and was NOT a declaration of Martial Law.
Yet with it the President and her cabinet/agencies sought to perform or performed acts ONLY allowed under a declaration of Martial Law or suspension of writ of habeas corpus. (With some acts/act NOT allowed EVEN under Martial law in the present constitution though previously allowed under Martial Law in the Marcos Constitution)
But yes. Not even all the articles assailing it nor all the marches including those strolling down (Paseo De) Roxas could prevent PP1017 from occurring.
People eventually had to go to court.
Off topic.
With regards to the Indian “boobies”. It’s really the highs and lows that make life interesting!
quezon the 3rd,
“…or scalia’s fetish for thinking the president creates jobs.”
excuuuuuuzzzzzzz me. please! i never ever categorically stated that. nor did i ever hint at it!
my “fetish” is the obvious manifest collateral damage the anti gloria school is gratuitously inflicting upon the economy everytime it exercises its constitutional rights.
even scarier is the equally obvious manifest fact that the anti gloria school is oblivious to the economic damage
it is generously creating each time it enjoys the constitutional freedoms
“geo, scalia, in addition, for the record, i respect you both though we obviously have different views. and i don’t think you’re stooges of anyone, but i do think we are arguing apples and oranges most of the time”
no sir. the issue is always the propriety of prioritizing gloria’s removal over and above anything else. the anti gloria school says its the top priority, the anti anti says nay. (though the anti anti school is open to impeachment)
quezon the 3rd,
THE BRIGHT SIDE TO THE “COMPLAINT-IN INTERVENTION”
if you bring its denial to the Supreme Court, there’s now an opportunity for the SC to review its doctrine on Francisco vs. House of Representatives (the Davide impeachment case), and possibly reverse it.
the doctrine that “initiated’ means the mere filing of a complaint should be abandoned and given a new meaning – that ‘initiated’ should mean an impeachment complaint duly transmitted to and received by the Senate.
because as we all know now, if ‘initiated’ means mere filing, then an impeachable official can escape impeachment by just causing the timely filing of a weak impeachment complaint, which will bar any later impeachment complaints (hintay na lang next year)
(though I agree with the result of the case, the junking of Davide’s impeachment)
“The people who say “the heck with job creation lets kick out gloria first and worry about jobs laterâ€Â
-what wrong with this statement? are you implying that because we want gma out, that we don’t care about the economy? it is because we care more not just about the economy but also, we care about the country and it’s people. all three we care and that is why gma should go. she is, was and will always be bad for everything good for this country!
“Why don’t we follow the examples of the USA? Bush is extremely unpopular there, but they bided their time and waited for the elections. They have a very strong democratic system that’s why they’re able to wait until Bush ends his term.”
-hahaha. USA ha? they impeach clinton for getting a felatio in the office! you must have forgotten that! and we can’t impeach gma for cheating during the elections? plundering? mass murder? lying? now that’s what i called maturity!
reason bush never got impeached is part his cause for war against terrorism actually is partly good. only when they invaded iran and the war dragged on that american got frustrated. even that is nothing compared to what gma has committed. and not until the the economy collapsed that sealed the repblicans fate during the last USA elections and not solely because of bush.
the comparison is not even close as comparing apples to oranges!
“Why not wait for 2010? It’s just around the corner. Sure, it does mean that GMA and her allies can enjoy their stay in power until that time (and some say will continue to loot the treasury and commit grave abuses). But in my opinion that’s preferable to seeing this country going to, God forbid, civil war.”
–now the only reason civil war may happen is if gma insist to hang to her throne! and not otherwise.
Bert,
“But patience has its limit.”
oh yes! 6 years, to be exact.
malapit na mag 4 years and 5 months. so what’s 1 year and 7 months of waiting?
mukhang di mo pa na-notice, nobody has to defend gloria. nakaupo pa rin sya.
sa ellenville nga, walang nagde-defend kay gloria, pero nakaupo pa rin si gloria.
para namang each ‘patalsikin na now na’ is a step closer to kicking her out.
“-what wrong with this statement? are you implying that because we want gma out, that we don’t care about the economy?”
oh yes! because if you do, you’d put the economy ahead of removing gloria
” it is because we care more not just about the economy but also, we care about the country and it’s people. all three we care and that is why gma should go.”
no my friend, if you really care about the country, you’d put job creation ahead of kicking her out
“she is, was and will always be bad for everything good for this country!”
para namang ang ipapalit ay directly inverse to gloria!
“The glossy bags thing was inconclusive. Anyway, that wouldn’t explain the 1st impeachment go-around. Also, I think a Congressman’s vote to stymie an impeachment would be a whole lot more than the figures being thrown around about those bags.”
–i got a song for this one and it goes like this…’three blind mice, three blind mice, three lind mice…” and that is what i call being blind to glaring facts!
“-hahaha. USA ha? they impeach clinton for getting a felatio in the office! you must have forgotten that! and we can’t impeach gma for cheating during the elections? plundering? mass murder? lying? now that’s what i called maturity!”
the only reason why impeach complaints vs gloria went pfft is the kaengotan and kabobohan ng ‘united’ opposition. each one gustong magpakabayani
tapos sisisihin pa ang Palace! asus! mga Pinoy talaga, ang galing sa sisihan.
tapos gusto pang i-entrust ang country sa kanila! diyos na mahabagin!
nung time ni erap, next to impossible ang impeachment nya at the onset. pero the anti erap forces did their homework, and the rest is history
face it. the anti-erap forces in the year 2000-01 are much much better, united, fluid, and have brains, than the anti gloria splinter groups of 2001-onwards. not to mention that almost the whole country is behind the anti-erap forces
eh ngayon, what/who constitutes the anti gloria subcontinent? they’re a huge colossal joke!
konkretong halimbawa ng kaengotan is the type of questions asked by Roxas and Jinggoy to Joc Joc, and the honorable senators being disappointed not hearing from Joc Joc what they wanted to hear! mga bobo!
naghearing pa sila! eh alam naman pala nilang magsisinungaling din naman.
adjudged na sya as guilty, so all resources should have just been directed towards building a case against Joc Joc, and eventually against gloria. walang mararating yang senate hearings! just one freaking committee report!
what can one freaking committee report do?