|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:52 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:34 am
On Arroyo
Everyone’s already got a share on this most prominent issue in the country today, so I might as well share my opinion as a Filipino and as a UP student.
Arroyo should never be removed by extra-constitutional means such as a “people power” revolution. We all know from the two EDSAs that toppling a president by a “bloodless” marching on the streets is not enough, the military needs to jump to the other side. It was just an inch of people empowerment. We have been f* up all the time, our Southeast Asian neighbors who used to be behind, are all sneering at us.
She has two options: she resigns or she goes through the impeachment process. Both are within the constitution. However, I am not for her resignation. The executive house has been shuffled all these years, we cannot see a common and consistent blueprint from the government. If she stays in office, she can finish her job and we can move on with the presidency legally. I subscribe to the idea that presidency is not a popularity contest. If her agenda is to increase taxes and curb corruption in collecting agencies to generate revenue, of course everybody is expected to say no, everyone hates taxes.
Some of my fellow students at the university are shouting for Gloria’s resignation. Others want another people power movement. There are two observable things: one is, they do it with each new president, secondly they were always asking what the government has done. Well, most of the people who go to physical rallies always demand something from the government never asking the important question, as J. F. Kennedy puts it, “ask what you can do for your country”. These students are the same politicians who will sit in the House someday.
However, my apathy to politics tend to lean in the notion subscribed by pessimistic Filipinos that “whichever side doesn’t make a difference”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:35 pm
Supreme Court urged: Decide on election automation
Comelec running out of time
SAYING the Commission on Elections (Comelec) had nearly run out of time, senators crossed party lines Friday to call on the Supreme Court to release immediately its decision on the fate of automated elections.
Both Senate President Franklin Drilon and opposition leader Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said the high court needed to promulgate its forthcoming ruling on the validity of the contract for automatic vote counting right away.
Drilon said ex-Comelec chief Christian Monsod told him the poll body needed 120 days of "lead time" to shift back to the system of manual counting.
This means that the high court has only until next week to issue the decision. "Beyond that the Comelec would no longer have enough time to meet the May 10 deadline," he said at a news conference in the Senate.
When asked whether the Constitution allowed for postponement of national elections, Drilon said the election date could not be changed "unless provided by law."
He noted that some lawyers were of the view that the Comelec has the authority to postpone the election on its own if there is no time to prepare for manual election, as provided under Section 5 of the Election Code. "But any postponement must be of such a date that it will allow a proclamation of the winners by June 30 because that would create a constitutional crisis," he said.
The Constitution provides that the oath of office of the country's top officials take place on that day.
In a statement, Pimentel said the release of the Supreme Court ruling "would put to rest the speculation on the fate of the automated election process and enable the Comelec to make preparations for the possible reversion to manual voting process."
If automated elections would push through, then the commission would also have enough time to list the candidates in the official ballot.
The principal author of the joint congressional resolution calling for selective automation repeated his concerns that the Comelec's insistence on nationwide automation has heightened the "risk of failure" of the May 10 national and local elections.
"The situation is serious," said Representative Jesli Lapus, co-chairman of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on Electoral Modernization. "By the end of January, we can be more certain whether the risk of failure has gone up or down."
Barring a last-minute veto by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Lapus-sponsored measure on selective automation becomes law this Saturday.
"If no veto is made by the President, we'll have selective automation," Lapus said in a phone interview Friday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:37 pm
SETTLE FOR NOTHING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A jail cell is freedom from the pain in my home
Hatred passed on, passed on and passed on
A world of violent rage
But it's one that I can recognise
Having never seen the colour of my father's eyes
Yes, I dwell in hell, but it's a hell that I can grip
I tried to grip my family
But I slipped
To escape from the pain in an existence mundane
I gotta 9, a sign, a set and now I gotta name
Read my writing on the wall
No-one's here to catch me when I fall
Death is on my side....suicide!
A jail cell is freedom from the pain in my home
Hatred passed on, passed on and passed on
A world of violent rage
But it's one that I can recognise
Having never seen the colour of my father's eyes
Yes, I dwell in hell, but it's a hell that I can grip
I tried to grip my family
But I slipped
To escape from the pain in an existence mundane
I gotta 9, a sign, a set and now I gotta name
Read my writing on the wall
No-one's here to catch me when I fall
Caught between my culture and the system....genocide!
Read my writing on the wall
No-one's here to catch me when I fall
If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face
Yeah!
If we don't take action now
We settle for nothing later
Settle for nothing now
And we'll settle for nothing later
If we don't take action now
We settle for nothing later
We'll settle for nothing now
And we'll settle for nothing later
If we don't take action now
We'll settle for nothing later
We settle for nothing now
And we'll settle for nothing later
If we don't take action now
We settle for nothing later
We'll settle for nothing now
And we'll settle for nothing later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:47 pm
WITHOUT A FACE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh! Got no card so I got not soul
Life is prison, no parole, no control
Tha jura got my number on a wire tap
'Cause I jack for similac, ******** a cadillac
Survive one motive no hope
'Cause every sidewalk I walk is like a tightrope
Yes I know my deadline sire, when my life expires
I'm sendin' paper south under tha barbed wire
Tha mother of my child will lose her mind at my grave
It's my life for their life so call it a free trade
"Por vida" and our name up on tha stall
I took a death trip when I tried ta cross tha white wall
Walk unseen past tha graves an tha gates, born without a face
One motive no hope ah, born without a face
Walk unseen past tha graves an tha gates, born without a face
One motive no hope ah, yeah, born without a face
Without a face
Yeah, I tried ta look back ta my past long lost
A blood donor ta tha land owner holocaust
Pops heart stopped, in came tha air drop
Flooded tha trench he couldn't shake tha toxic shock
Maize was all we needed ta sustain
Now her golden skin burns, insecticide rain
Ya down wit DDT yeah you know me
Raped for tha grapes, profit for tha bourgeois
War tape boomin' path is Luminoso
I'm headed north like my name was kid Cisco
To survive one motive no hope, ah
It's hard ta breathe wit Wilson's head around my throat
Strangled and mangled another SS curtain call
When I tried ta cross tha white wall
When I tried ta cross tha white walls
Walk unseen past tha graves an tha gates, born without a face
One motive no hope ah, born without a face
Walk unseen past tha graves an tha gates, born without a face
One motive no hope ah, born without a face
You say fortify, reaction, you divide
And you say fortify, reaction, reaction
And you say fortify, reaction, reaction
You say fortify, reaction, you divide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:01 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:24 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:25 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:28 am
The Philippine Government as Of now, are aiming a higher economy, education and a standerd of people. How can a people can achieve this if the government result to poll of people? Mostly of the people here are control by the government because it is democratic form. Many laborers and workers exist, the poor become poorer. The presidential kind of the government are in damange and in scandal due to the doing of the president which is not accepted mostly of the people in the country. How can the government solve such crisis happened, that mostly invested in the country is the Capitalist with the huge firm the form of Capitalism are highly implemented in the country. People never have freedom to obtain there needs because they are harrast by the government. I need an action for this happening mostly the labour union which control by Politicsl figure and Capitalist. Inorder to solve this crisis today happened in the country the people must be foght for there right in "One BLOOD" as inorder to commit this freedom of the people lives.
Even the descrimination of Capitalist to Worker on the country are highly. and Criminals are brutallity by the Sect which involve in the Government and the Party of Capitalist and there Social approach to laborers.
I think that there are solution for this and I like to know abour this true the leftist out there, our problem and our cry for. The country are in Crisis now CAN U HELP ME OUT OF THIS PROBLEM? ILOVE TO HEAR THIS AND SOLVE THIS THINGS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:42 am
Bear Stearns downplays Philippine crisis
US-based investment bank Bear Stearns Co. Inc said the current turmoil in Philippine politics was not expected to cause drastic and adverse effects on the country's ability to access the credit market, believing that pressures to bring down the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo were not enough to succeed.
"Philippine public opinion simply has no appetite for another exercise in removal of the President through extra constitutional means," Bear Stearns said in its latest paper on the Philippine economy.
It added that efforts of the opposition to unseat President Arroyo were weak because its members themselves did not enjoy enough public support.
"The other important factor working in President Arroyo's favour is that the opposition is not a credible alternative at the present time," it said.
"No opposition figure is in a position to offer himself or herself as a ready and workable replacement for President Arroyo."
It added that not even Vice President Noli de Castro was ready to become a replacement for the presidency.
Bear Stearns said the financial markets still have not shown significant adverse reaction on the President's admission last week that hers was the voice on a tape containing wiretapped conversations with an official of the Commission on Elections.
It noted that the cost of the government's long-term domestic borrowing even improved when the rate of five-year Treasury bonds fell 11 basis points to 10.86 per cent from 13.03 percent in January.
It also noted that the 10-year T-bond rate dropped to 11.76 per cent last week from 12.53 per cent in February.
"All of these outcomes represent a reversal of the trend toward higher yields in previous T-bill and T-bond auctions, which had followed the controversies earlier (last June) over the wiretapped tape recording and allegations of gambling payoffs to Arroyo family members," it said.
Early last month, rates for Treasury bills ended consecutive weeks of decline after scandals hounding the Arroyo administration got much public attention.
They rates have since been rising, forcing the Treasury to reject bids for one-year T-bills as unaffordable.
Bear Stearns said the government's efforts to pursue tax and other economic reforms amid the political noise would give the administration a chance to move ahead.
It said strict implementation of the new value-added tax (VAT) law would be a gauge of the President's authority to still achieve the government's economic and fiscal targets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:46 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:49 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:50 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:53 pm
THE amended impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is expected to be filed when Congress resumes on Monday. Opposition leaders in the House of Representatives have said that the charges will revolve around "the crimes of cheating, lying and stealing." While the main charge against the president is that she rigged last year�s election, the impeachment complaint will include at least ten other offenses that Arroyo allegedly committed since becoming president in 2001.
What happens once the complaint is filed in the House of Representatives?
The House secretary general will refer the complaint to the Speaker, who will then include it in the Order of Business for it to be taken up by the committee on justice. The president’s allies have the majority in the 56-member justice committee and could vote to stop the motion altogether.
But the opposition could shortcut the process by opting to file the Articles of Impeachment directly to the House, but they must have a third of the members (79 of 236) endorsing the complaint for it to be referred directly to the Senate for trial. The 23 senators will act as jurors and the chief justice will preside over the court. Two-thirds of the Senate is needed to impeach the president.
If the opposition does not have the numbers, however, the justice committee can throw out the complaint and no further impeachment complaint can be heard by the House for one year.
Read more about the basic impeachment procedure set out by the Constitution. Once an impeachment process begins, Congress must adopt specific rules. In 2000 the 11th Congress set out its rules for the impeachment motion against former president Estrada; they were later archived when the term adjourned. The current Congress has yet to formalize its own impeachment rules.
For those who wish to learn more about impeachment, visit these Senate pages:
Impeachable officers
Grounds for impeachment
The impeachment of President Joseph Estrada
If the opposition in the House doesn�t get the one-third needed to shortcut the process, the public focus in the coming weeks will likely be on the House committee on justice, the first stop of the impeachment complaint. The committee is given 60 days to decide on the merit of the case both in form and substance, afterwhich the House in plenary will have ten days to vote on it.
Of the committee�s 56 regular members, 24 belong to the ruling coalition Lakas, including committee chairman Simeon Datumanong, a veteran politico who is a staunch Arroyo ally and until recently public works secretary. In addition, there are four KAMPI members in the committee�KAMPI is also allied with the president and some of its members are closely associated with the First Gentleman. Together the Lakas and Kampi representatives make up half of the justice committee, although they are likely to also get the support of other committee members belonging to other parties.
The others in the justice committee include nine members of the Nationalist People�s Coalition associated with former presidential candidate and beer magnate Eduardo �Danding� Cojuangco Jr. Some of the NPC representatives are allied with the administration and the party may not vote as a bloc on the impeachment issue. In addition, there are three congressmen from the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino or LDP; one from the Cavite-based Partido Magdalo (Crispin Remulla, who is a vice chair); and one member of Raul Roco�s Aksyon Demokratiko.
There are seven LP members in the committee. The party however is split, with one faction voting on July 8 to call for the president�s resignation. There are at least two LP members of the justice committee who are likely to defend the president: Matias Defensor Jr., father of DENR Sec. Mike Defensor, and Rolando Andaya Jr., head of the powerful appropriations committee. Many of the other LP members, however, will likely go for impeachment.
Also likely to vote for the impeachment complaint are three party-list representatives in the justice committee. Teodoro Casi�o and Liza Maza are aligned with the radical left and their organizations formally announced on Wednesday that they were cutting ties with the administration bloc in Congress. Loretta Ann Rosales of Akbayan has also called for the president�s resignation. There are two other party-list representatives in the committee. Christian Se�eres of Buhay, associated with El Shaddai�s Mike Velarde, is likely to vote against impeachment, but APEC�s Edgar Valdez can go either way.
The following is a rundown of the regular members of the House committee on justice. (Links to their biodata, posted in the PCIJ�s i-site.ph are provided below.)
Chairman
1. Datumanong, Simeon - Lakas-CMD, 2nd district Maguindanao
Members
2. Baterina, Salacnib (vice-chair) - Lakas, 1st district Ilocos Sur
3. Libanan, Marcelino (vice-chair) - Lakas, Lone district Eastern Samar
4. Real, Isidoro Jr. - Lakas-CMD, 1st district Zamboanga del Sur
5. Cuenco, Antonio - Lakas-PROMDI-BOPK, 2nd district Cebu City
6. Javier, Exequiel - Lakas-CMD, Lone district Antique
7. Martinez, Clavel - Lakas-CMD, 4th district Cebu
8. Ablan, Roque Jr. - Lakas-CMD-KBL, 1st district Ilocos Norte
9. Gonzalez, Raul Jr. - Lakas-CMD, Lone district Iloilo City
10. Umali, Oyie - Lakas-CMD, 3rd district Nueva Ecija
11. Jaraula, Constantino - Lakas, Lone district Cagayan de Oro City
12. Chatto, Edgar - Lakas-CMD, 1st district Bohol
13. Lopez, Jaime - Lakas-CMD, 2nd district Manila
14. Amin, Hussin - Lakas-CMD, 1st district Sulu
15. Floirendo, Antonio Jr. - Lakas-NUCD, 2nd district Davao del Norte
16. Vicencio, Romualdo - Lakas-CMD, 2nd district Northern Samar
17. Jala, Eladio - Lakas, 3rd district Bohol
18. Puentevella, Monico - Lakas, Lone district Bacolod City
19. Dumarpa, Faysah - Lakas-CMD, 1st district Lanao del Sur
20. Banaag, Leovigildo - Lakas-CMD, 1st district Agusan del Norte
21. Pichay, Prospero Jr. - Lakas-CMD, 1st district Surigao del Sur
22. Abalos, Benjamin Jr. - Lakas-CMD, Lone district Mandaluyong
23. Codilla, Eufrocino Sr. - Lakas-CMD, 4th district Leyte
24. Cabilao, Belma - Lakas-CMD, Lone district Zamboanga Sibugay
25. Sumulong, Victor (vice-chair) - KAMPI, 2nd district Antipolo City
26. Malanyaon, Corazon - KAMPI, 1st district Davao Oriental
27. Baculio, Augusto - KAMPI, 2nd district Misamis Oriental
28. Dumpit, Tomas - KAMPI, 2nd district La Union
29. Bueser, Danton (vice-chair) - LP, 3rd district Laguna
30. Castro, Fred - LP, 2nd district Capiz
31. Uy, Reynaldo S. - LP, 1st district Western Samar
32. Defensor, Matias Jr. - LP, 3rd district Quezon City
33. Andaya, Rolando Jr. - LP, 1st district Camarines Sur
34. Roman, Antonino - LP, 1st district Bataan
35. Wacnang, Laurence - LP, Lone district Kalinga
36. Remulla, Jesus Crispin (vice-chair) - Partido Magdalo, 3rd district Cavite
37. Cagas, Douglas - NPC, 1st district Davao del Sur
38. Cerilles, Antonio - NPC, 2nd district Zamboanga del Sur
39. Macarambon, Benasing Jr. - NPC, 2nd district Lanao del Sur
40. Badelles, Alipio - NPC, 1st district Lanao del Norte
41. Ortega, Manuel - NPC, 1st district La Union
42. Lopez, Ruy Elias - NPC, 3rd district Davao City
43. Durano, Joseph Ace - NPC, 5th district Cebu
44. Santiago, Joseph - NPC, Lone district Catanduanes
45. Fuentebella, Arnulfo (vice-chair) - NPC, 3rd district Camarines Sur
46. Locsin, Teodoro Jr. - PDP-Laban, 1st district Makati City
47. Chipeco, Justin - NP, 2nd district Laguna
48. Lagman, Edcel - Aksyon Demokratiko, 1st district Albay
49. Guingona, Teofisto III - LDP, 2nd district Bukidnon
50. Angara, Juan Edgardo - LDP, Lone district Aurora
51. Agbayani, Rodolfo - LDP-KNP, Lone district Nueva Vizcaya
52. Casi�o, Teodoro - Party-list, Bayan Muna
53. Maza, Liza - Party-list, Gabriela
54. Rosales, Loreta Ann - Party-list, Akbayan
55. Se�eres, Christian - Party-list, Buhay
56. Valdez, Edgar - Party-list, APEC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:55 pm
1.
xanana said,
July 21, 2005 @ 9:25 pm
I thought if there are already enough signatories (79 tongressman) there�s no need to refer it to the justice committee, the complaint will be automatically submitted to the senate for trial.
so, kung tama yung sinasabi mo, useless pala yung pagbibilang natin nang ulo kung sino ang boboto para maparating sa senado ang complaint. Kasi siguradong ma-murder-in na yan nung mga alepores ni Gloria sa injustice commitee.
2.
Alecks Pabico said,
July 21, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
Tama ka, xanana. With 79 signatories (at least one-third of the House), the impeachment complaint bypasses the justice committee and shall constitute the aticles of impeachment that will be transmitted to the Senate.
3.
Garcigwen said,
July 21, 2005 @ 11:17 pm
escudero was interviewed by Orejana on ANC ON-LINE last night. based on the interview:
the justice commitee can come out against the impeachmentbut the plenary is free to ignore the justice committee and ultimately it is still the 78 that counts.
based on escudero (and my memory), the justice commitee is not decisive it seems.
further he estimates that the maximum time for the impeachment to be in the lower house is 3 months. (could be shorter of course) 2 months maximum debating time in the justice committee and another month in plenary.
(escudero keeps emphasizing it is 78 not 79. don�t know his basis as everyone says 79)
anybody correct me if i am wrong with my memory. the show was informative. sana meron transcripts.
4.
Sheila Coronel said,
July 21, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
Sorry for the lapse of arithmetic. Indeed, one-third of 236 is 78, not 79. As the post says, the justice committee is decisive if the opposition cannot muster the 78 when the impeachment complaint is filed. As the rules say, the endorsement by one-third of the House membership can fast-track the process so the complaint doesn�t have to be heard by the committee and can go straight to plenary.
If the opposition cannot get the 78, the complaint will have to go through committee. Even if the committee throws out the complaint, though, the House can override it by getting one-third to endorse it to the Senate. The committee has 60 days to decide on whether to endorse the impeachment complaint. If it so decides, the plenary has 10 days to decide on whether to impeach the president and let the Senate try her. So the whole process should last under three months.
5.
Abe N. Margallo said,
July 22, 2005 @ 12:20 am
Hi guys,
When it was Erap�s turn at the pillory, I had a couple of blogs that hopefully may be deemed currently relevant and which I wish to share with PCIJ bloggers. Some of my impeachment posts are memorialized in my book BUILD or PERISH! (the book is co-copyrighted by UST so please ask also UST for reprints, if at all). I had the gut feeling then we will have an impeachment d�j� vu in the very near future. Well . . .
The UST version of BUILD or PERISH! also included blogs about the Davide impeachment (I will next post it here if ok for PCIJ) wherein I have expressed my angst about f�judicial despotism.� My greatest fear in the Davide piece was posed in the introductory thus: Is the Philippines inching closer to the �alternative� rule of the philosopher-kings (i.e, the secular High Tribunal) all in the guise of upholding procedural stability and constitutional supremacy?� (I firmly believe this gambit if pursued would be potentially more combustible than the �second envelope� scenario.)
Here�s the first installment of my old blog.
_________________________________
First, what we said impeachment signifies before the fury
DEANIE: I thought that impeachment is a constitutional, not a political process?
When procedural democracy fails, People Power acts
ABE: The House of Representatives not only has the sole power but the obligation to bring charges of impeachment against the President, the Vice President, Members of the Supreme Court, or the other officials enumerated in the Constitution upon the grounds specified therein. A vote of at least onethird of all the Members of the House is required for impeachment. When the House initiates an impeachment, it does so as prosecutor. Refusal to prosecute when there is probable cause that any of the grounds for impeachment exists is equally a dereliction of a constitutional duty and a betrayal of public trust. The Senate, on the other hand, when trying an impeachment case sits as a court to hear the charges against the impeached official. A twothirds vote of all the Members of the Senate is required for conviction.
The Impeachment provisions of the 1987 Constitution has assumed a graver dimension when the term of office of the (incumbent) president was fixed to a sixyear term without reelection. With reelection after a term of four years under the 1935 Constitution or with the process of withdrawal of confidence in the Prime Minister (the equivalent of the President under the 1935 Constitution) by the National Assembly under the 1973 Constitution, the political accountability of the President through the electoral process or the peoples� representative was then better assured.
There has been a reasonable apprehension that the presidential term of six years without reelection fixed by the 1987 Constitution could result in the country being stuck with a bad president or a president with bad programs or policies. But such is the risk (in electing a president) taken by the people who may not remove him during the term thus fixed except by impeachment. There is thus more cogent reason anchored on fundamental ground that when the conduct of the President constitutes �culpabale violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust,� impeachment as a constitutional remedy must be sought with greater zeal and exigency.
The Constitution does not leave to the whim of the Legislature this check and balance mechanism called impeachment. The duty to impeach is at the core of the governmental system established in the Constitution. It is not intended to be politicalized according to the will of the dominant legislative party. The impeachment process as an earnest obligation on the part of Congress is akin to the duty of the Supreme Court to say what the law is in appropriate cases brought before it. When the ground therefore for impeachment exists against a president, Congress is under solemn obligation to stand in for all the people and remove him whose continuation in office poses a serious injury to the Republic. In this context, when the people�s alter ego fails the people, the people have the right to use extraconstitutional means in selfdefense. This is the basis of People Power.
Impeachment is a peaceful alternative
What is at stake in the impeachment proceeding against President Estrada?
Upon the Senate lie the salvation of our borrowed form republicanism and the rule of law in the country. The decision of that body will make or break the Republic. The good news is that the House of Representatives has taken the initiative to set the proper mode in motion by transcending partisanship. The bad news is that the Senate is not an impartial jury. The senators have not been chosen as a microcosm of Philippine society to judge their peer. This means that a �tampered� jury, the prejudgment of the individual senator-juror being quite well known, will be conducting the trial of President Estrada.
With the foregoing as a backdrop, one can only be anxious that the whole affair might just turn out to be a theatrical legal drama where the critical protagonists are the high-powered lawyers of the President and the congressmen who will be assigned to manage the prosecution of the impeachment case. As prosecutors, the House prosecution managers will have the initiative to keep the �ouster� momentum going even as this would have the unintended effect of assuaging the watchful and restless citizenry. The House prosecutors should not take this responsibility lightly. If they are in doubt of their prosecutorial skills, they must enlist the advice of the best trial experts at their disposal. Former Solicitor General Mendoza (who was the lead lawyer for the government in the martial law cases) and former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa (who, more than a jurist, is an expert in procedural law and a trial tactician�and I have direct knowledge of this fact because he was my professor in Remedial Law and Evidence) know exactly their trade. They also know how to prepare for trial. Remember that in a �perception� trial as in an impeachment case like this, all the defense will have to show is to convince the Filipino people that the seven senators now known to be �partial� to the President will have reasonable ground to believe to remain partial to the President.
At the hands of any one of the senators concerned lie the legitimacy and authority of the system we have borrowed from the Americans. He or she could either inspire the people�s loyalty to the system and its values or trifle with them by clinging to partisanship. By now it should be known that realizing the difference between a president constitutionally �impeached� and one forcibly �ousted� could spell the survival of the system itself under which the honorable senator holds his or her office. Impeachment is also the peaceful alternative.
The purpose of impeachment
The purpose of impeaching a president is to override his election. It therefore assumes a political dimension beyond mere legality. As a legal process, the procedure and the grounds for impeachment as provided in the Constitution must be complied with. Otherwise, an impeachment is no more than a coup d�etat, albeit a constitutional one. The political legitimacy of an impeachment process thus rests in the justification of what in effect would be the annulment of the election of the impeached president. Hence, in order for such an impeachment to be both legitimate and politically correct, not only that the legal grounds for the impeachment must be proved, it must also be shown that the president no longer deserves the election he won.
Like any democratically elected president, President Estrada has been elected to lead the nation and serve as a symbol of national unity and stability. As such a symbol, to draw now essentially from Dye and Zeigler, the people look up to him as the national embodiment to inspire confidence in the authority and legitimacy of the political system; he is also expected to marshal his influence within the system in order to initiate the public policies he promised he would do when elected president; and as chief executive, the people conferred in him the trust that he has the competence to supervise the conduct of the government and the economy, and in time of crisis, to reassure and calm the citizenry.
Since an impeachment is more of a political than a legal process, the prosecution has the burden of proving not only the guilt of President Estrada in any of the impeachment charges leveled against him but also, more importantly, the failure in any of his roles and responsibilities delineated above as the people�s elected leader. Such guilt and failure must be fairly ascertained and manifested to leave no room for doubt that the people, through their representatives in the legislature, has the right to overturn their own mandate before the presidential term of office ends.
It is likely then the Narvasa team will try to reduce the impeachment contest to a court trial where its expertise is well known. On the other hand, the prosecution, as a countervailing move, must be able to steer the process to accord it with the aura of an election challenge even within the confines of the impeachment proceedings. This is so because what will transpire in the hall of the Philippine Senate will be broadcast live to the nation as if it were the trial of the century. Merely showing, for example, that the President is guilty of �graft and corruption� as defined by statute may not be sufficient. After all the public perception is that none of his jurors or prosecutors is as clean as a saint. For the impeachment proceeding to succeed, or, at least, to serve as a catalyst for the civil society to react accordingly in the event of a decision on purely partisan lines, the prosecution must be able to show that the impeachable conduct of President Estrada is such as to make him simply �unviable� to continue serving as the leader of the nation and that his continuance in office poses a clear and present threat to the Republic.
Senator Santiago was candid after all
Now, based on the sheer power play of numbers, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago�s open prediction of acquittal for President Estrada, while callous and small-minded, smacks of candidness. It is callous because it betrays her brazen insensibilities to the emotions the nation has invested in the constitutional process it has opted to pursue for now. It is small-minded because, except to unduly heighten the national discord, it doesn�t serve any practical purpose to any party or anyone including herself.
But why would one still claim that Sen. Santiago is nonetheless candid or, perhaps, even more honest than Sen. Francisco Tatad (that good-looking Marcos altar boy who read the martial law proclamation while millions of Filipinos watched him in awe in their living rooms) who pretends that justice could be dispensed with by the Senate with the supposed impartiality of an apolitical jury? One answer could be that Sen. Santiago might have already settled with her conscience that as an impeachment juror she would be unable to exercise that same measure of scrupulousness and fairness she had been known to possess as once an honorable trial judge. The smarter side of Sen. Santiago knows quite well an impeachment trial is a political process that is couched in legal formalities. Therefore, politics not justice would be her guide in this political challenge to unseat her man from the presidency. Can Sen. Santiago, as an impeachment juror, make a decision based on purely political consideration? The proposition could be advanced that Sen. Santiago may not be deprived of this prerogative. But would she have the �right� to acquit the president, as she is perceived by many she would? That is the burden the House prosecutors must answer and pass.
President Estrada�s legal defense team led by Narvasa will attempt to take the legalistic route that by the test of �proof beyond reasonable doubt�(the other tests which are rather less exacting are �preponderance of evidence� and �clear and convincing proof�), the prosecution will have failed to prove its case such that juror like Sen. Santiago, by such a test, will have the �right� (i.e., �moral certainty�) to remain partial with her bet. What has been suggested earlier in this forum is that the House prosecution must not fall into the trap of confronting only the defense within such a legalistic frame, but must also address the ultimate issue that should the individual senator-juror fail to do the �right� (i.e., the �politically correct�) thing, then he or she would face the final arbiter, the people, to whom they are ultimately accountable. The political dimension of this accountability, it must be articulated, would be in the form of making the senators answerable to the electorate in the next election or the people taking the potentially dangerous and uncertain extra-constitutional means because their representatives�in failing to unseat the president before their (the people�s) turn to be jurors themselves comes�have failed the system itself. Tactically, this method should no longer target hard-core partisans like Sen. Santiago but swing jurors like Senators Coseteng, Jaworski, Honasan or even Pimentel, the newly installed senate president.
The test of Sin
The test given by Cardinal Sin to succeed in this approach is: Has President Estrada lost the moral ascendancy to govern?
The Cardinal�s criterion may further be broken into:
1) Can the president remain the symbol of national unity and stability (after his sinister attempt to pit the poor against the rich in a class war)?
2) Can he effectively marshal his influence to pursue the public policies he promised he would do (in view of the gaping chasm he has created between a multi-sectoral spectrum of the Philippine society and himself)?
3) Can he be trusted in his competence to supervise the conduct of the economy and the government (while investors shun the country and deep partisanship debilitates his administration)?
4) Can he calm the citizenry should a serious crisis arise (after he has made a veiled intimation ala Marcos he would use the police and the army to respond to dissent)?
Impeachment and the Ghost of Marcos
It is apropos to remember that the framers of the 1987 Constitution had the Marcos experience in mind when they enhanced the scope of the impeachment clause, just as when they decided to curtail the martial law powers of the executive and create an independent Commission on Human rights. The Senate trying the impeachment of Erap must rely upon this history. The battle cry then as when Bongbong Marcos ran for the Senate was NEVER AGAIN MARCOS. Therefore, if the Senate finds in Erap the ghost of Marcos, then it is the constitutional obligation of the senator-jurors to prevent a repeat of that mournful period of Philippine history. The sins and omissions of Erap in his first two years in power, some of the most notorious of which Erap is now being tried before the Senate, are portentous�just as the mysterious disappearance of PR consultant Bubby Dacer, the Rizal Day bombings (On June 9, 2003, while the national debate on the involvement of the US in the RP-MILF peace process and the �terrorist� complexion of the MILF was heating up, a terrorist suspect, Saiffulah Yunos, who allegedly �confessed� in the Rizal Day bombing, was publicly paraded by the GMA government in the usual Philippine media fashion. He later pleaded guilty in court), and the pre-dawn arrests of Muslim Filipinos�of another grim era of political assassinations and repressions, misuse and abuse of high office, economic pillage, and reckless disregard of human rights and lives.
What has made the jueteng payoff as the final trigger for the impeachment of Erap is that it is too low and too outrageous an act, and too thoroughly incompatible with the Office of the Presidency that everybody has understood Erap is perfectly callously capable to �dime and cent� the very people, the masses, he professes to so care about, an inevitable prelude to a more opprobrious appetite for plunder that the Marcos conjugal dictatorship had wallowed in for two decades.
Amassing �unexplained wealth,� standing alone, is sufficient to convict Erap in the impeachment trial and remove him from office. Senate has no choice in this obligation or, otherwise, it will go down with Erap. The history of Marcos reign of greed is too recent to be ignored.
Should Erap take the stand?
ANONY: If truth is on his side, Erap should not fear confronting his accusers on the stand.
ABE: Well, we don�t seem to get it yet. An impeachment proceeding is not a judicial trial. It is an un-election process the Constitution permits. And in an election Philippine-style, he who is the most popular gets elected. A vast majority of the Filipino electorates, as we all know, do not vote for issues or programs. If an impeachment trial could also turn into a theatrical political exercise as lately we have seen, he who has garnered the FAMAS Award (at least thrice?) is likely to emerge the favorite to clinch the trophy again.
This guy Erap has been amazingly successful in merging his screen allure with his political charisma. Hence, in the last elections, the Filipino voted for president not only Joseph Estrada but Asiong Salonga as well. �Erap,� the kingpin �babaero, sugarol at lasenguero,� and �bida, politico at pogi� is just the culmination of that personality fusion. This is Erap�s defense. He is what he is. And the Filipinos, not necessarily the �Makati elites,� have decided to give him the chance to take a shot at the presidency.
SCENE I:
�Tamaan kayong lahat ng kidlat!� sends Senator Joker Arroyo to rise and complain to Chief Justice Davide that the answer is not responsive. Can Davide, presiding over the impeachment proceeding, really compel the President of the Republic of the Philippines to refrain from answering the way the President wants to answer an entrapping or humiliating question?
�Huwag sana ninyong kalilimutan na hanggang ngayo�y ako pa rin ang Pangulo ng Bayan,� Erap goes on with his soliloquy. �Walang naging pangulo ng Pilipinas na talagang nagmamalasakit sa mga taong bayan kundi ang inyong tanging abang linkod.� Now this time his award winning gaze fixed on Compa�ero Rene Cayetano (senator-juror Cayetano has been prominently mentioned in the stock market scandal, one of the grounds for the impeachment charges), he delivers his punch, �Kung sino man sa inyo ang hindi nanloko sa bayan kahit minsan, damputin n�yo ang pinakamatulis na bato at ibayo n�yo sa aking ulo. Tapusin na natin ito ngayon. Huwag na natin hintayin ang bukas.�
SCENE II:
After taking full advantage of his close-up framed by the television screens in millions of Filipino households, Erap steps down from the witness stand without waiting to be told he�s excused. Then Erap slips his signature bands on both wrists as the TV cameras follow his Asiong gait on the way to the exit.
(POSTSCRIPT: Bill Clinton, whose good looks and thespian bent could potentially earn him some lucrative Hollywood offers after his White House retirement, did save his presidency from the Lewinsky scandal after absorbing the humiliation he was subjected to in the hands of arrogant lawyers during his deposition. Clinton�s popularity shot up thereafter, and the impeachment prosecutors never really recovered from that fateful blunder.)
6.
Vinia Datinguinoo said,
July 22, 2005 @ 12:24 am
As of tonight, according to Tina Panganiban-Perez�s report on GMA-7�s Saksi, the opposition has already collected 50 signatures. It was Rep. Guingona III�s count. Rep. Chipeco also said they are confident they will get the number that they need in the next couple of days.
7.
tobebs said,
July 22, 2005 @ 7:03 am
If the Administration Congressmen are really after the TRUTH as they say, they should endorse this impeachment complaint to be able to garner the required number of signatories so hasten the impeachment process. If they do otherwise, then dito natin makikita kung sino ang mga SINUNGALING. Bantayan how PICHAY, NOGRALES, BATERINA, VILLAFUERTE, LIBANAN, ANTONINO, ZUBIRI etc. voted.
8.
peregrine0925 said,
July 22, 2005 @ 2:23 pm
there is a draft copy of the proposed impeachment rules for the 13th congress. we expect this to take the plenary�s attention next week after the SONA. but already we are raising some questions, especially those revisions which delegates some questionable authority to the house committee on rules (currently headed by nograles, as majority chair, hmph.) before the complaint is even forwarded to the justice committee.
9.
Alecks Pabico said,
July 22, 2005 @ 2:54 pm
Hi Abe,
Am sorry but your post is lengthy indeed, and I�m not sure how many more installments will come. Is there any way you can provide these to readers online, maybe a downloadable text file, in some other site or blog?
10.
claymore said,
July 22, 2005 @ 3:16 pm
Sampung nobena araw-araw�.pero sa tingin ko hindi ito makakatulong para pigilan ang mga kampon ng �kadiliman� para gawin ang lahat upang maibasura ang impeachment complaint na ito�.Gagawa sila ng paraan para kuwestiyunin ang bilang ng one-third�at gagawin isyu ito. Di daw dapat ganito kakonti ang boboto para mapadala agad sa Senado ang Impeachment Complaint�.
Bantayan ang lahat ng politikong kokontra sa prosesong ito�tandaan�..at papanagutin�.
Sukdulan ang pagkamanhid ng mga taong nasa kapangyarihan ngayon�.masiyadong malaki ang interes na prinoprotektahan�..lintik ang kapal ng mga kaliskis ng mga gahaman��
Konting hinay-hinay�.masiyadong halata na�..kung alam niyo ang tama para sa inyo, umiwas na��
MALAPIT NA ANG PAGHUHUKOM !!!
11.
drahcir said,
July 22, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
I guess we are in for the long haul. It seems the opposition lawamakers is still short of the required 78 signatories. However, we may expect the coming days to be the moment of truth for the congressman.
THEREFORE, MAY I SUGGEST TO THE PCIJ OR ANY NEWSPAPER TO POST THE NAMES OF THE CONGRESSMAN WHO WILL SIGN OR SUPPORT THE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT. IN THIS REGARD, THE OTHERS WILL SOON HAVE THEIR CONSCIENCE EXAMINE WHETHER TO SUPPORT SUCH A COMPLAINT.
And with the pressure of their constituents and the public to support such a move, they will have no other recourse but to join the bandwagon. We know that if there is a snowballing effect on the complaint, others will follow just like what happened in the Manny Villar-led incident in the last impeachment move.
I am pretty sure with the support of media and the public, our congressman will be pressured to support the impeachment complaint and will be transmitted directly to the Senate. However, with JDV as the speaker, fireworks and debates will flare in the floor during deliberations in the plenary unlike the one made by Villar thru the opening prayer in Congress where he railroaded the transmittal to the Senate.
Nevertheless, we hope that it will be transmitted in the Senate soon enough so that we can have a short-term resolution to this whole conflict. When the articles of impeachment is transmitted, Gloria will realize that she will now be in a lose-lose situation, hence will resign from her post. She don�t have the numbers in the Senate, thus, her allies will do all their tricks to kill the impeachment complaint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
