So Sorry for Edsa

So sorry for EDSA – Feb. 26, 2004 -my column today in the Inquirer.

The Fifth Republic

In ABS-CBNNEWS.COM Fr. Joaquin Bernas explains why our present Republic is the fifth in our history.

The first was the Malolos Republic of 1898. The second was the Laurel “republic” of 1943. The third was the independent republic established in 1946; the fourth, the “new republic” created by Marcos in 1981; the fifth, the republic born of the Edsa revolution.

Taking stock

In Taking stock – Feb. 25, 2004 the Inquirer focuses on the meaning of Edsa for the young.

Survey explained

Pulse Asia Inc. – About Us explains the latest survey results which has the opposition crying foul.

Most interesting are the tables which break down the results per region. As it stands, the Visayas may make the difference.

Remembering Edsa

Some readings…

The long road to Edsa I.

Cory Aquino: Person of the Century.

My coverage of the march on Malacanang (edsa Dos).

A defense of Edsa Ii: So Sorry, Uncle Sam

Morning Readings

In ABS-CBNNEWS.COM, Luis Teodoro suggests its as if the Edsa Revolution never happened.

In Malaya-The National Newspaper, there’s an article on the stack of papers that Estelito Mendoza has submitted to the Supreme Court to validate Fernando Poe Jr.’s claims.

My only question concerns the Philippine Army records (an affidavit submitted by Fernando Poe, Sr. in 1947) that names one child as “Fernando Poe II.”

The habit of using “II” and not “Jr.” is a recent thing, a fashion the Marcoses tried to popularize in the case of Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., whom it was thought would sound more regal as Ferdinand Marcos, II. But it didn’t stick, as a son who is a namesake is traditionally called Jr. here, while say, a grandson who is a namesake of the grandfather, but whose father didn’t share the name of the grandfather, is properly called II.

For example, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., son of Ferdinand Marcos. Manuel Roxas II, son of Gerardo Roxas, son of Manuel Roxas.

So why would a Philippine Army affidavit submitted by a Marcos lawyer reflect an affectation in nomenclature only attempted by the Marcoses, and only in the 1980s at that? Curious.

To be born free

To be born free – Feb. 23, 2004

My column today.

For students doing homework

I’ve noticed a lot of students doing searches on the Internet on Manuel L. Quezon. If you’re a student and are look for information, please click here.

Good citizenship

In Philstar.com – The Filipino Global Community, your daily source of Philippine News on the internet. today, Alex Magno writes that the Edsa People Power Commission spent a long time discussing how to promote good citizenship.

The question of how to promote civic virtues and good citizenship was tackled by a committee headed by Chief Justice Ramon Avancena, and composed of such leading minds as Jose P. Laurel, Jose Abad Santos, and Jorge Bocobo. They came up with a code of citizenship and ethics which was promulgated by Executive Order in 1939. It is still in force. You can read the Code of Citizenship and Ethics here.

The clot thickens again

In A Sassy Lawyer’s Journal today you will find an interesting entry examining what ifs concerning the behavior of some of Poe’s political supporters.

The entry is an informed speculation, and one which expresses some doubts I’ve held all along.

I wouldn’t put it past Ricardo Manapat to use his office to dig up potentially harmful documents concerning FPJ. But I was and remain skeptical about the manner in which he was interrogated in the senate and the witnesses that supposedly showed Manapat up as a forger.

Manapat’s influence, if it can be called that, and his notoriety, have been built on his abilities as a researcher who finds embarassing and incriminating documents in the unlikeliest places. The main point against should have been the absolute impropriety of his having used his position to do research for political purposes. Recall how Estrada used the BIR to look into the accounts of his opponents; this would be the same thing in a different agency of the government.

From the very start, when the possibility of FPJ running for the presidency emerged, the citizenship question was already up in the air -and I heard it first from pro-Erap people, not people supportive of the administration. To my mind this means that even those for Poe in certain circles knew that they would have to tackle a potentially difficult legal question.

It helped the cause of the opposition, however, that the administration or its allies seemed more than eager to do anything and everything to disqualify Poe.

I’ll put it this way: either Manapat was lying, or the witnesses against him were lying is the common view. But what if both sides were lying? What irks me is that this is a possibility no one wanted to consider, but it is just as likely as Manapat being an out and out forger, or his accusers being of heroic stature (which they are not).

Manapat devoted time and energy and probably used his proximity to documents and authority to engage in partisan research; he may have handled whatever documents he found unethically and in violation of some regulations.

His accusers, on the other hand, were clearly well coached and faciltated the congressional equivalent of a kangaroo court. I say, a plague on both their houses.

Manapat’s zeal did incalculable harm to the archives; his accusers were fit for a Stalinist show trial. The result is a muddling of the issue to the benefit of the opposition.

Personally, I beleive the law must be interpreted with generosity. The interpretation of some lawyers goes against the principle that it is not the fault of a child if he is born illegitimate, and that the child in cases where he is not at fault should not be made to suffer, in this case, suffer from being deprived of citizenship.

Next Page »