The sound of silence: coverage of hearing

Edmund Reyes, lone representative of the minority in committee, took to the rostrum and delivered an eloquent speech, revealing 73 signatures either given or committed. He asked, with great rhetorical flourish: are there no congressmen who will sign? Aren’t there even six who stand up?

The answer was deafening silence from the majority. Having waved around an envelope with 23 commitments on paper inside, Reyes left a second envelope, with blank sheets for endorsement, on the rostrum. The second envelope -marvelous move.

Reyes walked out; the gallery erupted in cheers; the security of the House began apprehending people; and even as a majority representative took to the rostrum to rebut, the video and radio coverage shifted to the citzens expelled from the House.

It may not have gotten signatures but was marvelous political theater.

2:09 As Jaraulla blasts the minority, the camera pans to the Speaker, looking slightly droopy, with Sec. Gabby Claudio by his side, talking into his cellphone.

2:18 Rep. Villafuerte blasts the minority and mistakenly quotes Socrates as having said, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend your right to say it.” But wasn’t it Voltaire? He’s followed by Rep. Butz Aquino who plays the Ninoy card, saying Ninoy was buried on August 31, and again, on August 31, the truth has been buried -accusing the government of suppressing the truth by hiding Garcillano and raiding the opposition.

Chairman Datumanong explains that the noise from the opposition should not excuse the inability of the minority to appeal his decision to call a vote. In the absence of the minority which walked out and did not return despite the hopes of some they would come back, the motion to vote on the first prejudicial question was held and the majority carried the day. Therefore, today, the next question: the Lopez complaint.

2:22 Rep. Ben-Hur Abalos responds to Butz Aquino: he objects to characterizations that majority have no conscience or ideals. He argues the rules proposed for the 13th Congress would have covered amending complaints and consolidating them; but the minority insisted on the 11th Congress rules that don’t make such provisions -the opposition, he said, to the new rules were led by reps. Cayetano and Villanueva.

2:28 Abalos concludes; Rep. Cagas takes over (incidentally, there seems to be an enthusiastically pro-administration contingent in the gallery). Cagas says Ninoy is not an exclusive franchise of the Aquinos, and that he himself was a victim of martial law.

Ricky Carandang interrupts: the lobby hubbub has subsided. Bro. Eddie Villaneuva is there with him. He says: the Philippines is at a crossroads, and we will see which representatives are for the country or themselves. He hopes (and well, of course, prays) Edmund Reyes’s challenge for 6 more signatures will be answered positively. If that fails, he quotes Fr. Bernas (!) and says the last constitutional option is to go to the streets.

2:34 Joel Villanueva: yes, they’re 6 votes short. He’s confident his colleagues will “listen to the voice of the people.” It’s mixed metaphor time: he speaks of a “turbo blast” express train!

2:42 Rep. Crispin Beltran says if it had been up to him, they’d be on the streets by now. He mumbled something about 85 signatures and waiting for 90. I don’t know what on earth he’s talking about.

2:43 Rep. Roman is at the rostrum defending the consolidation of all the complaints.

2:45 Rep. Ortiga says he’s been silent and weighing his options. The “unruly, ungentlemanly, and irresponsible” behavior of the minority yesterday has made up his mind. He delivered big, he says, for Fernando Poe, Jr. But now he is for the President. He is applauded by the pro-President crowd and the Chairman does not bang his gavel to silence them.

Chairman Datumanong exhorts his colleagues to stick to the point (the 2nd prejudicial question). He is promptly ignored by the next speaker.

2:53 Rep. Antonino (Kampi) is shocked, shocked, he tells us, that he’d ever be accused of hiding the truth. He says, torture was once used to solicit the truth, but did that make it right? He then waves around and reads, his oath of office. Quotes the constitution.

3:02 Protesters clashing with riot police outside the House of Representatives.

3:04 Rep. Puentevella: I stand here to respond to two dear colleagues, Edmund Reyes and Butz Aquino. In the question of the truth, the other week I stood here and up to now, no one’s responded to his pointing out an Inquirer article (June 20, 2005) saying “Escudero said the opposition would boycott impeachment proceedings stemming from Lozano’s complaint.” It’s a plot!

Outside, video of protesters reforming their ranks and appeals from their leaders not to throw rocks.

3:14 After quoting “Dura lex, sed lex” in various Visayan languages, Puentevella ends. TV is replaying video of riot police hitting women protesters with sticks.

Crispin Remulla: Who is on trial? Is it the President? No! We are! Congress has to prove it deserves each centavo paid its members in wages. In 2006, people will be lining up to file impeachment complaints against the President, because that is where things are headed. He cannot sign something he cannot prosecute, he says. Politics is local, families are split, something needs to be done. A rather circular and pointless speech.

(Another congressman is talking but won’t update until something noteworthy happens).

3:37 Marcoleta: defends his endorsement. He condemns the Johnnies-come-latelies. Quoted Dickens, some Latin maxim.

3:45 Meeting suspended for a minute.

3:46 Rep. Villafuerte: moves to vote on the issue. Did the Lozano complaint bar the Lopez complaint and the amended complaint?

3:48 The affirmative carries the day as expected (Teddyboy Locsin, Roman, and two others vote against the majority; one abstention). 46 yes, 4 no; 1 abstention.

The original Lozano complaint is the only surviving complaint.

3:53 one latecomer added his vote to the affirmative. Rep. Locsin has risen to explain his “No” vote: he has argued time does not run when Congress isn’t in session; all complaints were delivered in recess; when Congress resumed session, all complaints were at the table and thus were not late; all were competent complaints and considered legally simultaneous, regardless of it being minutes apart. A tactical observation: the exclusion of the others must now, however, result in the Committee endorsing the original complaint to plenary. The tiger is poisoned in the case and a mouse sent to the gladiators, and worse, now, with the original Lozano complaint poised to be kicked out next, the mouse, he says, is about to be strangled. His warning then, is that after the resumption of the meeting at 4:15, impeachment is officially dead at the Committee level.

3:59 Meeting suspended to give way to plenary.

4:03 Plenary has been called into session. Circumstances now: it’s all dependent on the original Lozano complaint. The Committee will then discuss form and substance insofar as the original complaint is concerned, since the other two (Lopez and the “amended” complaint) have now been officially thrown out.

RG Cruz interviewing Reps. Antonino and Puentevella: both say that 73 is close, but no cigar. Without 79, there is nothing to prevent the disposition of the Lozano complaint.

Antonino: Well, since Lozano prepared the complaint as a lawyer, so he can be considered to have verified himself, since verification usually means a lawyer verifying that a non-lawyer is indeed making an allegation (or complaint). This means they’re hedging to avoid suspicions that they will kill Lozano on form. But this still leaves Lozano open to being killed on substance.

4:17 Antonino: Even if they get 79 signatures, the pro-impeachment will have to wait until a committee report is produced, and submitted to plenary. Only then can they overturn it. (This means the President is virtually assured of going happily to Saudi Arabia and New York without an impeachment approval possible before then).

4:32 Crisipin Remulla says he’s heard some who have signed the impeachment complaint have left for abroad, which isn’t an encouraging sign come plenary time. He says the plenary vote should be next week -next Wednesday, specifically.

4:38 in a taped clip, Rep. Prospero Nograles says their initial research suggests former Sec. Soliman is legally barred from revealing information she learned as a member of the cabinet, an extension, perhaps, of Richard Nixon’s claims to Executive Privilege (struck down, I believe, by the US Supreme Court, but the lawyers can dissect this argument).

4:40 Ricky Carandang interviews Atty. Lorna Kapunan. Question: if the amended Lozano complaint was thrown out, what does that make of the 73 signatures so far? This means, they’ve signed nothing. Kapunan says the majority will view the 73 signatures as having been affixed to a scrap of paper, so the gathering of signatures will have to start again. She says fewer will be willing to sign the original complaint because its so flawed. Carandang ripostes: but Fr. Bernas says the original complaint, anyway, includes betrayal of public trust, so it’s a catch all. The lack of details isn’t a hindrance: but the majority believes the lack of details will doom the original Lozano complaint to being declared insufficient in substance! Kapunan says some congressmen are mulling over going to the Supreme Court to complain of grave abuse of the rules. She brings up the possibility of a temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court on the Justice Committee! Wisest option, Kapunan says, is sign whatever complaint survives, and send it to the Senate where the rules are more “relaxed”.

4:46 With a sly smile, Carandang muses that the signatures are now at 74 or 75!

5:00 Rep. Edcel Lagman says the rest of today will be devoted to speeches. The Committee will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9 or 9:30 in the morning to tackle sufficiency in form and substance.

5:22 (suspended coverage for a bit to write Weave for Korina Sanchez) Bishop Bacani with his brother are being interviewed by RG Cruz. The bishop says he is “very disappointed.” Much quoting of Bernas. Reason has fled the field, he says, leaving it to brute force. The bishop hedges about directly influencing his brother’s decision to support impeachment (it was surprising, he said). Reminds viewers that his fellow bishops have called for the truth to prevail, and for people to gather and discuss how to move the truth forward; he thinks the bishops will have to make a new call, as the truth is now being held back.

5:28 RG Cruz clarifies that only 50 signatures have been verified by the House Secretary-General. Teddyboy Locsin is at the ANC Studio.

Locsin: Edmund Reyes was impulsive in proclaiming the impeachers as having a monopoly on the truth, he contests for example, North Rail/Piatco which “is a private fight between the Speaker and the Senate President.” He refuses to sign on anyone’s word; but the evidence, he says, hasn’t been presented where it should be presented, in the floor of the House. He thinks the tactics of the minority have only served to strengthen the resolve of the majority -and takes a pot shot at Butz Aquino for invoking Ninoy when those surrounding Butz are supporters of the murderer of Ninoy. Locsin says the Lozano complaint provides probable cause for impeachment and furthermore, he thinks articles 13-50 of the amended complaint are valid. He says the evidence can be presented in the first hour of every session. He believes there’s evidence from the hearings headed by Remulla to impeach the President on electoral fraud; but that Zamora tells him that he will lose Liberal Party support if the other charges are dropped. The only issue that concerns the people, he says, are the Garci tapes and electoral fraud. The other cases should come next year. He reiterates that excluding the Lopez and Zamora (amended complaint) only to throw out the original Lozano complaint, will be junking complaints in favor of a dead complaint. That, he says, would be a “catastrophe.” He thinks the best thing is for the question to be raised to the Supreme Court. He suggests continuing to gather signatures, when 79 are achieved, then send them directly to the Senate, which will then determine if it will accept the amended complaint which was rejected by the Committee on Justice. He says the Speaker could try to prevent that, by questioning the sending of the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

On the minority saying they want to give the President her day in court: “it’s rank hypocrisy.” His summation of the situation: can the opposition live with an enemy (the President) for five years, if she isn’t impeached? His answer: you have to win; it’s really hard to live with a President who hates you. He quotes Macaulay who said impeachment provides neither truth nor justice, but adds that what impeachment does is let off steam and provide a means for resolving conflicts.

5:48 Karmina Constantino quotes Harry Roque as saying the Supreme Court will now be petitioned: Locsin says Roque is full of hot air. The Supreme Court will take cognizance of the case and decide on its merits. Says the sloppiness of the Lozano complaint is characteristic of Lozano’s abilities and habits as a lawyer. Finally, he thinks the minority walked out prematurely; he says they should have done so after the 2nd vote: “now would have been beautiful.”

5:56 The Chairman has moved to discuss verification as to form: whether it subscribes to the rules of court and was properly endorsed by a member of the House.

5:58 Rep. Cagas asks the Chairman (Datumanong) for his opinion; the Chairman says he’d rather hear from Cagas; Cagas says then he’d like to hear from Rep. Villafuerte; eventually, the one answering is Rep. Lagman.

Lagman: The complaint does not explicitly state it says it’s verified.Since the complaint is in the form of a sworn affidavit, it is more than merely a verified complaint; and as a lawyer, it is covered by the lawyer’s oath, and thus complies with the requirements for verification.

6:00 Motion made to vote on sufficiency of form. Seconded.

6:01 Villafuerte wanted to explain his views, but meeting has been suspended (majority antsy to keep the express train chugging along!)

6:10 Vote begun on sufficiency in form of Lozano complaint.

6:12 Result: 46 upholding the sufficiency; 1 abstention. The Lozano complaint has been declared sufficient in form by the Committee. Rep. Villafuerte promptly launches into defense of his vote, which TV coverage doesn’t bother to carry.

6:14 Ariel Ureta preempts Congress on ANC. Boo, hiss. Will try to find coverage on AM radio. It turns out State Television is also covering the proceedings live. Whew.

6:24 After Villafuerte ends, one lady representative adds her affirmative vote.

I’m signing off at this point, 6:36 pm, or soon. A congressman is talking as the deliberations on substance begin. He says, the anti-wiretapping law makes the complaint insufficient in substance.

6:41 Rep. Villafuerte argues the Lozano complaint is “grossly insufficient” in substance.

Rep. Defensor rises to say similar things: the Lozano complaint is insufficient in substance.

Scrambling for the story

Yesterday’s events kept going late into the night. Newsstand attended and has a flurry of reports: the full Hyatt 10 statement; then some notes on variations in their recollections; then the terse response of Sec. Rick Saludo to the Hyatt 10 press conference (which Dinky Soliman insists was a forum). The proceedings at the House were closely covered by Miron in his inimitable style (though, alas, he was in a meeting during the walkout), while Newsboy, who seems to have been at the House, has his own blow-by-blow account and some remarkable eavesdropping tid-bits. He suggests rather than trashing the Lozano complaint on form, it will be trashed on the basis of lack of substance.

PCIJ has the opposition lawmaker’s reactions and that of the opposition legal team (featuring Harry Roque, who I keep thinking of as the kind of lawyer who writes collection letters, as one society person informed me apropos of Roque’s sending her a letter to collect veterinary fees for a dog that died).

Carlos Conde provides, as always, a good summary of events. Jove, who covered the Palace counterattack prior to the walkout, also has a source who sent him impressions on the opposition gathering at Italliani’s in Megamall (asking his Deep Penetration Agent to describe the body language, then the eye language of the oppositionists, Jove’s source said, “malamlam,” or “droopy.”) , while a source told me the administration (or the Kampi part of it, anyway) held an impromptu meeting at Ronnie Puno’s Greenmeadows subdividision home.

As of late last night, I was told the opposition still lacks the necessary signatures, and that contrary, perhaps, to administration expectations, there don’t seem to be plans to bring this to the streets (despite being egged on by militants).

Early morning TV has Dinky Soliman on Magandang Umaga, Pilipinas immediately followed by Sec. Gabby Claudio. She said, he said.

In the blogosphere, there were strong reactions to the events, principally the opposition walk-out. Edwin Lacierda thinks there’s still the chance 79 signatures will be reached, and that if they are, it goes straight to the senate. If those signatures are indeed collected, Rep. Zamora said last night they’d have them verified by the House Secretary-General. What’s verification? Punzi answers the question (and takes a dig at Rep. Lagman’s claim that the Lozano complaint has been “virtually verified”).

Sassy Lawyers has two lengthy entries: one focusing on verification, the other analyzing the walkout, suggesting the game’s lost for lack of properly focusing on the legal strategy rather than hogging the media limelight. JJ Disini characterizes the walkout as one leading to defeat.

Gari is despondent over events. Paeng is furious. Go Figure takes a look at what he says are uninformative statements by politicians on the oil crisis; Pulitika looks at what he calls the “political boom-bust cycle”;

The administration blog as been renamed Rational Sphere.

The punditocracy comments as follows: the Inquirer editorial takes a dim view of the Hyatt 10; Malaya says impeachment is dead; Conrado de Quiros declares “the rule of law” as the catch phrase of those violating the law; Doubts Raised Over Current US Strategy in Iraq is my Arab News column for this week.

The gamble

So it’s possible, after all, to squeeze blood from a turnip. I refrained from blogging much today to fully pay attention to what’s been going on. The day began with what was already being discussed last night as a dud: the press conference of the Hyatt 10 which would not reveal anything spectacular.

But it seems an opportunity was found in what was revealed, specifically, Soliman’s account of the President instructing Gabby Claudio to find someone to endorse Oliver Lozano’s complaint.

As soon as the Palace saw that no documents or hard evidence would be revealed, they proceeded to attack Soliman and friends. Their tactic: reduce the debate to a he said, she said series of pots calling kettles black. In such a game, the administration doesn’t have to win, it only has to throw enough mud around. That it did.

What neither side gambled on, perhaps, was the ability of the congressmen themselves to put two and two together, and then, the clumsiness of the majority.

More explosive than the revelation by Soliman that the President instructed Claudio to deliver an endorser, and Claudio’s instant reaction that he had just the right party-list representative in mind, was a reminder that Lozano had also saved then Vice-President Arroyo from impeachment by filing a bogus impeachment complaint in 2000. The clincher in the conspiracy theory was the fact that it was Rep. Prospero Pichay, the lead attack dog of the majority, who endorsed Lozano’s complaint. To the observer, this was the most damning detail.

Then there was the case of the impatient engine driver. If the majority had allowed today’s Justice Committee hearings to proceed with ample opportunities for the minority to scream and yell, it could then say they (the minority) were being spoiled sports, because the majority could have proceeded with a vote, and then sneered at the minority for failing to come up with the necessary 79 signatures.
And it could have argued that there remained the opportunity for the minority to challenge the majority decision in plenary.

Apparently it did not enter their minds that they were dealing with young hot-heads; the clincher in this case was the decision of Chairman Datumanong to suspend debate -after weeks of permitting the most vivid debates- thus cutting of Rep. Ace Barbers. This came at the heels of Datumanong turning off the microphone when minority representatives earlier tried to bring up contentious points (whether Soliman’s statement, or the assertion that only the “amended” complaint has been properly verified, and as such, is the only one that should be discussed). So Datumanong’s either scatter-brained or suddenly inflexible behavior was enough to get the minority angry and upset.

To make things worse, upon summarily ending the debate, Datumanong then moved to put the first of the prejudicial questions to a vote. To top it all off, he ignored the last-minute attempts of some minority members to make a motion to adjourn (in parliamentary practice, such a motion trumps all other motions, and cannot be ignored). And so, the walk-out.

Things then moved so fast that neither those in the Session Hall or watching on TV or listening to radio quite knew what was going on; ANC immortalized the event as “pandemonium.” For weeks now, actually, it was said that the minority would do a walk-out, either with or without Susan Roces. Rep. Edcel Lagman claims the opposition was set to walk out anyway after the disposition of the second prejudicial question.

So it means the surprise was that the minority walked out sooner than expected. Why would they do that? That is where Rep. Darlene Custodio’s assertion that they were infuriated, comes in. And it seems quite plausible.

Then what did the majority do? It hung around, waiting for the minority to come back. Then the minority held a press conference appealing for signatures, and saying they were fed up and would no longer participate in the committee meeting. The attitude of the minority having been made clear, what did the majority then do?

It made the biggest mistake of all. It proceeded with voting on the prejudicial question anyway. It could have waited for cooler heads to prevail. It did not. It proceeded to justify the minority’s belief that it was out to railroad events. It held the vote, and won the vote, though some, like Rep. Teodoro Locsin, Jr., who remained behind, voted against the motion in disgust (you could clearly see it in Locsin’s face as he sat while everyone else stood up to show their approval for the disposition of the prejudicial questions).

When this is all argued and counter-argued in the days to come, the question of the minority’s sincerity -was it planning a walkout all along- will be answered by two things: the twitching, angry faces of Custodio and friends, versus the railroaded vote that proceeded even after the minority left the hall.

Rep. Ronaldo Zamora says they have “over 70″ signatures -but “if it’s short, it’s short,” and so, a last-ditch effort to get the 79. He says they will not march directly to the Senate. They will no longer participate in the proceedings of the Committee on Justice, but instead, if they get the 79, proceed to verify the signatures with the House Secretary-General, then file a motion with the Committee on Justice, and face the plenary debates, and then obtain their impeachment managers and a budget.

We are now back in crisis mode.

Update: 6:49 pm word is, Rep. Villar has signed the complaint, statement to follow. Talk of her bringing 7-10 congressmen with her; if true, then impeachment’s a go.

Reflection

ANTONY
O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,–
Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,
To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue–
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter’d with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1

Katrina cometh

Pubsub has links to blogs covering hurricane Katrina, with links in turn ranging from the official US Weather Advisory that one commentator says is “positively biblical in its prognosis”; another suggesting Instapundit’s running coverage and Drudge Report saying “God Bless New Orleans”; a blog pointed to author Poppy Z. Brite (whose novels I enjoy very much) refusing to leave (another Louisiana-based author has a blog at electric mist, with entries on the hurricane, too); a blogger (felicitously called Windypundit) concerned over the potential destruction of Antoine’s Restaurant, inventor of oysters Rockefeller.

From Instapundit these useful links: Storm Digest, complete with pictures and weather analysis; The Times-Picayune, a New Orleans paper; a list of hurricane bloggers. One of them, JoshBritton.com seems to be in the area affected, and links to the Weather Channel blog, and Wizbang’s speculation about the potential fate of the Superdome, New Orlean’s stadium holding evacuees. Other bloggers include Kaye’s hurricane blog and Hurricane Harbor.

Someone once tried to explain to me why hurricanes seem so much worse than typhoons. Whatever the reasons, the whole world holds those in danger in their thoughts. Hurricane Katrina will affect us directly because it’s already affecting the price of oil, and surely there are Filipinos in the areas to be afflicted. Only good news is the hurricane has gone from a Category 5 to a Category 4. CNN coverage indicates a bit of class resentment, as the poor have had to stay behind and the wealthier have had an easier time evacuating.

Addendum: This post makes it clear that events such as the hurricane reflect a considerable change in following -and participating- in news, something far different, in terms of experience, than say, what we might have gone through five or even ten years ago. Right now I’m watching two feeds: a live webcam and a local New Orleans TV station (list of TV stations offering live feeds on the internet are here). Blogs, in particular, offer a means for people to find out what other people are experiencing, without events being reduced to statistics in the news: this is doing for disasters what Salam Pax’s blog did for the invasion of Iraq. The BBC shows how people are interacting with each other via news organizations; other blogs are also fostering a sense of community and empathy.

Marshaling of forces

The bombing of a ferry in Basilan results in the government pushing anew for an an ant-terrorism law, and suggestions there are terrorists on the loose.

The comedy of errors concerning today’s quasi-holiday aside (sarcastically commented on by Peter Wallace), the weekend has been spent by the contending forces marshaling their strength for this week’s confrontations in the House. The Socialist opposition has been busy using pets for political propaganda; last Saturday the de la Salle community held another forum and meeting (no word yet on the consensus, if any, that emerged from that exercise: former NEDA chief Cielito Habito, Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, myself and Prof. July Teehankee were the speakers); the group I belong to, Citizens for TRUTH held a candle-lighting ceremony at the foot of the Ninoy Aquino Monument in Makati City (JB Baylon has an account of the activity); civil society has sent out yet another call for people to go to the House on Tuesday; and former DSWD Sec. Dinky Soliman and Friends (the “Hyatt 10″) will be holding a press conference at the Metropolitan Club near Rockwell from 10 am to noon pm on Tuesday, to begin unburdening themselves of some of the wrongdoings they observed as members of the cabinet. The Palace, too, has to contend with bad press: Newsbreak today unveils the means by which the manipulation of election-related documents allegedly took place in the premises of the House of Representatives. PCIJ publishes an expose on how agriculture funds were diverted for election-related purposes (there’s also a story on the gift that keeps on giving: Xerox machines, and one on how some army officers helped the President in the elections). There’s also this article, which gives a hint or two about the sort of information the Hyatt 10 has up its sleeves.

The idea of all these activities (which the bad press won’t hurt) are that they’re meant to derail the perceived Palace-determined schedule for throwing out the impeachment complaint.

The schedule is being dictated by the administration, and supported by the rumor-mill. The idea is that it is in the interest of the administration to resolve the impeachment issue at the House before the President leaves for Saudi Arabia and a visit to the United Nations in New York City. The President’s departure also pretty much coincides with a month-long recess for Congress in the 2nd week of September. For the President, she (or her allies, who have been suggesting as much to the media) wants questions regarding her legitimacy resolved before she faces world leaders. The opposition, on the other hand, is trying to create enough of a bandwagon to shift the battle from the Committee on Justice to the plenary, and perhaps even directly to the Senate before then.

Newsstand has blogged on why he’s not surprised the opposition seems to be playing perpetual catch-up; the opposition is rushing to clinch the deal, and scuttlebutt is the Nacionalista Party is waiting in the wings, hoping it will achieve the distinction of being the group that made the difference (it can then glory in being more effective than the divided Liberal Party was). I can’t quite explain it, but it seems to me dangerous for the opposition to go hell-for-leather in so obvious a manner (as the Inquirer editorial clearly explains), and with the risk of so obviously failing, at this point. It would be better for the opposition to keep things in committee at least for the duration of the recess, when a political commentator I talked to suggests the opposition (of whatever stripe) could focus on building momentum in the streets and in the provinces, and thereby have better chances for a real slam-bang of a showdown after Congress resumes its session in October. The President and her people might start feeling the pinch by then, and the usual suspects who can dole out informal cash might begin to tire (or run out of money) to keep financing efforts to retain the loyalty of congressmen.

But then again I think Ricky Carandang’s observations two weeks ago about the Speaker’s problems, remains valid: my column today, The Speaker’s Position, I addresses precisely that question. If the Speaker’s sole concern is what will help him establish parliamentary government, I suggest he’s better off letting the impeachment proceed to trial at the Senate.

Of course this is premised on the view that the President has wriggled her way out of the tight grip that former President Ramos and the Speaker have had on her political future since they threw their support behind her. People who claim to have encountered former President Ramos give me two conflicting images. One is of a highly-satisfied, even gloating, Ramos, who is suddenly enjoying the experience of being trailed by hordes of hangers-on after people had already begun to ignore him prior to the crisis. The other picture is of an extremely angry, even embittered Ramos, cursing the day he though he had the President firmly in his sights. Those who continue to believe Ramos is still calling the shots at the Palace are prepared to give examples (Ramos allegedly in secret meetings at the House of Representatives; Ramos supposedly in a position to extract concessions for political allies by calling up the Executive Secretary), while those with the opposite view also have theirs (Ramos in his Urban Bank tower penthouse office also allegedly speaking contemptuously of the President; Ramos also supposedly not hiding his contempt for the President by referring to her as “that woman” in the company of Lakas-CMD partymates).

If the view that Ramos is firmly in the saddle is correct, however, then the Speaker has every incentive to throw out the impeachment. The political consensus has been that the Speaker’s stuck in a Catch-22 situation: if he throws out the impeachment, he loses leverage over the President for charter change; if he fails to prevent the gathering of 79 pro-impeachment signatures and worse, the one-third minority holds during plenary, the impeachment would succeed, and it would go to the senate for trial, and so the Speaker would lose leverage anyway. If Ramos is in control, though, then the impeachment can be killed.

Of course there’s the third alternative: prolong the battle, in the hope it dies a natural death, or, if it won’t die, enough time has passed to influence the senate. The President needs only eight votes to keep her job. The resignation of SBMA Chairman Francisco Licuanan III is being touted as a the result of a deal between the President and Senator Richard Gordon (which Gordon denies, but which Max Soliven thinks might have some truth to it). Whatever the truth, the President may have the numbers: Angara, Recto, Gordon, Enrile, Santiago, Lapid, Revilla are often confidently named as the ones who can be expected to vote to acquit (that only leaves one more needed: check out Newsboy for his take on probable “swing votes”). As it is, the Speaker is sending mixed signals. Sec. Rigoberto Tiglao, however, argues that impeachment, even if it reaches the trial stage, doesn’t have a leg to stand on as far as the charges are concerned.

In the blogosphere, there are some new blogs worth noticing. First is Prof. July Teehankee’s spanking new blog, in which he discusses “a continuing crisis of legitimation.” The second is the first authentically pro-administration blog of note, ever: Rational Views (naughty comments about the great Sassy Lawyer to the contrary notwithstanding). As an aside, Edwin Lacierda (who guests today at 10 am on Karmina Konstantino’s morning show at ANC) pointed it out to people: Newsstand credits Lacierda with lighting a light bulb over the administration’s head; in an e-mail, Lacierda says I was the one to point out the curious absence of a pro-administration blog; perhaps it’s all serendipity! The third is one found by way of New Economist, the blog of a London-based macroeconomist, who noticed and pointed out Go Figure, the blog of Filipino economist Roehlano Briones. (Addenda, 2:04 pm: check out Newsboy, too, he has interesting comments on the Speaker, here.)

Also, there’s Big Mango with part three of his series on Understanding Nation Building; and Howie Severino on why local government officials like the President.

In the cultural sphere, too see & log has reproduced a paper by Prof. Jaime Veneracion on Rizal’s Madrid: The Roots of the Ilustrado Concept of Autonomy which makes for an interesting read, indeed; Adel Gabot isn’t amused by AXN channel turning a TV show with black humor into slapstick comedy in its ads; Cogito Ergo Sam writes on Fado music.

The punditocracy has Randy David takes an optimistic look at young politicians; Fr. Joaquin Bernas explaining his views on impeachment (one can detect increasing frustration and even irritation, on his part, with the House); Jojo Robles has a bone to pick with Imee Marcos; Jose Sison examines the curious refusal of the Armed Forces to explain why they accompanied a police raid; Marichu Villanueva examines diplomatic posts being traded for political support; and Iraqis Should Draft Constitution Without US Interference was my Arab News column for last week.

Finally, this passage from the PCIJ report on diverted agriculture funds, has me wondering:

Montes also added that “the election had nothing to do with the timing (of the release of the funds). Ang timing namin always is kung kelan kailangan ng agrikultura yung pera, dun dapat natin ilabas. Hinahabol naming production targets, planting season ng April and May (Our timing is dictated by the needs of the agriculture sector. That’s when we release funds. We have to meet production targets and the April and May planting season).”

Ferdinand Marcos moved elections from October-November, when they were traditionally held from 1935 to 1971, to May, resulting in terms beginning and ending in June instead of December. I always wondered why, since the weather is so unpleasant (for elections and inaugurals) in April-May. But these are planting season months, and permit the lavish release of funds: so perhaps Marcos fiddled with the dates because it made spending government funds easier to justify in aid of re-election.

Halt! Unplug that appliance!

It seems almost like Monty Python. Recall their Spanish Inquisition sketch:

Chapman: *I* don’t know – Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say
that there was trouble at the mill, that’s all – I didn’t expect a
kind of Spanish Inquisition.

(JARRING CHORD)
(The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain (Palin) enters, flanked by
two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles (Jones) has goggles pushed over his
forehead. Cardinal Fang (Gilliam) is just Cardinal Fang)

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
suprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two
weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our
*three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an
almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no…
*Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as
fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again. (Exit and exeunt)

Think of a similar scenario with the announced Philippine Energy Police. “No one expects the Energy Police!”

In other news: it’s springtime, politically, that is, for Senator Juan Ponce Enrile: Newsstand points out what a key player he’s been, and remains. Former senator Ernesto Maceda thinks Enrile, his old chum, is still with the opposition; he also suggests that the withdrawal of Rep. Eulogio Magsaysay was due to the politically-powerful Iglesia ni Cristo. Columnist Armando Doronila takes a more sober look at what the recent actions of the two (Enrile and Magsaysay) really indicate, politically. The Philippine Daily Inquirer simply calls it shenanigans in its editorial.

In the punditocracy, Jarius Bondoc, who has been a strong supporter of the President, now asks, is it all worth it? He points out that,

[Referring to the President's announcement in 2003 not to run again for office, because she was a cause for division] Arroyo read right. Not only is the nation deeply divided. So are her own allies, who now are fighting over who should get bigger slabs of pork or more protégés appointed. In the end, they will not fight for her but for themselves. She will be all alone.

Is the Presidency worth all this? Anybody in Arroyo’s shoes would be well advised to contemplate St. Mark’s evangelization: “For what shall it profit a man, though he win the world, if he lose his soul?”

What accounts for Bondoc’s publicly faltering faith?

Patricio Diaz thinks that the President’s creation of a commission to study and propose constitutional changes is actually a thinly-disguised attempt to draft a new charter according to her own wishes, because she doesn’t trust Congress. Australian policy wonk and columnist Peter Wallace pleads for Filipinos to embrace globalism.

The blogosphere has the lawyers all abuzz. Punzi recounts a lunch in which he and some friends bewailed the nitpicking on rules going on in the House. Edwin Lacierda looks at what his fellow lawyers have been saying on TV, and debates some of their points. Other bloggers range from political venting, too -in the case of Gari, against the country’s bloated debt- to more sociological observations, such as Sassy Lawyer’s noticing that cheap DVD player sales are up. Leon Kilat has an update on the gerrymandering attempts in Cebu province (which I wrote about some time ago).

Random Thoughts has a clever idea: the Salen-ga Awards, which he says, are

In honor of Prof. Edgardo E. Escultura, I am proposing the establishment of the Salen-ga awards. The Salen-ga awards will be given to that exemplary Filipino who has contributed to the development of Filipino’s interest in science through the propagation of their crackpot theories…. I propose that the award be given every 5th of May to commemorate the day when the Manila Times reported that Prof. EEE had disproven Andrew Wiles proof regarding Fermat’s Last theorem.

The Jason Journals reports the blogger’s experience not once, but twice, with Succubi.

Blogjam dot cow insists even if you get attached to the snails you’ve caught, they make a delicious risotto. From the comments though, it seems eating slugs can be bad for the brain, and that tarantula omelets don’t sound so hot.

And finally, via BuzzMachine, Doc Searls condemns “splogs.”

Moving on

Convened and reconvened is my column for today.

The FBI has refused to examine the “Garci” tapes (did the opposition know the FBI doesn’t look at previously-examined material?). The majority in the House rejoiced over Rep. Eulogio Magsaysay finally learning how to read (a skill learned not a moment too soon for someone who represents teachers). The minority of course, is officially unhappy but perhaps relieved to be rid of an ally of such obvious low-wattage. The PCIJ, not usually known for the humor of its articles, couldn”t help but cover the goings-on in the House, and conclude with this observation:

In his press conference, Magsaysay read from a statement that was prepared for him by his chief-of-staff, who told the congressman to just read its pertinent portions. Appearing clueless, or probably lacking sleep, Magsaysay even had to ask his staff which were the pertinent parts in the statement that he should read.

The goings-on continue to provoke comment from among the punditocracy and the blogosphere. Newsstand makes some observations, including the senile behavior of Rep. Datumanong; the observation made by Earl Parreno on TV that the addition of five signatures to the impeachment complaint seems curiously timed; and that Alan Peter Cayetano, the most obviously God-fearing (or at least, God name-dropping) representative of all, seems to have made a self-fulfilling prophecy. Edwin Lacierda observes that the opposition should rely less on making speeches on TV, and more on networking (something earlier observed by Newsstand, quoting Sen. Joker Arroyo). Paeng is simply beginning to tune out. Punzi is alarmed by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita saying on radio that they are prepared to impose martial law, if people get upset over the killing of the impeachment complaints. (Speaking of martial law, the Marcoses say they’re prepared to roll out the red carpet for the President on September 11 -but it seems she has other plans, see next paragraph).

The President is poised to make a hegira to Saudi Arabia (on September 11, bad, bad mojo!) on her way to New York; in the meantime, she’s finally sent the budget to Congress: supposedly no money for charter change, but a third of the budget is devoted to debt payments. Jove focuses on the budget, notes that Budget Secretary Romulo Neri seems preternaturally chirpy, and ends with two words: Emilia Boncodin.

In other news, how will Juan Ponce Enrile’s shifting to the senate majority help or hinder the President? Who knows. But Enrile does seem set, along with Miriam Defensor Santiago, on attacking Armando Doronila, who has accepted an appointment as ambassador to Belgium and the E.U. Some senators object to Doronila’s age (he’s 77). I wonder if they know how old Enrile is.

Today’s pundit round-up has Julius Fortuna quoting Ernesto Maceda, who says impeachment is as good as dead. Dong Puno doesn’t agree, he thinks the haggling is just getting bolder:

The point is that at this critical stage of the impeachment proceedings, where it seems evident that the majority’s marching orders are to kill the complaints as early as possible, even before the investigation phase in the House Committee on Justice is reached, the majority congressmen think they have enormous new leverage which they can assert and, more importantly the President cannot refuse.

A clear indication of this was what I consider a particularly low point in yesterday’s Justice Committee session when one administration congressman brought up the controversy on the release of infrastructure funds, allegedly only to some but not to all House members.

…But the real point of his outburst emerged when he said that if he did not get his rightful share, he would vote for impeachment.

Alex Magno, on the other hand, has a scathingly low opinion of Mike Velarde and his reconciliation efforts:

He overstepped his role. He overplayed his card. In so doing, he undermined his own role in a discreet game of political flirtation.

A go-between brokering a potential affair between two lovers is not expected to give both parties lessons on the Kama Sutra.

Fel Maragay also looks into reconcilation moves, viewing it as a curious obsession of the President’s; Connie Veneracion is puzzled by the President’s insistence on reconciliation, since to her mind, the impeachment complaint is fatally flawed: perhaps the President is inclined to political suicide? Tony Abaya suggestes the President think out of “the trapo box” and go for gold:

She should call for 90-day continuous trials for high-profile corruption cases languishing in the Sandiganbayan. This means continuous trial for Joseph Estrada who has been detained since 2001, continuous trials for members of the Marcos family whose more than 100 cases have been pending in the courts since 1987, and continuous trials for Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, Gen. Jacinto Ligot and Col. George Rabusa, who have been charged with plunder by lawyer Frank Chavez in 2005….

But if she is indeed prepared to step down in 2006, as revealed by Defensor and suggested earlier by Fidel Ramos, that fear should not now cripple her. She should be fighting to leave an honorable legacy, and continuous trials for high-profile corruption cases would be one of the most dramatic ways to do it.

In this way, she could even hope to win back the leaderless middle class (who are running around like headless chickens with white ribbons attached to their claws), the business and professional communities, the militant Churches and the idealist factions of the military (who are now plotting her overthrow).

This is an endgame that she can win. This is the survival of the fittest, the fittest being those who adopt to new situations and use their skills and brains to overcome their predators, not those who offer the effete hand of reconciliation while they are being eaten alive.

Abaya presumes, of course, that an endgame is either desirable or being considered.

Juan Mercado pulls no punches and says Cebu City mayor Tomas Osmeña is linked to death squads roaming the city. Patricio Diaz has a bone to pick with Rigoberto Tiglao.

And in the blogosphere, Gari continues his observations of rally life at the House; La Vida Lawyer is upset his son knows more about George Washington than Filipino heroes; Expectorants focuses on debates on Rizal and people’s comments on Filipino novels in general; The Wily Filipino refuses to get on the cocomat bandwagon and voted for a non-Filipino invention instead; PhilFox Network promotes Hyperwage Theory (20,000 pesos a month for maids! 50,000 a month for call center representatives! Hey, at this rate, I like the idea: imagine the salaries for writers! Whee!); Lonely Vampire reposts an eloquent condemnation of homophobia.

In the expand your mind department, Another Hundred Years Hence begins looking into Cebu’s plans to be more liveable, and how liveability could apply to Metro Manila; and Big Mango continues his series on nation-building.

Plus and minus

Today’s entry is brought to you by Niccolo Machiavelli:

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

And so, it’s plus five, and minus four (or is it one?). Impeachment-wise, that is. Carlos Conde provides a round-up. PCIJ also summarizes yesterday’s goings-on, which were covered by Miron with great wit.

The punditocracy today has Jarius Bondoc proclaiming the impeachment process doomed; Patricio Diaz condemning reconciliation as a national scandal; Carmen Guerrero-Nakpil dissecting, with venomous ire, the President’s challenge for those without sin to cast the first stone.

In the blogosphere, Jove presents his take on Palace spin; Paeng doesn’t like reconciliation; Ina Alleco vents her frustrations with the President (hers is an interesting and eloquently written blog); Gari provides an eyewitness account of a rally at the House, yesterday; Red’s Herring defends People Power; Misconstrued Religion is against charter change; Big Mango continues an interesting and worthwhile discussion on a Blueprint for a Viable Philippines.

Clickmomukhamo points out the top 500 universities in the world, according to the Chinese, lacks Filipino schools; Citizen on Mars looks into producing fuel from corn; kottge.org looks into operating systems run on the internet; BuzzMachine points to a reporter blogging on the gas crisis in the USA.

A series of humorous entries: Kwentong Tambay, the Mark Twain of Filipino bloggers, recounts a conversation with a recent immigrant to America; Rey Agapay has funny conversations with “auditoneers”;

Miron is watching

Please follow Miron’s live coverage of the Committee on Justice hearing.

Next Page »