The verdict

(Mea maxima culpa: Quite spectacularly, I paid tribute to President Magsaysay the day before his actual birth anniversary. His 99th birth anniversary is today. So what was written yesterday, properly belongs to today! A rundown of the Magsaysay awardees reminded me of this error. See Fool for Five for more on The Guy.).

There was a great deal of buzz last night concerning the Commission on Election’s expected disposing of the so-called “people’s initative” today. An official announcement is expected soon. What’s the hubbub, Bub? We’ll have to see what the Comelec decides. The current conspiracy theory is, a decision that’s expedited -that is, if the Comelec says it can’t attend to the petition, throws it out, and provokes the proponents into filing an appeal at the Supreme Court- favors the government, which has more time to lobby the Supreme Court for a favorable verdict.

The reserve option, as the Supreme Court deliberates, is for the House of Representatives to announce it has enough congressmen pledged to support amendments, to force the question of whether the Constitution requires 3/4 of all members of Congress put together, or requires 3/4 of each chamber, to approve amendments for submission in a plebiscite. the ultimate option, is of course, a constitutional convention, but that might be viewed as too much of a surrender, considering how combative the Palace is.

(Update: Comelec decides to dismiss the petition. So now it will go to the Supreme Court; the statement that the signatures gathered “appeared to meet” the required percentage is significant; it may expedite the verification process should the government secure a victory in the Supreme Court).

Solar 1 sinking stories for today: the spill could be worse than the Exxon Valdez. Oil still leaking out. But Science Department says spill being exaggerated. Oil spill oozing into fishing grounds. Foreign media remarks on low-tech cleanup.

Which is it? Peso at 4 year high, or peso at 5 month high?

French ask Philippines to sign convention on disappeared persons. Inconvenient request for our government!

President clips powers of anti-corruption body, shuffles powers to the Executive Secretary.

Cabinet dares Congress to do its worst.

Roadmap for Philippines by 2030 being put together. Peryodistang Pinay writes on six cities attempting something usually considered a fatal flaw of Filipino officials: that long-term planning thing (in other local government news, one mayor defies Interior Department order; another complies). An emerging trend to consider: returning and retiring OFW’s as the lifeboat of the economy.

Palace will ignore Singapore arbitration court on airport case.

In the punditocracy, my column for today is Farewell to Frank (see Newsstand’s tribute to him, too).

Rene Q, Bas in the Manila Times has a two part series, here and here, on the parliamentary system and some of the rubbish being peddled about it.

Patricio Diaz in Mindanews suggests a leading advocate of the “people’s initiative” has been selective in reviewing what the Chief Justice has written in the past:

[The present Chief Justice] posed four issues which Pirma had to satisfy.  Three of the four are relevant to the present people’s initiative and he would surely pose the same should the matter be elevated to the Supreme Court.  The three issues:

Does the proposed change constitute an amendment, not a revision, of the Constitution? (His position:  Initiative cannot be used to revise the Constitution, only to amend it.)

Are the signatories of the petition the true source of the clamor for the proposed Charter change?  (His position: Initiative is a reserve power of and by the people, not by the incumbent officials and their machinators.)

Are the six million signatures attached to the Pirma petition genuine and verifiable? (His position: Most important of all, signatures must be verified as real and genuine, not concocted, fictitious or fabricated. The only way to do this is to enable the Comelec to conduct a nationwide verification process as mandated by the Constitution and the law.  Such verification, it bears stressing, is subject to review by this Court.)

There’s only one explanation why Pedrosa evaded these issues and positions of Panganiban – the people’s initiative question if elevated to the Panganiban Court will be decided on the issue of legality, not of free speech.

Connie Veneracion has her own thoughts on the matter.

Billy Esposo contrasts American and Filipino whistleblowers.

Max Soliven in his column, says Manila Mayor Lito Atienza chortling over the possibility constitutional amendments may enable him to run for office next year (otherwise he faces the 3-term limit); confirms his running mate would be boxer Manny Pacquiao.

John Mangun argues Filipino businessmen are stuck in a 1960s time warp, they’re ignoring the need to mobilize capital.

Jon Wiener: don’t compare Iraq to the Philippines.

Thaksin takes advantage of assassination plot brouhaha.

Mark Almond: has America arrogated unto itself the power to define legitimate People Power? Why was Mexico denied recognition for it?

Occasionally commentators who celebrated Ukrainians blocking the main thoroughfares of Kiev condescend to jeer at Mexico’s sore losers and complain that businessmen are missing deadlines because dead-enders with nothing better to do are holding up the traffic. Ukraine’s Viktor Yushchenko was decisive when he declared himself president, but isn’t Lopez Obrador a demagogue for doing the same?

The color-coded revolutionaries of the former Soviet Union had a pro-Western agenda — such as bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO and the EU — but in Latin America radicals question the wisdom of membership of US-led bodies such as NAFTA and the WTO.

The crude truth is that Washington cannot afford to let Mexico’s vast oil reserves fall into hands of a president even half as radical as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

Hauntingly familiar words, this time coming from Taiwan:

Most of Taiwan’s people have been in depression over their leader’s not very glorious re-election two years ago and then outraged by a spate of corruption scandals implicating his top aides, family members, and now himself.

The people’s anger has been further fueled by the judiciary’s inaction, slow action and lukewarm action to find the truth of the election eve vote-swaying assassination attempt on the president and the vice president. The case is formally closed, but the truth remains at large.

The outrage has reached boiling point in recent months when the first lady was alleged to have used her influence to settle business disputes and taken as reward expensive jewelry and department store gift vouchers from tycoons; and the president’s in-laws were alleged to have made huge profits through insider-trading.

Most astonishing of all, auditors suspect the president has illegally obtained at least NT$36 million by using invoices of others to substantiate his refund claims under the special presidential expense account between 2003 and 2005…

In denying those allegations, the president stresses that not a cent of the refunds went to his family or personal pocket but all had been used to finance his secret diplomatic operations, which even the government institutions in charge of them were kept in the dark. He would show the receipts of his operatives as long as their true identities were not exposed.

Few take the president’s explanations seriously, as the people’s uppermost concern is not how he spent the funds but: How could he break the law for whatever purposes? Only a Machiavellian prince believes that the ends justify the means.

No wonder targets of Shih Ming-teh’s drive for “one million people, each committing NT$100, to depose the allegedly corrupt Chen” were achieved in just seven days, much sooner than the one month that organizers thought it would take.

But unless the president is officially charged with embezzlement, no protests can bring him down.

Is Malaysia 49 or 43 years old?

In the blogosphere, Philippine Commentary reproduces documents on the government censor’s decision to ban a documentary on Joseph Estrada.

Something curious happened to bikoy.net. He faced hostility when undertaking a survey. Part of a larger trend? Are people beginning to feel used and abused by survey firms?

galvantiator’s blog waxes enthusiastic about the Cultural Center of the Philippines.

Asian blog awards lists nominees for best Philippine blog (thank you for including me in the list).

Technorati Tags: constitution, documentary, Magsaysay, people’s initiative, philippines, politics

Farewell, Frank

I was very sad upon hearing that Frank Ephraim, author of Escape to Manila, passed away on Sunday, August 27. He was laid to rest yesterday, in Washington, D.C. Farewell, Frank: we never got to meet again, as we thought we would.

He’d been diagnosed with a brain tumor earlier this year; he’d hoped to reach the expected birth of a granddaughter in September. Last year, the President conferred the Order of Lakandula, rank of Komandante, on him, a distinction he valued greatly. The Philippines honored him for his scholarship and dedication in telling the story of Jews like himself, who found refuge in Manila. Among the fruits of his research was information that helped complete a database of the 1,318 individuals who received visas to the Philippines.

Today is another cause for remembrance. Mike Tan reminds us it’s also the International Day of the Disappeared.

And it’s the birth anniversary of President Ramon Magsaysay today tomorrow. Under normal circumstances, a proclamation would have been issued by now, kicking off a Ramon Magsaysay Centennial Year, since next year marks the centennial of his birth (and the fiftieth anniversary of his death). But no such executive issuance has been made.

The Philippines Free Press blog has several articles on Magsysay, from his being named Man of the Year for 1951, the story of the Nacionalista Party convention that proclaimed him the party’s candidate, his colossal popularity, and  his first day in office, to  the manner in which Magsaysay distinguished between personal and official expenses, the support he enjoyed from different groups, and attacks from his critics as well as his final hours: all make for an engrossing story. Amando Doronila ponders what might have been, had Magsaysay been reelected in 1957.

Honored with the Magsaysay Award today are Eggie Duran Apostol and Antonio Meleto, together with Gawad Kalinga, among other Asian laureates for 2006.

Listen to the original, and most famous, version of the Mambo Magsaysay. The campaign song, composed and with lyrics by Raul Manglapus, was revived during the Edsa Revolution.

Listen to Mambo Magsaysay in Ilocano. Magsaysay’s fellow Ilocano, President Quirino, called the Mambo craze “a national calamity” (I discovered this, to my delight, in the liner notes of a Perez Prado album).

In the news: Much ado about what Comelec will do next.  The official version’s rosy. On TV, Comelec spokesman explains what to expect.

Raul Lambino, after allegedly forged signatures are pointed out, says its all a plot. Says signatures collected based on official lists of voters provided by local officials -but I think what may happen is a doctrine lawyers call “fruits of the poisoned tree.” Davao signatures found to be unverified. Mike Velarde gets ornery with the President.

House of Representatives gets the Senate treatment. Not once, but twice. Administration stalwart Rep. Cuenco is furious.

M/T Solar captain: I tried to save fuel so went through bad weather; seems he was inexperienced with tanker-driving;

Melo Commission to finish work before May, 2007. Inquirer editorial suggests NBI and state prosecutor’s office officials withdraw. Palparan to be replaced with “tourism booster.”

Bolante claims to have more than a boo-boo.

Palace rejects overseas decision on NAIA-3. Possible Palace vs. Piatco showdown on Friday. Palace lawyers scramble on retroactive order that ticked off oilmen.

Spectacularly ill-conceived: government bans Estrada documentary that otherwise, no one would have bothered to watch. Recall Jove Francisco’s account of Diosdado Macapagal’s politically-disastrous ban of the Marcos biopic. (And please, what are those figures about “hits” for the online presence of the documentary? They sound as fishy as the Legion’s!)

Telephone cable theft takes place in Davao. I think there’s a story here. There have been similar epidemics of telephone cable theft in Quezon City and other places. Copper wire at a premium for sale to China?

Watch Dirty Dancing with Gloria, a CENPEG production.

Students will continue viewing Pluto as a planet, for now.

Slate remembers Hurricane Katrina, as does Vanity Fair.

How Thaksin managed the news.

In the punditocracy, my Arab News column for this week is GMA Expert at Manipulating Events So That Plausibility Remains.

Manuel Buencamino says the House had an Alice in Wonderland time during impeachment. He’s too kind: I can’t imagine administration stalwarts getting through a reading of “Jabberwocky.”

Bong Austero on blogging and media, and he plugs some of his favorite blogs.

Interesting discussion arising from Mexico’s close election:

Mexico’s crisis is the ideal time to consider new variants of presidentialism. One alternative, called “parliamentarized presidentialism,” retains direct presidential elections, which many societies still demand. If a candidate emerges with at least 50.1 percent of the popular vote, he or she is declared president. In these circumstances, the model functions as classic presidentialism (even if it does not produce legislative majorities).

If, however, no candidate receives 50.1 percent of the popular vote, the elected legislature chooses the president, who thus would begin his term with a legislative majority.

Unlike a directly elected president in classic presidentialism, such a legislatively produced president could be voted out by a “constructive vote of no confidence,” leaving incumbents subject to “coalition requiring” and “coalition sustaining” incentives.

Of course, there is no guarantee that such a system would bring greater democratic stability to countries like Mexico, but it would provide many more mechanisms to resolve crises than are currently available. There is much more thinking to be done. Now is the time to do it.

Note that they don’t suggest abolishing the presidential system; they are interested in making it work better. This is what the Indonesians did when they established run-off elections for the presidency, a change I advocate adopting here at home.

Gwynn Dyer on China’s Communist myth. Conspiracy theories on Thaksin assassination plot.

In the blogosphere, Newsstand thinks the petering out of anti-Jueteng efforts is a sign elections are certain.

JJ Disini believes the President will be looked upon well in retrospect, for insisting the political crisis be resolved within constitutional parameters. He may have a point, but I think it’s the public -overwhelmingly hostile, to my mind, to transitional regimes or military-backed solutions- that was most emphatic.

My Liberal Times compares and contrasts online and traditional media: online wins hands down, he says. Bryanton Post on a journalist’s confab.

The Philippine Experience uncovers an impostor.

Torn & Frayed admires people willing to decline awards. Now What, Cat? points to Fil-Am wins in the Emmy awards.

Belmont Club on the pros and cons of an American presence in Iraq.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, documentary, impeachment, journalism, Magsaysay, media, military, people’s initiative, philippines, politics, president

The swarm

Speaker proclaims he’s 2 signatures shy of attempting his own, novel interpretation of the Constitution. Meanwhile, senate hearing today, even as various petitions opposing the so-called “people’s initiative” are filed. The initiative, some groups claim, are riddled with fake signatures (see also the PCIJ report). A Comelec employee, jamesjimenez, says the poll body is now in a pickle. comelec AKO, who also works for the Comelec, says the various opposing petitions contain strong arguments. Newsstand delves into the burden on the shoulders of the Supreme Court.

Biggest loser under the parliamentary system? Overseas Filipinos.

Central Luzon proclaimed liberated from Communism (is Palparan a modern-day Napoleon Valeriano?).

Palace official gives up on reconciliation, belatedly recognizes that democracy requires an opposition, and admits that the cause of impeachment strikes a chord in the public. Also broadly hints that Palace is prepared to dispense with elections next year.

President gets cranky at the beach. Orders revamp of nursing exam authority (should it be abolished altogether?). Rejects students having to retake exams en masse.

President’s husband returns after meeting with German bankers.

Cagas debates Oscar Cruz on canon law: a no-brainer.

Secretary of the Interior suspends two mayors.

Brit businessmen ticked off at President. Palace issues soothing statement.

The benefits of belonging to the Chinese Communist Party.

In Thailand, Thaksin reminded he needs credibility to be sympathetic.

In Taiwan, a besieged President waffles over media appearances.

Google Earth fanatics.

Here’s something exceedingly curious, from an email sent to a list:

To all students and members of the UP community:

We have received reports of unidentified students hoarding copies of the *Philippine Collegian* in various buildings around the Diliman campus. Also circulated last week were text messages urging students to hoard following issues of the *Collegian*, saying “Get as many *Collegian* as you can,” and “Don’t let more students read it.”

Please be vigilant against hoarding. As the *Philippine Collegian*’s publishers, do not compromise your right to know.

In case of hoarding, please call the attention of nearby security guards. Or contact the *Collegian* office at 981.8500 local 4522, or the UP Diliman
Police at 928.3615. Any form of documentation will also be greatly appreciated. Copies of the *Collegian* in .pdf format may be downloaded from www.kule0607.deviantart.com.

Please circulate this message to all members of the UP community. Thank you.

The Editorial Board

You can find the Philippine Collegian online here, and download a pdf version of it, too. I took a look at their latest issue to find out why students would want to hoard it, and I can’t see any reason, unless UP has suddenly been infiltrated by military intelligence agents.

In the punditocracy, Tony Abaya, who is for the parliamentary system, however rejects the present proposal. Conrado de Quiros wants a petition for a snap election (last year, I explored one method that would make this, or similar ideas, possible).

Luis Teodoro writes a reminder of how the middle class was short-sighted during martial law and is being short-sighted now.

John Mangun on red tape.

Incidentally, I don’t want to waste space in my column on it, but if Justice Isagani Cruz ever went on the internet, he might be interested in this: is it further affiant sayeth not, or sayeth naught?

In the blogosphere, Red’s Herring does a cold-blooded analysis of media, ownership, and media’s political advocacies. Leon Kilat on an innovation: a virtual press conference.

Ellen Tordesillas says government’s response to the Solar oil spill has been painfully slow.

Philippine Politics 04: look kindly on the pro-impeachment congressmen who didn’t vote.  RG Cruz thinks parading boxes of evidence around without opening them is an exercise in futility.

Edwin Lacierda waxes sarcastic over the so-called “people’s initative”. ExpectoRants thinks it’s dead; big mango believes it’s a case of misplaced zealotry.

village idiot savant on languages and the Filipino world view.

Exclamation Point is skeptical about the usefulness of honors sections in schools.

My Liberal Times visits Zamboanga.

Technorati Tags: CBCP, constitution, impeachment, journalism, law, media, military, One Voice, people’s initiative, philippines, politics, president

Pluck yourselves

To prevent the Guimaras oil spill from spreading, chemical dispersants being used. President decides to cancel foreign contract for oil exploration  -foreign investors not amused.

Red tape getting worse, says businessmen. There is an emergency in education, businessmen also announce -and they intend to do something about it, lest they run out of qualified managers.

Melo Commission sworn in tomorrow. He asks for cooperation. I’m willing to suspend judgment until they issue their report.

President won’t cut short term, so no one should get their hopes up. She says, punish those who made possible cheating in nursing exams. Randy David suggests what ought to be done.

Southcom cut into two parts: ostensibly to react better to threats, but what if also to curtail any mischief on the part of a powerful military command?

Newsbreak feature on the Lebanese among us.

Curiously, the person accused of trying to assassinate PM Thaksin says he’s an admirer. But is Thaksin facing a future that requires exile and disgrace?

In Malaysia, Mahathir has ended up like our own Fidel Ramos.

In Singapore, is the Prime Minister out of touch?

(Free Press editorial cartoon by the late E.Z. Izon, circa 1997) Of course media is also focused on the ongoing question pending before the Comelec: what to do with the so-called “people’s initiative”? Fidel Ramos says it’s all perfectly legal. Those who agree and disagree explain their respective positions. One way or another, it will reach the Supreme Court. Government faced with El Shaddai saying “no”. Inquirer editorial says government move is scary; Fr. Joaquin Bernas says the move is scary, but he trusts the Supreme Court cares about the verdict of history; Billy Esposo says constitutional amendments is the oligarchy’s Trojan horse.  Edong Manabat cheekily argues for a monarchy.

Rep. Teddy Locsin, in his explanation of his vote on impeachment, says Congress must remain bicameral until 2007 at least, because the impeachment process has moved out of the halls of Congress and into the country at large. But the House doesn’t want to take the risk.

In the punditocracy, my column for today is Pluck yourselves. Thank you to readers who caught the deliberate resemblance to the style of the late Joe Guevera. Other lines that couldn’t fit in my column:

Rep. Marcoleta says he has no human hair to donate for cleanup. Environmentalists reply that his toupee will do as a mop or even as an artificial reef.

Rep. Cuenco offers his hair, but DENR says they’re afraid it would create another oil slick.

Raul Lambino asked what his inspiration is. Points to Sigaw website that says, “this nation will be great again.” Imee Marcos accuses Lambino of plagiarizing her father’s famous “this nation can be great again.” Lambino replies, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

JB Baylon discusses why flying to Germany to disprove the existence of accounts is a lot of crap (Philippine Politics 04 points to report that President’s husband presented the wrong account number, anyway) -and why the issue of accounts is not crap at all.

Amando Doronila argues something I’ve pointed out often enough here and in private: the President’s check-mated opposition to her by keeping events bottled up in Metro Manila. But, I do think Doronila overlooks a couple of things, too.

First, the resentment of the rest of the country against the capital disguises the relative freedom residents of Metro Manila enjoy. I recall an activist for indigenous people’s rights saying something at a symposium some months ago: “you people in Metro Manila are lucky you can still complain; in the provinces we can’t do that; if we tried to protest in our areas the governors and mayors would never let it happen.”

For example, protests have taken place in other metropolitan areas: in Cebu, in Davao, in Baguio, the same places where remarkable protests took place, too, both in 1986 and 2001, except they were overshadowed by events in Manila. In those places, urban development means there’s also more democratic space.

And Doronila also overlooks something that the President, in league with the military, has been able to do: precisely prevent non-Manilans from joining protests in the metropolis. Last July and up to last February, people tried to join from as far as the Visayas and Mindanao. Ferries were blocked, caravans stopped, all entry points to Metro Manila cordoned off.

But I do agree with Doronila’s observation that opponents of the President are handicapped by their inability to more effectively engage the provinces. If the overall Philippine economy has a lifesaver in overseas remittances, so do the provinces, and the ability of people to leave for abroad serves as a great mechanism for relieving social pressure. Also, even to engage the provinces for a national cause requires resources only the President can harness, as proven by the so-called “people’s initiative.” When I proposed a similar (but province-centric) solution, it wasn’t taken up because no one had the money for it.

But the things that do provide hope for the country are taking place in the provinces. Read Jonathan Rowe in the San Francisco Chronicle to see just one example. Not that everything is peachy keen: evictions from Naga City Hall; demands for residence certificates in Baler -including teenagers.

Liling Briones on schools that avoid the temptation to view their activities as purely a business enterprise.

Administrator on a critic of micro finance efforts in Mindanao.
Bong Austero on a trend few have noticed: while Filipinos take pride in taking care of the elderly, more and more of the elderly are suffering neglect.

In the blogosphere, Susan Ople explains One Voice’s opposition filed before the Comelec today. big mango thinks constitutional amendments are being peddled as a miracle drug.

Philippine Commentary watched Media in Focus (see Sassy Lawyer’s account on her guesting). Newsstand attempts a survey of sorts.

caffeine sparks thinks the Secretary of Justice had a lapsus senilis. Maimed by Rock and Roll would rather see him marooned on an ice floe.

Butch Dalisay delves into the history of the University of the Philippines.

Gigi goes Gaga on positive imitation. Galatea goes on a book-buying binge.

Technorati Tags: constitution, One Voice, people’s initiative, philippines, politics

It begins

So it’s official: the Legion’s on the march. They’re going to the Comelec today, after it was repeatedly floated they’d do it last week and the week before. They will, however, encounter opposition. Among the groups prepared to do so is One Voice, to which I belong. The group submits that the “people’s initiative” is a government initiative, not a manifestation of a genuine grassroots effort; the process followed was legally flawed, and government-initiated. Furthermore, if a “petition” is submitted, the public has the right to examine all the signatures.

For those inclined, there will be a Mass at 6:30 pm today at the Ateneo de Manila college chapel.

Since all this might result in a referendum by December (great date; great weather; great smokescreen as all expenses are up and funds can be released to coincide with end of calendar year), the public’s being conditioned as to what to expect:

1. Palace will be moving heaven and earth and directing all government agencies to cooperate. Just yesterday I was with some public school teachers, and they fully expect all DepEd-sponsored writing contests to focus on the theme of Constitutional Change, for example.
2. Don’t be surprised if controversial counting machines are utilized to “speed up” the “counting” of “votes”.
3. Don’t be surprised if government says there are budget problems again (this justifies the switching of resources to the campaign). See, for example, how Bangketa Republique worries the National Anti-Poverty Commission’s going to be used for election and plebiscite purposes. Cerge Remonde, after all, has been appointed to head it.

Escudero: history will vindicate us (indeed it will). Palace: we have buried you. The President was sleepless during the voting (for an account of the complainants’ experiences, see this and this entry by Helga), Police issues a loyal warning.

President proclaims the Guimaras oil spill a national emergency. She asks for a nation-wide drive to collect chicken feathers and human hair for mopping-up oil. Let us appeal to the anti-impeachment congressmen to lead by example and pluck themselves. Let us appeal to Rep. Marcoleta to take the lead in donating human hair. If his toupee doesn’t count, it can be used as a mop or an artifical reef.

Estrada documentary rated XXX by government censors board. Estrada camp announces it will put the documentary on line. Even Palace acolyte Emil Jurado thinks the decision was counterproductive (he’s old enough to remember that when government censors banned the showing of the Marcos biopic Iginuhit sa Tadhana, the decision became a campaign issue in the Macapagal-Marcos contest of 1965).

Philippine diplomats have a tough time abroad due to human rights issues.

PM Thaksin claims there was a plot to kill him. Skepticism greets his claims.

In Taiwain, the depose the president movement -”one million people to oust President Chwen Shui-bian”- is gathering steam. The China Post explains what’s needed if the effort’s to prosper.

In the punditocracy, the Inquirer editorial looks at Palace threats against media. Luis Teodoro weighs in on the same subject.

Amando Doronila: House didn’t just kill impeachment, it killed public accountability. Rodel Rodis: the primary defect of Filipino leaders is that they’re more concerned with personal gain and only tactically concerned with doing wrong -it matters only when they’re caught.

Rina Jimenez-David points out the antipathy to some gay people is a reversal of the past, when they were viewed as the only “tolerable” homosexuals.

Patricio Diaz on the disunity that afflicts the Muslim leadership.

Raul G. Moldez has reservations on learning English at the expense of a person’s native local language. Mike Tan also points out the need to translate the law into Filipino.

In the blogosphere, Newsstand on a Washington Post article on Mong Palatino but which didn’t mention he’s a blogger (who suffered the indignity recently of fake comment-writers using his name).

Pulsar has an epiphany while riding a train: it’s an engrossing entry.

Shale feels let down by all leaders with the impeachment. So did s.i.l.i.d. while just plain paranoid worries about the military. Yosi Tayo Para Astig is skeptical about the parliamentary system.

Philippine Commentary has lunch with Carmen Guerrero Nakpil.

LAGABLAB is keeping track of hearings and developments concerning the anti-discrimination bill pending in Congress. Fats, Vitamins and Minerals discusses how the debate has been less productive than it could have been, and delves into the pyschological nuances of the issue.

baratillo@cubao laments the lack of scientific views and statement concerning the Guimaras oil spill.

The Idiot Board on ugly Philippine book covers.

Bangus Supremacy on an interesting project: a Wiki for law students.

Vincula promotes musical satire.

New Economist on how the British public doesn’t want to give Gordon Brown credit for economic growth.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, flash mobs, impeachment, media, military, One Voice, people’s initiative, philippines, politics, president

Fully booked

The inevitable started at 2am and as of this writing, is still going on. See my liveblogging of the House plenary session. Read RG Cruz’s entries, here and here,  and here on the goings-on, and an epilogue. Final score, 173 to 32. Reps.  Datumanong, Villafuerte and Lagman did a yoeman’s job defending their president. Boos and hisses for those like Reps. Paras, Martinez, Jaworski, etc. who switched sides to save their hides.

The Manila Hotel (and other hotels) are reportedly filling up with governors and other local officials, preparatory to the “people’s initiative” being filed with the Comelec on Friday. One Voice is having a press conference this morning to discuss the issues the filing will raise.

Methodists write to Bush re: killings in the Philippines.
Fruit festival postponed due to fruit shortage.

President announces pilot program from government ID Testing begins January.

In the punditocracy, my column for today is Pinautusang Manok.

John Mangun dissects the circumstances surrounding the Guimaras oil spill.

Michael Tan dispassionately discusses gay rights.

Juan Mercado on the Redemptorists.

The Nation of Thailand asks if Thaksin is unstable or just cunning.

Christopher Hitchens takes a pot shot at Gunter Grass.

In the blogosphere, Red’s Herring calls the dismissal of impeachment an extrajudicial killing.

Reactions to impeachment vote from ederic@cyberspace,from euphoria, from point, sir! and scyphs, as well as  joe torres (who read on Shakespeare).

Continuing commentary on Justice Cruz: there’s  Read this and die who thinks the Inquirer’s editorial is damage control. Radioactive Adobo thinks a tremendous opportunity has been wasted by the gay community and it has harmed itself. Laksa-laksang Lagusan thinks debates are essentially headed to kissing and making up anyway. Pinoy News, Pinoy Views thinks live at let live.

Newsstand to guest on Che-Che Lazaro’s show tonight, on the blogging vs. journalism question. Sassy Lawyer will be there, too.

Bryanton Post on the Inquirer publisher’s apology on the headline to the paper’s story on Jim Paredes’s emigration.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, impeachment, journalism, media, One Voice, philippines, politics

Packed and primed (liveblogged)

See Inq7.net’s report on the preparations for this afternoon’s and this evening’s goings-on in the House of Representatives.

4:19 Leaving nothing to chance, the administration’s been careful to pack the galleries with its supporters in preparation for the “marathon session” on the Committee on Justice rump report on the last impeachment complaint.

4:24 RG Cruz being coy, but hints there will be former supporters of impeachment who will make an effort to justify their change of heart. Roll call taking place.

4:29 information on composition of the crowd: prior to today, gentleman’s agreement between majority and minority was that North gallery would be reserved for pro-impeachment members of the public, while South gallery would be for the anti-impeachment audience.

At 9 am, under the auspices of Rep. Marcoleta, 12 busloads of people began unloading in the House. Add to that 200-300 who came from a luncheon with the President, and it’s clear the agreement was ignored. Rep. Marcoleta also apparently got into a tussle with House security because he wanted the people he brought in to occupy the gallery reserved for the impeachment complainants.

4:38 RG Cruz says Rolex Suplico is raising procedural questions concerning calling of the roll and reading of the journal of the House.

5:05 Rep. Roman speaking about white envelopes, according to a text message sent me. Nothing on TV. However, it’s being carried live on DZBB AM radio. Justifies his support for the President; says the only one more qualified was Roco but he got sick and died. Harangues audience on what he says he learned from the impeachment process. Radio says Jueteng witness Sandra Cam and Puerto Princesa Mayor Edward Hagedorn sitting beside each other in gallery.

5:17 Coverage on TV finally goes live. Roman rambles on. Glosses over legitimacy. Says second complaint, concerning killings, makes everyone “sick to their stomach” but -it’s not impeachable. No facts to justify demand for command responsibility. Says appointment of Joc-Joc Bolante doesn’t mean she must have known or intended to do the things Bolante’s accused of. Denies, too, President’s culpability for her husband’s business doings. Etc, etc, etc.

5:21 Coverage on TV discontinued for now. Coverage on DZBB continues.

5:23 Roman finishes self-justification. Speaker suspends session for a minute.

5:32 It seems from radio coverage that break might be caused by Rep. Escudero’s expressing the desire to interpolate Roman.

5:37 Escudero asks, are we in a rush? Nograles replies, we don’t mind if Escudero makes a manifestation.

Suplico: quibbles about Roman being given additional time, and that the part of the speech that went overtime be stricken from the record.

Nograles: we don’t do that.

Suplico: Rules! Quibble! Quibble!

Nograles patiently stands his ground.

Suplico: Quibble! Quibble! After 16th minute, strike it out of the record!

Nograles: We don’t do that.

Suplico: Uh, OK, but I insist I must quibble!

Speaker: OK.

Gilbert Remulla: Nograles prevailed upon Roman to give way to pending business… But it is germane to the discussion. Roman was with us last year. It would be interesting to hear more reasons why he won’t be voting with us.

Speaker: (in lofty parliamentary language) we take note of all the quibbling.

(A party list rep. joins in the quibbling.)

Speaker: Roman is willing to engage in quibbling at a later date.

Remulla: Gosh, we just wanted to hear Roman justify himself some more.

Speaker: What has Roman to say?

Roman: I am happy to quibble, but later.

Speaker: we have it straight from the horse’s mouth.

Another congressman: let us set aside a period for quibbling.

Speaker recognizes Nograles: I have asked Roman to give way, so he can be quibbled with later…

The other rep. does more quibbling.

Speaker: Let us stop quibbling.

Remulla: The country deserves to hear the quibbling. I am disappointed.

Speaker: Okey-dokey.

Butz Aquino: We do not wish to get in the way of quibbling. But if Roman wants an end to quibbling, let him sit down. Otherwise, it appears Roman’s being stifled.

Speaker recognizes Escudero who yields to Golez.

Golez: I wish to know when, exactly, we can quibble with Roman. His remarks are interesting to us.

Speaker asks Nograles to state the date.

Nograles: Quibblefest at 4 pm on Monday.

Speaker: Quibblefest date’s set (bangs gavel).

Rep. Cayetano: We are good hosts. Food is laid out for us. Can we get sandwiches for guests in gallery?

(Gallery erupts in enthusiastic applause, crossing party lines)

Speaker: Sometimes the opposition has brilliant ideas.

Gummy old congressman: Show me the money!

Cayetano: I donate 5,000!

Ablan: I match it!

Golez: 10,000!

Speaker: I double it all!!!

(crowd applauds)

Nograles: Additional food business, Mr. Speaker.

(congressmen start collecting cash, crowd lustily applauds)

Cayetano: We are opening our wallets in the minority. If we’d opened the ballot boxes during the canvassing, we wouldn’t be here. (crowd applauds)

Paras: I voted for opening boxes. Cayetano didn’t. (smiles smugly)

5:53 Escudero: loftily decries Roman’s not being open to quibbling; if he didn’t want to quibble, he could have refrained from his speech; I demand to quibble, too. (session suspended)

5:59 Escudero disputes Roman’s points justifying his rejection of the complaint. Reminds everyone of the fatal consequences that railroading the President’s proclamation has had. Reminds everyone the opposition kept compromising on what they wanted examined (sets the stage, I think, for what the public will witness later with the dismissal of the impeachment complaint). We are being haunted by these issues. They simply won’t go away. Roman says there was no cheating in the last elections. There was. We can prove it. You say, we don’t have evidence, but you won’t let us show the evidence. For shame! We are giving the President an opportunity to defend herself. She could ask for a bill of particulars. But she and you won’t budge. Zeroes in on Joc-Joc Bolante allegations and how, the President, if she had nothing to hide, could answer.

(above being followed on AM as Dong Puno’s interrupted television coverage to interview the Aquinos: killing two birds with one stone)

6:05 Escudero continues by quoting the national anthem… We aren’t asking the President to die for her country. We’re only asking her to answer and be answerable to the country. Let her answer under oath so we can move on; we would accept a verdict after a thorough reckoning. But she doesn’t want one.

6:15 Rep. Datumanong embarks on his sponsorship speech, for the rump report of the Committee on Justice.

We decided to address the prejudicial question or anterior issue of which complaint was filed according to the proper schedule. Refers to last year’s handling of the question…

(AM radio coverage drifts off…)

6:25 DZBB reports Datumanong wrapping up. Passes baton to Edcel Lagman. Silly announcers bantering -and keeps breaking in so correspondent can’t complete her enumeration of Datumanong’s arguments-  while Lagman drones on in the background. Questions from anchor, indicates public’s pulse and why opposition kept quibbling: Roman’s turning his back on the impeachment smacks of his diminished honor.

Lagman’s speech not covered, preempted by GMA’s 24 Oras.

6:34 mirabile dictu, government radio station covering events life.

Back to Lagman: While our duty is to do our job, it is the Filipino people’s duty to see through the charade of the opposition, and their using unsuspecting members of civil society. The constitution is being debased to obtain media mileage. I urge this chamber to jettison to impeachment complaint as recommended by the Committee on Justice.

(booed and applauded)

Speaker recognizes Luis Villafuerte.

6:36 Villafuerte (with a glowering Mikee Arroyo sitting right behind him) I want to clarify what we’re voting on later tonight. We are to follow the Constitution. It says to impeach a president, not a majority is required, but only 1/3 or 78 only, and our President’s impeached. We cannot say this is the tyranny of the majority. Only 1/3. So if the complainants can get 1/3 it would be sent as articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.  But if they can’t get 1/3, they should accept the will of the House. They can’t say we’re railroading things. Only 1/3 is required by 1987 Constitution approved under Cory Aquino. What does Constitution say?

There’s a ban on impeachment more than once a year; they filed eight! Can’t they read? They’re playing blind! So Committee dismissed seven! Only one was left. Let’s not fool ourselves. The entire country’s watching. Let’s not confuse and fool and deceive them! Quotes a columnist who says the multiple complaints were “irredeemably idiotic”.

(waves constitution at crowd) And the complaint must be verified! Supreme Court says how verification is done; based on knowledge or authentic documents; so even if you know of something, if not based on authentic documents, it doesn’t matter! It shall be treated, says the Supreme Court, as an unsigned pleading and dismissed. They verified it based on belief and appreciation of the contents! There are no authentic documents! All the people should know we shouted for the Constitution to be followed but they played deaf! It’s important for us to know! And they keep repeating: they haven’t been given a chance to present evidence. What’s happened to the rules on impeachment? When new rules were proposed for the 13th Congress, the majority was willing for evidence to be presented. But opposition itself objected! They didn’t wanted the new rules. They wanted the old rules from the time of Estrada! We debated long! They didn’t want to accept our very positive and constructive proposals! And upon motion of Rep. Cayetano, we adopted the rules we use now, unanimously. And the rules state that the form is determined; then sufficiency of substance; if lacking in substance, then dismissed; if sufficient, then only then is the President required to answer; and only then, a reply; and then, rejoinders, with affidavits and counter-affidavits, and even documentary evidence. We haven’t even reached that, because they failed the first two steps, which brings us here to this dismissal. they are fooling everyone! They wanted these rules! Now they don’t want them! (makes folksy sayings in Bicolano).

Arroyo won by over 1,200,000 votes!

(crowd boos)

I will not be thwarted by noise! Let’s have sportsmanship! 1/3 only required! Then you complain because of your confidence! To overcome the victory of a candidate you have to overcome the majority of 1,200,000! That’s democracy! That’s why in political science, you hear of gerrymandering! That’s why next week, I will submit to Webster’s a new word, to be called “Dinkyfication” -a person who, when there’s trouble, brings roses and sings “Let’s hold on together” and then turns traitor!

(hooting)

You may get mad at me. Or be irritated. I’m just telling the truth. I just like being frank.Let’s not confuse the population. I have lots more to say.

(crowd hoots)

But you might not be able to take it. You see, when people exchange points, things can get heated. Yesterday I asked Rep. Cayetano, are you accusing First Family of having multimillion dollar foreign accounts? He wouldn’t answer. But then in media he says things. He won’t go with First Gentleman. He’s only after media mileage!

(crowd hoots)

Anyway, I’ll be magnanimous and end here.

6:53 Nograles reads order of those to quiz sponsors. Chair asks public not to make noise.  Suspension. Government reporters say grand total of 50,000 pesos has been contributed to the national economy thanks to the generous contributions of congressmen for sandwiches. Also, many people already going home, they say. Video showing students leaving galleries.

It’s almost predictable, considering how it will turn out, one announcer says.

Other commentator compensates for this blunt observation: I wonder how many will grandstand without an audience! Commentators vie to prove their loyalty to management by denouncing the opposition’s rhetoric. It looks like there’s a trend! A change in position! Now congressmen for impeachment are speaking in defense of the President! Announcers smile broadly.

Villafuerte joins them and praises himself. Says opposition isn’t after impeachment but only to cause trouble and destabilize things. They’re hurting the President so I thought it good to give them a dose of their own medicine.

Announcers parade various administration congressmen to prattle before congressmen.

Rep. Defensor: I shall repeat keywords for the night: grandstand, destabilize, old issues, complaint is dead. I don’t believe we in the majority have no conscience (announcers giggle appreciatively).

Announcer: why is leadership of House too liberal and generous?

Defensor: I guess… Uh, preemptive response, I mean, maximum tolerance.

Announcer: Last Hurrah, like that?

Villafuerte: No one will believe that our President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a mass murder! It’s really hard to find criminal masterminds. It’s been 23 years since Ninoy was killed, and we still don’t know, not even Cory Aquino could find out! That’s what happened to John F. Kennedy! And Kuratong Baleleng! Can we imprison Ping Lacson under the principle of command responsibility? I think not. So how can you go after the President?

Announcer: What about all this stuff in Germany?

Villafuerte: Millions of dollars! But who in First Family? Cayetano wouldn’t say! Not accusing, just asking he says! Hypocrite!

7:11 even government station tires of its own incense and goes on a break. Everyone’s probably gone off for dinner, which trumps all political considerations.

7:18 Rep. Cagas can’t resist government air time to give the nation a preview of his speech to vote in favor of dismissal.Shift to roving reporter who interviews Sec. Raul Gonzales on the session floor, he complains about the audience. Reporter says both sides are emotional.

Gonzales: Decorum! If I were presiding I’d clear them out and lock the doors…

Reporter: Government says let’s move on. Opposition says issues will haunt us.

Gonzales: That’s the problem. We are never satisfied. It’s like going to court. You lose case, claim judge was bribed…Must be part of the Filipino psyche.

Reporter: What about opposition appeal to set aside technicalities?

Gonzeles: Rules are rules. You have the sergeant at arms, you have the mace. Use it! Not only on members of the House, but the audience here out of the courtesy of the House!

Reporter accosts Rep. Ben-Hur Abalos, asks him if he objects to decision to have congressmen explain votes in reverse order.

Abalos: No problem, Rep. Ronnie Zamora will go first because he just had heart surgery. And let me explain why I’m voting to dismiss impeachment… Repeats Palace key words: grandstand, destabilize, old issues, complaint is dead.

(I’m going to have dinner; coverage will resume when session resumes)

7:41 Parade of the faithful continues on government TV.

Rep . Cagas: Ethics commission can expel Rep. Cayetano for saying the President is kleptomaniac. Imagine that? Calling her a thief and a murderer? You can never prove it! He should be expelled!

Rep. Dimaporo: We do not believe the President or Garcillano cheated. Garcillano’s wife’s father was a leader for my father. If they cheated there would be a landslide in Lanao del Norte and Iligan City, but I’m embarrassed President only got 10,000 votes and lost in Iligan City!

(session resumes)

7:44 Rep, Acosta: makes a manifestation about oil spill.

7:46 Rep. Cayetano asks Rep. Datumanong if he will answer questions. Datumanong graciously yields. Cayetano begins with his usual prattling about the Bible. Repeats slogan, “GMA is afraid, won’t reply, has something to hide.” Asks Datumanong where complaints versus President should be lodged.

(educational exchange on impeachment process underlines how a president is immune from suit while in office; also, various stages leading to presentation of evidence)

Cayetano: Well, uh, I won’t debate on rules. But it’s not the defendant who will state when or when to present evidence. Drifts on to German account allegation: we could present evidence in impeachment court, but First Gentleman wants it in Germany! He can’t state where he’ll defend himself.

Datumanong: Well, but it’s the President who would be impeached, not her husband, and allegations about her husband’s money isn’t relevant-

Cayetano: I disagree. If an official’s assets don’t include what family members own, then the official’s liable, as law assumes undeclared wealth is ill-gotten wealth.

Datumanong: Property of members of the family of the President has to be established as also the property of the President. For example, the property of Rep. Arroyo cannot be considered the property of his mother, the President. So it has to be specifically stated, and its what the complaint lacked -there was no specification of charges and conclusions, no listing of act that would connect President-

Cayetano: But that’s not the practice. Properties in the name of spouses and children that official’s couldn’t explain how they were obtained -why, the President herself has suspended officials unable to explain those assets. (proceeds to list bank accounts and properties in Jose Pidal expose, linked to First Gentleman or his brother…) And same allegations we are making against President were made against Estrada, so why couldn’t same questions apply to President?

Datumanong: Committee found alleged property belong to First Gentleman were acquired before the President became president -under this present term- so under jurisprudence, acts under a previous term can’t be made impeachable grounds in present term. Let’s remember Estrada lost presidency not due to impeachment, but because of People Power…

(debate on these points….)

8:17 exchange tied to impeachment being alive (applause). Datumanong yields to Lagman, to tackle Cayetano’s assertion there’s a double standard in treatment of Estrada versus Arroyo, who is misdeclaring her assets.

Lagman and Cayetano debate over the allegations over the President’s not filing accurate statement of assets, when he claims the wording of accusation identical between two complaints.

Lagman: Innuendo! Lacking in substance! Generalizations!

Cayetano: So with Estrada, it was the same? Only innuendo?

(both get heated at this point; Cayetano says there are facts -reads from charges- enumerated clearly enough, and manages for the umpteenth time, to list President’s properties in the United States and at home: San Francisco, Daly City, Caloocan, Makati, and various corporations and Pidal account)

Lagman: He can quote all the properties he wants but he is the only one who believes it. With Estrada, what was required was 1/3 to support impeachment. You don’t have 1/3!

Cayetano: So that’s the only difference? Justice is justice.

(heated exchange over saying in Bicolano; hooting from audience)

Lagman: You can keep claiming justice. Problem is, you guys didn’t prepare your case. And you yourself asked for the rules you object to, to be approved.(crowd hoots; admonished by Speaker) You asked for rules! Why should you be more popish than the Pope? You had a year to ask for ruies to be amended. You did not. Natulog sa pansitan.

Cayetano: Amendment No. 6 gave Marcos dictatorial powers. German Constitution permitted Hitler to come to power. You don’t blame rules. My point is, with the same rules, it was interpreted in one way for Estrada, and other for Arroyo.

(crowd cheers)

Lagman: Grrrr!!!

Colleage tries to make manifestation; Escudero objects; congressman says point of order -shush the gallery!

(heated dispute; Speaker tries to halt discussion)

Congressmen: This is an exercise of democracy between congressmen!

Speaker tries to intervene

Congressmen (screaming): This is a valid point of order!!!

(Speaker yields)

Congressman: They’re booing! It’s disrespect to the institution!

Remulla: He’s complaining but there’s no statement of rule that’s been broken-

(session suspended)

(editorial comment: personally, I am thoroughly in favor of commotions from gallery and hooting even among congressmen; specially since they want the parliamentary system and under the Westminster style of parliamentary debate, you get points for strategic jeering and hooting).

8:34 Mikey Arroyo interviewed on government TV: you know, I’m in committee. It said, committee said, it’s sufficient in form and insufficient in substance. Complaints are repetitious. The people aren’t stupid. They want to move on. The President has extended her hand in reconciliation. Let’s move together forward!

Announcer: Are you submitting written explanation of vote like the others?

Arroyo: My wife’s at home with my two beautiful children. I wanna go home. But my constituents are texting they want to hear me. So I dunno…

Announcer: How will you vote? (giggles)

Arroyo: (joins in on giggling) Well, I’m co-author of report!

8:49 Resumed, appeal to gallery to calm down.

Cayetano and Lagman debate whether charges are innuendo or not. Are ultimate facts evidentiary facts? But didn’t majority insist evidence comes later?

Cayetano: Since you won’t answer me, are you saying proponents of impeachment have no evidence?

Lagman: We are not looking for evidence at this point. Only ultimate facts, which are the things that are specified as assertions. Only sweeping generalizations have been made, not clear lists of things that are impeachable.You said you have seven boxes of evidence. Why didn’t you attach annexes as a sampling of evidence to support sufficiency of substance?

Cayetano: So you admit what your colleagues said, that we had no evidence, is false?

Lagman: We haven’t reached stage of evidence! You are trying to prematurely introduce evidence, against the rules you sponsored! If you’d accepted my rules, it would be possible. But nooo…

Cayetano: I remember the 10 Commandments… if you don’t follow them, it’s the fault of the Commandments? Why does he have amnesia? Antonino says there’s no evidence. He says no one said any such thing. Villafuerte said there’s no evidence. Yet he says no one says that. Why don’t you just admit we never reached the point of presenting evidence, but that the evidence is there? What innuendo? We have listed down all the pertinent, ultimate facts in the complaint. Look, photos of the buildings in America. Look at our reports on discrepancies in election returns, which we mentioned… These are ultimate facts which he says aren’t there. (Cayetnao starts listing provincial results, then how they changed by the time the results reached Congress…)

(more wrangling; I must say Cayetano holds his own in the face of Lagman’s insistence on his interpretation of jurisprudence; Cayetano argues that Lagman’s arguments aren’t completely appropriate: for example he conflates ultimate and evidentiary facts; also, the insistence of Lagman on annexes is not required, but only put forward by Supreme Court in cases when complaint itself is lacking in facts)

9:13 Villafuerte wants to join the fray… Cayetano scolds Villafuerte: “with every shout and insult you give me, here’s three balut, I love you.”

(crowd cheers as Villafuerte walks off with the balut)

Vallafuerte: I just hope the balut aren’t spoiled!

Cayetano: We make great balut in Pateros. They’re great for your knees.

(folksy disquisition on cards… President isn’t even a gambler, says Cayetano, she only likes it when the deck’s stacked in her favor… lengthy discussion on why Cayetano brought up alleged German bank account  and  why it’s relevant; if First Gentleman’s lawyer says there’s no such account, why did they refuse to sign waiver, if they have nothing? And why go to Germany if all it takes is an inquiry? I am ready to show evidence of German accounts and paper trail, if you vote yes to substance and approve looking at evidence…)

Villafuerte: I’m going to sit down.

Cayetano: Please eat the balut, it’s good for your knees… (explains how a waiver would result in closure).. So two things. Open the boxes, or sign a waiver.

Villafuerte: He’s confusing the issues. Are you making an accusation or not? Be honest. We’re straying from the issues! He makes accusations, but won’t admit it. What do you call it? Speculations? A guess? How will discussions on graft and corruption end when you start it? Why won’t you go to Germany? And besides, those accounts aren’t in the impeachment complaint!

9:34 (more wrangling, Villafuerte denounces suggestions the President’s a mass murderer).

9:48 Cayetano says the administration insists on using precedents for civil cases (such as decision of Supreme Court saying acts under a previous term aren’t chargeable in administrative matters), while Lagman’s said criminal procedure is to be followed. In that case, why does administration insist on civil procedure when it should be criminal procedure to be followed, as Lagman says, and in criminal procedure, an official can be charged for crimes under past terms? Cayetano also brings up precedents in impeachment effort against President Quirino.

9:59 Closes with statement on how crime pays, how soldiers formerly afraid to interfere in elections have been emboldened by the President, how clean officials are learning the official those who break the law are rewarded by the Palace. And a typical appeal for prayer, and fasting, etc.

(hearty applause)

Villafuerte: With that lengthy answer that was a non-answer, up to now he won’t reply if he is willing to go to Germany to prove his allegations!

10:00 Nograles: Let’s not repeat questions raised over past two hours.

Rep. Joel Villanueva: asks Datumanong if he will yield for some questions, and Datumanong agrees. Asks if it isn’t important to afford President an opportunity to answer questions on graft and corruption… Datumanong says, graft and corruption is indeed impeachable, but reminds him committee never reached stage of looking into allegations, because only insufficiency in form and substance was reached. Asks Datumanong to enumerate allegations, to make sure they were covered in report. Datumanong: allegations made in general terms, only, so too broad to decide if impeachable. Enumerates Fertilizer scam, controversial contracts, etc. and says they’re adequately described as a basis for impeachment, but they’re not enumerated in turn in the Committee Report, so how can they have been disposed of properly?

10:13 Datumanong: In reply to the long question, I will answer briefly. First, with Bolante’s appointment, it was not per se a graft and corruption act; in complaint there was no allegation he was appointed to commit graft and corruption for the President. All the Committee would gather from these accusations are conclusions of fact or law, but their nature does not qualify them as impeachable offenses. So that’s why Committee despite reading all the allegations, decided they didn’t constitute impeachable offenses. With respect to suggestion this report be rejected, there was an executive session to deliberate on this report and it’s contents. There were arguments. When motion was submitted to approve this report, it was approved unanimously, no opposition from minority, except reservation of the right to submit its own report.

Villanueva: Uh, OK. I was just surprised the report was drafted so fast… Uh, can I ask why the report seems to say that the President may have done some illegal acts but they weren’t intentional?

Datumanong: Uh, no, you didn’t understand the report. We simply explained what the Constitutional Commission defined as “culpable violation of the Constitution,” which is, that if an honest mistake in judgment or clearly intentional or out of an obviously perverse refusal to respect what’s commonly understood as beyond the pale.

Villanueva: Uh, OK.

(more questions from Villanueva, re: Estrada impeachment; Datumanong explains what Villanueva’s point probably was: the rules existed to make possible a “creeping impeachment” but no one could imagine how the rules would turn out; but in the end, 1/3 was reached and the articles of impeachment were sent to Senate…)

Villanueva: So uh, it’s a number’s game? So in 2000, if you hadn’t had numbers, wouldn’t you have been disappointed.

Datumanong: Well, obviously. But those are the rules and that’s the law.

Villaneuva: So uh, OK, there are uh, many holes in the law, so uh, there are lotsa double standards… We’re so sad…. And we even get punished by not getting our pork barrel. So well, uh, you’re saying that’s the only way to get at the evidence and the truth, uh, if you have the numbers, so President has power of impoundment, a kind of permanent veto on how we spend… We’re really so sad…

Datumanong: We should realize impeachment is a political proceeding. He might be right that whoever is in majority has an advantage. But the Constitution gives power for 1/3 to overturn majority for impeachment…

Villanueva: Um… Uh, OK. Ah, so it’s, kinda, um, you know, a railroad and a goose that’s cooked uh…. But in impeachment the people win! An honest president never has to fear impeachment… And uh… could be um, a model… But it’s numbers-numbers… So, well, it reminds me of jueteng. Numbers don’t make it right, the Germans favored the Nazis but it doesn’t make it right so, uh, there.

(faint appluse)

10:28 nograles: Bayan Muna… oh, wait, Roilo Golez is next.

Datumanong: Can Lagman fill in for me?

Speaker: Okiedokie.

Golez: My pleasure to ask Lagman questions if he will allow it.

Lagman: With pleasure.

Golez: Before the report came out, how many hearings did Committee on Justice hold?

Lagman: 4 committee hearings and 1 executive meeting.

Golez: Hearings or meeting?

Lagman: I guess, not ordinary meeting, because Committee on Justice was sitting as impeachment committee, so, hearings, but whether hearings or meetings, 4 gatherings.

Golez: But here, it’s defined that hearings involve evidence.

Lagman: That’s a general definition. Impeachment has its own rules, and stages. First, form, second, substance, with neither, dismissal. Let’s not ah, ah, ah… refer to general definitions only. There are particular rules for the 13th Congress adopted from 11th Congress.

Golez: So we redefined things?

Lagman: No, it’s just there are definitions particularly appropriate to impeachment… based on the stages of the process… Hearings can be held for form nd substance as evidence is not necessary….

Golez: Thank you…. Thank you… Earlier we kept hearing about jurisprudence. Can we explain jurisprudence as past events relevant to a present event and its handling?

Lagman: This is a system where past cases can be looked at in law, to help in deciding new cases.

Golez: And also, precedents from abroad can be relevant as precedents?

Lagman: Sure.

Golez: I have questions concerning about Quirino impeachment case, as it’s relevant, since it involved the House and an impeachment against a president… And we keep hearing about the Pascual case, was he a president?

Lagman: He was a local official. We cite the case on the principle that an impeachment is applicable only to current, not prior acts.

Golez: OK so I will cite a case against a President, which seems more relevant as it involves a president while Pascual was not. In the case of the first charge, “wasting and misusing public funds,” involving 50,000 pesos to fix his house as Vice-President. The charge was accepted as committee! Does this not set the precedent that a President can be charged for something done in a previous term.

Lagman: The problem is, we are looking at a Supreme Court case…

Golez: But isn’t the most relevant case, that involving an actual past impeachment case against a President?

Lagman: The problem is, you are citing jurisprudence, and that involves the Supreme Court’s decisions. In the Quirino case, that’s a precedent, and we should remember Quirino was not impeached-

Golez: That may be so, but the process went through the Committee and reached voting in the House; so the House recognized the charge as appropriate, even if it disposed of the charges…

(tussle as Golez insist on yes or no, and Lagman angrily refuses)

Lagman: Every Congress adopts its own rules. We are circumscribed by rules of 13th Congress, and I am unaware of rules during Quirino’s time. Under present standards and rules, that cannot be allowed.

Golez: So you’re not aware.

Lagman: I’m not. All I know is he was not impeached.

Golez: Let me continue. The chairman of that committee in the Quirino case was Lorenzo Sumulong… and he asked the accused and accusers to file memoranda first…

Lagman: The rules could have been different… Under our present rules, that is not possible.,,,

Golez: We don’t need guesses… But he says he didn’t know case… So he is speculating… Maybe someone familiar with Quirino case should respond…

Lagman: He is asserting something. So it’s incumbent on him to show rules then are same as rules now. Let us know what he researched. I would say our rules are different now.

Golez: I am disappointed the majority didn’t research past impeachment cases. The Committee is bereft of good research… In Quirino case, Rep. Primicias, said propriety demands no member of the House should beg favors from the President or have conferences with him since we might be called upon to charge him… What are your views on this?

Lagman: If he said it, it’s a good prescription.

Golez: Good prescription, so those who don’t avoid the President aren’t following a good prescription… I see… Moving on… (reads additional charges against Quirino, including the President’s brother’s “aiding and abetting” graft and corruption) and each charge was discussed case-by-case. Was this done this time?

Lagman: Well, uh, I think… The minority reiterated the uh… various cause of actions….

Golez: There were 22 causes of action. Were they discussed one by one, as they did in Quirino case?

Lagman: It was incumbent on endorsers to do that. They were given ample opportunity to discuss point by point…

Golez: Seems you forget the majority voted against doing precisely this.

Lagman: Your motion at the time was to vote on each one by one; that was what was thrown out.

Golez: How could we vote on each if we didn’t discuss each? We’re not mudskippers. What happened was the majority decided to treat the complaints as a lump sum.

Lagman: No, what was voted on was whether to vote on each or vote on all…

Golez: That reminds me, why didn’t the Committee report include that decision, not to treat the charges one by one?

Lagman: Don’t blame us for not including that and imply we did it to hide things. It was reported and is in the transcript… Not everything that happened in the hearings can be put in the report, particularly procedural matters.

Golez: Was this report discussed page by page? Even in barangays, every resolution is thoroughly discussed.

10: 54 Lagman: No longer necessary -it’s not an ordinary committee report; and anyway, a committee report generally contains the majority decision. Anyway minority would never change its mind as to conclusion. Which is why minority has chance to submit its own dissenting opinion.

(wrangling on whether Committee had enough time to digest report before it was voted on; they seem like robots; Lagman objects they read it; more wrangling)

Golez: How long was this discussed prior to voting?

Lagman: I don’t know, but adequately.

Golez: I recall all of five minutes before voting.

Lagman: Don’t blame me! Unfair! I moved to approve the report ahead of it’s being read because anyway its a fait accompli!

Golez: Even in barangays people don’t vote on things sight unseen. If we hadn’t objected, this would have been approved sight unseen.(more wrangling on the question of approving reports in principle). Back to Quirino… at the time, a 3-day public hearing was spent to receive testimony and evidence. Did we do this? Was there a public hearing for both sides to provide evidence and testimony?

Lagman: It didn’t reach that stage because according to our rules… accepted by minority… I’m confident the rules were different in Quirino’s case….

Golez: I wish the majority had studied past impeachments.

Lagman: It’s not necessary because rules are different… Why is he hiding Quirino impeachment rules anyway? Maybe he doesn’t know…

Golez: Why should I help you? In UP we don’t help the other side in debates.

Lagman: The one who conceals a fact is presumed to be hiding a fact that will hurt him.

Golez: Like the way you keep the evidence in this impeachment hidden away? But look what the House did in Quirino, they called in all the relevant officials and testimony and evidence… That wasn’t done here. Did we call witnesses?

Lagman: I refuse to answer further questions on Quirino case, if he will not show me the rules on Quirino case.

Golez: This is unusual handling of cross-examination. The minimum required of a distinguished panel that  kept lecturing us on how we supposedly mishandled the case. They ought to have studied past cases.

Lagman: If you’re a debater, if you’re arguing affirmative, you have to prove it; you asked, were rules different? I said maybe; but you won’t show me rules for us to see…

11:05 (discussion degenerates into throwing Latin maxims around… session suspended)

Government TV commentators have a new word for their coverage: “’round and round, everything keeps going round and round…” Feels like it’s the late 1970s again… Nograles, looking tired, tells government commentators how he wishes debates would end, because they want to go home. Insists no railroading is going on.

11:10 Session resumes but government station decides to interview Rep. Antonino instead. Shifting to ANC coverage…

Golez continues asking about Quirino case; Lagman says he won’t reply until he sees rules. Golez says he will talk about other presidents. Moves to Clinton impeachment case.

Golez: There were 11 possible grounds. Each discussed separately. Eventually, four were pursued. This shows cases, causes of action should be separately discussed. In Nixon case, there were three articles… points out one article was Nixon’s refusal to provide documents subpoenaed by House. May I ask what precedents were used by majority to justify that causes of actions should not be separately discussed but lumped together?

Lagman: Committee voted down voting on each cause of action, but we didn’t prohibit discussion of each…

Golez: That’s not the question. Why weren’t the causes of action discussed individually, one by one? Why were they all discussed together, with two hours given to discuss all 22 causes of action?

(text message received: voting will start at 1 am, majority already irritated and wants it over)

Lagman: I have the transcript here. August 15. Here’s motion he made. “this representation would like to move we vote individually on each cause of action…” So it was voting separately, not discussing separately, that was voted down… Minority discussed these causes of action separately. We shouldn’t debate this anymore.

Golez: We should. Before a vote, there is a debate on that issue… How can we vote on a cause of action without a discussion? …

Lagman: Discussing separately is different from voting separately….

(Golez emains stubborn… moves question on to American descriptions on impeachment, comparing the process to the Grand Jury system… and how they focus on reviewing evidence to decide if an indictment is called for… Lagman says no review took place; Golez interrupts him -Lagman bristles: there was no need because we didn’t reach that stage; more wrangling and it seems government announcers do have a point with their “’round and ’round” mantra…)

11:27 Lagman: This is what happens when a non-lawyer pretends to be a lawyer…

Golez: I resent that!

Lagman: So stop acting like a lawyer…

(more head-butting between the two on the rules, then on to question of what constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors”; Golez seems to make history by quoting a Wikipedia entry in a Congressional debate; more head-butting on definitions of “ultimate fact”; Golez should have quit while he was ahead)

11:34 Golez does make two good points: Quirino was charged with spending public funds on his residence as Vice-President, and Nixon was charged with Watergate even though it happened prior to Nixon’s 2nd term, and Lagman could only say precedents are irrelevant to the rules. Wonders why Lagman in his statements keep referring to death-related terms; wonders if it’s a Freudian slip. Lagman says it’s calling a spade a spade. Silly end to Q&A.

11:38 Nograles: it’s almost midnight. Can we make questions and answers shorter, please, so we don’t have to stay so long for the voting.

Butz Aquino: in case interpollation goes longer, can we consider voting on Monday? Specially since I don’t see warm bodies anymore?

(Yes! Yes! heard on camera)

Nograles: No, we’ll vote tonight.  Things have been amply ventilated.

Aquino: At midnight I intend to make a motion to vote on Monday.

Speaker: Noted. Rep. Casino is next.

Casino and Datumanong Q&A. Casino observes Constitutional Commission aimed to make impeachment as simple a process as possible. Points out rules are brief, 3 pages. Criminal procedure only supplementary. Is he correct in assuming objective is as simple a process as possible? Datumanong says yes, it’s as simple as possible.

(ANC audio conks out; government station has given up and focuses on trotting out administration congressmen; ANC shifts cameras)

11:44 Casino emphasizes how impeachment is supposed to be easy and accessible to the public. Datumanong replies that that may be so in principle, but the present rules also include reference to rules on criminal procedure being applicable as practicable, so that, however liberal the procedure, it should favor the respondent (the accused). Casino responds that the procedures shouldn’t favor President since it’s an avenue for citizens to call high officials to account. Datumanong says well, criminal procedure has been made supplementary, and so its liberal interpretation must favor accused, and besides, it’s not People of the Philippines vs. the President. Casino underlines how rules then are meant to favor the President, despite her having resources and influence, at the expense of ordinary complainants who have no such advantages.

Datumanong: that’s not our fault, those are rules, it’s not whimsy on the part of Committee.

Casino: That explains many things about this report. Instead of following intention of Constitutional Commission, the rules have been designed to favor the respondent…

Casino: (further questions on whether human rights violations can be impeachable offenses)

Datumanong: to be impeachable, the acts committed must be specified.

Casino describes how Constitutional Commission tackled human rights: public trust violation, including “when there is a national failure of justice, evidenced by gross violations of human rights” proposed by Guingona, and accepted by the Commission.

Datumanong: You have to specify violations of human rights…

Casino: Under that framework, if President directly orders a murder, that would be impeachable.

Datumanong: You would have to specify it and prove she did so.

Casino: but also, according to Constitutional Commission, even if she didn’t directly order a murder, a national failure of justice would be grounds for impeachment.

Datumanong: But you would have to specify the acts that constitutes a national failure of justice.

Casino: But if we specify them, then it could be impeachable…

Datumanong: If specified, and if they are proven…

Casino: Assissinations? Mass arrests? They would have to be specified and alleged-

Datumanong: If they can be directly linked to the President….

(more questions in this vein; chiming keeps going on, perhaps to summon congressmen to return to the Session Hall in case Butz Aquino questions the quorum after Casino finishes)

12:02 Casino and Datumanong debate on definitions of facts, ultimate facts, etc. Casino wonders how over 600 slain civilians doesn’t represent a national failure of justice, and what else is needed short of bringing the corpses to the House…  Datumanong says it needs to be proven better than the charges manage to do, that the President actually and personally should be held responsible for the actions of soldiers.

12:22 Casino concludes by pointing out Estrada wasn’t afraid to face charges but Arroyo is.

(applause)

Etta Rosales makes a manifestation about ultimate facts.

12:35 Etta finishes her lecture. Bewails the absence of a sincere, thorough examination of things, instead of simply deciding along party lines.

(applause)

Rep. Casino points out Rep. Crispin Beltran remains under detention and can’t vote or participate.

Speaker: Observation is well taken.

12:37 Rolex Suplico recounts impeachment chronology. Was there a technical working group for report?

Villafuerte: No, proposed committee report was prepared, Rep. Datumanong looked at it, consulted some, and then submitted it.

Suplico: May I know who were in the secretariat who made the preparations?

Datumanong: The secretariat was headed by Atty. Dave Amurin and acting secretary Boyet Alvarado, supported by 10 other staff members under my direction.

Suplico: At the entrance there’s a schedule for TWG’s. There was none. But I’ll leave it at that, that the Committee doesn’t seem to have done the preparation… Let me ask, did this report go though the committee on rules?

Villafuerte: Not necessary under impeachment procedures. But it was considered by committee on rules, unecessary as it may be.

Suplico: I’m holding book of rules… It says, report Committee on Rules will calendar reports in accordance with rules… I was in Committee on Rules, but it was not brought to our attention, yet I remember last year it was discussed. What happened?

Nograles: The Justice Committee report was given to Committee on Rules, and I, in consultation with Minority Floor Leader, was sent and approved in plenary…

12:44 Villafuerte: reads from rules. Explains process. Committee on Justice refers directly to House. Committee on Rules merely calendars report, but does not deliberate on it.

(more discussions on procedures, rules, etc and what are transitive verbs; Villafuerte impressive and sharp when he’s not bellowing; Suplico wonders wehy he didn’t get pork barrel while Liberals did; both gleefully take pot shots at Frank Drilon)

1:04 Love fest between Suolico and Villafuerte end.

Butz Aquino: manifestio in two items. On when impeachment starts, has gotten muddled by gobbledygook. On substance, two items to be done: there must be recital of facts or enumerating facts but now it’s interpreted differently as requiring ultimate facts…

1:07 Nagrales: last questions from Benigno Aquino III.

Noynoy: We inquired at start certain interpretations of rules. Do rules of House also apply during impeachment proceedings.

Datumanong: When he asked, the reply was that under the present rules, the rules of the House are no longer used in a supplement and instead, rules on criminal procedure. In the 12th Congress there was such an applicability, but not under current rules.

Noynoy: Rules are also silent in that no explicit statement exists rules of House do not apply to Committee on Justice. But in adopting present rules, seems clear intention to abandon rules… But if involves general rules of House might be useful.

Noynoy and Datumanong discuss legal precedents re: inhibition on the basis of perceived conflict of interest. Datumanong says the cases are there, based on the idea that if the rule was apoplied, a committee might end up lacking manpower to do its work…

1:35 Aquino ends. Rep. Escudero moves forward for manifestation.

Escudero: Reiterates the perpetual use of “ultimate acts: by the majorty when no rules state the need for the, Says the resort to rules, but when called on rules, appeal to jurisprudence. When that’s question, then back to the rules. The report is brief of defense for the President, only giving their sides. Points to how, when useful, the report says criminal procedure is to be followed; when challenged, the same is rebutted by appealing to rules of civil procedure. Denounces how a much flimsier complaint against Estrada was approved, including allegations were impeachable, but now, similar charges are not. Should what was permissible for consideraion in 2000, should be acceptable in 2004. Is not convinced by Pascual case, an administrative case based on a local official Its argument states an official who wins an election cannot be scrutinized as the election presumes to eliminate previous questions. Makes an observation that their elder majority colleagues kept yelling at them when they’d ask for answers.

1:43 Tackles human rights..

(am exhausted, will wrap up here).

6:00 Voting still taking place, but news accounts say 78 have already voted to dismiss. Just saw Rep. Teddy Locsin on government TV coverage vote to dismiss, saying the only resolution left is for the country to elect an opposition or administration House next year.

6:18 Mikey Arroyo explains his vote. Says he was asked to inhibit himself, but that would have been easy way out. Reassures everyone that he holds no ill-will for friends lambasting his mother. His vote is more than that of a dutiful son, and that he consulted his constituents and they asked him not to inhibit so they could be represented. He says he wishes to extend the hand of reconciliation. Votes to approve the Committee report.

(applauded and jeered; some others come forward to explain their votes)

Rep. Mila Magsaysay: Business is good. Investors coming in. Local and national government relations excellent. My constituents have barely noticed this impeachment. It’s more important for them to have money every day for their expenses and to save. Because of that, I vote to approve the Committee report.

6:28 I’ll end this brief return of coverage by saying for all its propaganda, only the government TV station did practically non-stop coverage of the House session, which is their job at such times.

….

Technorati Tags: impeachment, liveblogging, philippines, politics

Arab News Newspaper: Arroyo Administration Ready to Try Everything to Get Charter Change

Arroyo Administration Ready to Try Everything to Get Charter Change Manuel L. Quezon III

Â

A pincer movement is taking place. The leadership of the Philippine House of Representatives says it is a handful of votes shy from attempting something novel in the history of bicameral legislatures. Because of a vaguely-worded provision in the current constitution, which says two-thirds of Congress is required to propose constitutional amendments, the members of the House say that if they can obtain two-thirds of the total membership of both houses, the Senate, even if opposed, can be bypassed. If this tactic is pursued, the Supreme Court will have to decide if an interpretation that defies the very nature of a two-chamber Congress, will stand. The House is confident that they will be upheld; at the very least, they are poised to try it. An effort to petition for a plebiscite on proposed amendments, being undertaken through a so-called “people’s initiative,” is the other part of the pincer. For months, with the wholehearted support of provincial officials and the Arroyo administration, various groups have been going around collecting signatures to fulfill a constitutional provision that says citizens can directly propose constitutional amendments. There have been allegations and even direct eyewitness accounts, that signatures for the petition have been obtained in unorthodox ways. In one village, door prizes were offered to those who attended meetings called by village officials, who then asked their constituents to sign the petitions. In other cases, some have claimed that they signed, because they were assured it was a way to get rid of the president — even though supporters of the president were doing the asking. Though it’s been announced as sure thing almost every day for the past couple of weeks, there seem to be strong indications that the “people’s initiative” organizers will finally submit their petition to election authorities. They will have to prove that they obtained a certain — small — percentage in every province and city of the country, for their desire for a plebiscite to be heeded. Again, that effort will be challenged in court, because the law that supposedly enabled such an effort, according to a previous Supreme Court decision, was defective and thus, inoperative. The strongest argument the “people’s initiative” proponents can make, is that not even the courts can stand in the way of their collected signatures. Never mind the law, just mind the signatures (but never mind how they were collected). Whichever method to push forward amendments to the constitution prospers, is irrelevant for the purposes of those who want those changes. Namely, the ruling coalition the Arroyo government heads. The benefits of their proposed changes — or really, change, since what is actually proposed is the abolition of the Philippine Senate, and its merger with the House of Representatives and the Cabinet of Mrs. Arroyo in a parliament — are being touted as practically magical. One advertisement, for example, should be of interest to Filipinos working in the Middle East. The television advertisement shows a Filipina in a burka, trembling and crying, complaining of abuse and loneliness. Then the advertisement shows the same lady, this time in a lovely middle class home, surrounded by her beaming family. Thanks to constitutional amendments, she says, such a transformation would be possible. The ad ends with the viewer being urged to support constitutional change. Critics of the proposed amendments — and there will be many — say that what would really be in a plebiscite is the Senate’s abolition, which would then make it easier for the new parliament to propose, and approve, a multitude of changes, and also point out that there’s the possibility of too many self-serving changes. Among the changes frankly stated by supporters of the administration’s efforts, for example, are the elimination of term limits and the extension of the duration of terms. Normally, such changes, if desirable, would not be applied to incumbents in government, who could (rightfully) be accused of pushing for such changes to benefit themselves. But there is no such prohibition from self-enjoyment, and no such prohibition seems possible. In light of such criticism, proponents of amendments say that it is the will of the people, and that it must be done, as a matter of economic survival. Perhaps those currently in office haven’t recuperated their expenses, so that’s why they want their term limits abolished, and their future terms to be five years and not the current three years (for provincial officials and members of the House). The manner in which the shift from the current presidential, to a parliamentary, system, too, they say, will result in amazing and immediate benefits, and anyone who is skeptical is unpatriotic and possibly, a communist. Anyway, that’s the official logic and that’s where official efforts are headed. Certainly, the administration is demonstrating tremendous political will. Just yesterday, a committee of the House of Representatives, meeting on their report recommending the dismissal of impeachment charges against Mrs. Arroyo, decided to ignore the opposition’s request to include its disagreement with that decision. The administration coalition voted to approve the report, regardless of the sentiments of their minority colleagues. The minority correctly refused to vote. This week will see the entire House of Representatives tasked with voting on the committee’s recommendations. Since the president controls the House, the outcome will certainly be in her favor. A funny thing happened, though, last week. When the administration coalition prepared to vote not according to what justice would dictate, but according to the interests of their presidential patron, members of the audience began to fan themselves with white envelopes. In a country in which bribes are normally passed along in such envelopes, the meaning of the audience’s actions was clear. It infuriated the majority. They proclaimed the proceedings closed to the public, and prepared to go to another room. Most of them got up and left to do so. The minority, and the public remained, and after a few hours it became clear that what the radio and television audience watching the proceedings would remember, would be the sight of Philippine congressmen hiding themselves after their fellow citizens dared to fan themselves with envelopes. The majority returned to the hall, they voted as they intended to anyway. They got done what they wanted to do. But when they began to make speeches to justify themselves, the minority politely stated it needn’t stay behind to listen to such justifications, which were not owed them, as proponents of impeachment, but rather, owed by the majority to the public. After all, public opinion has been significantly favorable towards impeachment (as measured in surveys). An oppositionist put it best: In pursuit of its objectives, the government of Mrs. Arroyo will stop at nothing to keep itself in power and reward its allies. Â

Â

Â

The Explainer: Voting in a Parliamentary System Sources

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance has some glorious charts as well as maps in a Powerpoint presentation that we used. Read their introduction on electoral system design.

See also this map of voting systems of the world.

Discussions on different electoral systems and voting systems (particularly First Pass The Post and Proportional Representation, and Party List, as discussed on the show) can be found in:

Electoral Reform Society, and here and here.

The Library of Parliament of Canada also has a clear report on electoral systems.

The Independent Commission on the Voting System in the UK, reports on how even well-established parliamentary systems need to periodically reflect on how truly representative and accountable their voting process is. Also see Canadian Electoral Reform.

I pointed out this blog entry by Blurry Brain, which in turn pointed to an article in The Financial Times: Sue Cameron’s Leadership deals that demean democracy (registration required).

See also Dr. Jose Abueva’s primer on the changes proposed for the party system (2 party system, representation in official bodies for them, state funding of parties, etc.).

The show focused on the implications of such proposals. For other views on similar questions, refer to the following.

It’s worth considering that Italy is considering adopting features of the presidential system. So is India, which has been under the parliamantary system for over half a century. This paper, Presidential and Parliamentary Systems in Government: Recent Trends in World Democracies , a report by T. Rajavardhan, makes for interesting reading (click thumbnail to download).

For an academic discussion of how cabinets under the presidential and parliamentary systems work, in terms of how decisions are made, take a look at Jean Blondel and Nick Manning’s Why Should Ministers do As They Say? ‘Full’ and “Partial’ Cabinet Decision-making Structures in Government. (click thumbnail to download).

How do political institutions affect economies? Guido Tabellini discusses the question, based on some what ifs -what if presidential Argentina turned parliamentary, or the USA were to adopt proportional representation instead of the majoritarian system it’s had, what would be the economic effects? The summary of his  conclusions are interesting (click thumbnail to download).

Technorati Tags: constitution, explainer on anc, people’s initiative, philippines, politics

Pincer movement

Uniffors calls for a boycott of Petron.

RG Cruz recounts how the Committee on Justice did a hatchet job. Administration feasts on the carcass of last impeachment complaint today.

Bishop refuses to be part of Presidential commission. No word on Justice Melo.The IHT reports on continuing killings.

Prospero Nograles: What are we in power for?

Pending investigation? Send ‘em overseas!

Read the latest Palace contribution to checks and balances: Memorandum Circular No. 108. Part of a continuing policy of hostility.

Money changers told: exchange Lebanese currency.

Newsbreak on the biodiversity of Sulu-Sulawesi seascape.

In the punditocracy, my Arab News column for this week is Arroyo Administration Ready to Try Everything to Get Charter Change.

Manuel Buencamino compares the majority in the House to ta character from Alice in Wonderland: “verdict first, evidence later!”

Inquirer editorial skeptical when it comes to Presidential commission; Amando Doronila says its a farce.

Fascinating set of columns from Patricio Diaz: part one and part two on the question of how Muslim traditional leaders have used, or squandered, political opportunities.

Praiseworthy Manila Times editorial on language diversity.

Bong Austero speaks up against hate speech.

Minguita Padilla on the good that may come out of the nursing exam controversy.

In the parallel democratic universe known as Thailand, this strong editorial: Democracy cannot be strong-armed.
In the blogosphere, more observations on the ideas of Justice Cruz: see Newsstand (with fraternal corrections for a kind of argumentation that Mamutong reconsiders because of the correction), Morofilm, and Philippine Atheists.

Jove Franciscio’s Mayon Volcano diary.

An OFW in Hong Kong unimpressed by XXX rating given to Estrada documentary.

Coffee with Amee on migration.

Kwentong Barbero on what it’s like to read someone else’s work.

The Philippine Political Science Association issued the following statement:

SECURE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS

We, officers and members of the Philippine Political Science Association, fully condemn the continuing nationwide extra-judicial killings of leaders/activists of legal mass organizations, social development workers, and journalists. We call on the highest authorities of the land to investigate and put an end to these killings that make a mockery of whatever claims the government has as regards the ascendancy of a constitutional rule of law and due process.

Selective killings can not effectively address political and ideological differences between government and dissenting individuals and legal mass organizations. We must respect laws and legal processes designed to deal with such issues. Even in the arena of armed conflict, the government and armed combatants are now bound to respect international humanitarian laws that aim to humanize such conflict.

Left unchecked and absent serious efforts to stop and/or arrest their perpetrators and those behind them soonest, these killings can only lead to a more divided society, heightened distrust of public authority, and the further erosion of  our already weak institutions. Lest we all  become victims of this vicious cycle, we call on our highest public officials to show their determination in addressing both the immediate and long-term causes of this national crisis.  We also call on the Arroyo administration to reconsider the “all-out war campaign” against insurgent groups that has proven so ineffectual in previous administrations; the same cold warrior strategy has been as feckless in the resolution of armed conflicts in practically all countries. To demonstrate its determination in addressing the problem, the government should make all regional military commanders and provincial police superintendents primarily and directly accountable for any political killing in their respective areas.

Patricio N. Abinales                                      Belinda A. Aquino                                       
Associate Professor                                                              University of Hawaii-Manoa
Center for Southeast Asian Studies                                 
Kyoto University, Japan               

Rosalie Arcala Hall                                        Maria Ela Atienza                                       
Associate Professor, Division of Social Sciences                Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
University of the Philippines-Visayas                        University of the Philippines-Diliman

Eric Vincent C. Batalla                                  Rizal G. Buendia
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science          Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
De La Salle University-Manila                                              De La Salle University-Manila

Edna. E.A. Co                                                Antonio P. Contreras 
Professor, Department of Political Science                        Dean, College of Liberal Arts
Ateneo de Manila University                                              Full Professor, Department of Political Science
De La Salle University-Manila

Teresa Encarnacion Tadem                            Pepito Fernandez                                       
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science          Associate Professor           
University of the Philippines-Diliman                        University of the Philippines-Visayas

Josefa S. Francisco                                        Ronald D. Holmes     
Associate Professor                                                              Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science
International Studies Department                                    De La Salle University-Manila
Miriam College

Melissa Jayme Lao                                          Ruth Lusterio Rico
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science          Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
Ateneo de Manila University                                              University of the Philippines-Diliman

Francisco A. Magno                                      Amado M. Mendoza Jr.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science          Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
De La Salle University-Manila                                              University of the Philippines-Diliman

Felipe B. Miranda                                          Temario C. Rivera     
Full  Professor, Department of Political Science                Professor of Comparative Politics                                   
University of the Philippines-Diliman                              International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan

Malaya C. Ronas                                            Eduardo C. Tadem
Full Professor, Department of Political Science                Associate Professor of Asian Studies 
University of the Philippines-Diliman                              Asian Center, University of the Philippines-Diliman

Julio C. Teehankee                                        Jorge V. Tigno
Chair and Associate Professor                                            Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
Department of Political Science                                          University of the Philippines-Diliman
De La Salle University-Manila

Ma. Lourdes Veneracion-Rallonza
Associate Professor, International Studies Department
Miriam College

Technorati Tags: Blogging, CBCP, documentary, gay, impeachment, journalism, lebanon, media, military, philippines, politics, president

Next Page »