Was in Cebu City from Thursday to Saturday, hence no updates, and have been feeling under the weather since.
There really isn’t much to add to what Ricky Carandang and the Inquirer editorial pointed out, as far as Koko Pimentel’s appearance before the Supreme Court was concerned. Never has a public figure blown himself up so dramatically -and stupidly- and thoroughly:
Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Koko Pimentel had the advantage, and threw it away. There is a saying among lawyers that a person who represents himself in a case is a person who has hired a fool for a lawyer.
As Planet Naga put it, he overreached.
An earlier Inquirer editorial had pointed out Zubiri was able to shift attention away from the real issues (Patsada Karajaw reminds us what those are); silly P.R. tricks by the Koko camp (though A Simple Life raises some good points) only strengthens Zubiri. But the issue will keep coming back to haunt Zubiri, as the tart remarks of Antonio Trillanes IV shows (for his constituency -and let’s make it clear that he has a clear one, which has conferred a clear national mandate, while Zubiri, for the next day or two at least, remains a former congressman- gives him clout some may hate, but which will be increasingly difficult to ignore: as The Warrior Lawyer points out, his greatest value lies in being a thorn in the administration’s side). The appearance of the incredible Bedol at the Comelec only serves to underscore how discredited the whole process has become.
Overheard, last night, while having dinner: “Bedol was arrested after going through cataract surgery. Cataracts! And he had a license to carry a gun? A gun! And he had cataracts!” True.
Incidentally, ran into Tourism Secretary Ace Durano on the flight to Cebu: he says he’s focusing on (I believe it’s Northern) Russia as a place from which to attract tourists; he says that part of Russia is doing very, very well because of their mineral wealth; a friend recently arrived from Saipan says Russians have replaced the Japanese as the tourists to attract, they spend spectacularly, apparently.
Ricky Carandang also took a look at the appointment of Gilbert Teodoro, nephew of Danding Cojuangco, as the next Secretary of National Defense (after Bert Gonzales does whatever it is he expects to do, particularly when the the “Human Security Act” goes into effect very soon). Cojuangco has been cultivating the military assiduously and effectively since the Marcos years, and Teodoro is no slouch in that department, playing golf regularly with officers, so of course they’re all praises for Teodoro. Personally, it’s good to see a civilian back in charge of the department, though of course speculation is rampant as to what the appointment signifies, politically. Word is, even the Vice-President’s camp is viewing him as a potential rival for the President’s endorsement in 2010. Meanwhile, Any changes in Cabinet to be minimal, says Ermita, although ‘Tired officials want out of Cabinet posts’.
The battle for the House speakership continues: De Venecia, Garcia battle for top House post rages; and trial balloons begin to be floated in earnest: Solon pushes referendum for Cha-cha and Pimentel to push Cha-cha in Senate.
My column yesterday was No problem, which I think reflects the happiness I feel whenever I visit Cebu City. One of the things I found remarkable in Cebu was the public’s decision not to subdivide their province (gerrymandering has become particularly flagrant in Mindanao). News like Bid to divide Quezon seen to split officials underscores the need to look at whether atomization, instead of consolidation, remains a wise option (if it ever was), or as the NEDA boss puts it, NEDA Chief: We need to capacitate the provinces.
It will be interesting to see what urban planning-oriented bloggers will have to say about this: QC Mayor Belmonte blames NHA for ‘blocking’ progress.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ points to a development in legal doctrines concerning amnesties; and says the time has come to reverse one of them:
Over the years, however, there has developed a doctrine which has made amnesty unattractive to potential beneficiaries. It is the judicially created doctrine that in order to avail himself of the benefits of amnesty, a person must admit guilt. How did this doctrine come about and can it be changed without constitutional amendment?
The earlier doctrine on the subject was that a plea of guilty was not needed for availing of amnesty…
Later, however, a dissenting opinion argued thus: “…amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime and that when an accused says he has not committed a crime he cannot have any use for amnesty; that where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain conditions… it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of such conditions; that a petition for amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance, under which principle the pleader has to confess the allegations against him before he can be allowed to set out matters which, if true, would defeat the action.”
This dissenting opinion became doctrine in 1963.
I believe that this doctrine should be changed especially now in the context of fabricated charges of rebellion or sedition. When a person signifies his intention to avail of amnesty, he should be seen as welcoming either relief from punishment for guilt, if truly guilty, or, if innocent, relief from the trouble of having to prove innocence.
Marit Stinus-Remonde says it’s the CPP-NPA that has enforced a virtual martial law in parts of the country.
Now there’s this: Fiscal situation ‘very serious’–Teves. Something to bear in mind while Boo Chanco and David Llorito (I tend to agree with Llorito) have interesting things to say: Chanco on why economic growth seems unreal to some (see blog@AWB Holdings for a real-life observation):
I must confess I got lost midway through his charts and formulas but two conclusions stuck out: it is wrong to claim a 17-year all time high and whatever growth there is, cannot be consumer-led.
So, what’s the score? Did we or didn’t we grow by 6.9 percent? The professor reviewed the statistics, crunched his numbers and concluded that yes, we indeed grew but not as spectacularly as Malacañang would like us to believe. There were apparently some changes made in how measurements were made, notably in how they tried to account for the underground economy that made statistics from 2001 onwards not comparable with those before 2001.
How to explain this situation in layman’s terms? The professor told us to think in terms of a driver who is happy that his car is running along quite well on what the speedometer says is 120 kilometers per hour. What he doesn’t realize however, is that the speedometer is faulty and the real speed is only 80 kilometers per hour.
…Those of us with a minimum understanding of economics also know in addition that low interest rates, low inflation and the strong peso are classic indicators of a slow economy. Philip’s number crunching confirmed the guard’s suspicions.
A slower economy however, is not necessarily a bad situation. The slower speed may even be why we are experiencing relative stability. But it takes away the bragging rights of the administration about this being the highest growth in 17 years. Neither can it be claimed that the growth rate is also higher than under any administration since Marcos. If they really want to compare, adjustments would have to be made on data before 2001. They can deduct two percent from the 6.9 percent or add two percent to the growth during the Ramos years.
But if there was growth nevertheless, what was responsible for it? The statistics seem to indicate, the professor points out, that a sharp decline in import growth explains 700 percent of the increase in the GDP.
That raises the question of how can our economy be so bullish if imports are on a sharp decline? A bullish economy is characterized by strong consumer demand and manufacturers would respond to that strong demand by importing more raw material as well as capital goods. Could it be, as the numbers seem to suggest, that domestic consumption is becoming less and less import dependent?
…And so the professor dismisses the consumer-led growth theory because this is not supported by the statistics on purchasing power. The statistics, the professor points out, “seem to fall on the side of lower consumption growth story: low inflation (hard to jack prices if demand is not growing very fast), low growth in bank lending (negative if adjusted for inflation) and low growth in demand for electricity.” In fact, low demand resulted in seemingly higher growth only because of lower imports.
…But the accuracy of the GDP figures aside, there is good news too. Local corporations are now healthier than before, Prof. Medalla reports. The SPAV law has helped them clean up their books, making them ready to embark on new ventures that take advantage of Tuesday’s positive business climate. As for the stock market, the professor observed that it had always been powered by expectations of growth rather than fulfillment. Expectations, he said, are always iffy… as in we can always hope and pray for its fulfillment.
If you want to get an idea of the economy’s direction, he advised looking at the real estate and banking sectors. They won’t be building all those office and residential condos if there is no demand from call centers and well off Pinoy expats willing to invest on second homes here. And check the banks if they are granting more loans, specially loans to businesses to expand capacity.
One last thing… the slower economy should also be good for us because we won’t have that power shortage sooner… we get a reprieve. The slower growth rate buys us time to get a good power program in place so that the next boom wouldn’t be cut short by lack of power. It takes three to five years to plan, get financing and operate a new power plant. Hopefully, we have learned our lesson that we ought to plan ahead.
Llorito on how economic growth has kept political action within certain parameters:
There are indications that most of those uprisings in the past were supported by the business elite. They are concentrated in the banking, real estate, export, and trading. Most of these sectors now are raking in money from overseas remittances, outsourcing, and recovering exports. It means they now have a stake in the stability of the system.
They are not apathetic – far from it. In fact, there’s a growing movement for a clean and honest elections. They just want to make sure that the political process should no longer take short cuts like the Edsa Dos and Tres that eventually hurt the overall prospects of the Philippine economy.
Certainly, globalization poses risks and challenges, but so far it has become a stabilizing force in Philippine politics. If the government could guarantee a credible election in May, the Philippines may yet achieve a higher growth trajectory (6-7 percent) in the next three years. That’s the only way the government could make serious headway in the fight against joblessness and poverty.
The Magnificent Atty. Perez points out, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
Father of Time on how Tagalogs make the lives of non-Tagalogs difficult. from the boondocks quotes the thoughts of the ex-governor of Ifugao, on “blood politics,” which has to do with race: something Norman Analista tackles, too. Sekularista wants religious teaching eliminated from public schools (why is it even being taught in the public schools in the first place?)
Technorati Tags: Blogging, Charter Change, elections, military, philippines, politics, president, Senate
between Koko and Migs, i believe the latter deserve to be in the senate than the former……..
between trillanes and Migs, I would prefer Migs, Have you read that article Mon tulfo about Trillanes. Scary. Migs is doesn’t have that dark record…..
the media ( yes, that include you Manolo!) is playing up so much on bedol. But if you really look at the whole situtation, the media is just as ugly if not more ugly than bedol.
Im a big fan of Gilbert Teodoro……
de venecia vs garcia? Wala na bang iba ? Pathetic!
how so, rego?
bernas is really good…. but I wonder fater all those excellent legal opinions, does any body take heed? effective ba sya sa mag ginagawa nya?
Hehe thanks for the pingback.
“One of the things I found remarkable in Cebu was the public’s decision not to subdivide their province (gerrymandering has become particularly flagrant in Mindanao)”
That’s a very touchy topic to raise in Cebu and almost everybody is against it. Regional pride. One Cebu or no Cebu at all.
No matter what the naysayers’ opinion and analyses are /were, 6.9 % is six point nine percent. They should just come with a better number to discredit it…
Bad publicity? Of course there is such a thing.However it always up to the invidual to discern over it or not.
rego, you’re not making any sense at all. it’s healthy of you to be skeptical of everything media says -then you totally believe what mon tulfo says. you have every right to prefer koko to zubiri but then you confuse personal preference with the issue of who on earth can say, now, which one of the two really got what in maguindanao (or other parts of armm for that matter). you say the media’s more ugly than what bedol’s been doing -but how would you have known bedol was up to funny business if not for media? you say you’re a fan of gilbert teodoro but then don’t say why -and if you’re all for believing what mon tulfo wrote, then why not wonder about how danding and company funded the coups in the 1980s? and then you praise fr. bernas but wonder if he does any good, or if he’s effective, the kind of wondering that suggests you wonder if public commentary does any good -the sort of question that answers itself if you’ve read any of the legal decisions that quote him as an authority… i don’t get it. what’s your point?
Easy on the caffeine, rego.
Further to Father Bernas differentiation between amnesty and pardon, amnesty could also be extended to the whole population for the a law that majority of people ignore, until such time that the law is fixed for its defect or changed or repealed.
Example: back in l995 the law under the Canada Firearm Law was amended to require registration of long guns. That includes rifles which were classified as unrestricted and shotguns. Most firearms acquired from dealership after that date were automatically registered, but those before and millions already in possessions were not. Question, how would the government prosecute millions of owners for defying the law? So amnesty was granted for a period of time, until the government can repeal the law, which is unenforceable…
“No matter what the naysayers’ opinion and analyses are /were, 6.9 % is six point nine percent. They should just come with a better number to discredit it…” – rego
To analyze the 6.9% quarterly growth rate to see if it is really something to crow about (meaning, it’s sustainable and not just a fluke) is not to discredit it. It’s called critical thinking.
To simply accept something at face value without trying to understand what it really is, is discreditable. It’s called gullibility
Rego, I think the 6.9 percent was a typo. It should have been 3.9%
It’s like saying that there is no shortage in classrooms if you put in 100 students per class. But if you change the measurement from 100 to 50 students per class, the shortage reappears!
It’s the same with the budget deficit. You can borrow a lot of money and then the deficit is gone! And if you don’t want to borrow, just make a smaller budget (and forget about the consequences), at least you got no budget deficit, no?
My point is, to some people (borrowers and lenders), these numbers are necessary and important in decision making, but to me (and maybe many others) they don’t mean much.
Just read the very kind words you wrote about Cebu. Thank you 🙂 I’m grinning from ear to ear.
The Barangay elections are supposed to be non partisan (I think the SK as well). I wonder why Congressman Almario thinks it would be divisive for us whether undertaken this year or the next.
And Charter Change will still have to hurdle the issue of PGMA rather than be totally decided by its merits if a referendum will be held presently.
manolo,
The last secdef who was military was Ermita.
Ebdane is not a military man. Pulis siya. Civilian. Under DILG.
Manuel,
Ebdane, before the PNP was created, came from the Phil Constabulary which was then under the armed forces. He graduated from PMA. All premises considered, he is a military man.
“Have you read that article Mon tulfo about Trillanes. Scary. Migs is doesn’t have that dark record…..”
Yes, I’ve read that Mon Tulfo article… after I read this letter written by Senator Trillanes on August 28, 2003:
http://www.gov.ph/forum/thread.asp?rootID=12604&catID=11
Media, if it is to be effective, must present all sides to a story. I find it admirable that while MLQ3 makes his stand on issues very clear, he never fails to present the other side/s of these issues. I wish, Mon Tulfo will do the same…
for someone who campaigned on the perceived strength of being a bar topnotcher, and partly on the coat tail of his controversial father, it is not a surprise that koko would have himself as his own client. he may be better than anyone else but he should have anticipated the possibility of finding his foot in his mouth and the embarrassment that would follow. if only for such lack of foresight, he doesn’t deserve a seat in the senate. fools are not in short supply there already.
it would be better for trillianes to just shut up for now on contentious issues. and concentrate more on showing what’s he got and deliver on his campaign promises. i think he’s pushing the envelope a little too far.
“he may be better than anyone else but he should have anticipated the possibility of finding his foot in his mouth and the embarrassment that would follow. if only for such lack of foresight, he doesn’t deserve a seat in the senate. fools are not in short supply there already.”
i agree. which is why i never voted for him in the 1st place. this elitist fool thinks local posts are silly compared to being a senator. why dnt he jz admit that all he’s after is the pork barrel? this guy had everything given to him by daddy. spoiled.
Manolo, abt religion being taught in public schools, i agree. why is it taught in the 1st place when in our constitution we have the equality clause, w/c says regardless or race, religion etc..
teaching a certain religion (in public schools!) is discriminatory. we force upon kids who have other religion to study the dominant religion simply bec we belong to it. even private schools should not deny entrance based on religion. i dnt even agree to baptizing our kids at an age when they cnt make the decision for themselves.
w/c is why many are non-practicing believers. baptized in name only.
and oh, what a title. i really laughed hard when I read that one. Koko Puff indeed.
While it was a terrible PR disaster, it looks like Koko’s learning though.
if he is learning, the first thing he should do is make his father stop interfering in his affairs, and fighting his own battles. it only highlights the sordid spectacle of family-enterprise politics. what a crying shame!
What a lawyer….when ask sa supreme court: ano ebidensya mo? Reklamo ka ng reklamo, may ebidensya ka ba?
For a bar topnother, the best answer he gave was: wala!
I may have voted for him, but now I am dismayed!
all migs’ bluster about legislative experience really is paying off. while he engaged with a bit of trash talking with trillanes, he’s doing what any “seasoned” legislator will do, wait, watch, and prepare for the right moment to act.
it’s koko pimentel’s over-eagerness that’s the dealbreaker in this situation.
@moks: i didn’t. hee hee hee
Bencard, that is your idea of “learning” from mistakes. I didn’t vote for both Koko Pimentel and Alan Cayetano exactly because of their inconsistency in the dynasties.
But taken from the viewpoint of protecting your vote Philippine style, Koko has to do what he has to do because if Zubiri is proclaimed, even if he can prove later that the Maguindanao votes were manufactured for Zubiri, he won’t be able to recover that senate seat anymore maybe until the last day of the term! In a chess game, maybe Koko lost a pawn in the SC debacle but at least the game is not yet lost.
(fyi. i voted for legarda, lacson, noynoy, and chiz)
no, jon m., not only learning from “mistakes” but of humility and delicadeza – not the appearance of arrogance and desperation to win at all costs. patience and cool-headedness are virtues of real statesmen from whom lesser men can “learn” to emulate.
he may “do what he has to do” but certainly not go to court with nothing but bald assertions (perhaps taken from the dubious media, that rego opines about).
Bencard, I’ve asked the question before: what proof could Koko have presented to make the SC issue a TRO? If you were Koko’s lawyer, what would you have done?
simple, jon. knowing he has not one iota of evidence, i would advise him not to file the case. a TRO, being a temporary, pre-trial remedy, only requires a low quantum of proof, e.g. credible affidavit by competent witness, among others. apparently, he didn’t even have that.
bencard, i’d be interested in your analysis of the statements of the president’s husband.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020206231755/http://malaya.com.ph/jan16/edtorde.htm
he has never, ever, from the time the interview was published, and re-published, and quoted, disowned or disavowed or otherwise modified, what he told nick joaquin.
That’s very sad for ‘koko’. He was hoping that SC would see that what Comelec is doing is wrong instead he was the one which was asked to prove his case. It’s just logical to seek higher authority’s intervention in case you are helpless with the current one. Another thing much more sad that is happening is that comelec should have done the same thing long ago what they are doing now, why would they have to wait for so long. The time that have lapse would only be justified if they have come up with worthy results of investigations and decisions.
Yes, Koko should have done his homework (and as someone who supported the opposition, i’m as pissed off with him as anyone else) but i agree with Bokyo. Just like the rest of us, the Supreme Court has access to public information about what as happened in Maguindanao and the ongoing failure of COMELEC as an institution. Do the Justices really have to pretend to be blind?
cvj,
The SC had to do what it had to do. And had to ask what needed to be asked. the SC justices may have access to public info, but using that to judge the merits of a case, is pre-judging…
Devs8,
The point here is it is procedural thing and not yet a protest case. The SC should have decided on this rather than throwing out koko’s petition basing it on lack of evidence.
Thanks Bencard. Koko, his father, and his advisers really messed up big time. According to news today, Koko has withdrawn his SC petitions to avail of other legal ways to protect his votes (or expose cheating). Let’s wait and see if he’s learned his lesson.
From A Simple Life’s blog entry on the ‘accidental’ meeting between Abalos and the Zubiris: COMELEC Chairman Abalos should seek his sense of propriety and just say “mea culpaâ€Â.
Yeah. Say it was a lapse in judgement and apologize. “I…am…sorry.”
mlq3, correct me if i’m wrong but has your question anything to do with my comment on the father, pimentel, underscoring “family-enterprise” politics with his uncouth meddling in his son’s uphill struggle for a senate seat?
mike arroyo’s activities during the days of edsa 2, as revealed by him in the nick joaquin’s interview (and excerpted by e. tordesillas in malaya in rather unflattering manner – what do you expect?), must be taken in the context and circumstances of the time. mike was a private individual, a member of “civil society” that successfully agitated for an end to estrada’s presidency.
he happened to be the husband of the constitutional successor – the legal beneficiary of presidential succession whether anybody likes it or not.
the question that was not covered in the interview was whether or not mike would have done what he did, and worked as hard, had the vice president not been his wife. i would think that he would, in the same way that cardinal sin, and virtually the entire clergy, worked hard for the ouster of marcos in edsa 1. you, yourself, mlq3, who admitted supporting edsa 2 as a leading spokesperson of civil society, would, i believe, have done whatever it was in your power to attain the goals of your advocacy.
in the case of pimentel, the father, he is a sitting senator of the republic who appears to be impervious to public clamor against dynastyism in politics. engaging in a post-election propaganda to bolster his son’s ebbing prospect of joining him in the senate
Berncard,
My earlier two posts in this site hopefully will help explain mlq3’s point (if I am correctly reading Manolo’s interest)as well as mine in the other thread (I will post it there too before the thread dies):
1.The Edsa Dos rebellion was already legitimate having succeeded to install a new government and thereby de-criminalizing the rebellion with or without Davide’s colleagues in the SC attempting to re-legitimize in Estrada v. Desierto; but by doing so, that is, by bringing the new government back into the fold of the deposed order pursuant to the decision, the Court has criminalized anew the rebellion in which Davide was an active participant. On this score … Davide as well as his partner in crime Panganiban remains as a rebel roaming free yet to be indicted.
2. The whole point of my post is to underscore the absurdity (which I once called “a perpetuity in juridical misadventureâ€Â) of the decision in Estrada v. Desierto, that is, with the justices deciding to preserve their seats in the SC by holding in effect that there was no change in the constitutional order despite EDSA Dos, they have on the other hand also ruled that the millions who participated in the uprising as well as their active supporters were rebels and abettors of the rebellion. Unfortunately for the robed sires, two of their members (Davide and Panganiban) were wearing two hats. So, as SC members they have kept their judicial seats by virtue of Estrada v. Desierto, but as rebels, their acts remain as indictable offenses.
It should be pointed out however that the legitimacy issue of the GMA regime post “Hello Garci†is another thing. In my opinion this remains an open issue and a very difficult one. (Note: the issue had already led to two impeachment attempts and even in the last mid-term election, this was the most contentious one). Let’s see how this will unfold in a new Trillanes-led investigation in the Senate.
Here’s how Mike Arroyo admitted to the crime of coup d’etat while openly implicating others as co-plotters:
“Our group there was a back-up strike force. In fact, it was our group that won over to our side the PNP first. If Panfilo Lacson had resisted, he and his men would have been repelled: there would have been bloodshed, but not on EDSA. In every place where Erap loyalists had a force, we had a counter-force to face it, with orders to shoot. And not only in Metro Manila. Carillo had already been sent to the provinces; and in Nueva Ecija, for instance, we had Rabosa. This was a fight to the finish. That’s why those five days that Erap was demanding were so important. He was counting on counter-coups and baliktaran.â€Â
Doesn’t the above prove not only criminal intent but in fact a direct admission of the commission of the crime of coup d’etat?
To be sure, let’s read this one line again “ He (Erap) was counting on counter-coups and balikataran.†Could anyone still mistake this for anything else than that Arroyo and gang were admitting to the commission of the crime of coup d’etat?
Today, even President Arroyo’s executive secretary, is trashing Estrada v. Desierto. In a press briefing, Secretary Ermita stressed that the foundation of Mrs. Arroyo’s power, then a vice president, was due to her taking over the presidency of Estrada after his ouster in January 2001 through a people power revolt.
With Estrada v. Desierto as the obtaining law, GMA, her husband and the defecting generals are as liable today as Trillanes et al under the Revised Penal Code.
The critical question now is: Why only prosecute Trillanes et al?
abe, i thought i was responding to mlq3′ request for my analysis as to mike arroyo’s participation in edsa 2, not to your unwavering persistence that all edsa 2 participants are indictable for rebellion.
anyway, it is elementary in criminal law, particularly in the crime of rebellion, that intent alone is not enough. overt act is no less an essential element without which there could be no crime – an actual violence to bring about the proscribed result. nothing in your quotation of mike arroyo’s interview shows that he and his group actually engaged in lawless violence. an expression of intent to repel force by force; preparation of “back-up strike force” in case a shooting spree ensues; and stationing a counter-force in various part of the country, without more in terms of actually inflicting damage to life and property, cannot constitute the crime of rebellion or coup d’etat, any more than possession of deadly weapon in a public place, accompanied by a vociferous demand for a president to step down, is such a crime.
in contrast, the magdalo group not only commandeered the oakwood hotel, used it as a fortress, and armed with government weaponry, destroyed some communication installations, and inflicted a number of casualties, after declaring their objective of replacing the existing government (particularly the presidency) with themselves, or persons of their choice. this is why, in answer to your question, trillianes et al. should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Bencard,
You have to make up your mind, somehow.
Here’s what you have posted in the “No surprises†thread:
“as to your insistence that the edsa 2 personalities (notably GMA, davide, panganiban, reyes, etc.) are liable for the crime of rebellion, i am sure you are familiar with the principle of mens rea (intent to commit a crime or to bring about the criminal result) as a primordial element of a criminal offense. this you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. do you think you, or anyone, can fulfill this burden, in the face of binding court’s findings, as well as conventional wisdom, that these “accused†intended to preserve the government that had been relinquished by the incumbent? in contrast, trillianes’ apparent purpose was to eliminate (kill) GMA, and any one else who stand in the way, not really to overthrow the constitutional government which he and his co-conspirators want to fill with individuals or groups of their own choice.â€Â
In the above, it is clear that you would want criminal intent shown and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I responded that criminal intent on the part of the EDSA II rebels and/or putschists is at least shown by the statement of Mike Arroyo during his interview with Nick Joaquin. I further stated that Mike Arroyo’s interview statement (which, as Manolo pointed out, has not been disavowed up to now) not only indicated criminal intent but also constituted admission of guilt of the crime of coup d’etat or at least of the conspiracy to commit such a crime admissible against Mike Arroyo. You know that in criminal law as in criminal procedure admission of guilt or confession to a crime, if freely and voluntarily given without violation of due process, is the strongest of proof of the commission of the crime admitted or confessed to, sometimes dispensing with the need on the part of the prosecution to prove, by other independent evidence, every over act constituting the essential elements of the crime.
In a very recent news briefing, Executive Secretary Ermita, the president’s alter ego, is also confirming what Mike Arroyo has bragged to Nick Joaquin during the interview – that the EDSA rebels actually staged a revolt (which is certainly not the same as saying that what they did was a mere exercise in free speech or peaceful assembly as the SC expediently so found). And except for the SC justices who voted for Estrada v. Desierto, the overt acts of rebellion and/or coup d’etat have also been of general public knowledge in the country including among those foreign media professionals, journalists and observers who covered and witnessed the EDSA II uprising.
Now, what you are saying at this point is “that intent alone is not enough. overt act is no less an essential element without which there could be no crime†– which is the same as saying that the overt acts of rebellion and/or coup d’etat must also be shown aside from criminal intent the foregoing admission and/or confession notwithstanding (But then how could possibly there ever be an occasion for showing it if the state prosecutors are only interested today in prosecuting Trillanes et al. and not Arroyo et al? Aren’t we back here to your impeachment argument where you claimed that the pro-impeachment congressman could not prove their case when the obstacles to doing so have been planted by the pro-GMA congressmen?) Ben, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Nonetheless, what is elementary first in criminal law is that criminal intent, being an internal operation of the mind, is deemed presumed from the commission of the crime. I hope you have not forgotten this basic principle. Lack of criminal intent is therefore a matter of defense as in the defense of “mistake of fact.â€Â
At the very least, clearly there has been a “probable cause†here for the crime of rebellion and/or coup d’etat or conspiracy to commit those crimes. In the light of Estrada v. Desierto, why has there been no attempt at all to prosecute at least the EDSA II leaders? Have they been above the law?
abe, what do i have to make up my mind for? i hope you are not trying to score a cheap point in this little debate by pointing to an inconsistency where there is none. in the other thread i stressed the need to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt, a tall order for those who would attempt to prosecute the participants of edsa 2. in this thread, i am pointing out the fact that, even assuming that there was intent in the mind of the actors, under your interpretation of mike arroyo’s interview statement,there has to be an OVERT ACT of lawless violence. intent and overt act are two separate and distinct elements, the absence of either would not make an act a crime.
your so-called admission or “confession” of mike arroyo is not an admission of “guilt” – for there has to be a crime to admit culpability in the first place. your assertion that there was admission/confession is begging the question as to whether what he revealed they did during edsa 2 constitutes an offense under the penal code.
i know you teach law but do you really believe intent is presumed in criminal prosecution under the penal code? for that matter, is there anything that is “presumed” in criminal law other than presumption of innocence?
now you are talking “probable cause” where a prosecutor may or may not find merit to warrant indictment. all i can say to that is: too bad but that’-s the way it is.
Ben,
The following citations I hope will help resolve the question of whether or not criminal intent is presumed from the commission of the crime.
1. “It is well known that a presumption of criminal intention may arise from proof of the commission of an unlawful fact, it being the general rule that, if it is proved that the accused committed the unlawful act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with a criminal intention, and that it is for the accused to rebut this presumption.†US vs. ESTAVILLO [G.R. No. L-6133, August 9, 1911] (One of the earliest cases on the matter decided by the Philippine Supreme Court)
2. “When an accused admits having killed the victim, the burden of proving his innocence is shifted to him. We ruled in People vs. Manlulu (231 SCRA 701 [1994]) that “by invoking self-defense, the accused admit killing Alfaro. The burden of proof is thus shifted to them. Their duty now is to establish by clear and convincing evidence the lawful justification for the killing.” Accused-appellant Gemoya can no longer invoke the constitutional right of being presumed innocent of the crime charged. As far as he is concerned, the crime of murder in the case at bar is established once the prosecution, establishes any of the qualifying circumstances with proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is because the fact of death and the cause thereof are already established by the admission. The intent to kill is likewise presumed from the fact of death, unless the accused proves by convincing evidence that any of the justifying circumstances in Article 11 or any of the exempting circumstances in Article 12, both of the Revised Penal Code, is present.†G.R. No. 132633 October 4, 2000 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GEMOYA [G.R. No. 132633, October 4, 2000]
3. “In her first assigned error, appellant contends that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove criminal intent on her part. When she raised this issue in her Motion for Reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan, that court, invoking Section 5 (b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, ruled in a Resolution promulgated on September 17, 2001, as follows:
“Anent the allegation of the movant/accused that good faith is a valid defense in a prosecution for malversation as it would negate criminal intent on the part of the accused which the prosecution failed to prove, attention is invited to pertinent law and rulings of the Supreme Court on the matter.
“Sec. 5(b) of the Rule 131, Rules of Court, provides, `That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent.’ Hence, dolo may be inferred from the unlawful act. In several cases (Tria, 17 Phil. 303; Ballesteros, 25 Phil. 634; Sia Tioan, 54 Phil. 52; Cueto, 38 Phil. 935; Cubelo, 106 Phil. 496), the Supreme Court ruled that `When it has been proven that the appellants committed the unlawful acts alleged, it is properly presumed that they were committed with full knowledge and with criminal intent, `and it is incumbent upon them to rebut such presumption.’ Further, the same court also ruled that when the law plainly forbids an act to be done, and it is done by a person, the law implies the guilty intent, although the offender was honestly mistaken as to the meaning of the law which he had violated (State vs. McBrayer, 98 NIC 619; Sing Cong Bieng and Co Kong, 30 Phil. 577, 580; Hermenigildo Bautista, CA 40 O.G. 5th Supp. 139). If the act is criminal, then criminal intent is presumed (Francisco y Martin, CA 53 O.G. 1450).
“In the case at bar, inasmuch as the prosecution had proved that a criminal act was committed by the accused under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal intent was presumed. The accused did not present any evidence to prove that no such criminal intent was present when she committed the unlawful act of technical malversation. Hence, the presumption that the unlawful act of the accused was done with criminal intent had been satisfactorily proven by the prosecution (Sec. 5[b], Rule 131).†Abdula v. People of the Philippines [G.R. NO. 150129, April 6, 2005]
As to the overt acts of coup d’etat and/or rebellion, or the conspiracy to commit those crimes please read again the admissions by Mike Arroyo during his interview with Nick Joaquin and tell us very honestly based from what you have learned from law school if the participants he mentioned were just planning or having a picnic, or if fact were conspiring to rise or actually rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of depriving President Estrada, wholly or partially, of any of his powers or prerogatives and/or for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power, were planning to direct or actually directing a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines.
bencard, no, was just interested in how you, as a lawyer, would handle some of these cases, how much evidenciary weight you would give specific actions and documents. the debate between you and abe is very enlightening.
concerning your views on the extent atty. arroyo would have gone, i think what matters is that he would only have gone as far as ensuring his wife became president. others like myself were prepared for a more total change in leadership, which i felt was the foiled, but logical, conclusion, of edsa dos.
i do think abe brings up a very good point about conspiracy.
there’s an interesting comment in this article:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/The_I_word.html
arguing that in the USA, officials can be impeached even after they leave office!
abe, you anchor your argument re intent on the supposed “admission/confession” of mike arroyo that he committed the “crime” of coup d’etat. Your case citations regarding intent being presumed in the commission of the crime are fine but they are all conditioned on conclusive finding that the act committed is indeed a crime.
as you suggested, i re-read mike’s statement. i still cannot find any overt act of violence committed. i know you are aware that mere preparation to commit a proscribed act, let alone to defend oneself in case he is attacked, without more, does not ripen into a crime punishable under the revised penal code. again, overt act cannot be presumed by reading between the lines. It is a matter of fact. It is either done or not done. I must say your harsh interpretation of the penal code is dangerous, to say the least, to all the placard-bearing, activists and rabble- rousers, some of whom are commenting in this blog.
mlq3, re your speculation that m. arroyo would have gone only as far as “ensuring” his wife to become the president, see how we see the world in different ways depending on how we want it to look like?
btw, impeaching someone already out of office? what a wild idea!
How about this narration by another co-conspirator, former Armed Forces Chief of Staff and General Lisandro Abadia (ret.) that was published by the Philippine Inquirer in its March 2, 2001 issue:
And before “(going) for the jugular by marching to Malacañang,†Gen. Abadia further recounted:
Unfortunately for the EDSA II conspirators, mere conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection or coup d’eteat in punishable under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code by the afflictive penalties of prision mayor or imprisonment of up to 12 years which prescribes in 15 years.
On the other hand, as long as you are not commanding a rainbow army to launch a military attack or expecting bloodshed as you fight to the finish patay kung patay, I supposed it would be ok to carry placards and protest in the streets or blog here.
i tend to agree with abe’s interpretation.
bencard, i do appreciate your point that the law is the law and that it has to be obeyed, but laws can be changed -just as the application of the law can either be unduly harsh, or too lax. it would be interesting to see under what circumstances you believe officials should review the law, and, pending their repeal, review, or revision of the law, how citizens who profoundly disagree with any particular provision of the law should take up their grievances.
as you said, it is interesting how the way one is situated in any event, can alter how a person sees those events. isn’t that what the law tries to make less relative, though?
abe, abadia’s story is at best, hearsay evidence, i.e., an out of court statement offered to prove a fact in issue, of the offense of conspiracy. assuming that he testifies in court, his testimony will be subjected to rigorous tests of admissibility, then credibility, then weight that it would bear on the case.
as far as the crimes of rebellion and coup d’etat, are you now in agreement that prosecution on the basis of m. arroyo’s out-of-court statement, made before a member of the media, stands on a very amorphous and shaky ground?
Bencard,
As you know, it is settled in Philippine jurisdiction that an out-of-court assertion as to facts is hearsay unless the assertor is brought to testify in court where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined. It is the absence of the opportunity to cross-examination the assertor as to what was asserted out of court that renders the assertion hearsay. For example, all evidence against Trillanes et al remain hearsay unless a case is brought to trial, the testimony, relevant and material to the case, is presented in court, and the party (Trillanes or his co-accused) against whom the testimony is presented is given the opportunity to cross-examine the person making the assertion.
If the state prosecutors shirk their responsibility to prosecute Arroyo et al, then indeed all evidence against them will forever remain hearsay in the same manner that all evidence to prove betrayal of public trust and/or other high crimes against President Arroyo in the impeachment proceeding will remain hearsay because Arroyo’s allies in congress voted down the impeachment process. Can the prosecution in both instances veritably complain and object – and without looking comical – that those pieces of evidence are hearsay?
At any rate, the evidence or proof primarily relied upon by the Supreme Court in Estrada v. Desierto, to arrive at the conclusion that a duly elected president of the republic “resigned†from the presidency, was a diary of then Estrada’s executive secretary Edgardo Angara, which appeared in serial in Philippine Inquirer, the same broadsheet that published the foregoing Abadia narration of facts. Based on your own strict standards about an evidence being “subjected to rigorous tests of admissibility, then credibility, then weight†– in the crucible of cross-examination if I may add – I agree with you Bencard that President Estrada was unfortunately considered resigned from office by the SC based on a hearsay evidence.
Bencard, you are quite quick to ask whether I now consider prosecuting Arroyo et al for rebellion or insurrection and/or coup d’etat would not be as easy as when I simply confine my theory of the case on conspiracy and proposal to commit those crimes (the way Manolo, a non-lawyer, has smartly appreciated where I am really heading).
Anyway, when I first wrote a piece on this matter in 2001, I even imposed a higher threshold upon my theory by going as far only as Art. 137 of the Revise Penal Code (Disloyalty of public officers) or Art. 138 (Inciting to rebellion or insurrection), – or even Art.139 (Sedition), an offense I consider to have been impliedly repealed (which is another matter) – a strategy, I believe, US special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has opted to adopt to successfully prosecute and convict Lewis Libby.
Now, are you also aware of this statement of then AFP chief of staff Gen. Angelo Reyes during the EDSA II uprising: “Well Gentlemen, you know we are about to commit Mutiny!†just before breaking the chain of command or announcing that “we are withdrawing our support to this government? Isn’t that what BGen. Danilo Lim et al are facing court-martial for today?
To save you the trip, . . . of course as you are also aware Bencard, there are certain limited exceptions to the hearsay rule under the Rules of Court.