Missing link

As one report has it, Sison trial set, says Dutch embassy official: Communist leader incommunicado, claims colleague.

A blogger like Uwak! Uwak! thinks Philippine coverage of stories like Sison’s arrest leaves a lot to be desired. It seems to me, though, that what won’t appear in our media is something along the lines of Alan Dawson’s ‘Missing Link’ mastermind in custody: Jose Maria Sison, now at last a prisoner and mass-murder suspect in Dutch custody, is the unrepentant and arguably last Maoist radical in east Asia, which appeared in the Bangkok Post:

Authorities in the Netherlands, where he was arrested on Monday, believe he ordered the deaths of two senior communist leaders in Manila in 2003 and 2004.

Although the case is still developing, it appears Mr Sison may escape prosecution for ordering the murders of hundreds of followers in the 1980s, a purification campaign that earned Mr Sison and his closest CPP advisers a Time magazine cover story titled, ”The New Khmer Rouge.”

(For anyone who has a couple of US Dollars to spare, the article mentioned above can be found here: The New Khmer Rouge, by Ross H. Munro; this letter to the editor indicates the article was apparently serialized in the Inquirer, too. However, a similar article is available on line, see Inside the Communist Insurgency, an engrossing look at the initial attractiveness of revolutionary justice, and how, having established its credentials by liquidating class enemies, proceeds to clamp down on those liberated).

Returning to Dawson, he is obviously no fan of Sison:

Sison was last seen in public in Southeast Asia while receiving the 1986 SeaWrite Award for essay writing and poetry. The award, for his collection Prison and Beyond, was handed over at an Oriental hotel gala in Bangkok, during which Mr Sison was treated as a celebrity, rather than the celebrity-killer many even then believed him to be.

And he says the party purges were true, regardless of whether or not Sison’s culpability is proven in court:

The killings were diabolical, meticulously planned by the communist leadership, which in turn was directly under Mr Sison and a tiny cabal of cadre. They were located both inside the Philippines and outside, mostly in the Netherlands.

Whatever Mr Sison’s specific involvement, now to be finally examined by a court, the CPP leadership concocted and carried out three, separate mass-murder plans, each in a different part of the country. They aimed at rooting out what the fearful leaders were convinced was a massive and successful attempt to infiltrate the communist movement with government informants and supporters…

The worst of the Philippine massacres was Operation Zombie in the far south, in which at least 1,000 Communist Party soldiers and members were slain by their fellow revolutionaries. In what became a trademark of the Philippines version of the killing fields, almost all victims were brutally and violently butchered by specific party order, so that the survivors would never forget what could lie in store for them if they tried to hurt the communist leadership.

A second massacre was on the mountain ridges in the shade of Mount Banahaw, where communist functionaries killed about 200 mostly young people in what they gleefully called ”Oplan Missing Link”. As explained later by survivors and confirmed by senior party members, ”Missing Link” was designed to purge informers in a manner that would intimidate all others, supporters and innocent villagers alike.

Contrasting views on the man are starkly demonstrated by two bloggers.

There’s tonyo, who takes an admiring, even loving, view of the man:

And finally, there’s Jose Maria Sison or Ka Joema or Ka Joma or just Ka Joe. His infectious laughter and self-deprecating style of sharing jokes almost immediately shattered whatever misconceptions we had about him. He laughs really heartily and what makes us always laugh when we were with him was when he tells his brand of jokes that were “pilyo” or naughty.

He was a very exceptional fellow, an intelligent man and an obedient husband to Ka Julie. Talking with him nd listening to him makes him wonder why the Philippine government continues to demonize him. Does his words really hurt them? Do they honestly believe that this exile and political refugee who still cannot speak Dutch can actually direct and manage the NPA in the Philippines direct from Utrecht?

On the other hand, Miron sa Amerika (who has not had the good fortune of being personally charmed by Joma) argues that Sison is a political dinosaur:

Letters from “Armando Guerrero” — I always thought Joma chose an apt pseudonym — provided a glimpse about his totalitarian mindset. I thought, here was a man so thoroughly convinced about the superiority of his ideas, so ruthless in his predilections that I was ready to believe the worse of what was being said about him. I shuddered at the thought of this ideologue running the Philippines.

Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, even after China started experimenting with her brand of neo-socialism, and with much of the world shifting away from armed struggle, Joma doggedly held on to his convinction that “political change only came from the barrel of a gun”.

Until now, I marvel at how he could, in his mind, repudiate reality so articulately. But even his genius is suspect, at least for me, when the CPP-NPA failed to exploit the opening of the 1986 People Power revolt. They were at their peak, armed partisans were inside the capital, the military was in flux — and yet they did nothing. Pinulot sila sa pancitan. It was all downhill after that.

Joma’s time, along with his idea of armed struggle, is long past. He would be irrelevant were it not for government’s corruption, the military’s excesses and the Filipinos’ own reluctance to openly reject violence as an instrument of change. But I believe Joma had vision ripe and compelling for his era; it just failed to evolve with changing realities. If he were a dinosaur, I would certainly count Joma as a T-Rex, formidable and fearsome but extinct, nevertheless.

Not that Miron’s views would get more than short shrift from Sison’s admirers. Passionate (dis)Attachments responds to a friend who asked why she hadn’t yet spoken up:

Needless to say that Sison’s arrest is not exactly an ‘event’ in the manner that Badiou defines an event. An ‘event’ belongs to a wager that one hopes will never be legitimate, since all legitimacy belongs to the existing coordinates of the system. The Dutch government with its recently established ties with the Arroyo regime is not capable of realizing an ‘event.’ Sison, on the other hand, and precisely because of his communist wager, is.

What is lamentable in this situation is, therefore, Capital’s (because Capital = State until a proletarian seizure of the latter) symbolic attempt to rob the ‘event’ by capturing a symbolic figure of and for  the ‘event’ that is bound to happen anyway. Sison is not the first victim of the State’s apparatus of capture.

Political killings and enforced disappearances happen almost everyday. The academe and its hegemonic claim via postmodernism that ‘there is no event’, that nothing actually happens since we do not have a standard of truth by which we could really see what happens, (If stupidity were a disease, then this world would have been a better place.Unfortunately, stupidity is a prerequisite for academic tenure. So once again, fuck you )is resposible for the contemporary intellectual scene, leaving young minds with a dogmatic belief in interpassivity as a more viable option (now this is criminal! therefore, fuck you). The ideology of the stable, heterosexual-suburban-middle class family simply sucks the potential brilliance out of every kid regardless of class origins. (And I have seen people who have been dwarfed by this family disease. Anwyay, fuck you).

     
The views of the supporters of Sison are plentiful online. Those of his critics not coming from military circles less so. Two books make for engrossing reading: “Red Revolution: Inside the Philippine Guerilla Movement” (Gregg R. Jones) and Breaking Through: The Struggle within the Communist Party of the Philippines (Joel Rocamora) which won a National Book Award (there are others, but in general I only recommend books I’ve actually read. However, Project for Critical Asian Studies points to useful readings).

My view on the issue of Sison’s arrest is this: having sought asylum in the Netherlands, having resorted to Dutch and European courts to counter other charges against him, Sison must submit to the Dutch courts. If we welcome European pressure in terms of human rights, then when their systems of justice operates, who can complain? It is not as if Sison will run the risks a trial at home would entail: torture, possible liquidation, political pressure trumping the justice system, etc. (yet I’ve never understood how he can point to court cases as vindicating him, when his goal is to topple the system, including the law; in which case a judgment even in his favor by a Philippine court isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, if Sison’s ideological premises are to be believed).

He will be treated humanely and accorded every opportunity to clear his name. He might even be acquitted, and if he is, then it will go a long way to substantiate the claims he’s made all along he’s just an old Marxist pensioner puttering around Ulrecht writing poems and singing karaoke.

We can’t be for one-sided justice, either: relentless in pursuit of military abuses but turning a blind eye to revolutionary murders. But neither does finally bringing Sison to justice suddenly prove the military was right all along. Along these lines, I invite you to read Murder, they Wrought by Bobby Garcia (a victim of the purges, and who pointed out the NPA didn’t torture soldiers to prove their moral ascendancy, but tortured their own comrades when required: you can read an excerpt from his book online):

It is important for the State to recognize the fact that murdering its political opponents, apart from being violative of fundamental principles, would not even help them in the first place. Such policy would simply generate sympathy for their enemies, and it cannot possibly escape international scrutiny. These killings need to be condemned. At the very least, even if you do not agree with the victims’ political choice, the killers are even denying them the chance to change their minds. At the most, who is to stop them from targeting you next?

The CPP-NPA, meantime cannot be blame-free. As Miriam Ferrer puts it:

“Part of the effectiveness of the language of anti-communism and resultant alienation is also due to the CPP-NPA-NDF themselves – their excesses (revolutionary taxation of rich and poor, infliction of punishments), own pandering of violence and machismo, their inclusivity and dogmatic framing of Philippine society and politics, and their counter-monologue to the state’s anti-communist mantra. The purges, the CPP-NPA-NDF hopefully recognizes by now, cannot be simply forgotten without full retribution and honest accounting before former and present comrades and the greater public. The ghosts of murdered comrades will haunt the party forever. And though not particularly convincing to explain away the recent spate of political killings among those who study their politics, and revolting for the disrespect shown the dead lying in mass graves, the purges of the 80s and 90s will remain scraps (war material) to poke around with, in the AFP and police forces’ psywar ops.”

Hence, the problem with all this is that we have a case where the the pot and the pan are both calling each other dark and greasy. The AFP and the CPP-NPA hold dismal human rights records, thus when one squeaks about violations, the other can easily squawk: “Look who’s talking!” Credibility automatically becomes suspect when an armed group that has fired too many rounds on human flesh accuses its enemy as being too violent.What we are seeing now is a bloody spiral, and we’re getting dizzy.

Indeed. Sison should face the accusations squarely, secure in the knowledge he will be getting a trial his comrades could only dream of in Manila. There is a reason former cadres have called for his trial and people on the opposite side of the ideological fence are exulting over his arrest. And it can’t all be propaganda.

See The Great Left Divide in PCIJ, and Rebelmind for an explanation of the schism within the Left.

In other news, Senate votes to reopen ‘Garci’ case; playing tape on hold. Which is a pity. My column for today, Bluffing, was kind of hoping they’d play the tapes and call Santiago’s bluff.

At this point let me point to the Committee Report by the House of Representatives on its investigations of the Garci Tapes. The whole thing is a valuable resource, with a time line, a digest of testimony, the findings, then recommendations, of the hearings. Here it is:

And let me reproduce the House’s discussion on two crucial questions. First, the Anti-Wiretapping Law and whether the tapes could be played in public, and second, what were the national security implications of the whole controversy?

First, as to the playing of the tapes. A lengthy extract, but if you read it, I think you’ll agree it’s a useful crash course in the law and how lawyers approach controversial questions. It begins by describing the circumstances surround the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the principles upon which it’s based, and its provisions:

The existence of the so-called Garci Tapes highlighted two important concerns, to wit: the opposing interests of an individual’s right to privacy and the right of the public to know matters of direct and intense public interest, such as election fraud.

RA 4200 was enacted for the precise purpose of protecting without any exception whatsoever the privacy of communication.  The 1935 Constitution, the prevailing Charter at the time RA 4200 was passed in 1965 provided that:

“The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except under lawful order of the court or when public safety and order require otherwise.” (Article III, Section 5 of the Bill of Rights)

This same right was again enshrined in the 1973 Constitution specifically in Article IV, Sections 4(1) and (2) which state that:

“The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except under lawful order of the court or when public safety and order require otherwise.”

“Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”

These same provisions are likewise guaranteed in the present 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 3(1) and 2).

Accordingly, any illegally wiretapped recording of a conversation in violation of RA 4200 “shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation” (Section 4, RA 4200). This ban is all encompassing and must include “any proceeding” as provided for in the Constitution.  Consequently, the ban extends to congressional investigations and possibly even impeachments.

The foregoing prohibition is lifted or does not apply in only two instances, namely:  (1) when all parties have authorized the recording (Section 1 of RA 4200); and (2) when the wiretapping is authorized by a written order of a competent Regional Trial Court upon written application and examination under oath or affirmation “in cases involving crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,  and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616,  punishing espionage and other offenses against national security” (Sec. 3 of RA 4200). In short there is only one legal basis for publishing or otherwise using a wiretapped conversation, and that is if it was authorized by a court order.

What is protected is the privacy of communication irrespective as to whether the parties are private persons or public officials. However, if the conversation or spoken word is uttered in a public manner, the protection does not apply.  This legislative intent is clear in Senate deliberations on the law.

In Navarro v. Court of Appeals (GR No. 121087, August 26 1999) the Supreme Court had the occasion to distinguish between private and public communications, describing the latter as the kind conducted in a manner that the parties to the conversation know and will allow it to be overheard.  The public character as opposed to the privacy of communications has nothing to do with the contents of the same.

This brings us to the issue of how R.A. 4200, could be enforced without requiring the subject of an illegal wiretap to come out publicly by filing a complaint, thereby linking the embarrassing contents of an illegal wiretap with himself or herself. It was repeatedly stressed by legal experts that the President’s failure to come forward and formally complain against the illegal wiretap and order the prosecution of the same—indeed her refusal to seek a judicial injunction against its playing, not to mention mass reproduction and sale—meant that the law was not broken because no one had come forward as a victim of the crime.

Yet violation of RA 4200 is a public crime, the offended party should be the State or the People of the Philippines.  Thus the law should be enforceable even without a particular complainant and even against those who so much as claim to be uttering illegal wiretap recordings without need of having to authenticate the same. This is debatable, probably intensely so, but the law might be amended to allow for another distinction to be legally recognized between the public and private character of conversations, so as to allow the evidentiary admission of wiretapped conversations; and that is if it would serve a critically important public interest such as the prosecution of impeachable or national security offenses.

At this point, the House then says it had to wrestle with a dilemma: should public or private interest prevail?

Whether we should allow the admission of even illegally wiretapped conversations on these limited grounds turns on how Congress weighs the competing interests of privacy on the one hand and the need to deter the use of new technology to further political crimes like election fraud.  In short, are public officials entitled to the privacy of their conversations involving solicitations to crime?

As the law now stands, mere possession let alone manufacture, not to mention publicity of illegally wiretapped material is criminal. And yet the rapid and extensive proliferation of the so-called Garci tapes, in willful disregard of the patent illegality of the same, in addition to their being publicly played by a Joint Committee of Congress, has, in our view, eroded the authority and credibility of the law. Either the severe and all-encompassing character of RA 4200 is reaffirmed by new legislation or relaxed to accommodate the politically charged character of illegal wiretaps, such as that of the so-called Garci tapes.

The belated appearance of Garcillano and his unwavering refusal to give responsive answers to any questions relating to the so-called Garci tapes showed how wrong the Committee, the opposition, the public and the press were to have put so much importance on Garcillano’s testimony.

Where the constitutional mandate of the Committees to conduct the inquiry comes into conflict with public interest and privacy issues that may be invoked under the law, the Committees were guided by the opinions of the country’s legal experts as follows:

“The right to privacy protected by the Constitution under RA 4200 must be balanced against the right of the people to information under the Constitution.”

“… nothing is more vital to the democratic polity than the issue of who was elected president in the last elections and whether or not the democratic processes have been distorted. Now that the president has authenticated the tape and admitted that hers is the voice on the tape, it is imperative that the people should get to know what their President had told a member of the independent constitutional commission and what the latter had replied.”
“The contents of the alleged wiretapped materials are not merely of private concern; they are matters of public interest.” … “Privacy concerns must give way when balanced against the interest in disseminating information of paramount public importance.”

The House report then discusses how its legal minds responded to legal arguments proposed to the congressmen. They made up their own minds:

The Joint Committee does not adopt as definitive any or all of the legal opinions offered. At least one of them appears to be based on a misreading of the celebrated case of New York Times Co. v. United States [The Pentagon Papers Case] which qualified its decision to allow publication of so-called national security documents in the interest of the public’s right to information and freedom of expression by adding, through Justices Douglas and Black, that “[t]here is, moreover, no statute barring the publication by the press of the material which the Times and Post seek to use.” While Justices Stewart and White, stressed that “[I]n the cases before us we are asked neither to construe specific regulations nor to apply specific laws. We are asked instead to perform a function that the Constitution gave to the Executive, not the Judiciary.”

But in the Philippines, there is such a statute barring the public disclosure of certain information; to wit, Republic Act 4200. So that the situation would be akin to that in Snepp v. United States, where the Court held that the failure of a CIA agent—who had signed a confidentiality agreement with the CIA yet failed to get CIA permission for the publication of his memoirs—even if the government conceded that they divulged no confidential information—created a constructive trust over the proceeds of the publication in favor of the government. If that was so with regard to a general law like contracts, what more a specific enactment such as R.A. 4200.

And they played the tapes, and pointed out what this meant:

In any case, the Joint Committee ultimately voted to play the tapes on the insistence of the majority of its members for tactical political reasons. And it did so with the repeated caveat that the Joint Committee was not treating them as authentic, or that their content was true or admissible as evidence for any purpose. It was listening to the tapes merely as part of the narrative of the witnesses who presented the same or as “reference materials.” It must be noted that the Joint Committee made no disclaimer to the witnesses about their criminal liability for introducing the tapes or admitting to handling them so that they testified at their peril. Yet, curiously, the government has shown no interest in prosecuting these clear violations of law.

The so called Garci tapes were played in open session.  But to what effect this has on the authority of the law has yet to be determined.  Fr. Bernas had suggested that it would be more prudent for the tapes to be played in executive session to minimize the legal fallout. Did the playing of the tapes in public by the law-making branch of government effectively create an exception to the blanket prohibition in R.A. 4200 to the use of the products of illegal wiretaps? Do we have here an implicit congressional repeal? Might it be said that the production and playing of the Garci tapes in Congress and by Congress decriminalized the same, so that it can now be authenticated by the admission of those who conducted the wiretap without peril of prosecution? Can the contents of the tapes as captured in the House of Representatives transcripts of stenographic notes be now received in evidence for purposes of congressional proceedings, such as impeachments, or a prosecution for election fraud? Is there a need to reenact the anti-wiretapping law because of what transpired in the joint hearings? Perhaps these questions will get definitive answers when a comprehensive review of the law is finally undertaken in more sober circumstances.  But to be consistent, the Congress that played admittedly illegal wiretaps should proceed to legislate a legal exception for itself.

by so doing, flaws in the law became clear (to the congressmen):

The hearings also showed the deficiencies of RA 4200 as a potentially powerful legal tool in the prevention, detection and prosecution of serious crimes.  Enacted on 19 June 1965 and never amended since, the concerns raised during the discussions show that the law needs to be updated to accommodate unanticipated improvements in communications technology, as well as unprecedented political situations, particularly on the following provisions and salient concerns:

1. In Section 1 of RA 4200, the modes of communication that can be open to legitimate wiretapping appear to be limited by the prevailing technology at the time of its enactment – “…to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder,…”  It could be construed as having failed fatally to anticipate novel technologies and services such as digital or wireless communication. In the strict construction required of penal laws, this shortcoming could favor the accused and prove fatal to a criminal prosecution based even on authorized wiretaps.

Novel and unanticipated wiretapping technology at the time of the law’s enactment might be deemed excluded from the penal law’s strictly circumscribed coverage.  Still, we are satisfied that, in the present case of the so-called “Garci tapes,” the phrases “any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear intercept or record” adequately covers even the new technology by which the Garci tapes may have been made. We can conclude, therefore, that the recording of the same is fully covered by the existing language of the law. Nonetheless, a clearer language covering to both existing and future possible technologies via an amendment or new law may be called for; (italics supplied)

2. Section 3 of the same law only specifies a limited range of crimes for which legitimate wiretapping can be sought, to wit,“… crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy, …”  This covers mostly national security offenses. The emergence of organized crime groups that are able to exploit modern digital telecommunications has put law enforcement at a distinct and severe disadvantage. For example, it is virtually impossible to conduct a drug buy-bust operation with cellular phones able to alert the suspects to pull out of a “deal” before police agents can swoop in. The new and eminently portable communications technology has greatly enhanced the ease and impunity with which other serious crimes can be committed.

An amended law should now include drug trafficking, bank robbery, kidnap-for-ransom, human trafficking, white slavery, child pornography, illegal recruitment, including acts constituting impeachable offenses as some of the crimes which could be covered by a court order authorizing wiretapping.

3.  The NBI has denied possessing even the capability to conduct interception and other wiretapping activities. While the ISAFP has admitted that it can tap landlines or land based cable/wire phones, it has likewise denied any capability to wiretap cellular telephones. Both the major telecommunications companies, Globe and Smart, have also denied possessing equipment capable of conducting electronic intercepts or of having allowed at any time in the past the use of their equipment by law enforcement agencies authorized to conduct the same for the prevention or detection of crimes, such as kidnapping.

It would be frightening to believe the ISAFP’s and the NBI’s firm assertions of technical impotence in the field of modern surveillance.  It would put the country on the watchlist of countries abetting, deliberately or by neglect, organized crime such as drug trafficking and terrorism.

The Joint Committee believes that the following needs to be done:  1) Congress should make sufficient budgetary allocations to enable law enforcement and national security agencies to conduct modern surveillance and, equally imperative 2) strictly control and monitor the possession, acquisition and use of modern surveillance instruments by these agencies, severely punishing their unauthorized acquisition and use, extending to their publication. It was the sense of Congress in a recent and related piece of legislation, to wit, RA 9160, as amended, The Anti-Money Laundering Law, that one of the most effective ways of protecting the confidentiality of records and communications is to explicitly and severely penalize their disclosure and publication.  RA 9160 therefore included the media within the scope of the prohibition and made it liable for the publication of confidential information, with the aim of discouraging the extortion and blackmail of public officials and private persons by media practitioners.

4. R.A. 4200 does not explicitly mandate the cooperation and assistance of telecommunications service providers or other similar private entities equipped with up-to-date equipment and facilities through which electronic surveillance might be conducted.

Several countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Puerto Rico, have enacted laws giving legal authority to law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance and intercept communications, and for that purpose obligating telecommunication carriers to assist in this endeavor, subject to judicial authorization.  This is called the “Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act” or the CALEA.

A provision responsive to this issue is included in several proposed bills under deliberation in plenary. The Joint Committee believes and recommends, however, that this specific matter should be further studied. The Committee on Public Order and Security and the Committee on Justice should undertake a comprehensive study and determine whether we need similar legislation in this area.

Next, national security:

The Joint Committee was not able to establish that the ISAFP or the NBI were responsible for the Garci tapes which involved cellular phone conversations. Both denied the technical capability to do it. But  the Joint Committee uncovered that at least one such equipment — GSM Cellular Phone Interceptors and Transmitters capable of intercepting digital cellular phones — existed in the NBI. On 7 July 2005 Rep. Jesus Crispin Remulla submitted documents showing the acquisition of such equipment in Y2000/2001, thus showing that, at one time, the NBI had it. NBI Director General Wycoco denied the NBI’s capability to wiretap “at the moment,” though he later qualified his statement by saying that such equipment as the NBI had was, as he put it, a “lemon. ”

But, according to the affidavit of NBI Regional Director Carlos Saunar, these particular wiretapping equipment were handed over to Atty. Samuel Ong on 4 July 2001 and on 30 July 2001 or immediately thereafter upon the verbal instructions of Wycoco.  Atty. Saunar stated in his affidavit that at the time of turnover to Atty. Ong, the equipment did work. Ong’s refusal to appear in person denies Saunar’s testimony  the corroboration it needs.

The Joint Committee had received information that some of our law enforcement and other intelligence agencies such as the former Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) or its spin-off, the current Presidential Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER) do have the capability to intercept communications on digital cellular phones, which are being used for anti-kidnapping and anti-terrorists operations.  But it is unable to say with any confidence if the information is true. It may just be a useful fiction intended as a deterrent to the use of cellular phones in crimes.

The Joint Committee is fairly certain that, whatever the condition of the wiretap recordings—original or altered—it was former COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano who was the subject of the wiretap and not the other parties he was allegedly conversing with. Only Ong’s direct testimony on the manner in which the wiretap was conducted could have established the truth. The closest that the Joint Committee might have come to the truth was by consulting the phone records of the alleged parties to the alleged wiretapped conversations, contemporaneous with the time the same are alleged to have taken place. A legal opinion submitted by Dean Agabin stated that the phone companies could submit these phone records without violating the privacy of the persons involved.  But time had run out on the Joint Committee. As Congress prepared to reconvene, the action shifted to the 2005 impeachment proceedings.

Regardless of who was the intended victim of the interception, the Joint Committee is very much concerned that the President of the Philippines and other high officials of the government can be victimized by wiretaps. Such activities can compromise national security, not least by exposing these officials to blackmail and extortion that would, most likely, affect the performance of their duties and subvert their fidelity to the public trust.

There is compelling reason to conduct a review of not only the capabilities of law enforcement agencies to conduct effective surveillance and intercept operations, but also the manner in which classified information or intelligence materials are handled and treated.  Specifically, the following should be given importance:

1. Conduct an audit of existing technological capabilities of law enforcement and national security agencies for wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance;

2. Review how the above agencies handle intelligence material. That the wiretapped material in question, if authentic, may have been leaked, sold and otherwise illegally disclosed, for whatever purpose, underscores the careless, cavalier, not to say criminal fashion in which intelligence material is handled by the military. This is eloquently exemplified by General Quevedo’s testimony that although he had heard about the CDs, these did not appear important to them (ISAFP) and were even surprised when the CDs were presented to the media.  At the time of his testimony on 13 July 2005, he had not bothered to listen to the CDs.

Similarly, the NBI averred utter indifference toward what could well be a wiretap of presidential conversations and refused to budge or even consider investigating the provenance of the so called Garci Tapes even after they blossomed into a full-blown political crisis marked by bitter political divisions, as well as shameless dodging of the issues on one hand, and grandstanding on the other.

Both agencies are hereby reprimanded for their cavalier attitude toward a development that, unchecked, swelled into a national crisis.  Even if the so-called Garci tapes had not been authenticated, the fact that it sounded like the President’s voice in the wiretapped conversations and the apparent breach in security should have been a cause for grave alarm.

3. In relation to the above, there is, too, the case of T/Sgt. Doble, who according to his testimony, was approached by Ong to “own up” to the wiretapping in exchange for two million pesos.  This happened in the Imperial Hotel on Timog Avenue, which is highly identified with the entertainment industry. He was, however, contradicted, by his lover, Marietta Santos, who testified that it was, in fact, Doble who sold the tapes to Ong for the said amount in that hotel.  Regardless of who was telling the truth, Doble should be held accountable for his actions in this issue.  As an officer in the Philippine Air Force, and as an agent of ISAFP, his participation in this drama raises questions about his integrity and conduct.  Doble must be held liable for violations of the Articles of War, as amended, specifically Articles 63, 67,  84, 95, and 97 and the AFP Code of Ethics, Sections 1.2 and 2.8 of Article III and Sections 3.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3 and 4.4.8 of Article V.

4. The Committee on National Defense and Security shall exercise its oversight powers and conduct further investigation into the management of intelligence information.  In the matter of the subject tapes, their authenticity should be firmly established or definitively disproved to the extent possible, and their real provenance established, so that if the intelligence agencies are shown to have been involved, the officials concerned should be held accountable.

5. Congress should endeavor to promote and preserve professionalism in the AFP and other national security agencies.  Legislation should institutionalize these reforms. Congress, particularly the pertinent committees, should exercise oversight powers more firmly, demand higher standards, and conduct a sharper scrutiny of the appointment and promotion of officers in the AFP and other agencies involved in national security.

The section of the report covering technology, might be of interest to other, tech-oriented bloggers, I don’t know. But anyway, read the report: it shows what is considered factually established, what remains unknown, and what has already been covered in terms of the legal arguments.

For most people, though, it is this extract from near the end of the report, that will be the most interesting. I myself have said many times before, most recently in my column today, that the cover-up conducted by the Palace in the wake of the tapes, was enough to damn it. Apparently, the House believed so, at least to a certain extent. It heaps blame on all parties concerned, which will please both sides of the political fence. So let’s close today’s entry with the House report’s findings:

The brunt of Minority Floor Leader, Rep. Francis Escudero’s privilege speech was that the government was unfairly blaming the opposition in the House for the illegal wiretaps, their disclosure and the resulting political instability.

The opposition repeatedly denied that it had or could have had anything to do with the so-called Garci tapes and the resulting instability. Nothing said in the joint hearings belied its claim of innocence, not to say inutility, particularly when the government itself denied referring to the opposition in the House.

It cannot be denied that former Senator Tatad belongs to the opposition.  Mr. Tatad admitted that he gave Atty. Paguia the two audiocassette tapes from which Paguia’s 32-minute CDs were copied.  Mr. Tatad has also stated his view that the Arroyo government is illegitimate.

It is therefore difficult to escape the conclusion that this so-called wiretap tapes, whether genuine in whole or in part, or completely fabricated, could have just materialized out of thin air and fallen fortuitously on the laps of the persons who brought them to public attention. Indeed, there is compelling reason to believe that, if not their production, then certainly their acquisition and subsequent publication were actively sought and were components of a plan involving several persons and considerable financial resources, with the aim of embarrassing the President into leaving office or, failing that, toppling the government by the political mass action generated by the scandal. Who were the persons involved, the Joint Committee cannot say; almost everyone who passionately invoked the tapes as authentic was even more vehement in denying any knowledge that could prove its authenticity or having had anything to do with the tapes.

While it is unfair if not impossible to require proof of a negative—to wit, that the alleged conversations in the so-called Garci tapes did not take place—on the contrary, the President confessed and apologized that conversations, not necessarily the same, took place between herself and a COMELEC official—Malacañang was clearly at an utter loss to explain the tapes and, on at least one occasion, attempted a cover up.

This was when the Press Secretary’s claimed that of the two CDs he purportedly received from an anonymous source, one was original and the other tampered with. This only raised more issues and answered none.  How did he know which was which?  He later said he had relied on the labels of the CDs, one saying it was fake and the other genuine.  But why would anyone send out a pair of contrasting tapes, one self-admittedly a fake and the other claiming to be a true reproduction?  And why would Bunye rely on the labels?  Was he adopting the labels as true?  He appeared to have done so, claiming that one tape contained the President’s voice.  But he later disowned his own statement.

In sum, on the one hand, a conspiracy clearly existed to topple the President by embarrassing her with the so-called Garci tapes; on the other hand, the administration could not and would not confront the tapes, contributed nothing towards arriving at the truth about them but on the contrary attempted a cover-up.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, Gloriagate, Hello Garci, House of Representatives, human rights, ideas, journalism, media, military, philippines, politics, president, Senate, society

The Long View: Bluffing

Bluffing

By Manuel L. Quezon III

Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Richard Gordon are prepared to go to the Supreme Court to ask for a temporary restraining order, or TRO. That is, if the Garci tapes end up being played in the Senate. The unsinkable Santiago warned her colleagues that they’d be liable for violating RA 4200, the Anti-Wiretapping Law, if they did such a thing.

But why just a TRO? If it authorized the playing of the tapes, she said, “the Senate would be an unwitting accessory to a crime.” Unwitting? It seems the battle of wits, with Santiago, Enrile, Arroyo and Gordon being against, and the rest of the Senate, for, the investigation of the latest “Hello, Garci”-related revelations, runs the risk of the tapes being played.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson should promptly play the tapes in open session, and provoke Santiago and Gordon into storming to the Supreme Court demanding not a TRO only but the arrest of every senator who refused to leave the session hall at that point. Or Santiago, with the able-bodied Gordon’s assistance, could wrestle Lacson to the ground, perform a citizen’s arrest, thump anyone who objected on the head with the Senate’s mace, and then go to the Supreme Court.

Then the Court would have to decide if Santiago and Gordon are right or wrong. If wrong, then Santiago et al. can look for other means to convince their colleagues of the error of their ways. If the Court upholds her, it justifies the arrest of the Senate (even Senators Lito Lapid and Bong Revilla, mind you, because, as Santiago would be the first to insist, ignorance of the law excuses no one). Having most of the Senate in jail would surely lead to dancing in the streets. The jailed senators, starting with Francis Escudero and Alan Peter Cayetano, could then petition the Court to order the arrest of the membership of the House of Representatives in the 13th Congress.

The congressmen, upon being hauled off to jail (at which point there would be massive public celebrations), could then petition for the arrest of most of the Philippine media (at which point we would see the Mother of All Holiday Economics kick in). The media could petition for the arrest of every newspaper subscriber, TV viewer, radio listener, blogger and blog reader, for being a party to the same crime with which they’re being charged. Some citizens might willingly line up to be jailed, forming lines that would put “Wowowee” to shame. Citizens could then petition for the arrest of past and present Cabinet officials like Ignacio Bunye and Michael Defensor, and the national joy and delirium at this point would be like the Second Coming of Christ.

At the end of it all, half of the country would be in jail, or waiting to fill jails yet to be built. At which point, the President could say the country has truly moved on, and receive a blessing from Cardinals Vidal and Rosales.

That is, if anyone really went ahead and called Santiago’s bluff, which no one will. So, seriously, folks…

Santiago pointed out that our Bill of Rights says the privacy of communication is “inviolable” except if authorized by the courts, or when “public safety and order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.” Otherwise, any evidence is “inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”

Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile helpfully pointed out what is provided by the Anti-Wiretapping Law, which is the specific piece of legislation applicable to the Garci tapes. There is a blanket prohibition on wiretapping and the use of materials obtained from wiretapping, for any purpose, with some exceptions for specific offenses. Those exceptions, to be availed of, require permission from the courts to authorize a wiretapping, or to use the results of an illegal wiretap to prosecute the offenses the law lists.

He forgets that among the listed exceptions is the crime of kidnapping. Yvonne Chua on Aug. 5, 2005, pointed out that “Renato Magbutay… Comelec director for ARMM until the Gloriagate broke, is believed to be the ‘Boy’ who discussed with Garcillano on June 5, 2004 the kidnapping of Rashma Hali, election officer in Tipo-Tipo, Basilan. Hali had voluntarily made an affidavit on the poll fraud allegedly perpetrated in the town.”

Enrile also overlooks the long-standing argument that the legal prohibition kicks in when the victims of an illegal wiretap come forward and say they never authorized the use of any such recording. He can well remember how President Ferdinand Marcos was victimized by an alleged recording of himself and Dovie Beams. It was worse than the Garci tapes because what was recorded was an absolutely private act, while the Garci tapes cover conversations entirely devoted to political matters. Marcos didn’t invoke the law, because to do so, after it was passed around, would have authenticated it and added to his humiliation.

Raul Gonzalez proposed authenticating the tapes, since no one had admitted they’d been recorded. Michael Defensor even commissioned a study by Barry Dickey of two tracks from the Alan Paguia (edited) version of the controversial tapes. When Dickey’s finding proved too nuanced (and welcoming of further analysis) to be politically helpful, Defensor then brought in Jonathan Tiongco (who died in a car crash last June) as an audio expert in November 2005. That’s when Defensor (in)famously said, “It is the voice of the President but that is not the President talking.”

These administration officials validate Escudero’s argument (which led to Santiago’s huffing refusal to be interpellated further) that too many assumptions are being made about the tapes. The victims themselves haven’t even invoked the law. The tapes haven’t been authenticated.

This is all very interesting. I myself care less about the content of the tapes themselves, and more about the Nixon-style cover-up that ensued. That’s enough basis to conclude the administration has lost its legitimacy.

Seeing Red

According to the blog Center Sight, the Bangkok Post first broke the news of the arrest of Jose Ma. Sison in the Netherlands. The link no longer works, but here’s how the story’s being covered here at home: Joma Sison arrested (also: PNP takes credit for Joma’s arrest and Arrest of Philippine communist leader raises security issues, sparks protest plans).

Incidentally, the clash of opinions on Sison in the blogosphere: even as Philippine Commentary rejoices over Sison’s arrest; even before the arrest, bloggers like tonyo, had taken critics of Sison to task, saying they were being unfair and even committing slander:

No case or investigation against Jose Maria Sison and the CPP pertaining to the Plaza Miranda bombing has prospered. As I have pointed out in an earlier post, the Manila City Prosecutors trashed the police charge against the CPP leaders for lack of sufficient basis.

The recent rebellion charges against the Batasan 6, scores of legal and underground left leaders — an obvious politically-motivated prosecution dismissed with finality by the Supreme Court — included the charge about Plaza Miranda bombing.

There is something dangerous in what Bocobo, Doronila and other detractors of the Left are saying and doing. The demonization of the Left through blatantly baseless and discredited charges such as the alleged CPP order to bomb Plaza Miranda is helping deodorize and prettify the stinking political elite, including the dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

Like all Grand Pooh-bahs of Communism, Sison is criticized at times for being the centerpiece of a gigantic cult of personality, his followers so fiercely devoted to him that Argee Guevara, in his (wittier) student days, called them “Joma’s Witnesses.” Still, whether suffering from excessive zeal or filled revolutionary virtue, supporters of Sison have taken to drumbeating the same message: see we have no names, witness statement, young radicals, for a small sampling of the reasons why his followers object to his arrest. Or read what the man himself has to say (and you can download mp3’s of his singing and songs).

But as it stands, the reason for his arrest is this: Widow of NPA chief Kintanar speaks out: ‘Yes, I filed case against Joma’.

The Joma brouhaha has sidelined public attention on the Senate debates on the Garci Tapes, and the refusal of the ZTE broadband issue to go away.

Concerning the Garci business, Arroyo’s Senate allies to stop playing of ‘Garci’ tape. Blogger Philippine Commentary  generally expressing admiration for Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s arguments in a privilege speech yesterday, while accepting that Tortured analysis’–Santiago to Escudero on ‘Hello Garci’ was perhaps more out of Santiago’s pique over Escudero’s making a good legal point:

He makes the very persuasive point that it must first be demonstrated that these recordings are wiretapped materials before the sanctions against possessing them may be invoked as Miriam wants to do even BEFORE such demonstration. That the Garci recordings ARE wiretappings cannot just be asserted and then believed “hook line and sinker”, Chiz claims, but must be tested with questions and logic when the witness Vidal Doble makes his claims and accusations. But first he must be allowed to make those claims.  Putting the cart before the horse, you are, Madame. Touche!

What the law prohibits after all is the knowing possession, dissemination and reproduction of illegally wiretapped materials. Chiz basically asks a question that destroy’s the premises and suppositions on which are founded Miriam’s entire discourse: How do we KNOW that these are illegally wiretapped materials and not, let us say, studio spliced recordings?

Miriam had no answer to this other than to assert again “the absolute prohibition against and absolutely inadmissibility of illegally wiretapped material for use in ANY legislative hearing or other proceeding.”

This self-evidently a false claim on the face of it — as if one did not know about Section 3 of the law! Surely, the products of a real spy’s illegal wiretapping activities would be the best physical evidence of those criminal activities, as explicitly allowed for in Section (3) of RA 4200, which covers wiretapping cases involving National Security and kidnapping.

She chooses to ignore the simple fact that the “Anti-Wiretapping Law” does explicitly allow any or all of the acts she claims are prohibited absolutely, such as wiretapping, possession, replay and reproduction of wiretapped materials–before, during or after any crime against national security or in cases of kidnapping.

But, Philippine Commentary says, Santiago’s arguments have their own merit:

I actually agree substantially with the effective position of Miriam to investigate with vigor the Garci Tapes WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR CONTENT (the electoral fraud angle), and instead to focus on discovering who the Masterminds of Wiretapping are in the Philippines. This is also substantially the position of Rodolfo Biazon, to prosecute the crimes against national security implied by the wiretapping itself. Never mind the content.

Manuel Buencamino pens this gem:

One day every member of the Senate votes to investigate the illegal phone-taps, the next day four legal beagles of Gloria turn around and start barking, “You can’t use those tapes. It’s against the law to use tapes of an illegal wiretap to prove illegal wiretapping. You have to remove the corpus from corpus delecti.”

Does that make any sense? It does if you’re a Dick, a Johnny or a Joker.

See, too, interesting arguments by two attorneys,  Leonard de Vera (and needed amendments to the Anti-Wiretapping Law) and Abelardo Aportadera (on how bugging the President is an offense against National Security).

And about the ZTE deal, Lawmaker sues officials in broadband deal (the issue won’t go away, sweeteners of course also help to keep the administration faithful to the deal: Favila: Gov’t can use $400-M China loan any which way). Blogger An OFW Living in Hong Kong has some noteworthy observations to make.

Sometimes I think Amando Doronila is simply dying to prove the President can pull rabbits out of her hat. His column, today, Arroyo seizes the initiative, seems along the lines of his previous claim that the President had pulled a “breathaking” reclaiming of the political initiative after the May elections. The Inquirer editorial takes a different view of things: obstructionism, then and now, remains the President’s game, it says.

I think Mon Casiple (as always) is right on the money:

By now, everybody knows the story of the Garci tapes, and Malacañanang claims people are already bored with the story. However, knowing is far different from confirming and admitting. Much as the GMA administration would wish to the contrary, the tale of the tapes is not yet over–a full political closure still has to happen.

The timing of the Doble resurfacing seems to indicate that post-2007 election political negotiations among the administration, opposition, and–interestingly–the presidentiables–are coming to a head without an agreement in sight. We are now confronting a scenario of hard-ball negotiations amidst heightened political tensions, including the resurrected Garci tapes, the Erap decision, a brewing war in the South, talks of coups and emergency situations, and what not.

The importance of the Garci tapes lies in their coercive message to the administration–to make clear its intention not to plot a post-2010 GMA-still-in-power scenario. It is not a surprise that the Senate–the heart of presidential ambitions–has become the arena this time.

Given her narrow window of opportunity before the lameduck syndrome kicks in, the president will have to make many vital decisions affecting her political future in the coming few weeks or months. This should make everyone tensely waiting for the decision on the political compromise with the political opposition, her choice of a presidentiable to support, or to wage the lonely battle to maintain the power.

The column of Ellen Tordesillas, who says the administration’s paranoid about the Philippine Marines, brings to mind blogger Center Sight (originally mentioned above) took an interesting look at Philippine Government Faces Pressure from Several Directions, advocating continued American support for the country:

But it is indeed vital that our government continue to support, advise and provide funding to assist Manila in coping with the ideological equivalent of a two-front war against democracy. While the Philippines continue to develop as a major front line against Islamist hegemony, the decades old Communist insurgency led by the “New People’s Army” is rumored to be gathering forces for a fall offensive against the Filipinos’ strained resources. Opportunity for mischief could arise in expected riots of popular anger when former President Estrada — inexplicably a hero to the poor he championed while pocketing millions intended to help them — is finally convicted for his corruption. And meanwhile, the Islamist subversion is becoming more ambitious, sophisticated and dangerous.

Instead of the usual “bomb ‘em all back into the Stone Age” hawkism we usually hear, though, this American blogger takes a more balanced view of things:

The United States should be deeply involved in stimulating reform as well, as emphasized by the continued involvement of police and military forces in “disappearances” and torture involving legitimate political opposition members, and the scandal of politicians in the recent election handing out guns to warlords in exchange for votes. There is reason to believe many of those weapons have since been used on Philippine soldiers.

and he points to nuances I’ve tried to point out, too, in terms of who we’re fighting and why those we’re fighting are fighting us:

The “old” Muslim question in the Philippines had to do with regional independence or relative autonomy for Mindanao and other Muslim majority or plurality islands in the predominantly Catholic country. The Moro insurgency of the Fifties was a nationalist guerrilla movement whose suppression raised unrealistic hopes for success in other countries and took the Philippines off the radar as a front-line of defense.

The new Muslim insurgencies have varied in their mixture of nationalism and contemporary jihadism. In purest form, the New Jihadist seeks to establish a multi-national caliphate stretching over several continents, an Islamiyah ruled with strict interpretations of Islamic law, relatively free of infidels. Under the contemporary formulation, this means that all of the Philippines (indeed the world) is fair game.

Still, returning to Ellen’s column, and the headlines (see RP braces for ‘retaliatory attacks’ over Sison’s arrest: Military on red alert), blogger  New Philippine Revolution (who seems sympathetic to caudillo-ism) has an interesting take on things:

The arrest of CPP Founder Jose Maria Sison due to trumped up charges has doomed peace talks with the rebels. Possible effects would be escalation of armed confrontations between AFP and CPP-NPA. This development is worse than the Mindanao conflict.

For the next three years, peace will elude this administration. MILF said that they will not enter into a peace agreement with the government. It will only do so if the GRP accedes to ceding some territory to the rebels. Meanwhile, MNLF will definitely not enter into any pact for as long as GMA is there in the palace. The arrest of Sison dooms peace negotiations with the Reds.

In the next few years, GMA will become a war president. These wars in the North and the South will put a heavy strain in the economy.

To prevent the country from going down the drain, members of the elite will allow extra-constitutional measures to replace this administration with a caretaker government. One model is Thailand. The possibility of having a government like that of Thailand in the Philippines is very strong.

A good column by Bong Austero on the travails of Gawad Kalinga.

In the blogosphere, people are abuzz over whether a newspaper’s playing with matches after already having been doused with gasoline.

smoke got the ball rolling with a scan of a portion of The Manila Standard Today. This was independently verified by Freedom Watch, the official blog of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.

Again, a note of caution: what has been proven is a notice was published, not why the notice was published, or what the notice was supposed to achieve. When I asked a colleague in the media familiar with newspaper operations about it, my colleague said it could be a production error. The newspaper may have a template used whenever a columnist fails to submit a column on time. My colleague also said it’s either that, or a good way to boost sales. People would go off to buy copies on the date mentioned, to see if the paper actually dared to run the column again.

Conclusions, then, might be premature until September 3, the supposed resumption of the column. However, in the absence of any official statement from the paper, speculation’s bound to be rife until then.

Until then, scrutiny of the issue, as provided by The Journal of the Jester-in-Exile and Bryanton Post  is neither premature nor unproductive.

The inevitable gulf between professional writers and the public, I think, is best demonstrated by my rather liking publisher Babes Romualdez’s letter about his magazine’s stand on the issue, and the Jester’s dissatisfaction with it; let me point out, further, that Romualdez at least made a statement while the newspaper’s editors have kept silent up to now, and indeed, dodged the issue as I pointed out last August 24 (see the last few paragraphs of my entry).

However, if the potential for the re-escalation of the issue is fulfilled by the resumption of the column -which would also firmly lay the passions raised firmly at the feet of the paper and no longer the magazine- things would get possibly worse. After all, all the to-do about an apology and a resignation, would be proven either insincere, or merely a gambit: those arguing for moderation or a more nuanced approach would have been proven naive. Then we might have  the media equivalent of a conversation Louis XVI supposedly had with a courtier, upon being told of the storming of the Bastille.

“Is it a revolt?” the king asked.

“No, Sire,” the response came. “It is a revolution.”

FYI department: Commissioner Sarmiento wrote to Ricky Carandang.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, Gloriagate, Hello Garci, journalism, media, military, philippines, politics, president, Senate, society

Impotent reassurances

My column yesterday, Impotent reassurances, was inspired by blogger Uniffors saying PDI gets it wrong, horribly wrong. The blogger was reacting to what would eventually be reported by the paper as No cut in US military aid. the report insists that an earlier ABS-CBN’s report, which said that the State Department had lowered its proposed funding for projects in, and assistance to, the Philippines, was false. Uniffors says the ABS-CBN report was true, and why it’s true.

I found the debate interesting because it seemed to me (and this is what I wrote in my column) is that too much ado was being made about a fairly low-level junket by US congressmen. The result was that the junket suckered reporters on the ground into thinking it was an important thing for Filipinos, when it may have had some importance for American troops, but was at best, negligibly important in terms of Philippine interests.

the US congressman who hammed it up for reporters was Silvestre Reyes, whose website shows him a master of pork barrel politics (that’s a good thing, for a congressman). But even if he was obliging to reporters, a little background check (and Wikipedia, for all its limitations, is pretty handy-dandy and useful as a preliminary step in this direction) would have tipped off reporters that the guy is something of a joke.The other Democrat members of the Congressional party weren’t very much more impressive, either: Gregory Meeks (D) is a lightweight; Charles A. Ruppersberger III (D) seems a solid party man, but one who doesn’t have clout relevant to Philippine interests, even if he sits in the Committee on Appropriations (and he kept discreetly quiet during his Philippine visit); and boy, oh boy, look at the Republicans: Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R), never mind being a good ole dynast, had the dubious distinction of having a ficus plant run against him (a stunt pulled by Michael Moore); and Heather Wilson (R) is under investigation for an inappropriate politically-motivated call to a state attorney (she should have said “I. Am. Sorry.”).

I think a marvelous opportunity was lost to report on the American equivalent of the kind of congressional junkets Filipino reporters like to skewer our own politicians. But seriously, the nature of the beast determines its place in the food chain, no? If most of the junketeers were members of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Reyes is the chairman, Meeks, Ruppersberger, Wilson are members), then you know their visit was more about US interests than anything RP-US related: specifically, are American troops getting adequate intelligence, or the means (including equipment) to secure it? If, as Uniffors argues, the group that counts for Philippine interests is the United States House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, and if its appropriations proposals are already at the conference committee level, then we can conclude a couple of things: 1. Reyes isn’t the go-to guy; 2. matters are already at a stage where Senate, and not House, intervention is what will matter; 3. whatever anyone says, the real issue is that the White House has lowered its intended allocations for Philippine-related programs and the only way that can be countered is through earmarks.

The idea of how Earmarking works goes to the heart of what Uniffors pointed out: just because our political system resembles that of the United States, direct correlations shouldn’t be made. This is particularly crucial when it comes to figuring out where our country stands, in terms of White House priorities, and those of the US Congress.

Three pieces, I think, thoroughly explore why the country keeps returning to the issue of the Garci Tapes.See Hello Garci and Philippine democracy by Randy David; Hello again by Conrado de Quiros; and The continuing skirmishes by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ. the best the Palace can do, is trot out its supreme Lackey (the confrontation over the Attorney General of the Unted States, and the aftermath, see With Gonzales gone, US Congress girds for new battle, is instructive: read All the President’s Flunkies; these Republicans are really something else, take a look at their efforts to replace with the Electoral College with a system that taps into their gerrymandering of districts, all the while passing it off as “reform”. It’s in Deformed Reform).

Anyway, the Senate’s Committee on Rules has voted ‘Hello Garci’ sent to Senate committee of whole (one lawyer’s arguments as to why it can do so, in Newsbreak). Senator Lacson has telegraphed the line of questioning that will most likely be pursued:

Lacson surmised that the Cabinet official whom he did not name most likely had a rift with former Cabinet secretary Michael Defensor, who himself was included among those covered by the wiretapping operation codenamed Project: Lighthouse.

“Who ordered Danga? We should find that out. We can only speculate at this time. I can only speculate the order could have come from somebody at the level of Cabinet member, someone who had access to Danga and is close to the President,” said Lacson.

Lacson said that while “we can zero in on a few people,” Defensor’s inclusion among those to be wiretapped was the key to knowing who the master of the operation was.

“What prompted me to have that kind of speculation is the involvement of Defensor. Who among the Cabinet members had a tiff with Defensor? Did Defensor and (Executive Secretary Eduardo) Ermita get along pretty well during those times? Defensor was the odd man out among the group that was wiretapped,” said Lacson….Ermita and Defensor had several run-ins during the latter’s stay in the Palace because the multi-tasking presidential chief of staff encroached into many territories.

“I don’t know if Danga is already retired. Maybe we could get this information from him. If there’s a lot of compartmentalization in this particular operation, only Danga would know who ordered him to do the wiretap operation,” said Lacson.

Lacson said he also believed that President Macapagal-Arroyo was kept in the dark about the covert operation. “No way (that it could have been the President]. They started in 2003, but it went on.”

In  other words, now there’s a chief suspect to zero in on, in terms of the wiretapping itself. I suppose the Palace is betting on the President being unable to throw anyone to the wolves on this new line of questioning.

Do watch Partition – The Day India Burned, also linked to in my Inquirer Current entry for last night.

Technorati Tags: constitution, Hello Garci, law, military, philippines, politics, president, Senate

The Long View: Impotent reassurances

THE LONG VIEW
Impotent reassurances
By Manuel L. Quezon III

A US congressman, Silvestre Reyes, says there would be no cut in US military assistance to the Philippines. The AFP turned cartwheels in delight. The blog Uniffors (www.uniffors.com) says that the celebration is mistaken.

Uniffors says the two committees that count the most in the US Congress are Appropriations and Ways and Means. The power of American congressional officials is best demonstrated by listing the congressmen entitled to an office within the US Capitol itself: the Speaker, Majority and Minority Leaders, Majority and Minority Whips, and the Appropriations Chairman. The pinnacle of the House hierarchy.

As Uniffors puts it, “They have the final say on income and spending. At the end of the day, all other congressional committees are debating clubs.” Since Appropriations wields the power of the purse (what to spend; Ways and Means decides who and what to tax), all the other committees can only authorize expenditures for inclusion in the proposed budget. As Uniffors writes, “Anybody with even a passing familiarity with the US legislative process would know that authorization and appropriation are … different … An authorization committee like [the] armed services [committee] does not order the appropriations committee what to appropriate. An authorization is only a suggestion as far as the omnipotent appropriations committee is concerned.”

Uniffors points out that Filipino observers eager to figure out how American budgeting for the Philippines is being done have to bear in mind that “We can be sure of money only when the appropriation committee APPROPRIATES and EARMARKS a certain amount. Without a congressional earmark, the State Department can exercise discretion over how it will spend its budget from Congress.”

As it is, Uniffors says what the US State Department has asked for, and what it’s requested for Fiscal Year 2008, “represents a lot less than what it asked for in previous years.” Therefore, the executive department in the States has made its position clear: less spending for the Philippines. On the other hand, the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee, which directly handles funding for the Philippines, could find ways around what the President of the United States intends to spend, finding ways to increase Philippine-oriented expenditures. The Appropriations Committee relies on the judgement of the Subcommittee.

But here’s the clincher.

The Foreign Operations Bill has already been marked-up (the earmarks have been made). It is now in conference committee, being hammered out between the US House and Senate. So it is in this context—that Appropriations matters the most; that direct involvement in expenses for the Philippines would be in the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations; that the Foreign Operations Bill is in an advanced state of discussion, and changes favorable to the Philippines require congressmen with clout intervening in the process—that we should look at the recent visitors from the US House.

Were those who junketed to Mindanao congressmen of consequence? If, as it reported, the 5-person delegation was composed mainly of Republicans, then it would really have been a junket and nothing more, since the Republicans are the minority in the House. However, the delegation was primarily a majority party (Democrat) group, so let’s take a closer look.

Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D) is only the sixth member, on the Democrat side, of the Committee on Armed Services (not chairman as reported by our paper). He was the only member quoted, and perhaps that has to do more with his talking first and thinking later. He has had his fair share of foot-in-mouth disease episodes (his Wikipedia entry says he’s “been criticized for his lack of knowledge of the most basic of facts consequential to the war on terror”). So can he walk the talk in Congress?

As for the others, New York Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D) says of himself (on his website) that he sits on the Financial Services committee, which is not particularly powerful, and on International Relations, which does have its junket-related perks. So he can junket but does he matter?

Maryland Rep. Charles A. Ruppersberger III (D) is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. His being a Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government does make him one of the members of the delegation that possibly counts—but not for Philippine interests.

New Jersey Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R), also sits on the House Appropriations Committee and on two appropriations subcommittees: Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, of which he is the Ranking Member (that is, senior minority member), and Defense. He is also a member of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel. His committees bear little relevance for the country.

New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson (R), a US Air Force veteran, sits on committees that have little bearing on Philippine-related budgeting, and as a Republican facing ethics committee questions (she’s implicated in trying to influence state prosecutors to investigate Democrats), she will have little clout when it comes to lobbying senior chairmen and members.

Put together, what does the delegation represent? The one quoted in the papers is a congressional lightweight; the rest lack the seniority or the committee memberships that would put them in a position to go over the head of the subcommittee on foreign operations at this late date, and thus, significantly affect appropriations, including finding ways around the limits for Philippine-related spending the Bush administration has identified (and reduced). It seems the real purpose of the junket was to wave to the troops and look into intelligence-related matters, which are more fully related to American interests than shared RP-US defense concerns.

Book of the Week

“1968: The Year That Rocked the World” (Mark Kurlansky)

The GK ideological split

In the news, Malacañang circles the wagons on ‘Garci’ (see Newsbreak on The President’s Ad Hoc Style) even as Senators split on wiretap inquiry (the Inquirer editorial says an investigation’s in order). Political recycling continues: Arroyo security adviser to head legislative liaison office (so Gabby Claudio’s out; and Joaquin Llagonera?) On the Mindanao front, Sacked officer confirms aircraft were recalled.

This is interesting: More RP firms join race to set up stake in Vietnam.

This may become politically significant: Couples admits ‘divorce’ over Gawad Kalinga and Split rocks CfC; Meloto quits Gawad Kalinga. The debate seems as much about a more secular orientation for GK as it was an effort to maintain the exclusively Catholic orientation, perhaps even vaguely socialist orientation of the movement (a story like this, for example, goes to the heart of the leadership split: Call center training for Gawad Kalinga residents mulled). Anyway, end result: Split in Couples for Christ May Hurt GK Housing Projects.

Overseas, some nifty readings, indeed. Let’s begin with Thailand’s referendum: The long march back to the barracks, which takes a highly critical view of the country’s latest effort at constitution-writing (In Thailand: After the Constitutional Referendum takes a less obviously critical, but extremely cautious, look). A Thai newspaper op-ed piece points to A recirculation of elites in Thai politics (a necessary thing, and when the process is thwarted, it causes even more problems).

And there’s not one, but two, excerpts from “Asian Godfathers” (Joe Studwell) published in Asia Sentinel. Extra! Extra! Read all about it! The first chapter is How to be a Post-war Godfather:

In the Philippines another usurper, Ferdinand Marcos, demonstrated a similar response to Suharto’s with respect to the possibilities of godfather relationships. After winning two presidential terms in (distinctly dirty) elections, Marcos circumvented his country’s two-term presidential limit by declaring martial law in 1972. Like Suharto, he also looked beyond the established godfather élite – in the Philippines, traditional Spanish and Chinese mestizo families – to find some of his key business proxies. The archetype was Lucio Tan, a first-generation immigrant and one-time janitor who became, under Marcos’ patronage, the Philippines’ leading tobacco vendor, as well as having interests in everything from banking to real estate.

It is probable that – as with Liem Sioe Liong, who knew Suharto from the latter’s military postings in central Java – Tan and Marcos knew each other from Ilocos, the president’s home region where Tan had his first, small cigarette factory. Both Suharto and Marcos signalled regime change by promoting new, non-indigenous outsiders to godfather roles. Tan was a clear break in the ethnically more mixed and integrated Philippines because he represented the so-called ‘one-syllable Chinese’ – those who had not assimilated and adopted local surnames.

The promotion of new outsiders achieved two useful things for the dictators: it provided ultra-dependent, ultra-loyal sources of future finance for them and their families; and it served as a warning to the established, more integrated economic élite that it was not indispensable.

In the pre-Marcos Philippines, businessmen of every ethnic make-up had been increasingly successful in overrunning and manipulating a weak parliamentary system and thereby obviating the need to make deals with ultimate political power. Ferdy reversed this trend, though it remains a latent tendency in both the Philippines and Thailand whenever central leadership is weakened.

The second is, what those godfathers focus on: Core cash flow:

In the Philippines a tradition of political allocation of state offices and government largesse built up from the 1920s, under American colonial rule, until it reached its logical conclusion under Ferdinand Marcos. There were trading monopolies for major foodstuff imports, and marketing monopolies for the key local crops – sugar and coconuts.

Eduardo ‘Danding’ Cojuangco was one of the leading Marcos monopolists. (It is a reminder of the small and élitist world in which money and power resides in Southeast Asia that Danding is from the same landed family as Cory Aquino, whose ‘people power’ movement overthrew Marcos in 1986.) Danding, a Marcos favorite, benefited from a new levy on coconut production that funded the development of United Coconut Planters Bank. He was made president of the bank, which in turn bought up most of the Philippines’ coconut milling facilities. Danding’s coconut cash flows were strong enough to buy up much more besides. He became known as Mr Pacman, after the video game character that eats everything in its path.

Marcos monopolies set new standards in the powers they conferred. Lucio Tan’s Fortune Tobacco Co., which was given tax, customs, financing and regulatory breaks that were tantamount to a domestic monopoly on cigarette making, wrote a new cigarette tax code that Marcos signed into law. In the same period Tan is alleged to have printed his own internal revenue stamps to paste on cigarette packets. The cash flow from tobacco propelled him into chemicals, farming, textiles, brewing, real estate, hotels and banking. After Marcos fled to Hawaii in 1986, Tan wrote an open letter to new president Cory Aquino in which he asserted: ‘We can proudly say that we have never depended on dole-outs, government assistance or monopoly protection throughout our history.’

…The crudeness of the monopolies handed out by Marcos and Suharto tends to obscure the almost universal presence of monopolies, cartels and controlled Asian markets in Southeast Asia.

Of course these things aren’t new to Filipinos; but what will be new to Filipino readers is how similar things are in neighboring countries.

Elsewhere, relevant reading in terms of ongoing debates on the the Japan-RP free trade agreement: Indonesia-Japan EPA: Who’s getting the best deal? And In South Korea: “This is What Democracy Looks Like!”. In Foreign Affairs, Elizabeth C. Economy looks at China and asks if in environmental terms, it isn’t taking a harmful “Great Leap Backward”. The Economist asks whether President Putin isn’t building a “neo-KGB state” in Russia. In Australia, an ongoing debate on the nature of Federalism; one issue involves hospitals: Hospital plan puts focus back on ‘new federalism’. By the way,
Australian government caught editing Wikipedia.

The Magnificent Seven looks at American soldiers who’ve published an op-ed piece criticizing their government’s conduct of the war in Iraq; Sir, Can I Publish This, Sir! clarifies the circumstances under which soldiers can criticize their government. Ah, and The Credit Crunch in Financial Markets Remains Severe, says Roubini.

On a lighter note, Vanity Fair on how Ralph Lauren captured the public imagination.

Amando Doronila’s column today, is somewhat related to the above, in terms of the role coercion plays in politics (and by extension, business).

From Patricio Diaz of Mindanews, a two part series, Metamorphosis 1 and Metamorphosis 2, on the evolution of Filipino Muslim political thought.

In his column, Dan Mariano discusses Roberto Verzola’s suggestions for a more productive approach to election automation.

In the blogosphere… I remember that the President’s famous “I. Am. Sorry.” speech had people divided between those for whom it was far from being enough, and others who felt it was a breathtaking act of contrition. The clincher, of course, was that for some it was too little, too late, for others, more than enough. The same applies as news has begun to circulate Society columnist quits over OFW bashing (see also Manila Standard columnist quits after getting OFWs’ ire). For details on the actual letter of apology itself, see Ang Kape Ni LaTtEX. In Piercing Pens, there is more information, including People Asia saying it will publish the letter of apology in lieu of Malu Fernandez’s next column.

As An OFW Living in Hong Kong points out, this was a demonstration of political muscle by OFWs and their families. I am not convinced it was totally an achievement of the blogosphere: it’s still a small circle compared to the online media Filipinos congregate in, in truly significant numbers, and that’s e-groups (and e-mail: the magazine article was scanned, then circulated by e-mail, some time before it finally started being commented on in blogdom). The impact of a statement by press associations, such as the one issued by the Filipino Press Club in Dubai, is also the sort of thing media practitioners from the older generation get impressed.

So my observation is that the blogosphere has become fully integrated into established fora and information-opinion networks of Filipinos, at home and abroad; and that, furthermore, the blogosphere along with other online media now creates its own news and yes, it can rock the older media to its foundations, whether print, television, or radio; and it has become to serve as an effective check-and-balance, not only to the media, but to itself (see Nasty Me and Superblessed, and Tanuki Tales, who is glad it’s all at an end). Everyone got thoroughly scrutinized on this one, not just in blogs but in e-mail discussion groups. It’s not as if it hasn’t always been there, but Class Struggle suddenly got validated (or one step closer, anyway, see Ajay’s Writings on the Wall, which incidentally has the best Malu photo caption ever), and as with all revolutionary notions, it isn’t a picnic as Mao said.

Nonetheless, I think the combined letter of apology and resignation from the paper and magazine, were the proper form of atonement and Malu Fernandez deserves credit for it. An apology is never easy, resignation even harder, and both, combined, is an unusual yet potent combination -and an example of accountability (on her part, to be sure; and even People Asia’s, if and when it publishes her letter; the newspaper dodged a bullet without saying anything). But there will be those who will be watching with keen suspicion, for some time to come (see Taragis na Buhay to, for example).

blog@AWBHoldings.com takes a look at the overall implications of the issue for bloggers (a pyrrhic victory, he says). For thorough look on our changing demographics, see Jove Francisco’s tribute to OFWs.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, economy, federalism, Gloriagate, Hello Garci, history, ideas, journalism, korea, media, military, mindanao, philippines, politics, president, Senate, society, war

Like a bad case of the Clap, it keeps coming back

There’s an extremely interesting article in Slate titled The Heart of Queens: Can Nancy Pelosi single-handedly take impeachment off the table? Which castigates the first female Speaker of the US House of Representatives, for saying something along the lines of our local politicians: no impeachment, not now, not before the next elections, which means, not ever  (see Opposition not rushing to file new impeach case vs Arroyo).

There’s this great passage from the article, which looks not only at American public opinion at present, but which also explains why public opinion is crucial when it comes to proposals for impeachment:

According to public opinion polling, the percentage of voters supporting the impeachments of both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are now approximately 45 and 54 percent, respectively. Most Americans instinctively feel the president is an untrustworthy steward of the Constitution’s checks and balances because, among other things, he flouts laws, prohibits White House aides from testifying before Congress, consistently defends an attorney general who is an inveterate liar, and detains citizens and noncitizens indefinitely as enemy combatants on his say-so alone. The prevailing barometer of acute public dissatisfaction with the White House surpasses the corresponding disaffection with President Richard M. Nixon when the Senate Watergate hearings began in May 1973. And Mr. Nixon had recently trounced Sen. George McGovern in the 1972 elections, winning 49 states.

Sounds familiar? The principles remain the same, just as there have been those who’ve pointed out the at times uncanny similarity between the administration’s take-no-prisoners approach and the Republic playbook in the States. As the article goes on to explain,

The prospect of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee would concentrate the minds of the president and vice president wonderfully on obeying rather than sabotaging the Constitution. But Speaker Pelosi has at least figuratively joined hands with the White House in opposition. Emulating the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, she has threatened the removal of Michigan Rep. John Conyers from his chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if an impeachment inquiry were even opened, according to reliable congressional chatter.

The writer says it’s unproductive for the Speaker to undermine the Judiciary Committee chairman:

With more than four decades of service in the House, Chairman Conyers is a veteran of constitutional battles between the branches. The speaker, in contrast, is a novice on such matters. Unlike Conyers, she never experienced the Nixon impeachment travails that sobered and toughened the chairman against executive abuses and secrecy. If she had, she never would have emboldened President Bush and Vice President Cheney to intensify their assaults on congressional power by pronouncing that “impeachment is off the table.”

If you still don’t get it, here’s the clincher, the similarity that’s so relevant:

Not surprisingly, after receiving that reassurance that there would be no consequences for their misconduct, the White House swiftly choked off the authority of Congress to expose executive lawlessness or maladministration by instructing current or former White House officials, including Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Joshua Bolton, to refuse to appear for testimony. And despite the recent enactment of the Protect America Act of 2007—which amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the ninth time since 9/11 to suit the administration’s fancy—President Bush continues to claim constitutional authority to ignore the law at will and in secret.

Now the President, herself, of course has come out swinging, as Jove Francisco recounts:

She was even wearing a powder blue number, her color of choice during the biggest political storm that hit her administration ever. Gloriagate. (So that’s why she’s back to wearing blue lately…)

A revival of sorts…amidst the sudden revival of the Hello Garci Controversy.

This time though… Mrs Arroyo also threw punches at her opponents.

Mrs. Arroyo, reading the teleprompter in front of her, said: “I have a country to run, I have terrorists to fight, I have a peace to win and a bright future to secure for these children. I embrace work and will just leave the titans of hate to have a monopoly on the politics of destruction.”
(On cue -some say “as rehearsed”, as soon as she uttered the word children, she slightly turned to touch one of the babies at the back. What registered in the faces of Bingbong Cirologo and Sonny Belmonte were precious. They were even reading with her. Not much choice really, napatayo na sila nung tumayo ang Pangulo.)

(BTW, there was even a debate whether PGMA said “PYTHONS OF HATE” or “TITANS OF HATE”… official OPS transcript stated for the record that she said “will just leg a title of hate”. That confused all of us more, so we had to playback our tapes and realized that she actually said TITANS of hate.)

And her factotums have come out swinging, too: Gonzalez uses Aragoncillo case vs Arroyo foes (how can you punish a Filipino for soliciting information on a foreign power? What the Americans punished was one of their own assisting citizens of a foreign power; and what if, as it’s been suggested, the President or her people were reading the same documents that Estrada and Co. supposedly obtained?). The administration bloc flexes its muscles in the Senate, too: Arroyo allies stall Garci probe over concerns of tape legality. And the legal armor’s been dusted off: Palace to invoke EO 464 again (the spiritual armor, too: Arroyo declares Sept 12 Nat’l Day of Prayer, Reconciliation).

In a powerful entry in Philippine Commentary, Dean Jorge Bocobo argues that when the Supreme Court struck down portions of the controversial executive issuance, it actually left intact the bits most precious and useful to the administration. Bocobo also says,

But a potentially explosive new development in the saga of the Garci Recordings is the accusation that a MAJOR TELECOM firm was involved in the alleged illegal wiretapping operation of the Intelligence Services of the AFP. Now here the Senate has a chance, because even Chief Executives like Manny Pangilinan and Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala are NOT covered by EO 464. I think these telecoms could lose local and international licenses and franchises and become the subject of intense Congressional pressure if these accusations of participation in illegal wiretapping operations turn out to be true.

Which goes to the heart of a news item like this: Smart: We don’t have capability to bug phones. Newsbreak asks, Wiretap Scandal: Was there a Basement? Gen. Esperon says, there isn’t one; the reporters say, someone like Doble could easily confuse the ground floor with a basement.

In other news, HSA overlooks $-denominated terror funds, the President’s inlaw says: Iggy Arroyo says solons want DAR abolished (during my past visits to Bacolod, I’d heard the hacenderos were, indeed, looking forward to the Arroyos spearheading the abolition of CARP, and not out of objections to it on grounds of efficiency). Palace submits P1.227-T budget proposal.

Newsbreak also has two articles of note: GRP Backtracks on Self-Determination Offer to MILF and New Marines, Isafp Chiefs in Massive AFP Revamp.

Overseas, Asian stocks rise, looking to the Fed, as Fed chairman signals US interest rate cut. However, even as While the west takes a battering, China weathers the global storm, there’s  Subprime hits German state banks. William Pesek warns, Bernanke must avoid Greenspan’s Asia bubble mess. In our neck of the woods, Burma rounds up protest leaders (see Fuelling discontent in Myanmar).

My column for today is Visions in isolation. Also, Connie Veneracion looks at Malu Mania; Tony Abaya investigates Ninoy’s assassination.

In the blogosphere, some, like smoke, aren’t amused by the latest Lacson bombshell; Patsada Karajaw is delighted; Philippine Politics 04 says it brings up unresolved questions over past events.

Mong Palatino defends playing basketball in the streets. Pedestrian Observer on Malu Mania, saying enough with the fat jokes, and Superblessed makes an appeal for sobriety and calm.

Technorati Tags: constitution, economy, Gloriagate, Hello Garci, House of Representatives, impeachment, media, military, mindanao, philippines, politics, president, Senate, society, Washington DC

Ping Pong

Panfilo Lacson;s brought the “Hello, Garci” issue back to center stage: ‘I heard Arroyo, Garci talk,’ says ex-sergeant: She asked about 1-M votes, claims ex-ISAFP agent. See Ellen Tordesillas and An OFW in Hong Kong for more.

I believe Dean Jorge Bocobo was the first to argue that the real story -and scandal- all along, boils down to a question: how could the President of the Philippines end up with a tapped phone? Senator Lacson seems to be inclined to pursue that question, trotting out Doble, who says the intelligence service could tap people, with the connivance of a telecoms firm. Doble says the President was, in a sense, “collateral damage.”

DJB may be right in that, if you ask how a President could be the victim of wiretapping, it establishes that wiretapping took place; you would then have to resolve whether what was wiretapped -the conversations- are useful for other cases, along the way verifying the authenticity of those conversations.

Who knows, maybe Ping and Pong are better-prepared this time around. The Senate, convened as a committee of the whole, has a chance to hold orderly but in-depth hearings, which can ask:

1. Who ordered the so-called “Operation Lighthouse”? For what purpose? Who decided it should be undertaken by the ISAFP?
2. On what basis did ISAFP conduct its eavesdropping operations, and how, and to what extent, and on what legal basis, did the telecoms company assist ISAFP?
3. How did ISAFP’s tapes end up being sold?
4. The President implicitly confirmed the authenticity of at least one event supposedly recorded in the tapes. What is the legal implication of this admission? At which point, if any, did she break, bend, or mishandle the law? Even if a victim of the wiretapping, what if she had authorized the operations in the first place, in aid of reelection?

Certainly, there’s plenty of opportunities afforded by these questions, for investigations in aid of legislation, much as I disagree with this limitation on Congress’ powers of inquiry, which I’ve long argued we already approach from a Wilsonian point of view, and it’s time our jurisprudence caught up. They are questions independent of the stand some like myself have taken with regards to the President’s fitness for office: as I explained at the time, what mattered less was what the tapes contained, but how the President (mis)handled the issue. These questions, in the time that’s passed since, goes beyond the President’s being in office or not, or whether the public is resigned to her finishing her term (I believe public opinion is inclined to let sleeping dogs lie). But whoever is president and will become president, has to worry about the possibility the ISAFP can run around wiretapping people, from the President to has-been movie actors.

Jove Francisco reports on how the President didn’t sound combative even when she insisted combat operations will continue in Sulu and Basilan.

Overseas, Paulson says no quick fix for credit problems. He’s the US Treasury Secretary; and so Wall St. remained on edge. Meanwhile, Chinese central bank raises interest rates, pointing to concerns over higher inflation. Economist Nouriel Roubini explains why “the Fed actions on Friday have been so far ineffective and the investors’ panic and rush to the safety is in full swing”.

On the other hand, guarded optimism from The Economist about the country in The Jeepney economy revs up. Its cautionary tone is explained as follows:

All good news, but worries remain. However welcome the growth in call-centre jobs, it is engineering and business graduates who are queueing to take them. A recent International Labour Organisation study noted that the country’s average annual productivity growth between 2000 and 2005 was just 0.9%, compared with 10.3% in China and 4.9% in India, suggesting that “many new job entrants are underemployed”.

A chief problem, despite foreign interest, is a rate of investment that is at 20-year lows as a share of GDP. Poor infrastructure, especially roads, hampers businesses of all sorts. Gil Beltran, a senior finance-ministry official, says the government intends to increase annual infrastructure spending from 2.8% of GDP to 5%. Successive administrations have had a poor record of keeping such promises.

The public finances still need a lot of fixing. Tax revenues as a share of GDP are still below pre-1997 levels, while public debt is high, at around 75% of GDP. The next big job, says Mr Beltran, is to simplify the mess of illogical tax breaks that cost a fortune in lost revenues. Efforts to drag big-business tax-dodgers to court have so far got nowhere. A swingeing tax rise on Jeepney owners looks like squeezing the poor to spare the rich.

The Inquirer editorial says former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa was wrong in suggesting finding out who ordered Ninoy Aquino killed is a lost cause. A fascinating comparison of Beijing in the 70s, 80s, and now, in Haggling and horror at Tiananmen.

A whole heap of interesting reading in the blogosphere. A heart-breaking entry in fish in a bowl, on a friend’s losing a daughter.

Iloilo City Boy is back to blogging, and has two insightful pieces: the first is Oil Spills Are Cheap In This Country : The Petron Oil Spill A Year After. The second, The New Hacendero.

Iloilo City Boy’s look at how landlord-tenant relationships are evolving in Negros serves as a reminder of how things on the ground are changing, ot necessarily for better or worse, but changing -this is something that caffeine sparks looks into, in terms of the OFW phenomenon, with its complex issues. The Journal of the Jester-in-Exile provides a thorough update on the debate sparked by Malu Fernandez’s writings, but caffeine sparks provides the broader context on OFWs and how they are increasingly flexing their political muscles. Incidentally, baratillo@cubao points to another writer in trouble.

The language debates has a thoughtful piece by A Nagueno in the Blogosphere (who thinks regions should be allowed to formulate their own education policies, an advocacy I strongly support, and this means greater latitude when it comes to language policies), and Demosthenes’ Game (who does make a good point that there are probably those who oppose English instruction because it goes against the interests of the politburo, which is interested in filtering ideologically-inconvenient information) making an observation I find curious:

Which is something we’ve been doing here for ages, voting with our feet I mean. After all, no private school here can remain in business very long without giving English pre-eminent position in its curriculum. No, the issue here is the failure of our so-called democracy for the past two decades to heed the will of the people, instead paying obeisance to the all-knowing ‘nationalist’ academicians of our cultural politburo. Look where that got us. Only now is the situation being rectified, and none too soon. No, the issue was never which was the better curriculum. The issue was always about choice. And that those who had none should have the same as those who could, and did, vote with their feet.

What I find curious is that if you ask the owners and administrators of public schools, their problem is that people are voting with their feet -but not in the direction Demosthenes’ Game assumes. Generally, the problems I most often hear, are three:

1. Private schools are hemorrhaging faculty to the public schools, which now offer, at the very least, competitive salaries and in some areas, better salaries than private schools.

2. Private schools are also experiencing a decrease in enrollment. Parents are taking their kids out of the private schools and sending them to public schools. In some areas, it’s because substantial investments have been made by local authorities in the public school system, which then becomes competitive, but in other areas, the public school system has been expanded, is mediocre at best, but exists, and that’s all that matters; in these areas, parents move their kids from private to public school because it’s much less expensive for the parents, regardless of the quality (or lack of it) of the education being provided. The drop in enrollment is being experienced both by establish private schools (belonging to the religious orders, for example) and the increasing number of small private schools.

3. Whether public or private, school administrators face pressure from parents to pass the kids, regardless of whether they’re qualified to move on to the next level or not; for private schools, the pressure is to keep moving kids along from one level to the next, to keep parents happy; in public schools, it’s because so many kids are entering school, no one can be made to stay behind: the quota system at its worst.

Red’s Herring reflects on Nick Joaquin and Rizal; Philippine Commentary reflects on Ninoy Aquino and takes Conrado de Quiros to task for not exploring Jovito Salonga’s assertion that the Plaza Miranda bombing was ordered by Jose Ma. Sison. Big Mango offers up some thoughts on political parties.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, economy, Gloriagate, Hello Garci, history, human rights, philippines, politics, president, Senate

Shake, rattle and roll

Oh boy, here it comes. It was very slight, and brief (see christine’s Site), but there it was.  Tremors shake Metro Manila, Central Luzon areas. This, after Philippines Hit by 6.5-Magnitude Earthquake, U.S. Agency Says . And this sets the scene: 6.6 quake in Atlantic, north of Brazilian coast — USGS.

24 years after, brains of Ninoy slay a mystery. Goofy idea or lapsus senilis? Narvasa: We should close book on Ninoy Aquino’s murder. See Inquirer Current for my entry on Ninoy’s martyrdom.

On the Mindanao front: ‘No spillover of Mindanao hostilities in Metro Manila’ even as PNP placed on full alert nationwide. Government tries to soft-pedal news that Government-MILF talks canceled. In Hawk Central (Philippine Commentary), there’s an update on concern among retired or ex-officers, on the recent casualties in the fighting.

At this point, I’d like to share with you a copy of a letter Sen. Dick Gordon sent the President, which makes for interesting reading (he sent me a copy this morning). Here’s the letter:

Some interesting excerpts:

1. Despite the recent hostilities in Basilan and Sulu, which have claimed many lives and injured others, the area is by no means a war zone. The situation is under control. The no-guns policy is being enforced effectively by the AFP and the PNP under the leadership of Gen. Romeo Tolentino and Gen. Ruben Rafael . The number of displaced persons is not as large as feared, and they are being assisted by the DSWD, PNRC and other groups. Normal business and social life prevails.

This is not to minimize the seriousness of the terrorist threat and the high toll of lives of recent incidents there. But the fighting has occurred mainly in a few pockets of the two islands where the campaign against terrorist bands, particularly the Abu Sayyaf, is being prosecuted.

The local people, while edgy about the recent fighting and the military presence, are happy about the gun ban. Sulu Governor Abdulsakur Tan told me that he will continue the ban beyond the current situation. He has successfully made all mayors and barangay chairmen report to their posts, where in the past such local officials used to station themselves in Zamboanga City. The mayor of Jolo, Hussin Amin, is fully supporting his initiatives.

The focus of complaint and worry of the local people is not peace and order but the poor provision of basic services (such as schools, water service and roads), the payment of salaries to teachers, and support for economic activities and livelihood.

He goes on to note that,

4. On the economic front, business and commerce go on as usual in both islands. In the campus of the Jolo Agricultural School, we visited a site that used to be a dumping ground for bodies. It is now being used for poultry raising. We found high school and college students bottling sardines, mangosteen and durian. Everywhere we went, we were being offered bananas, lanzones and other fruits. These produce are very cheap in the province. Mangosteen was selling for 5 to 7 pesos per kilo. In Metro Manila, it sells for P100 to P120 per kilo.  I believe the President should call on the DTI to help them market these products at better prices. This will do so much to provide livelihood and jobs to the people of Sulu and the entire ARMM area.

Another move that could really help the regional economy is for the government to finish the circumferential road in Isabela City in Basilan and other road projects. General Juancho Saban, the marine brigade commander in Basilan, told me that the completion of the circumferential road will have far-reaching impact on provincial life and commerce because people, goods and relief effort can move more quickly from Isabela to isolated towns. This will pave the way for local prosperity because of the increase in the number of rubber trees and the abundant production of lanzones.

He suggests a change of perspective:

What I am suggesting here, Your Excellency, is that we should consider a change in perspective and approach to the area. The prevailing practice has been to treat Basilan and Sulu as a war zone, whether one is calling for all-out war like the hardliners or for peace talks like the bishops. This has led to a total neglect of the all-important buildup of basic services and infrastructure in the area. But in fact, the situation there is no more severe than in other areas of the country where there are insurgent or rebel activities. Peace and order prevails and the encounters are sporadic and occur mainly in forest areas. Significantly, however, by neglecting to strengthen basic governance in the area, we wind up losing the argument to the extremists and terrorists.

And makes an appeal for political will and to listen to the solutions proposed by those in the affected areas:

For this kind of capacity-building, assistance from the national government is a must. As I reported previously to Your Excellency after a visit to Tawi-tawi,  in Bongao town a bridge donated by the US remains to be built even though the materials for it – valued at  several hundred million pesos — have been there since seven years ago. This infrastructure will not happen unless there is direct intervention and assistance from the national government.

Simply stated, consistency, accountability and follow-through leadership in ARMM and government agencies must be committed to peace and progress in the region. Using best-practice as our model, we have to set up the infrastructure for accountability and standards to implement all funding initiatives.

What we face in the South, finally, is a battle for hearts and minds. The conflict cannot be won by force alone. All groups trying to help there – the military, the private sector, civil society and international aid organizations – share this conviction about the situation. Local people have to believe that there really is a peace dividend, and that in getting from here to there, we will be with them all the way.

On the economic front: this is a potentially highly significant story: Fewer OFWs leave, but flow of funds steady:

The remittances of overseas Filipinos have flowed at a rate of more than a billion dollars a month for 13

months in a series thus far, totaling $7.03 billion in the first half.

What is not apparent, however, is that the deployment of sea-based Pinoy workers fell by 11.1 percent to just 123,950 while land-based workers fell 3.2 percent to 422,262 during the period.

The declining pace of deployment has caught the eye of relevant government agency heads who noted the annual remittances account for 11 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product and at least half the country’s foreign exchange reserves at the moment.

The sustained flow of worker remittances helped fuel consumer spending that in turn pushed the GDP higher to 6.9 percent in the second quarter.

According to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, deployment in the period contracted by 5.1 percent to only 546.212, making more imperative the pursuit of the training and skills development programs undertaken earlier by both government and private employment agencies.

Elsewhere, March of the mines sees islanders facing loss of ancestral homeland:

The Philippines archipelago of more than 7,200 islands is among the world’s most mineral-rich countries, with gold, silver, bauxite, nickel and coal mines. But it remains one of Asia’s poorest nations, with a fragile democracy, slow growth, weak institutions, and a widening wealth gap. Its mineral reserves are estimated to be worth £420bn, yet only 1.4% of the estimated 22m acres (9m ha) of mining land is covered by permits. To exploit the resources the government formed a mining act in 1995. It claimed the industry would bring an extra million jobs over the next six years, although only 125,000 people are now employed in mining. The development has come at a price for the country’s 84 million people. The worst mining disaster was on Marinduque island, involving a leak of 4m tonnes of toxic waste at Marcopper’s mine. The estimated damages of £40m have yet to be fully recouped

Deal-making update:  2 new air accords rushed. Also, Arroyo orders sale of energy assets rushed and GMA wants nuke power harnessed (see Jove Francisco for more details on government’s efforts to gauge public opinion on this one). Oversight’s called for on potentially juicy deals.

Happy, happy, joy, joy in the stock market: RP stocks index end up nearly 10% as global equities rebound. However, US stocks waver as uncertainty remains. As usual, noteworthy observations on the part of Ricky Carandang.

On a point of filial pride, Aquino Awards honors work of former president, priest. My mom was among the awardees, for her half-century of work in volunteer training, consumer advocacy, and NGO work.

Overseas, Thailand approves a flawed charter andThailand’s Constitutional Merry-Go-Round. Also, how the American presidency clamps down on dissent in Sic ‘em With the Rally Squad. See also,  How Physics Can Explain Why Some Countries Are Rich And Others Are Poor.

Jarius Bondoc on the government’s winning its case vs. Fraport. Cielito Habito on the stock market and the Peso’s seesawing levels.

In the blogosphere, Mon Casiple has a blog! See his entry on GMA searches for way out of her political crisis:

The 2007 elections, particularly the senatorial one, basically confirmed the whole series of surveys on GMA that signified her political isolation from the majority of the electorate. Her senatorial slate got a drubbing, along with a very controversial last-place win for her candidate Senator Miguel Zubiri. The GMA kiss of death, some say. It resulted to her being considered a political lameduck for the rest of her term.

Well, except for two things that will diminish as her term ends. Her silent endorsement is eagerly but silently being solicited by presidentiables who need the money and resources a sitting president can give. The other thing is the behemoth GMA-led coalition that, so far, does not have a viable presidentiable in its stable…

GMA’s current political crisis stems from her alienation from the people–not from her bitter rivalry with the political opposition. The opposition only becomes effectively The Opposition if and when the people clearly side with it. Unfortunately for GMA, the situation beginning in the run-up to the 2004 elections generally went against her. Her December 31, 2002 Rizal Day statement that she will not run in the 2004 presidential elections did not help at all. Her perceived involvement in the Garcillano scandal started the current skid on a slope with no acceptable end in sight.

There are, I think, only two good options open for her: One, to gracefully exit in 2010, patch things up, and try to make good during her remaining days in office; and two, to negotiate with (a) winnable presidentiable(s) on political protection in the post-GMA period.

A third option, to remain in power beyond 2010–as some in her Cabinet proposes–is a political minefield. Marcos did it in 1972 with the declaration of martial law–bringing forth the Marcos dictatorship and ruining the country. However, he had a certain level of popular support, the full control of the military, and the tacit tolerance of the Catholic church and Western powers at that time. GMA had none of these today.

Technorati Tags: constitution, elections, history, media, ninoy aquino, people power, philippines, politics, president, Thailand, war, Washington DC

Next Page »