Like a bad case of the Clap, it keeps coming back
August 23, 2007 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
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.â€
(On cue -some say “as rehearsedâ€, 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 HATEâ€â€¦ official OPS transcript stated for the record that she said “will just leg a title of hateâ€. 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
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
hvrds on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 4:31 pm
The chances of a crucial rate cut of the Fed Fund rate will probably not happen. Four major market making banks (Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citi and Wachovia) have ceremonially accessed the lending window to try to remove the stigma of accessing the lending window. The lending term has been extended to 30 days. More time for those in trouble to unwind their positions and come out in the open.
Bank of America has already infused additional capital into Countrywide that had experienced a plain old bank run. The sharks will line up to pick up the pieces in sifting between the layers of the so called toxic waste of paper. Containment measures are being put in place to prevent toxic wastes from polluting the better paper.
The guys who will take most of the hit are the high flying investment banks who are at the center of this fiasco. Next in line are the hedge funds. Both are unregulated by governments.
After the last Depression Glass-Steagall was legislated by Congress in the 30’s that separated investment banking from commercial banking. This was repealed in the mid 90’s through the efforts then of Robert Rubin to benefit Citibank. Part of the deregulation process when Citi merged with Travelers Life.
Now the merchants of financial toxic waste have to unwind their positions with the help of the Federal Reserve.
The trick is to try to slow down the deflationary pressures in home prices. Last week the entire home mortgage market in the U.S. almost came to a halt. I think a lot of people got a look at the edge of the cliff. Everyone is now backing away from that cliff.
The U.S. economy has now fundamentally changed but remains the same. As Jagdish Bhagwati, doctrinaire equilibrium economist from Columbia once said, in the past it was GM. What was good for GM was good for America. Today it is Goldman Sachs. What is good for Goldman Sachs is good for America. It is like a return to the gilded age of J.P. Morgan who singlehandedly acted as the Central Bank of the U.S. during the financial crisis of 1907.
You have the street smart guy from Goldman Sachs in the person of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the book smart Bernanke who made the history of the last depression
his life’s work.
Together they rule this planet for now. The problems of overproduction will have to await solutions once again.
manuelbuencamino on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 4:59 pm
Doble blows the whistle on Operation Lighthouse.
What’s your evidence?
Garci Tapes.
Oh you can’t use that. It’s against the law to use tapes of a wiretap as proof of wiretapping,
ricelander on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 5:01 pm
Will we ever know who killed Ninoy?
We can’t get to the real killers because it points to someone else and not Marcos. We just can’t believe it so we stop. The luster of Ninoy’s heroism would diminish much if Marcos is not the culprit. It would be one less sin from Marcos’ sins against humanity. That could not be. It’s blasphemy! Marcos is evil, period.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 5:19 pm
What is the legislation that should come out of the Garci Investigation?
I think in so far as EO 464 will be used to stop it, the Senate investigation will become less about Garci and wiretapping and more about executive privilege and Congressional Oversight, which are the opposed principles that must be given both due course and proper balance.
In general I believe that there are many legitimate reasons for claiming executive privilege, and many illegitimate ones. There has to be a legal mechanism by which a blanket, unpierceable wall of executive privilege is not ever attained, without prejudicing its legitimate use.
I think we need a proper WHISTLEBLOWERS LAW to provide such a mechanism that would not destroy the executive’s privilege of confidentiality and even secrecy in impt matters, eg of national security, or destroy public reputations by imputation, but which provides a means by which heroic public servants can “jump the wall” so to speak and expose true wrongdoing at the highest levels in matters like election fraud, corruption, etc.
The Garci investigation should be in aid of legislation like a Whistleblowers Law, to provide a check and balance mechanism against abuse of executive privilege for secrecy and confidentiality. It should especially cover whistleblowers in the active military, which makes it a challenging law to write, but which would requiring the testimony of the highest levels of the military.
Such a law would really be aimed at protecting institutions like the military against their prostitution to partisan political affairs, and providing a carefully controlled mechanism by which “sumbungeros” can effectively help to root out graft and corruption, and treasonous acts like wiretapping a President.
Again without allowing false claims to get undue publicity.
This way the investigation can even call back the Garci generals to get their recommendations about how to build a strong and potent military intelligence system that ought to make whistleblowing obsolete.
The crux of the investigation should be the Military. Its legislative intent should be to build a strong, powerful and independent Armed Forces of the Philippines!
One that is the true bulwark of Democracy, that is absolutely loyal only to the Constitution.
Bokyo on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 5:42 pm
I believe it will be very hard to break the normal flow of “BUSINESS” in the military.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 5:45 pm
mb,
again you misunderstand the law! that is NOT what the antiwiretapping law says at all! Don’t you see, the garci tapes are evidence of crimes against the antiwiretapping law, section one. It is precisely the kind of wiretapping that Lorenzo Tanada sought to outlaw, except he would never have guessed that its most famous case has as the target of the wiretapping not some activist or journalist, but the President of the Republic. Thus it is not only a violation of the right to privacy, but a breach of national security.
The crime that the Garci Tapes prove is not electoral fraud at all, but illegal wiretapping of the President under RA 4200!
jaxius on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 5:58 pm
DJB,
And what would stop officers like Trillanes from interpreting the Constitution as they please?
I urge you to read this:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/07spring/swain.htm
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:01 pm
On basement issue:
Unless the CSAFP staff quarter’s changed in location and structure from the time of Sen Biazon till the time of Gen ABU,he does not need a senate investigation to tell us that aint so.
And I don’t recall the CS quarters got destroyed or burned,I believe it was the vice chief’s quarters which burned at one time per recollection.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:02 pm
The crime that the Garci Tapes prove is not electoral fraud at all, but illegal wiretapping of the President under RA 4200!
I claim this crime exists even if the conversations were nothing more than sweet pleasantries being exchanged between texmates.
Who ultimately is culpable and liable for this crime?
That is the most interesting question of all!
jaxius on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:05 pm
DJB,
And what would stop officers like Trillanes from interpreting the Constitution as they please?
I urge you to read “The Ethics of Officership” by Richard Swain, an article published in Parameters, the professional journal of the US Army War College. I tried to attach the link but my earlier post is still awaiting moderation because of the built-in filter.
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:10 pm
Nasilip ng driver si misis at ang kanyang boyfriend sa bedroom making love. Kinunan ng picture.
Binigay ng driver ang picture sa husband who confronted the wife.
Husband: You committed adultery with your boyfriend!
Wife: What’s your proof?
Husband: This picture, taken by the driver.
Wife: Gago, it doesn’t prove that I committed adultery. It proves that your driver is a peeping tom!
jaxius on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:12 pm
DJB,
GMA was not the person being tapped. As Doble claimed, she was “collateral damage.” She only figured in the tapes because she called Garci.
Some suspect that it was not GMA who ordered the surveillance of Garci. If she did, she would probably refrain from calling. I think she is not that stupid as to call a tapped phone even if she was the one who ordered it. I guess it would be some GMA cohort, someone who probably wanted to ingratiate himself with the administration, who ordered Garci’s phone bugged.
GMA and the leaders of the cheating machinery might have been concerned that Garci would turn the tables on them. Baka gapangin ng kabila. She probably ordered the intel service to keep a tight watch on Garci. She probably didn’t know they can tap Garci’s phone.
manuelbuencamino on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:30 pm
DJB,
Again you misunderstand what I wrote.
“again you misunderstand the law! that is NOT what the antiwiretapping law says at all! Don’t you see, the garci tapes are evidence of crimes against the antiwiretapping law, section one”.
Paano naging iba ang sinulat ko – “Oh you can’t use that. It’s against the law to use tapes of a wiretap as proof of wiretapping.”- sa sinasabi mo -”the garci tapes are evidence of crimes against the antiwiretapping law, section one”?
Maybe I should use big bold type for you?
Aren’t gloria’s legal beafles arguing the Garci tapes are inadmissable?
So how can you prove there was an illegal wiretap if you are not allowed to present the evidence the tapes the living proof you have in your possession?
Hindi ko sinabi evidence ng cheating yun. And sinabi ko evidence of illegal wiretapping yun.
I don’t know if I can make it any simpler for you
manuelbuencamino on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:34 pm
DJB,
Nga pala my first sentence was, “Doble blows the whistle on Operation Lighthouse.”
OPERATION LIGHTHOUSE! Hindi cheating in 2004, hindi Garci tapes.
Common sense should tell you I was referring to am illegal wiretap operation carried out by the ISAFP.
manuelbuencamino on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:38 pm
DJB,
To paraphrase Shaman – How can Doble prove he was an eavesdropper if he doesn’t nake you listen to his tapes?”
Get my point Mr. Wannabe Lawyer?
Bokyo on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:43 pm
“Who ultimately is culpable and liable for this crime?
That is the most interesting question of all!”
Dean,
I thought the most interesting question is why is it this government or this administration is not at all interested in pursuing the case on illegal acts that has been done against this president.
cvj on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 7:43 pm
Shaman, that analogy was spot on! However, i think DJB’s approach does look promising a-la Untouchables where they got to Al Capone via his accountant. This time around, looks like the role of Al Capone’s accountant goes to the Telecom moguls.
Devilsadvc8 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:20 pm
“Will we ever know who killed Ninoy?”
It’s not “who killed him” but “who ordered him killed.” It’s pretty much an open and shut case that Galman shot Ninoy. Just like Lee Oswald was for JFK. They’re both patsies, and the real mastermind was never really found. Question is, were the Americans able to move on despite never having caught the mastermind or are they like us, stuck on this rut?
And yet in Ninoy’s case it would be easier to believe that Marcos was behind it all. Period. We had People Power, and whether or not Marcos was behind the assassination, Ninoy’s death served its purpose. Does failing to catch the mastermind lessen our honoring of Ninoy’s sacrifice? or does failing to even teach younger kids who Ninoy was and what he stood for, a bigger crime?
I’ve given up long ago that the truth of who masterminded the event will ever come out. But that doesn’t mean I’m denigrating the sacrifice Ninoy did by acting as if I don’t care if the mastermind was never found. I’m simply accepting the truth that after all these years, the facts will be so convoluted that even a half-truth will be very hard to come by. I’ve accepted the fact that, Ninoy died for the Filipinos, and that’s all that matters. His killer’s name is no longer any concern of mine. Let him languish in ignominy for all I care. Justice of this world may never be given to Ninoy, but in the after-life, I think the mastermind will have plenty of justice to face. And that as they say, is priceless.
jaxius on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:37 pm
Devilsadv8,
better get your facts straight.
the heirs of galman fought to have him acquitted of the conviction by a mock court. it’s quite unfair that after being held innocent, you point to him as the “open and shut” case assassin of ninoy.
on retrial of the case, the courts found constable first class rogelio moreno as the triggerman in conspiracy with other soldiers. Galman was a mere escape goat.
benign0 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:55 pm
And they say I am so fond of cliches and old analysis formulas.
E yung mga isyu sa Pilipinas panay yan pa rin e. No wonder there is no progress. No, wait. There IS progress. Kaya lang paatras.
Devilsadvc8 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:56 pm
as for the release of the soldiers who were linked with Ninoy’s assassination, I say only one thing. Pardon can only be granted to those who’ve said they’re sorry for what they’ve done. they’ve done their time, and if by the Penal Code they are indeed eligible for parole (or clemency or whatever) then who are we to withhold our forgiveness? Or are we better than God? of course forgiveness is only contingent on those who repent.
Devilsadvc8 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:00 pm
jaxius, tnx for the correction. it still doesn’t change the fact that Moreno was still a patsy. or get us closer to the truth of who masterminded the assassination.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:38 pm
MB,
I am mad at myself for not having the literary skills to explain this very impt point well enough so others can see what I think I see clearly in my head. But as Manolo’s new blurb says, we will use every means of explaining stuff…
It’s to do with the question of what can or cannot be done legally with illegally wiretapped conversations.
Very early on in the controversy the palace was able to convince everybody that the answer to this question is: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They insisted that the Antiwiretapping law made such material “poisoned fruits” and that anyone even possessing such material is violating the law. This argument stuck and most people have never seen through it. Dick Gordon even used it yesterday to oppose the opening of the Senate investigation.
All sorts of arguments against it have been tried. The favorite of Chiz Escudero is a citation of the Bartnicki case, in which the main theme is the public’s right to know. But it’s not the best refutation of poisoned fruits that I have found.
The best refutation is in the Antiwiretapping law itself! After naming the acts considered illegal without Court Orders in Sections 1 and 2 (recording, consent to record, possession and repro of recordings, etc), author Lorenzo Tanada brilliantly states in Section 3 that none of those acts are illegal in cases where such material is evidence of crimes against national security, or in the special case of kidnapping.
In other words, it is NOT ILLEGAL to possess copies of the Garci Recordings, to report them in media, and all that, because they literally are prima facie physical evidence of criminal wrong doing on the part of unknown persons, since no RTC has come forward to say that it issued Court Orders to wiretap the President and Garci.
BTW the “court orders” authorizing the handling of wiretapped materials are not limited to court orders that allow wiretapping be done sometime in the future, the “court orders” can be authorization to examine, use as evidence or otherwise handle illegally wiretapped material done by someone else in the past.
The law explicitly allows Courts to authorize wiretapping and the utilization of wiretapped material, before during and after any crime involving national security.
tagabukid on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:43 pm
The Dean is right, Doble should be jailed and sentenced to die by musketry for wiretapping the President. Wiretapping is so very illegal.
Calling an election commissioner to increase one’s votes by a million is, you guessed it right — a lapse in judgment.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:55 pm
Violation of the Antiwiretapping Law by constitutional officers is an impeachable offense as it is a national security statute as well as a protector of civil liberties.
It was our first Human Security Act.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:59 pm
tagabukid,
ahh, but Doble is a mere accessory or accomplice, not a principal in this crime. he is in fact its whistleblower.
cvj on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:03 pm
DJB, sorry if i’m slow on the uptake but i just want to double confirm – if Section 3 (i.e. “none of those acts are illegal in cases where such material is evidence of crimes against national security, or in the special case of kidnapping“) of the Anti-wiretapping law is the lynchpin because as you say “it is NOT ILLEGAL to possess copies of the Garci Recordings, to report them in media, and all that, because they literally are prima facie physical evidence of criminal wrong doing on the part of unknown persons“, then why did you say in your previous comment that “I claim this crime exists even if the conversations were nothing more than sweet pleasantries being exchanged between texmates.“?
Is it because the relevant crime (against national security) is the military’s eavesdropping against public officials (i.e. Arroyo who was then still President via EDSA Dos and COMELEC official Virgilio Garcillano) and not what they talked about (i.e. manipulating the election results)?
john marzan on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:09 pm
i’ve said this long ago, the bush admin would actually welcome an impeachment against them. because it’ll backfire on the dems and this will deflect the issue from iraq.
the president’s popularity may be low, but the Dem-controlled congress is lower. What, around 18%? LMAO.
most people disapprove of bush, but not to the point of having him impeached.
and according to polls, most Filipinos actually wanted arroyo impeached (if possible) or resign, but knows that it’s not going to happen under the admin controlled House and Senate.
john marzan on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:13 pm
i’ve said this long ago, the bush admin would actually welcome an impeachment against them. because it’ll backfire on the dems and this will deflect the issue from iraq.
the president’s popularity may be low, but the Dem-controlled congress is lower. What, around 18%? LMAO.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28456
most Americans disapprove of bush, but not to the point of having him impeached.
and according to polls, most Filipinos actually wanted arroyo impeached (if that’s possible) or resign, but they know too that it’s not going to happen under the admin controlled House and Senate.
cvj on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:20 pm
But then, you [DJB] also said above that the garci tapes “are evidence of crimes against the antiwiretapping law, section one“.
Does that mean that if the target of the wiretapping is an ordinary citizen (not then President Arroyo), Dick Gordon’s logic (as stated by MB above) prevails?
Devilsadvc8 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:25 pm
An illegal act to prove another illegal act. Ah, that truly cannot prosper. So in the future, let us ask the courts ourselves to grant permission to wiretap all candidates during elections and wait if one of them will call the ‘ol commissioners.
So the wiretapped Garci tapes were illegal. Does that make whatever it contained less truthful? By all means have Doble be state witness and have him produce the masterminds of this act and prosecute them for endangering the national security (never mind Gloria’s security in Malacanang). And then afterwards, let’s move on to punishing those involved in the election scam as well. After all, we can’t possibly successfully prosecute the illegality of the said wiretapping w/o accepting the fact that its contents were real. Either there was wiretapping, or just a lot of air being recorded. Which explains Malacanang’s silence or rather its refusal to search out who bugged GMA’s phone. accepting GMA was indeed bugged is tantamount to accepting the Garci tape contents were real, and not fabricated. And to contend GMA was bugged but the recordings spliced to create a new conversation as perfectly as what we heard in the Garci tapes is hard to believe. Malacanang’s only recourse is to claim there was no wiretapping at all, and whatever we heard was a voice impersonator. In which case no one violated the anti-wiretapping law and we can all go to sleep soundly.
Or perhaps the Garci tapes themselves came from CIA? what Philippine organization has the capability to wiretap its own president? unless GMA ordered herself to be wiretapped and then stupidly forgot the order. were the tapes a threat from the white house that if GMA didn’t hew close to Junior’s war on terror, she may very well kiss her presidency goodbye?
Btw DJB, nice ideas abt the whistleblower act.
manuelbuencamino on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:28 pm
DJB,
your explanation was what I tried to condense in a sentence.
“Oh you can’t use that. It’s against the law to use tapes of a wiretap as proof of wiretapping,”
I should have included national security.
john marzan on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:29 pm
“and this will deflect the issue of iraq.” pala ang dapat kong isinulat.
manuelbuencamino on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:31 pm
benigno
“E yung mga isyu sa Pilipinas panay yan pa rin e.” If u are referring to the Garci tapes, well that issue never died. It was buried alive. By inept morticians like you
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:52 pm
cvj,
I’m not sure about the answer there because there is a specific crime–kidnapping–which is included in the big list of national security crimes but which clearly is not the same situation.
I guess that is because the most common use of wiretapping authorized by the courts is for tracking kidnappers.
But in general I think the answer to your question probably is this: yes, if the tapes are of a private person and there is no national security issue involved, it would be illegal to possess such material.
That is only reasonable of course because Tanada sought to protect the private sphere from govt spying. Even if it could prove guilt of some other crime, not against national security.
Also, it is what makes illegal the recording of others and putting them to ridicule by publishing or reproducing such recordings, which might reveal true things, but should not be allowed because that is eavesdropping.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:56 pm
MB, okay i got it,hehe.
So here it is, the antiwiretapping law is dangerous to the wiretappers, but they were able to convince everybody that the antiwiretapping law protects them. It does, except for Section One!
manuelbuencamino on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 11:21 pm
DJB,
you mean sec.3.
Anyway, how do we resolve the following:
Suppose I was busted for a crime and the info that alerted the cops to my criminal activities came from an illegal wiretap. I get hold of a copy of the tape of this illegal wiretap, Can I use it in court as evidence that my arrest was based on an illegal wiretap?
OR
Does this apply:
“any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effort, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative hearing or investigation.”
AND
the law punishes those who “knowingly posses any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, or to replay the same for any other person or persons, or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions therefore, whether complete or partial, to any person.”
Can I use the recording as proof or am I up shit creek?
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 11:52 pm
Section 1 of RA 4200 prohibits wiretapping “by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.”
In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, [145 SCRA 112 (1986)], a case which dealt with the issue of telephone wiretapping, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a telephone extension for the purpose of eavesdropping on a private conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone extension device was neither among those “device(s) or arrangement(s)” enumerated therein, following the principle that “penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused.”
Now, Doble used a cellphone in wiretapping Garci and, serendipitously, GMA. If Doble is to be believed, the telco, with the use of a splitter, converted Doble’s cellphone into an extension of Garci’s cellphone.
Following the SC’s ruling in the aforesaid case, does it mean that Doble’s eavesdropping did not fall under the ambit of RA 4200, since a cellphone “extension” is not among the devices or arrangements enumerated therein? And that the statute “must be construed strictly in favor of the accused”?
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:17 am
shaman,
I’m not a lawyer but maybe it’s not against 4200 to eavesdrop but it’s prohibited to make a recording.
But if the SC agrees with you, then the little lame duck is a cooked goose.
frombelow on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:24 am
manuelbuencamino
“Suppose I was busted for a crime and the info that alerted the cops to my criminal activities came from an illegal wiretap. I get hold of a copy of the tape of this illegal wiretap, Can I use it in court as evidence that my arrest was based on an illegal wiretap?”
That “evidence” ( illegal wiretap) not being used as evidence pertains to the police. They cannot use it as evidence. On the matter of “your arrest”, other pieces of evidence made sure of that.
In other words, the burden of illegal wiretaps is being shared by the wiretapper and the wiretapped.
Mike on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:29 am
Devilsadvc8:
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head on all points. The very reason no heads have rolled on the Garci wiretap is because pursuing the case would prove that a conversation was indeed wiretapped–something that would create more problems (for the admin) than it would solve.
And I do find the CIA (or at least US) angle plausible. But does that make Doble a US asset?
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:51 am
MB, neither am I.
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:57 am
Mike, Doble did not act alone. In fact, he was just following orders from his superiors. If there were any US assets, they would be in the upper echelon.
supremo on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:00 am
Doble and company might have performed SIM cloning not signal splitting. An employee inside SMART can make a copy of Garci’s SIM and give it to Doble. Or Doble can just buy a SIM card reader/writer and store the Ki code in a generic SIM card.
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:05 am
supremo, if I remember right, Doble mentioned “splitting” in his videotaped testimony.
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:24 am
DJB, thanks for the response. I just read RA4200 and got the impression that it only applies to ‘peace officers’, and not just anyone who possesses the recorded material. Anyway, for Section 3 to be applicable in the sense that you envision it, devilsadc8’s logic (at August 23rd, 2007, 10:25 pm) must apply so the content of the tapes do matter.
Also, i’m interested on knowing the basis of your assertion that “the ‘court orders’ authorizing the handling of wiretapped materials are not limited to court orders that allow wiretapping be done sometime in the future, the ‘court orders’ can be authorization to examine, use as evidence or otherwise handle illegally wiretapped material done by someone else in the past.” That interpretation is not apparent from the law itself.
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:25 am
‘…it only applies to peace officers…’ above should read ‘…Section 3 only applies to peace officers…’
supremo on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:43 am
shaman,
Like an elevator in the US is a lift in the UK. We are talking about cell phone conversations here. Do you know how cell phone signals work? Read about it. All data about your account is in the SIM card. Have you seen Bourne Supremacy? Go straight to the scene where Matt Damon was interrogated in the airport. He copied the SIM card of the agent. The SMART employee did the same thing but using SIM information stored in their system then gave the copy to Doble.
supremo on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 2:03 am
shaman,
Like an elevator in the US is a lift in the UK. We are talking about cell phone conversations here. All data about your account is in the SIM card. Have you seen Bourne Supremacy? Go straight to the scene where Matt Damon was interrogated in the airport. He copied the SIM card of the agent. The SMART employee did the same thing but using SIM information stored in their system then gave the copy to Doble.
Rom on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 2:25 am
funny this. people keep writing “pieces of evidence.” i think “evidence” alone will suffice. woot!
bogchimash on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 2:46 am
Father Bernas reduced the issue of admissibility to whether the tapped conversations were private or of public interest. Most likely, if this controversy reaches the courts, the SC will again resort to US jurisprudence. This is what google has to offer:
In New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713:
• This Court upheld the press’ right to publish information of great public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party. In so doing, this Court focused on the stolen documents’ character and the consequences of public disclosure, not on the fact that the documents were stolen.
In Bartnicki v. Vopper, affirming the COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT:
• The court found the statutes invalid because they deterred significantly more speech than necessary to protect the private interests at stake.
• It would be remarkable to hold that speech by a law-abiding possessor of information can be suppressed in order to deter conduct by a non-law-abiding third party.
• Privacy of communication is an important interest. However, in this suit, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance. One of the costs associated with participation in public affairs is an attendant loss of privacy.
LAWYERS, where art thou? Enlighten us please
DJB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 6:45 am
cvj,
past present and future are EXPLICIT in Section 3 of the law:
Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding Sec.s in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to 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: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
“Peace officers” can include ordinary citizens, as in “citizen’s arrest.” The impt point is that the law has to provide a mechanism for when crimes against national security and kidnapping are accidentally discovered. Tanada was brilliant, without Sec. 3 RA4200 would fall into the absurdity urged upon us all from the beginning.
In other words, you only get the “poison fruits” dilemma of what our moral and legal obligation is when we come upon apparently illegally wiretapped material IF you ignore Section 3 of the Law.
that is what the wiretappers in this case have been able to convince the Public and bloggers of for years!
DJB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 6:52 am
If you are for a strong, honorable Armed Forces of the Philippines, for a secure Presidency and Government, for the prevention of the prostitution to partisan political purposes of the military by politicians and other officials, and if you are a civil libertarian who wants to preserve democracy and its private rights and freedoms, then the Anti-wiretapping Law is your friend, not your enemy.
DJB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:13 am
The civil libertarian Sen. Lorenzo Tanada who authored RA4200 wanted to protect ordinary civilians from govt eavesdropping. But he also protected the govt and its officials from eavesdropping and illegal wiretapping by govt itself, by civilians and by foreign powers.
The wiretapping of ANYBODY without their permission is illegal without Court orders.
That should’ve been obvious from the beginning. But the content of the Garci tapes was so tantalizing and mesmerizing, that the Garci tapes were being used to prove electoral fraud before settling the issue of their legal status under the law.
Karl Garcia on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:16 am
Jaxius:
Sir,
Thank you for the Parameter Magazaine article. You have helped a lot in what I am doing right now.
DJB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:24 am
CVJ,
On “peace officers”–you are quite right only peace officers can petition for Court Orders in national security and kidnapping cases. That means any policeman or even barangay tanod!
I think it just means that as in any serious crime, if you are just an ordinary citizen, or even Publisher Broadcaster of the biggest paper/tv/radio network, you have to go to the police to help you bring the case to court.
Karl Garcia on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 8:13 am
Think practical guys,
Our courts have too many backlogs,some cases are even passed to the barangays.
Our jails are full,because there are not enough boy’s and girl’s town around ad the dswd’s budget can no longer accomodate them.
Continuous vicious cycles.
Until we solve our systemic issues,that I don’t think even the Get real and Solutions framework of Benign0 has even any clue to what the true issues are.
Karl Garcia on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 8:30 am
It’s nice to have discussions like these,but on recommendations hanngaang sa atin na lang ba ito?
What could be a way to let it reach the higher ups.
Ako, my contribution would be since I am working for the senate defence committe is to gather enough knowledge that pertains to what I am doing, depending on project. But,I tell you controvresial issues like these,I will just get a bawl out from my dad,like before and he would to tell me not to get involved and huwag makialam.Pero minsan sumisimple ako at nagkokoment,di naman siguro ako ipapadampot,pero konting ingat na din.
As to the other stuff like military professionalism,it has been a work in progress way even before the first edsa revolution,don’t worry jaxius.(I am assisting my dad on that).Besides the senate,I also assist him on the so called SSG.
DJB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 8:43 am
cvj,
The Telecomm (Smart) is the key to this caper because its records would prove that every single one of the conversations actually occurred!
DJB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 8:47 am
In fact it is already a sign of guilt on their part that they have not either said they have cross checked the phone records and no PAIRS of conversations between cell phones as alleged by the Garci Tapes ever occurred. Or yes, it looks like those numbers were there. Remember Doble and the others carefully recorded the date and time of the recordings. Phone company records, just like in the perry mason movies, could solve this case!
ricelander on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 9:04 am
Devilsadvoc8
It’s a long way up but I wish to respond.
Try if you could. Imagine the unthinkable: Marcos has nothing to do with the assassination, the soldiers were innocent.
Now clear up your mind. What could be the most logical implication?
Tell you what. The saints of EDSA fingered the wrong person. The saints of EDSA have sent innocent man to jail for a most horrible crime! What worse evil can you do to your fellow man? In the name of democracy haha?
BrianB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 9:21 am
“The civil libertarian Sen. Lorenzo Tanada who authored RA4200 wanted to protect ordinary civilians from govt eavesdropping. ”
Libertarianism is a funny concept in the Philippines. Aren’t all rich and powerful people libertarians already and all poor communists (i.e. sharing of wealth, bayanihan, etc.)
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 9:22 am
DJB,
let me just clarify. Were you suggesting that RA 4200 provides the cure to the defect of an illegally procured wire-tapped conversation if it is to be used in the context of national security?
That seems an overstretch to me. The “past, present and future” you were referring to in Section 3 does not pertain to the act of wiretapping but to the enumerated crimes where wiretapping may be authorized.
However, I agree with you that the discs and recording materials can still be received as evidence against the wiretapper,albeit different in basis. My basis is that such is not covered by the prohibition under Section 1. The intent of RA 4200 was to protect those who were wiretapped, not the wiretapper.
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 9:29 am
Karl,
you’re welcome.
Did you say you’re working in the defense committee of the Senate?
I wonder what happened to the stupid idea to have a fixed term for the chief of staff of the armed forces.
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 10:16 am
Jaxius, i suppose you mean that while DJB’s approach of pursuing the wiretappers is on the right track, he should be using Section 1 and not Section 3 as the basis. And does that also mean that the intent of Section 3 is *not* to, as DJB says, “…also [protect] the govt and its officials from eavesdropping and illegal wiretapping by govt itself, by civilians and by foreign powers.“?
DJB, you’re right that the billing records (or the raw data from where it comes from) of the telco can show whether a call was made from Arroyo to Garci during the election period. I hope SMART has not purged the data yet.
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 10:42 am
cvj,
the clear intent of the law is to protect EVERYONE except the one doing the wiretapping.
the import of section 3 is that it allows as an exception to the prohibition on wiretapping, i.e., based on the enumerated grounds and only upon order of the court. evidence acquired in violation of this is “deemed fruit of the poisonous tree.”
it would be absurd to criminalize something then prohibit the introduction of evidence to prove that such act has been violated. Unfortunately, that was not clearly addressed in RA 4200.
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 11:22 am
Jaxius, thanks. Regarding the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’, i understand that to mean that even if you establish, for the purpose of prosecuting the wiretappers, that it was indeed Gloria Arroyo and Virgilio Garcillano engaging in a conversation, the content of their conversation is inadmissible as evidence in court of anything.
So in the former case, the Court is allowed to admit reality [of the conversation], while in the latter case, it is required to suspend belief in an aspect of reality[the contents of such conversation] that is clearly integral to the one it admitted. I suppose to the legal profession that has some internal logic, but if you step back a little (and go through Deviladvc8’s chain of reasoning above), don’t you think that there’s something absurd about this predicament or are you willing to accept such absurdity in the name of Order?
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 11:33 am
“it would be absurd to criminalize something then prohibit the introduction of evidence to prove that such act has been violated. Unfortunately, that was not clearly addressed in RA 4200.” – jaxius
If that’s the case, what’s the remedy to sucessfully prosecute a case of illegal wiretapping? Do we have a law
that can’t send its violator to jail because the “corpse”, so to speak, (or is it “res”?) of the crime cannot be admitted as evidence?
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 11:46 am
Lawyers and constitutionalists, please bear with me.
Isn’t there a sort of hierarchy of interests in which the abomination of an unelected President usurping power (which, to my mind, is a threat to national security) trumps the crime of illegal wiretapping, so that the “poisoned fruit” of the latter can be used against the former? Similar to what bogchimash pointed out in American jurisprudence where the Court allowed the publication of the contents of a purloined document because it is vested with public interest?
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 11:53 am
cvj,
there are a lot of rules that would seem absurd if we don’t delve on the the reasons behind it.
Why are spouses prohibited from ratting out their husband/wives? Why are lawyers prohibited from revealing secrets acquired from their clients? why proscribe evidence acquired from illegal searches? why prohibit torture?
When you get down to it, the search for truth must give way to something that is more precious.
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:09 pm
jaxius, what is that thing that is more precious than truth?
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:17 pm
Sorry that question was too general. I can appreciate that the legal system’s viability requires lawyer-client confidentiality. I can also understand why human rights prevent torture to extract confessions. However, in the context of Garci and Gloria, doesn’t the legal system allow for Shaman’s hierarchy of interests?
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:42 pm
“When you get down to it, the search for truth must give way to something that is more precious.”
And all the while, I thought our legal system is all about uncovering the truth. Hindi pala. No wonder, we have a Justice Secretary whose main job is to hide the truth. And no wonder, we won’t hear the last of benignO.
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:52 pm
shaman,
a legal system that is all about uncovering the truth is usually found in an authoritative government. search for truth usually done by the government for the sake of the state. say, like north korea.
wanna live there?
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 12:57 pm
Shaman, from what i observe in these blog discussions, i think it has been ingrained in practitioners of the Law that Order, rather than Truth or Justice is the goal. This is because the latter two lend itself to multiple conflicting interpretations so i think they’ve given up on pursuing this. If you get to the truth, or achieve justice along the way, that’s a bonus.
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:02 pm
Jaxius, as Randy David (i suppose he got this from Niklas Luhmann) said, a basic feature of modern society is that multiple systems exist side by side, structurally coupled but independent of each other. The legal system is just one of them (alongside the political, economic and social systems etc. etc.). Because of this, the North Korea example does not apply. I don’t know if it’s possible for you to step outside your being a lawyer first and observe things from a different standpoint.
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:06 pm
Shaman,
“it would be absurd to criminalize something then prohibit the introduction of evidence to prove that such act has been violated. Unfortunately, that was not clearly addressed in RA 4200.†– jaxius
If that’s the case, what’s the remedy to sucessfully prosecute a case of illegal wiretapping? Do we have a law that can’t send its violator to jail because the “corpseâ€, so to speak, (or is it “resâ€?) of the crime cannot be admitted as evidence?”
MISMO!
Yan na yan ang ang gusto ko sanang sagutin nung mga abogado dito!
benign0 on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:14 pm
“and according to polls, most Filipinos actually wanted arroyo impeached (if that’s possible) or resign, but they know too that it’s not going to happen under the admin controlled House and Senate”
Well, isn’t that a bit ironic now, considering that the House and Senate consists of officers who were duly elected by POPULAR VOTE by the very people who you describe as “wanting arroyo impeached”.
What’s really bizarre is how we make the whole issue to be around the failure of Congress to “do the right thing” yet fail to step back further and understand how those officers of the legislature earned their posts IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Pinoy nga naman talaga.
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:28 pm
cvj,
you are painting the practitioners of the legal profession in a way quite too unkindly.
as i have tried to point out, we should be able to differentiate between legal and political advocacy.
legal advocacy is what a lawyer practices before the courts. a lawyer is subscribed by the law and the rules. when he argues a case before the court, the first question that comes up is “what does the law and the rules say?” He cannot argue his case based on justice and equity when the law is clear and unequivocal.
political advocacy is that which we do here. we argue ideas and concepts, what is right and what is wrong, what laws are needed and what rules need to be changed.
my legal advocacy says an illegal wiretapped conversation cannot be used as evidence against the person whose right was violated.
my political advocacy says a law should be crafted authorizing the use of illegally wiretapped conversation to prosecute erring government officials. however, those who conducted the wiretap should not be awarded. they violated the law, they go to jail. they want to stick to their high principles, then they should take it to jail with them.
I hope i made myself clear.
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:36 pm
Benign0, just like you and me the politicians are autonomous agents who, just like you and me, have a will of their own. If they decide to betray or ignore their constituency, then that’s their choice, and their lookout. If we are to build a culture of accountability, it is our duty to demand that our representatives “do the right thing”.
I think our representatives got into the habit of ignoring the people’s mandate because once they get elected, the system is such that they can afford to ignore the people who elected them. That goes for both sides of our society (belonging to EDSA Dos and EDSA Tres) which have both been experiencing a crisis of representation.
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:45 pm
cvj,
if the people really wanted GMA impeached, then they should have compelled the congressional candidates to make that issue an integral part of their respective campaign platforms.
even then, it is not yet too late. they can always threaten them with recall if the representative does not bow to the people’s demand.
the people’s silence against their representatives means only one thing. consent.
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:47 pm
Jaxius, i’ve painted the legal profession in the terms that you have expressed it if you go back to our exchanges in your blog. I precisely used you as a reference because if i used Bencard, our differing politics would just get in the way. I know we’re usually more or less on the same side so i would take our differences in approach to the fact that you are too embedded within the legal system, with its strengths along with its weaknesses (as deftly exploited by Gloria Arroyo and her allies).
I also appreciate that you are more than just a lawyer so you can, in your capacity as a citizen, take up a political advocacy (which is a good thing) so i know that cannot make a moral judgement just on the basis of your legal persona.
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 2:12 pm
“a legal system that is all about uncovering the truth is usually found in an authoritative (you mean “authoritarian”; there’s a big difference) government. search for truth usually done by the government for the sake of the state. say, like north korea.”
Really? I always had the impression that Pravda really meant Lie. So, what do you call a legal system that is all about hiding the truth? Democratic? No wonder, transparency is as scarce as snow in the Sahara in this “democratic” government of Gloria, as in the “democratic” regime of Marcos.
So, all together now: “The LIE shall set us free!”
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 2:19 pm
shaman,
hahaha. yes, authoritarian. my bad.
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 2:35 pm
jaxius, I actually admire your political advocacy. But can you make it part of your legal advocacy to strike down laws that constrain your ability to argue a case based on justice and equity? For what good is a justice system that obstructs justice?
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 3:05 pm
jaxius,
“Why are spouses prohibited from ratting out their husband/wives? ”
Hindi naman yata pinagbabawal. Binibigyan lang ng option ang asawa.
However yun lawyer/client privelege etc. bawal talaga.
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 3:37 pm
manuelbuencamino,
sino namang asawa ang papayag na i-waive yan at maging witness laban sa kanya ang asawa nya?
same din sa lawyer. pwede nya sabihin sa korte yung sinabi sa kanya ng kliyente basta pumayag yung kliyente.
benign0 on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 5:16 pm
“I think our representatives got into the habit of ignoring the people’s mandate because once they get elected, the system is such that they can afford to ignore the people who elected them”
Maybe they are able to “ignore the people who elected them” because the people who elected them elected them on the basis of their proverbial ability to dance the ocho-ocho.
As I said before, on what basis do the people vote for their politicians when personalities (rather than issues) dominate political discussion in Pinoy society every campaign period? How do Pinoys hold their “elected” politicians accountable when the political parties they are members of don’t even stand for anything substantial? How is it that after 20 years of experience in “elections” Pinoys still fail to grasp the plain reality that there is no ideological or philosophical substance behind the politicians they elect?
Given the above, it seems hardly surprising that, as you observed, politicians clearly make a mockery of the offices they hold and couldn’t care less about the people they “represent”.
Devilsadvc8 on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 5:46 pm
Mike, no. it may only mean that the higher ups Doble obeys may have their strings pulled by the CIA.
ricelander, i’ve already imagined the unthinkable. that maybe Ninoy’s assassination was planned by his own side with his own permission. can u imagine the implications of that? read Teodoro Locsin’s accounts of Ninoy’s last conversations with him and you may get an idea of how Ninoy thought the future would develop if he was killed or if Marcos stayed on for 5 more years.
And those soldiers imprisoned were not as innocent as you might think. remember, just a few days ago, one of them was interviewed on TV, and he candidly admit full knowledge of the order to assassinate Ninoy. that he was supposed to be the next in line to shoot Ninoy if ever the 1st gunman failed. remember that what these guys are asking for is clemency. they contend they’ve done enough time to serve the sentence of their wrongdoing.
Karl Garcia on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:05 pm
Jaxius,re: fixed term CS AFP
Personally, I can say na may kumontra o may pumipigil.
It was approved in the Bicam and the senate plenary,I wonder why it was not discussed in the house plenary.
cvj on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:07 pm
Jaxius, i don’t think that at the level of Philippine Society, silence (if you can call it that) necessarily means consent. It can mean a number of things but i expect that it is in the interest of those who value Order to treat it as such.
Benign0, i do agree that because of the prevailing apathy after electoral exercises, the people do share the blame for the quality of their representatives. However, just like Manolo, i don’t subscribe to your strict dichotomy between personalities and issues. I also do not share your confusion between lack of accountability and lack of political ideology as the presence (or absence) of the former is not tied to the presence (or absence) of the latter. Even the most pragmatic political party or candidate is expected to abide by a given standard of ethics and integrity (regardless of his/her ideology).
Nevertheless, if you insist in using your issue/personality yardstick, at the Senatorial level at least, the results of the elections was significantly influenced by issues which is why, for example, Tito Sotto could no longer carry over his appeal when he moved over to the Administration camp.
So in the case of the people voting for the Genuine Opposition (GO) candidates, those who advertised themselves as part of the opposition but are now consorting with the Administration are guilty of misrepresentation on the basis of a clear cut issue. You cannot blame the Ocho-ocho or any sort of personality (at the expense of issues)-bias for that.
jaxius on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:18 pm
Karl,
I asked about that because the proponents of that law failed to introduce an integral component,i.e., taking out the CSAFP and the major service commanders from the chain of command and relegating them to advisory positions (the major service commanders shall also have the primary duty of training and equipage of their units).
Making the CSAFP a fixed term position may not be in all fours with the principle of civilian control over the military. Imagine the president disagreeing with the CSAFP whether in a matter of principle or in a matter of strategy?
As the recent debacles faced by the AFP in Basilan where issues of interoperability between various services and intra-service rivalry have been raised, some sectors have raised whether the so-called area commands are of any use. Having the ground forces answerable to their respective services and the area commands lends to confusion and finger-pointing.
Karl Garcia on Sat, 25th Aug 2007 6:57 am
Jaxius,
Correct,(in my opimion).
Re:Confusion, there was confusion on National policy and what the ground forces,just an example the forces thought Basilan was not included in the claim of MILF’s territory,while the peacemakers have agreed it was.
To be honest,my father dared FVR to step don as CSAFP because he ws ovestaying,but it is a good thing it was not taken personally by FVR,and hired him as ASEC in the last months of his presidency.
In my humble opinion ,I don’t know you are the legal eagle;I think the fixed term is not a deterrent for the president to fire the CSAFP.
As to the the president and the CSAFP,disagreeing,even if it does happen,will that be a risk for overthrow or kicking out a president ala Thailand/Thakshin?
Karl Garcia on Sat, 25th Aug 2007 7:20 am
Civilian control over the military.
Your example of President vs CSAFP was clear,but is it not stated in the constitution,is it not supposed to be Civilian Authority over the Military?
Back to Thailand.
I sense a civilian control through political rivals and king makers,just like home.
So, the bottomline is; what happened was civilian control not civilian authority control over military,at least during the EDsas 1 and 2.
We need a Magna Carta for professionalism of the military,if we don’t have one yet.Obviously the constitution was not followed during the the second Edsa after declaring that civilian authoritry over the military. With the goings on,which is top level priority?Lahat priority One.
Karl Garcia on Sat, 25th Aug 2007 7:43 am
But again Jaxius,
I think A fixed term would be beneficial for the AFP, if the CSAFP has a particular program.
In general ganyan ang nagyayari sa atin kahit san,lalo na sa sports, no continuity.
Continuity not continuous,iba yon.
Or would you rather have a micromanaging president?(kahit sa corporate world,it is very dreaded(micromanaging ceos,svps))
benign0 on Sun, 26th Aug 2007 11:04 am
“the results of the elections was significantly influenced by issues which is why, for example, Tito Sotto could no longer carry over his appeal when he moved over to the Administration camp”
Really? You think this move and the subsequent electoral outcome for Sotto was about any sort of principles beyond partisanism?
What philosophically sets apart the adminstration camp and the “united” opposition then other than this tired old “Arroyo-cheated-therefore-she-should-be-ousted” tagline? MAybe the Pinoy voters changed Sotto’s fortune as a result of his move. But I doubt it was because of any understanding of any issues of national consequence whatsoever.
cvj on Mon, 27th Aug 2007 1:19 am
Benign0, i understand that you have a somewhat narrow view of what constitutes a valid issue and that view the matter of “Arroyo-cheated-therefore-she-should-be-ousted”. For many of those who voted Opposition, the issues of accountability, integrity and fairness are embodied in this ‘tagline’.
cvj on Mon, 27th Aug 2007 1:22 am
Sorry, the above should read “…and that view excludes the matter of…”.
benign0 on Mon, 27th Aug 2007 8:30 am
“For many of those who voted Opposition, the issues of accountability, integrity and fairness are embodied in this ‘tagline’.”
And therein lies the tragedy of it all. Imagine the immense cost to society in terms of actual funds spent and disruption to day-to-day life of an election and the issue boiling down only to “Arroyo-cheated-therefore-she-should-be-ousted”.
On top of that, we make a breathtaking leap of logic by saying that this tagline embodies “the issues of accountability, integrity and fairness”.
I detect quite a bit of ROI on the investments of politicians on their spin doctors and publicists here.
What happens when the issue of Arroyo’s “cheating” is resolved? All we get left with is a bunch of morons we elected on the basis of this tagline. And even if it isn’t resolved, step back and regard the bigger picture. There are lots out there doing their job and ACHIEVING regardless of who or what moron is in office anyway. Don’t they deserve to have their issues considered in an election?
cvj on Mon, 27th Aug 2007 9:21 am
Benign0, addressing the issue of Arroyo’s cheating is part of our investment in Social Capital. Looking at things from the standpoint of economic development, we need to build up the level of trust, within and among segments of our society in order to reduce transaction costs as well as the costs of resistance to new initiatives. This is necessary to allow our people to be better able to engage in productive enterprise.
Cheating degrades social capital both in its execution and its after-effects. Just look at the recent case of the Senate elections in Maguindanao to see how cheating is accomplished, what is destroyed in the process and who are the ones who suffer.
benign0 on Mon, 27th Aug 2007 10:43 am
“Looking at things from the standpoint of economic development, we need to build up the level of trust, within and among segments of our society in order to reduce transaction costs as well as the costs of resistance to new initiatives. This is necessary to allow our people to be better able to engage in productive enterprise”
Yes, I agree with all this (who wouldn’t?).
But cheating is an institutional issue. And the effort required to address it is an OPERATIONAL component of the COMELEC overseen by the judiciary and its law enforcement agencies.
As such, an election that is made to be all about cheating is shortsighted and (as is evident now), of no substance IN BETWEEN ELECTIONS.
If you think about it, all this moronic GMA-cheated-boo-hoo is really in essence a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION effort. And it is the justice system that needs to be held accountable for resolving it. If you recall the basics about our form of democracy as taught in Grade 5, you will remember THE WHOLE POINT behind having three separate branches of government.
If the justice system is dysfunctional and fails to prosecute election cheaters, then the problem is with INSTITUTIONS OF JUSTICE and should not be carried over into our elections. If there are rallies and street antics to be held, they should be directed to the officers of the juduciary and our national investigation services instead of being made into a blanket indictment of our politicians.
Elections are about selecting our representatives in government; representatives that will STEER the society to a goal or vision through MEANINGFUL legislation and leadership. It is NOT about prosecuting criminals. Mechanisms to do that do not reside in the election process.
See, this is what I meant by our society being sold on to the processes of democracy (and even THAT is questionable) yet is incapable of understanding what it is REALLY all about.
cvj on Mon, 27th Aug 2007 12:38 pm
Benign0, thanks for using ALL CAPS as these clearly highlight our points of disagreement. How can you begin to address the operational component if the perpretrators of the cheating operations are still part of the Comelec? If we do nothing about this issue in between elections, we would not have enough time to correct this matter for the next elections. The best we can do is try to react, which proved only partially successful in the case of the recent mid-term elections. Besides, cheating is not a point-in-time act. It is more in the nature of a ongoing crime with the beneficiar(ies) continuing to reap the rewards.
The criminal investigation can only get underway if the political institutions cooperate. The whole point in having three branches of government is to have a system of checks and balances. A legislature that is beholden to Malacanang occupant for pork barrel has rendered this system inoperable.
The institutions of justice do need to be involved in this matter but this issue is more than a matter for the judiciary. Cheating is also a political question of who has the right to choose our country’s leaders – Garci/Bedol or the voter. Something this fundamental cannot be something our society can just delegate to a judge or group of judges.
As Manolo said, our Congress is not just about legislation. You can refer back to his previous ‘Ping Pong’ thread for a more thorough explanation.
Our people understand that Democracy is really about process. I can refer you to a couple of sources for your education on this matter. If you’re too busy to read, there is this video by Hans Rosling in ‘TED Talk’ with a good explanation on distinguishing means and goals.