An immoderate threat when representatives fail the people

Yesterday, the Inquirer editorial asked if People Power represents An immoderate threat in the face of unmoderated greed. Besides Fidel V. Ramos’s stinging rebuke to the President last Friday, on Saturday, GMA News broke the following story: Arroyo: I know ZTE contract tainted but can’t cancel deal (see also Arroyo admits NBN deal was flawed ), which has raised more questions than it’s answered: not least, because in one fell swoop, the President’s own statement proves her officials have been lying all along.

The question remains whether it will temper the “reply or resign” call made by people like Martin Bautista. In her blog, smoke makes a decision flow chart and, well, the best that could be said was a negligent President (but maybe enough to keep the loyalists stouthearted).

Atty. Edwin Lacierda, in an email to me, put it this way:

The difference I think between the Garci tapes and the ZTE confession is that in the Garci tapes, there was this legal grey area of the admissibility of the wiretapped tapes. And so, GMA could legally wiggle out of it even if we know that the accent and inflections were distinctly GMA. In the ZTE deal however, her admission opens up more cans of worms.

In the first place, she lied as to when she knew of the irregularities. I think the first documentary proof of her knowledge of the irregularity would have been when NEDA changed the investments that could avail of the loans from the People’s Republic [of China] when the [military] housing units and the Angat water project were removed from the list and the NBN deal was inserted. I may be wrong but [isn’t it that the] President [alone] can change the Neda policy.

Orally, the testimony of Romy Neri informing the president that Abalos offered him a Php200 million bribe would also constitute knowledge of wrongdoing. Inspite of that information, the president told Neri to approve the project. So, I think we know she lied when she admitted she knew of wrongdoing only on the eve.

But be that as it may, her admission runs counter to the many pronouncements of those who defended the ZTE deal, as pointed out in the Inquirer editorial. Laglagan na is the order of the day just to save the president. I dont know how long will the factotums continue to defend her at the risk to their own life and liberty. But this strategy will have unintended consequences and I am not sure the president’s men thought this out well. It started out with releasing the Jun-Joey conversations in YouTube. We dont know what Abalos is thinking but I am sure he was not pleased with the revelation. His credibility has been further eroded, if there is any ounce of credibility left in that man.

Her admission also puts into question the statements of Formoso who the government has constantly paraded as the point man in the ZTE deal. I would love to see him wiggle his way out of this mess.

The lies and the cover-up continue and it is getting harder and harder to put out a credible yarn.

And so, as Mon Casiple points out, it’s a case of the fortress showing cracks in its walls even as the administration recycling its old scripts:

Within the Malacañang fortress, there are rumors of the heightening suspicions among the key players — with the First Couple directly handling all tactical decisions, trusting no one. Whispers of last-ditch plans for a “palace coup” keep on leaking out as well as the opening of succession negotiations with the vice-president. The FG unscheduled trip to Hongkong is being interpreted as either a cover-up for a major palace counter-offensive this week or the preparation for the GMA exile to Spain.

GMA’s admission of knowing the ZTE-NBN contract problems is reminiscent of her famous “I’m sorry” speech. It may have been directed to the bishops but it only added more fuel to the fire of disenchantment with her regime. It may be the last argument to convince the fence-sitters.

The President’s people accelerated something most people didn’t want to think about, just yet: the post-Arroyo maneuvering that most people continued hoping would take place, as scheduled in 2010. Now the maneuvering has taken on greater urgency as the President’s own people have bungled things so badly. The scandal just keeps getting wider and wider and people have started to think the previously unthinkable.

And so, my column for today is When our representatives fail. It makes reference to some of my past pieces, including my Manifesto on the Tapes, and my columns,Redemption and ‘Half a People Power’. Also, it’s a response to Solita Monsod’s People Power IV? No, thank you! and, in a way, Randy David’s Bonfire of institutions (which reminded me of my column, Scorched-earth governance from 2005):

The damage to government institutions has been the most extensive. Far from being a neutral arbiter of disputes and a source of normative stability, the justice system has become a weapon to intimidate those who stand up to power. Far from being a pillar of public security, the military and the police have become the private army of a gangster regime. Instead of serving as an objective referee in electoral contests, the Commission on Elections has become a haven for fixers who deliver fictitious votes to the moneyed and the powerful. Instead of serving as the steady backbone of public service through successive changes in administration, the government bureaucracy has been turned into a halfway house for political lackeys, misfits and the corrupt. Instead of serving as a check on presidential power, the House of Representatives has become its hired cheering squad.

The erosion of these institutions, no doubt, has been going on for a long time. But their destruction in the last seven years under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidency has been the most comprehensive since 1986. This is due not only to the particular gifts of Ms Arroyo as a politician – her survival instincts, her callousness, her readiness to set aside higher goals and principles for short-term personal gains. It is also due to the peculiar confluence of events that attended her rise to the presidency…

…But the damage is not confined to government; it has fanned out like a shock wave from the epicenter to the periphery. We have thus far only seen the debris of government institutions that have lost their standing in the public esteem. Now we are seeing how the tension is passed on and threatens other institutions. This happens when issues that are left unresolved by the institutions of law, politics and government spill over to other spheres of society.

The tremor spreads out and tests the strength of the remaining credible pillars of our society: the churches, the media, the universities, the business community, the family. Each one of these institutional spheres has their own unique operational system, code and medium. They are not organized, nor are they suited, for the processing of legal and political questions. Yet, they are compelled by the developing situation to address these questions from their own specific standpoints. Their members are called upon to lend their minds, their voices, and their bodies to a movement whose trajectory is still uncertain.

It is this uncertainty that needs to be addressed. And so, returning to today’s column, I’d like to start by reproducing, in full, the reflection by Bishop Francisco Claver, S.J. that I quoted in my column (sent to me by Billy Esposo):

An Infinite Series of EDSAs
(Ramblings of a retired bishop)
Is it possible to avoid firming up an extremely dangerous, if still inchoate, tradition?

EDSA I was about restoring a system which had been destroyed by the introduction of a dictatorial system of governance. That is why most of us bishops had no qualms about taking part in putting an end to President Marcos’ stolen power.

EDSA II was the momentary failure of the restored system–it carried a sense of desperation that the system wasn’t working as it should. (The dancing lady senator was a perfect metaphor of its dysfunctional operation.) The Supreme Court’s act in confirming GMA, for all its disputed constitutionality, was basically aimed at stabilizing a dangerous situation?

EDSA III, if it happens, promises to be the institutionalization of an infinite series of EDSAs. This is what is scary about the present situation and I’m wondering if a vague fear of it is behind the apparent unconcern of most of our people today about all the agitation to come up with yet another EDSA rebellion.

_______________________________________________

Is the question a “purely” political one? Or precisely because the danger is there that, with another EDSA ousting of an incumbent President, we help firm up a tradition of unstable governments, the question becomes a deeply moral one?

For bishops in regard to this development: Is it a moral duty incumbent on them to see to it that we do not go the way of institutionalized instability? Or at least to speak on the problem and show how we must be aware of the possibly deleterious implications of whatever option we make in the solution people give it? As one of Philippine society’s basic institutions, is the Church being called today to be the–or at least a–stabilizing force in our society?

In a very true sense then, our problem comes down to this: how to correct the aberration that is the present administration without destroying the stabilizing structure that is our democratic system of government? We keep the structure but correct the aberration? But if the correcting destroys the structure–or weakens it immensely–what then?
People power was born to bring back stability. I think it should be used now to protect it, not to destroy or weaken it. The way things are now, it is being invoked again in the effort to correct what I called above an aberration, but I’m afraid its repetition in the present crisis will only lead to that unwanted world-without-end-series of EDSAs.

If we do not go the way then of that infinite series, we still are left with what I call the aberration. We haven’t put our heads together yet to see how we go about correcting it without bringing the whole house crushing down on us. This is what we should be doing now?

____________________________________________

I wonder if the system of four-year terms for presidents and the possibility of another four is not after all the best for us. Suffering through six years of a bad presidency (more, if he/she comes in to fill the term of an ousted one–as we have now) is intolerable, and that is why it is easy for people to succumb to the temptation of using extra-constitutional means to end the present one. This is an argument for charter change?

In more established and mature democracies: In the United States, for instance, the Bush presidency is bad enough and highly unpopular, but somehow nobody there is thinking of doing something like an EDSA uprising.

__________________________________________

For some reason some folk proverbs keep intruding on my thoughts as I write this thing–like the one about lying on nests that one has feathered? (We tolerate corruption–and rigged elections–but we do not blame ourselves for their consequences too?) Or changing horses in mid-stream? (It’s akin to the principle in spiritual life: “In desolation, don’t change” — but that’s what we do with every EDSA?) I guess we haven’t really learnt yet what these homely proverbs mean!

Francisco Claver, S.J.

February 19, 2008

ph4-022408Esposo says the piece is an attempt to clarify what the Catholic hierarchy meant by “communal action”. It is a reflection that to my mind reflects the unease with which people view the escalation of political tensions. However at this point, it leaves a lot, perhaps everything, in the hands of the President who has gambled on the fear of the unpredictable consequences of People Power vetoing any widespread support for it as the instrument of last resort.

But the best-laid plans of mice and men… they also tend to go unexpectedly awry. The most unexpected development is how young people have decided, in increasing numbers, to get engaged.

Inday Espina-Varona tackled this development in her blog, scaRRedcat:

Dirty tricks unleashed in airports are embedded in our collective psyche. With apologies to that once great human rights champion, Joker Arroyo, there are some things you do not mess around with.

It’s a bit sad really but then all great lessons of history often come with a certain sadness. Barely a month ago, I wrote of how young Filipinos would rather roll up their sleeves to solve a problem than break out into song and prayers as is their elders’ wont. They’d still rather do that. But, as did good men and women when the Nazis were on the ascendance, Filipinos now see what they missed when they looked away as hundreds of activists were murdered or “disappeared” or when they accepted that cheating at the polls is preferable to getting another actor elected to the Presidency: Wait too long and there may be no one around to hear your cries for help. Now, Everyman is faced with the barrel of a gun…

…Ousting a corrupt and despotic leader is a right of every people as the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights underscores. Revolutions are not, in the strict sense, short cuts. They take time to wage and often come with messy results; that is why they are seen as a people’s last recourse.

But if we are to revolt in the name of democracy then there is no other way but to hew as closely as possible to constitutional change, as we did at EDSA 2. The fact that Mrs. Arroyo has grievously betrayed our trust is no excuse to shortchange ourselves more by anointing leaders outside of constitutional succession terms.

I do not know Vice President Noli de Castro. But he was elected by vast numbers of our people to that post, which comes with the responsibility to take over the Presidency if and when the incumbent Chief Executive can no longer fulfill the duties of that office. Whatever we may think of De Castro’s capabilities or lack thereof, we cannot simply sweep away a mandate conferred by the people.

If we can’t stomach him then we take our lumps and just give Mrs. Arroyo hell until her term runs out or until she institutes a belated regime of reforms, whichever comes first. We cannot decry corruption and officialdom’s penchant for playing fast and loose with the laws of this land and yet do the same in the name of democracy.

Agree! By the way, see another entry, He Said, They Said, a piece of Inday’s originally published in the Philippine Graphic, for a brilliant summary of why the government’s gotten itself into so much hot water. Well done, as well, is Patricia Evangelista’s She said. Over at Placeholder, you can see the La Salle Brothers’ chronology of the Lozadas seeking sanctuary in their school.

And indeed, that was the gist of my column for today: a last-ditch effort to kick-start our institutions into functioning properly might require the threat of People Power.

But people are wracking their brains (and searching their hearts) for ways not to have to resort to it, yet. Though there are those, as reproduced by onomatopoeia, who don’t think the threat should be invoked at all. Disagree!

While the threat of revolution that makes possible a return to the way things ought to be, such a threat, once made, risks having officials call the public’s bluff.

Which means the coming days and weeks requires even more soul-searching to take place.

How far will you go? Should we go? Even Business divided on another ‘People Power’ revolt.

tatsquiblat has some useful advice on what to do: or rather, a prudent approach to take. And review the emerging consensus on concrete steps to take, and the debate on the things that remain unresolved, in Sylvia Mayuga’s Firm Steps to the Light.

One proposal that’s gained wide currency, is for the President to immediately revoke her own Executive Order 464, but as one of many conditions; however,what Joaquin Bernas, S.J. proposes is that revoking the order is enough and all he really wants:

What do I support therefore? I favor attempting a rehabilitation of the presidency. To start with, I favor the complete dismantling of EO 464, the notorious gag which the President has clamped on the mouths of executive officers who are in a position to reveal incriminating truth.

True it is that the objectionable portions of EO 464 (Sections 2b and 3) have been declared unconstitutional. But the executive department continues to behave as if Senate v. Ermita never happened. You will notice that, whenever executive officers are called to testify in an investigation, rarely do such officers claim the lame excuse of executive privilege. They simply say that they are prevented by EO 464. EO 464, although constitutionally dead, remains the biggest obstacle to the discovery of truth. Its dark spirit remains.

How dismantle EO 464? The most efficient way would be for the President and the executive secretary to forget it. Easy, no; difficult, yes. Nevertheless this is a more viable goal than trying to persuade the President to resign and effectively jump into the fire. Moreover, the total abandonment of EO 464 can be the beginning of the rehabilitation of her ailing presidency. E.g., she should now allow the exposure of those who were involved in the corruption that caused her to cancel the ZTE contract. It would be a very concrete way of substantiating her loud cries against corruption. With political will, between now and 2010, much can be achieved toward rehabilitation of the presidency.

The kinds of minds he’s molded are best exemplified by this Ateneo blog. The Arroyo Presidential Library planned for the Ateneo will definitely be a suitable monument.

But what’s at stake and why, despite attempts by the good Jesuit to focus attention on asking for rehabilitation, or even the Senate President’s trying to propose an eventual impeachment, things seem to be coming gingerly to a point of no return, is best explained by Writer’s Block:

In light of all this, we are still obliged to be vigilant. Many people would ask: why continue? The elections are two years away; like her counterpart George W. Bush, she has only this one term left. But remember that we are talking about an “Arroyo government”. How are we to know that Czarina Arroyo would not control the Philippine government from the sidelines, the same way Lee Kuan Yew did in Singapore? There are also the earnest efforts among elements of her government to push through “Charter Reform”, to ensure their continued tenure in power. The point is, two years is two years away, and a lot can still happen in that span.

That’s why the Opposition continues to resist her, and find ways to overthrow her. Not only for the sake of vindication; it is also to ensure that they could sooner dismantle the “Arroyo government” and make sure that the next elections would indeed represent the people’s voice. No one can get her to quit. She, like Hitler before her, can always claim “divine appointment”.

The D Spot worries about her kids, what happens if they decide to join rallies. But Noralyn Mustafa puts the choice in stark terms:

We fail to do this now, the wages of our apathy will be Charter change forced down our throats; we will never see an election ever again in our lives; and we will have the Arroyos and Pidals and Abaloses holding our souls in their hands to the end of our days. And even beyond.

This is the ultimate danger of trying to ease the pressure. It won’t strengthen institutions. It will give the President a second wind. Liling Briones says the economy shouldn’t be an excuse for inaction. Cielito Habito reviews economic prospects for 2008.

As for today’s commemoration, I’ll be at Baclaran, where the Comelec computer operators found refuge after their historic walkout from the PICC. Review The Road to Edsa I, and the events in The Edsa Revolution Website. And do some Reading up on Edsa. And looking back, a mere year ago, to Edsa at 21. And doing his own looking back is Lito Banayo.

And Life’s a Beach has that video that will make all the small-minded mean and sour people angry. Interesting tidbit, too, from One Hundred Eighty Degrees, on an attempt to censor the video.

Postcard Headlines says the real challenge of Edsa is sustaining public vigiliance. Philippine Commentary insists on impeachment or nothing. It will take at the very least a national strike to get that past the House. JB Baylon waxes eloquent:

As I type this while once in a while peering out of my Hong Kong hotel window to watch a gathered mass of Filipinas outside, I feel a rollercoaster of emotions as memories of Edsa 1 flash before me interspersed with images of a weeping Lozada, a grinning Estrada and a still-missing Joc Joc Bolante. I think of Francisco Tatad and how he went public with the declaration of martial law; then I think of Ignacio Bunye and how he went public with his “I have two discs” spin. I focus on how Enrile was “forgiven” his sins in recognition of his key role in Edsa 1, and wonder whether Chavit has been forgiven, too. I think of Clarissa Ocampo and remember Jun Lozada and then I think of Mike Defensor and Mawanay, Garcillano and Bedol. I think of Macapagal Avenue, and then I remember the Centennial Expo scam. I muse about Imelda’s glamor and greed, and think of FG and wonder where the glamor went. I remember Manny Villar’s maneuverings on the impeachment, then recall JDV’s maneuverings and also the maneuverings that led to his own ouster. I think of Fabian Ver and I wonder about Hermogenes Esperon; I think of Fidel Ramos and his relationship with Ver, and wonder who is the Ramos to Esperon. I recall a young and idealistic Gringo, and I imagine a new crop of young officers replacing the ideals of Trillanes and Company. And all of these come to a dead stop like a roller coaster car does when I think of the Filipinas outside my window, huddling under open umbrellas in the cold drizzle that is gripping Hong Kong, and I wonder how their lives will ever change if, at home, years go by and yet everything but the faces of power and greed stay the same?

And good news for all people who like to read: Pete Lacaba has a blog! He has an article on names derived from Martial Law, Edsa, etc. (hat tip to my lil’ red book for noticing that particular article). Another blog to check out is Republic of Pundits.

239 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Kabayan on February 25, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    Why Cat, were you there? Do you even know what happened or do you depend on TV and radio broadcasts? Which segment of the rally were you in?

    • The Ca t on February 25, 2008 at 11:18 pm

    “WHAT USE IS REPLACING A THIEF WITH ANOTHER THIEF??? at least this one can still keep the economy afloat.” – biankita

    Can’t we raise the bar higher? Why can’t we choose one that is not a THIEF?

    The people who want to oust GMA does not offer any possible leader. Erap said that he’s willing to be back as President. Kapal. Then a photo in PHilstar showed that he was wearing a wristband with a Presidential logo.

    The people must have interpreted that it is indeed Erap who is anointed to replace GMA. Takot sila.

    • Kabayan on February 25, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    Well Cat? Were you actually there in one of the rallies or are you simply doing some armchair analysis regarding rallies and rallyists?

    • jakcast on February 25, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    Surely, there will be inintended consquences of removing GMA. Are we prepared for the instability that will happen? Even the opposition senators who started this do not know where to take their investigation or the ending of this crisis. Their sound bites tell their dilemma. Imagine, Senate President saying “bahala na ang tao.” Naku naman, leader ka, tumulong ka sa pag-chart ng direction. I’m saying this because very soon, there will be big problems (brought by the U.S. financial crisis) will be coming to our shores: $100 per barrel oil, inflation of food prices, rice shortage and hyperinflation, etc.

    • The Ca t on February 25, 2008 at 11:38 pm

    Well Cat? Were you actually there in one of the rallies or are you simply doing some armchair analysis regarding rallies and rallyists?

    what about u? what’s ur objective in joining the rally if ur there?

    • Mario on February 25, 2008 at 11:42 pm

    cvj: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I’ve been had!!!

    Honasan: Come on, hire me already!!!! We will then wait for that chicken to cross another road, then…. wham!!!! But Customs and NAIA is mine.

    Joma: yeah… and Negros is mine.

    Ping Lacson: Hey… what about me?!!! I’m still a spring chicken, you know.

    • justice league on February 25, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    Benigno,

    The following is a self-quote from the previous thread:

    “The initial part regarding the absence of power of recall is easy enough to understand but regarding the multiparty system; in an example of 5 candidates wherein 4 happen to be “right” but 1 happens to be “wrong”; there is all possiblity that the “wrong” candidate could win with as little as 20+% vote.”

    At which you replied the following:

    “In that scenario you postulated, what would be the probability of four out of five candidates espousing the wrong solution? If you ask me I’d say that Scenario 1 is an improbable scenario in the first place.”

    WTH, WHERE IN HELL did the idea of “four out of five candidates espousing the wrong solution” come from when supposedly from my scenario the 4 candidates were supposed to be “right” candidates and only 1 was a
    “wrong” candidate?

    You’re supposedly culling your arguments from my statements. If you can’t tell me in what valid place from my statements the idea of “four out of five candidates espousing the wrong solution” came from; then your JUDGEMENT that my scenario is improbable is WITHOUT BASIS.

    And since your second to the last paragraph is also built upon an idea I don’t know from what place in hell was spawned; I may have scanned it but I didn’t bother to read seriously further.

    It seems your statements don’t have much of any leg to stand on.

    It could end here.

    But I’m not finished with you yet!

    • Kabayan on February 25, 2008 at 11:44 pm

    You were doing some slapdash analysis as you said;

    The rallies in the last few days by elite schools will never attract common tao. Nandoon pa rin ang elitism. Ang labanan ng mga pangalan ng mga iskuwela.

    Did I forget to say I told ya so about red flag carrying militant groups. People will shy away from them.

    Dead wrong. Where did you get your analysis?

    For my why all of us were in rallies? Check out my link and you will know why.

    As for operational objectives? Now why should I tell you that?

    • Kabayan on February 25, 2008 at 11:45 pm

    Correction, should be: For why all of us were in rallies..

    • Kabayan on February 25, 2008 at 11:51 pm

    For those interested; check out some of the interesting things that happened during the EDSA celebration rally, at my post a while ago February 25th, 2008 at 10:49 pm (see above post)

    • UP n student on February 26, 2008 at 12:03 am

    Is Erap really proposing himself as “temporary Malacanang resident” if it becomes necessary? What is scary to me is that I think he – Erap — in fact still has a sizeable loyal following!!!!

    • Kabayan on February 26, 2008 at 12:07 am

    UP n student said,

    Is Erap really proposing himself as “temporary Malacanang resident”…

    Heard that but we just laughed out loud at his proposal 🙂

    • Kabayan on February 26, 2008 at 12:09 am

    What actually irritates me is the continual “balimbing” attitude of Ramos and de Venecia, they can never truly be trusted.

    • UP n student on February 26, 2008 at 12:11 am

    To Mario (and anybody else):
    So which side of the road is Noli de Castro on?

    • cvj on February 26, 2008 at 12:11 am

    Looks like Fr. Bernas is molding future Benign0s, those whom Madonna refers to above (at 6:36pm and 9:42pm above) as liberals who are not democrats.

    BTW, thanks for the link to my blog as well to the Republic of Pundits.

    • Kabayan on February 26, 2008 at 12:13 am

    UP n student said:

    To Mario (and anybody else):
    So which side of the road is Noli de Castro on?

    His side

    • jakcast on February 26, 2008 at 12:19 am

    VP Noli has acquired the instincts of a good true politican. He will wait, bide his time, continue to support PGMA. But at the same time he will make statements like: “the ZTE investigation must continue, and those found guilty must be punished.” Spoken like a master of the game. He will ascertain the feelings of other cabinet members, especially the heads of the armed forces and police agencies, to see where these two crucial establishements go.

    • justice league on February 26, 2008 at 12:27 am

    Benigno,

    Continuing-

    I’m quoting some of your previous posts for easier referral.

    You stated:

    “(3) Persistenly holding ourselves to account for the characters we VOTE for.”

    Wherein I asked you to clarify that and you stated that:

    “I meant understanding clearly the implications of who we vote for; said implications include:

    (1) How long it will take to rectify things if we vote for the wrong person (i.e. the next election);

    (2) How well the person we are voting for keeps an open channel of communication with their constituents;

    (3) Our responsibilities as citizens to work WITH our representative through the PROPER CHANNELS.”

    At which I told that I hoped you have considered the strong nature of the multi party system here.

    While in this thread you remarked:

    “The factor at work during elections is more the dysfunction of Pinoys’ ability to vote for the right candidate — not the nature of our system as being multi-party as you argue.”

    You seem to have misjudged the idea on the multi party system as I brought it up NOT to demean it per se but because of YOUR IDEA of “Persistenly holding ourselves to account for the characters we VOTE for”.

    I gave you your chance to consider the multi party system in relation to your idea.

    But it seems you squandered it away when you stated:

    “So I find it a bit of a WASTE OF TIME focusing on the nature of the system when the reality is that Pinoys have a talent for screwing up ANY system whether it is bad or good.”

    The fact is that ex-Pres. Estrada is NOT a Majority President. He carried even less than 40% of the vote.

    So by your reasoning; not only the nearly 40% who voted for him then BUT ALSO THE REMAINING 60% ARE TO PERSISTENTLY HOLD THEMSELVES TO ACCOUNT FOR THE (LOSING) CHARACTERS THEY VOTED FOR.

    Which is the reason why I stated that you might wish to revise your recommendation to “next time vote for the right people WHO WILL WIN!”

    You could have chosen the occassion then to clarify matters but it seems you squandered that one too.

    In South Korea, more than anything else with party platforms, opposition members Kim Dae Jung and Kim Young Sam could not see personally eye to eye.

    So they decided to run separately for the presidency and the result was catastrophic for the opposition.

    The opposition vote was practically cut in the middle and the admin candidate Roh Tae Woo won.

    A similar scenario of mine is possible, and if you even just consider JDV as a “right” candidate during the Estrada election, then my scenario has already happened.

    And now to your hundred candidate scenario. So based on that scenario; the “Bozo” could be elected with as little as 1.1% with the other 99 candidates taking “equal” shares of the remaining votes.

    So if we consider that the 99 candidates were “right” candidates; your advise would still be that the 98.9% of those who voted ARE TO PERSISTENTLY HOLD THEMSELVES TO ACCOUNT FOR THE (LOSING) CHARACTERS THEY VOTED FOR.

    Hey, I gave you your chances so don’t go wimpy on me!

    • supremo on February 26, 2008 at 12:30 am

    justice league,

    you are wasting your time with benign0. he will dismiss your idea if he has no answer or twist it so even you can’t recognize it. that guy is a clown.

    • hvrds on February 26, 2008 at 12:34 am

    There are only less than 300 men and women who make up the number who supposedly represent over 80 million people. They are bound by rules of the Basic Law. That is the theory of how democracy is applied. They are the supposed collective will that is supposed to protect the social contract which has at it basis- Property rights. (economic rights)We give up some of our property rights to fund the state. But the state in turn will use those funds to help us as “fisherman to learn and to fish.” The state is not there to give us the fish.

    The state right to confiscate proerty is simply called taxes. From tribute to excise to income and entitlement taxes to consumption taxes.

    Now when the administrators of the state steal for the benefit of the few in government and vested private interests something is fundamentally wrong. However most of the people in the country including certain famous educated people are supported by this system of direct and indirect state support for their fish.

    The culture of dependency where human ingenuity and innovation becomes distorted for criminal ends. The control of the state apparatus becomes primordial since it becomes the source of power and wealth.

    Go after the agents and sub agents of this anomaly. The Queen and King have strong and high Palace walls.

    In chess you have the pawns, the rook, the horseman, then the bishop then the most powewrfull player the Queen in Big Mike and the King in GMA. It is Big Mike who is the actual Queen, free to move in the background pushing and pulling at all the levers of power. His illness caused this blowup. Faith intervened. If not I think this would have not happened.

    Big Mike is the main consigliere to the King (GMA)look at Mikey and Dato. The heir apparent. But illness changed the equation. It gave Chairman Abalos free reign. I think he could not handle that much power all at once. Brought to the banquet he bit off more than he could chew.

    The word moderation to a swine let loose is meaningless.

    You see almost a complete paralysis in Congress. This giant pork barrel of the executive is mind blowing. All fo a sudden they see that the off budget transactions of the state is larger than the the budget itself.

    These off budget transactions are a direct assault on the social contract. But the people who ARE BEING DEPRIVED ARE NOT YET ALIVE. Their property rights are being stolen and no one is aware of it.

    How does one explain that to those less than 300 man and women who are deciding for the future.

    • The Ca t on February 26, 2008 at 12:38 am

    the ZTE investigation must continue, and those found guilty must be punished.”

    Whats wrong with that? Even me, I am for the investigation and prosecution of the guilty parties no matter they are. What I do not like is trial by publicity and stopping investigation without closure just because they did not succeed in inciting people to revolt.

    Is it not that was all the hype in last weeks demos and Lozada’s visit to several campuses?

    • The Ca t on February 26, 2008 at 12:41 am

    As for operational objectives? Now why should I tell you that?

    Why all of a sudden the secrecy? Dahil napapahiya kayo sa mga forecast ninyo na the people power will be back ?

    Sabi ng patay na si PP. Inilibing na. Not even Cory Aquino could resurrect that.

    • The Ca t on February 26, 2008 at 12:44 am

    I should not have asked the objectve. It is there GLORIA RESIGN.

    Pakigising ako pagnagresign dahil sa blog mo ha? Pramis?

    • jakcast on February 26, 2008 at 12:48 am

    HVRDS: The culture of political corruption (graft, kickbacks, cronyism, nepotism, spoils) had been in Philippine society since the First Republic, or even earlier if you consider how the Spaniards corrupted the principalia. The rent-seeking and patronage politics by the elite families are nothing new. You’ve heard of statements like the one by former speaker of the house Jose Avelino “What are we in power for?” Over the years, this culture of corruption metamorphosized into extreme, unmoderated greed. I think Nere was either naive with what he called oligarchic society. Hello? Remember the French saying ” Behind every fortune is a crime.”

    • justice league on February 26, 2008 at 12:57 am

    Benigno,

    Well well.

    It seems you had a post before mine this evening.

    Well if the “perception” is that you deliberately ignore queries to you while merrily posting the same arguments along; its very much understandable to have your kind of effect on people.

    And it seems I already read further into Erap’s victory.

    And so it seems I am going into a circular argument because I’m going back now to the hundred candidate scenario.

    So even in that scenario with a bozo winning by just 1.1%; the fact is enough Pinoys voted for the man to win. simple.

    And going to the bend of the circle, we go back now to idea that that the 98.9% of those who voted ARE TO PERSISTENTLY HOLD THEMSELVES TO ACCOUNT FOR THE (LOSING) CHARACTERS THEY VOTED FOR.

    BTW, how can you say that you don’t hold that FPJ won when you clearly stated that “Case in point is the triumph of Erap and FPJ in the polls.”?

    • justice league on February 26, 2008 at 1:00 am

    Supremo,

    Thanks for the concern but I’ve crossed paths before with people like you stated.

    • jakcast on February 26, 2008 at 1:01 am

    The same families calling for PGMA’s accountability e.g. Cojuangcos, Lopezes, Osmenas, have their own stories to tell. Common guys, let us not look at this unfolding drama outside of its historical context. The right French quote is “Behind every great fortune is a crime.”

    • UP n student on February 26, 2008 at 1:14 am

    Randy David writes about the destructive presidency and “the Bonfire of Institutions”. In the article, he wails against where :

    …the Commission on Elections has become a haven for fixers who deliver fictitious votes to the moneyed and the powerful…. the government bureaucracy has been turned into a halfway house for political lackeys, misfits and the corrupt. Instead of serving as a check on presidential power, the House of Representatives has become its hired cheering squad.

    He also says:

    In a reasonably fair contest, it is my view that Ms Arroyo would not, at any time, have been elected president — not in 1998, or 2004, or in any snap election between those two presidential election years. She never commanded a constituency or party machinery, nor did she possess a charisma that would compensate for this lack, to fetch her the presidency.

    And he ends with:

    We must take care we don’t destroy the institutions to which we belong, for that will only mean we are no different from those who have abused the institutions of government. In self-defense, we must keep the pressure on the Arroyo regime until it releases its grip on our government. At the same time, we must continue to admonish the custodians of our Constitution to do their work faithfully and urgently, and thus spare the rest of the country from the continuing nightmare of a destructive presidency.

    • UP n student on February 26, 2008 at 1:16 am

    And Rina Jimenez-David wrote about the Oscars, “Juno” and “There Will Be Blood”.

    • hawaiianguy on February 26, 2008 at 2:05 am

    UPnS, How do you take Randy David’s “bonfire of isntitutions?” He also believes that Gloria couldn’t have won the 2004 election.

    That also seems to the recent line of Pangalangan, who is now calling upon Gloria to resign. Resign Gloria! is now a battlecry gaining ground among students and faculty, and many other sectors.

    • jakcast on February 26, 2008 at 2:59 am

    We saw in the news that the armed forces and police paraded in a unity march. I guess she is safe for the moment. For with civil society divided: (the bishops vs. the bishops), business (Makati Business Club vs. PCCI), labor (KMU vs. TUCP). etc. only the two organs of state with coercive powers (military and police) can tilt the equation. Unless these two establishments force her removal, then Lozada’s efforts will for naught.

    • UP n student on February 26, 2008 at 3:22 am

    hawaiianguy: Randy never mentioned and he did not call for EDSA PeoplePower against GMA but a nebulous very badly defined “… we must keep the pressure on the Arroyo regime until it releases its grip on our government. At the same time continue to admonish the custodians of our Constitution to do their work faithfully and urgently.”
    Could easily have been Solita Monsod’s writing, except Solita Monsod has very clear reference to (a) “elections, impeachment” as her preferred means to replace GMA and (b) to warn against conspirators wishing to take advantage of people-outrage against corruption so in ensuing chaos, they (the conspirators) can get themselves into Malacanang.

    • Bencard on February 26, 2008 at 3:45 am

    …i think it would really be prudent of him (e. lacierda) if he refrained from making political comments at this time… for his high-profile client if not for anything else…” mita.

    i think atty. lacierda’s political comments are personal
    to him and the fact that he is a counsel of lozada is incidental. it is when the counsel’s point of view and actions become incompatible with his client’s position that i see a potential ethical, if not a legal problem. a believe a lawyer’s personal freedom of thought and expression is not diminished by his professional advocacy so long as it’s not inimical to the client’s interest.

    having said that, i respectfully disagree with mr. lacierda’s position (expressed in a tv talk-show interview) that a preliminary investigation (in connection with lozada’s complaint of kidnapping, etc.) under the rules of court does not involve “fact-finding” and should not be a fact-finding inquiry. on the contrary, the process of determining initially whether a “reasonable ground” exists that “an offense has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof”, are matters of fact that can only be accomplished through a fact-finding process at which both the accuser and the respondents are provided an opportunity to be heard. it is not an empty formality where a complaint is automatically taken at face value and given due course without further ado.

    contrary to lacierda’s contention, i think that the president’s “admission”, that she was made aware of the alleged “flaw” of the nbn project on the eve of signing (first one of a series of signing activities) it, made a lot of sense. as the highest official of the land, a president cannot be so irresponsible as to instantly nullify, or unduly delay, an international commitment on a mere unverified report of possible anomaly. it would require, at least, an investigation which, apparently she did when she said she took the necessary steps towards possible cancellation (if warranted).

    even neri’s testimony that she told the president about an alleged bribe offer from abalos would not justify a precipitous action on the part of the president.

    • hvrds on February 26, 2008 at 3:50 am

    Do you allow the inevitability of history to take its course or not?

    Many are of a mind to bring down the ship of state. Regime change. Everyone resign. Or let history take its course. Let things be. Let here just go riding into the sunset in 2010.

    It is the same thing as the crisis in the financial makets. Let it be and it will sort itself out. Allow history to take its natural course.

    I for one am for letting the financial markets take their course. Let it fall. The only way to cure asset inflation is to let the bubble deflate. That means it will create a prolonged recession. But after excessess there will always be payback.

    The same with Big Mike and GMA. The only group that can intervene to make her leave early is the military. But like in financial bailouts there could be a moral hazard. You could be throwing the baby with the bathwater. Can the country risk finally destroying the institutions of a weak state and move on the road to rebuidling a new one?

    In the present ongoing financial crisis not doing anything could possibly not only bring down the financial markets but the entire global economy. The entire global economy could start to disintegrate with consequences that are unimaginable in this age of modern weaponry.

    So the moral hazard. Do we risk a greater tragedy by limiting the fallout by not cutting the head the bad guys in the name of the bigger picture.

    The present financial system is no longer tenable. The present government of the country will find it extremely difficult to govern. Also please note the ffg. Plus the fact that Philippine economic policy is also pegged to the same debt delusion.

    “Indeed, adding up all these losses in financial markets, the sum will hit a staggering $1 trillion. Tighter credit rationing will then further hamper the ability of households and firms to borrow, spend, invest, and sustain economic growth. The risk that a systemic financial crisis will drive a more pronounced US and global recession has quickly gone from being a theoretical possibility to becoming an increasingly plausible scenario.” Nouriel Roubini

    “WASHINGTON, DC — A second big American interest-rate cut in a fortnight, alongside an economic stimulus plan that united Republicans and Democrats, demonstrates that US policymakers are keen to head off a recession that looks like the consequence of rising mortgage defaults and falling home prices. But there is a deeper problem that has been overlooked: the US economy relies upon asset price inflation and rising indebtedness to fuel growth.”

    “Therein lies a profound contradiction. On one hand, policy must fuel asset bubbles to keep the economy growing. On the other hand, such bubbles inevitably create financial crises when they eventually implode.”

    “This is a contradiction with global implications. Many countries have relied for growth on US consumer spending and investments in outsourcing to supply those consumers. If America’s bubble economy is now tapped out, global growth will slow sharply. It is not clear that other countries have the will or capacity to develop alternative engines of growth.”
    “America’s economic contradictions are part of a new business cycle that has emerged since 1980. The business cycles of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush share strong similarities and are different from pre-1980 cycles. The similarities are large trade deficits, manufacturing job loss, asset price inflation, rising debt-to-income ratios, and detachment of wages from productivity growth.”

    “The new cycle rests on financial booms and cheap imports. Financial booms provide collateral that supports debt-financed spending. Borrowing is also supported by an easing of credit standards and new financial products that increase leverage and widen the range of assets that can be borrowed against. Cheap imports ameliorate the effects of wage stagnation.”

    “This structure contrasts with the pre-1980 business cycle, which rested on wage growth tied to productivity growth and full employment. Wage growth, rather than borrowing and financial booms, fuelled demand growth. That encouraged investment spending, which in turn drove productivity gains and output growth.” Thomas Palley, The Debt Delusion

    • hvrds on February 26, 2008 at 3:54 am

    The Philippine scenario could be very well summed up as the “Delusion of a Philippine State.” The ship of state is a banca.

    • hvrds on February 26, 2008 at 3:56 am

    Someone asked earlier on how to make money in this situation. Learn how to short the market. Short the peso.

    • hvrds on February 26, 2008 at 4:11 am

    In the Philippines land and gold takes the primary place of most of the other forms of wealth. The reason is simple. It is a great and only store of value against the policies of weak state. Land values are once again going up in the Philippines. Gold is set to hit $ 1,000 an ounce. That means for the long haul inflationary expectations are rising.

    “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.”

    “This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.” Alan Greenspan.

    • hvrds on February 26, 2008 at 4:54 am

    For anyone wishing to end the Big Mike and GMA regime. Please note that the military men and police who were alingned with the victorious side became part of the establishment. Military and police retirement pensions are not sufficient. The group of military and police officers around the royal couple know fully well that their economic futures are guaraneed with the present family. They are not going to break their loyalty when their economic self interest is at stake. The leaders of the original RAM prospered after the fall of Marcos. Notables are Almonte and Honasan. After the fall of Erap you have Mendoza, Berroya, Reyes and many others all prospering very nicely.

    Now on to Esperon and Razon the present in command. No Big Mike and GMA no more future unless they turn but who to turn to? Erap? Binay? De castro? The left- fugedabadit?

    There is a void. Who is to contnue guaranteeing the futures of the military establishment that has become very much a part of the political process since Edsa I.

    Or are we very close already to the idea of a civilian military junta in reality? The police and military have already become the fulcrum of the seesaw between the anarchy of the families fighting for power in the country.

    If the Catholic Church this time backs down from getting involved then the road is wide open for an explicit military take over. Under the present constitution they have the right to intervene. No law was passed in Congress clarifying and setting out the rules in their intervention so they might make it up as they go along.

    The military predominantly do not like Erap. They would probably take his money and jail him afterwards. They all know he is Erap para kay Erap.

    The only group standing in the way of the military is the Church.

    • UP n student on February 26, 2008 at 6:43 am

    Someone asked earlier on how to make money in this situation. Learn how to short the market. Short the peso.
    -hvrds

    hvrds… shorting is hard to understand, harder to execute. Here are simpler actions : benign0 is “long Australia”; “long USA” are CaT, hawaiianGuy and buddies Abe Margallo and Bencard; cvj is “long Singapore” and Jon Mariano “long Hongkong”. And docBautista is working on a straddle.

    • Bencard on February 26, 2008 at 6:51 am

    the nefarious practice of some anti-arroyo oligarchs, bishops and priests to use the mass, community worship, and “prayer rallies”, to promote their partisan political agenda is getting more and more blatant and in-you-face. the people who are drawn to these gatherings, including the faithful whose only true interest is to pray to their God in the spirit of peace, love, and understanding, and not to prejudge, condemn, or inflame hatred upon another human being, are indiscriminately portrayed as among those agitators who are clamoring for gma’s resignation. for its part, the anti-arroyo media (with abs-cbn, the most virulent) is only too eager to bring the “mass action” to everybody’s living room, with hysterical accounts, in ominous tones, of its newscasters as though the presidency is on the verge of being toppled.

    it is quite understandable why the oust-gloria crowd would resort to such a practice. it is no secret that recent past attempts to stir “people’s power” to depose gma have generated disappointing, if not totally embarrassing attendance, indicating people’s boredom and apathy towards such activities. about the only sure fire way, short of giving free food and money, to attract people is a public religious gathering or the sacred mass.

    but the record shows, the vast majority of the people aren’t fooled, nor are they likely to be anytime soon.

    • benign0 on February 26, 2008 at 6:58 am

    “You’re supposedly culling your arguments from my statements. If you can’t tell me in what valid place from my statements the idea of “four out of five candidates espousing the wrong solution” came from; then your JUDGEMENT that my scenario is improbable is WITHOUT BASIS.” — justice league

    Dude, you’re flying off the handle yet again in the typical way that you do. Here is again:

    ============start of quote
    Presumably you refer to this whole thing about the multi-party nature of Pinoy elections and if I recall right, you cited the example of, say, five candidates and how one in such a contest need only to garner a 20% mandate to win the race, which is a possible tragedy if the other four happened to have the right solution or approach. Let’s call that example of yours Scenario 1

    I can think of the opposite scenario where the four out of your five hypothetical candidates would be thinking of the RIGHT thing — in which case we’d have an 80% chance of the right candidate being elected (all things being equal). Let’s call my take on this Scenario 2

    Firstly, my question is quite simple. Which scenario is the more PROBABLE scenario?

    In that scenario you postulated, what would be the probability of four out of five candidates espousing the wrong solution? If you ask me I’d say that Scenario 1 is an improbable scenario in the first place.

    And even if THAT were the case, that is not really the issue.

    The issue I highlight is Pinoys’ ability to discern good and bad politicians DURING ELECTIONS by understanding their platforms.

    The factor at work during elections is more the dysfunction of Pinoys’ ability to vote for the right candidate — not the nature of our system as being multi-party as you argue. Case in point is the triumph of Erap and FPJ in the polls. You could have had a hundred candidates running for President and Pinoys will still vote for the bozo.

    So I find it a bit of a waste of time focusing on the nature of the system when the reality is that Pinoys have a talent for screwing up ANY system whether it is bad or good.

    Second, if you go by the idea that Scenario 1 is the more probable scenario (i.e. that the person with the RIGHT idea is generally in the minority), then why would one advocate entrusting the fate of the nation on a mob-like entity? Fans of Edsa “revolutions” build their case around the idea that a “people’s mandate” is formed when a reasonable number (we can’t even agree on what constitutes a “reasonable number”) of warm bodies dance the ocho-ocho on the streets of Manila. Kung baga popularity determines rigteousness according to these hollow-heads.
    ============end of quote

    I did not have time to look up your original post and follow it word-for-word, but I did recall the essence of it.

    So barring any erroneus verbatim reference to your original post, are you then able to comment on the INTERNAL CONSISTENCY of what i wrote above.

    You’re right. You’re DEFINITELY not through here.

    Stidi ka lang diyan.

    – 😉

    • hawaiianguy on February 26, 2008 at 7:19 am

    hrvds: “The Philippine scenario could be very well summed up as the “Delusion of a Philippine State.” The ship of state is a banca.”

    The banca is an indigenous means for travel, like its precursor “balangay.” Does it mean that the concept of state, apart from being a “delusion,” is reconceptualized and adapted to conform to the native?

    Just wondering.

    • istambay_sakalye on February 26, 2008 at 7:28 am

    the term people’s representative for the congressman is a misnomer, because the only representation they do is for themselves and their greed! who to blame? of course, us who elected them in exchange for a small change! we deserve what we got filipino people! unless we start changing in our thinking and start performing our civic duties and stop blaming other or the politicians for our misery then we have no hope!
    our children and our children’s children will have no hope too.
    ms. monsod’s position why she is against people power IV can be argued with exact same position she took for her stand. first, we have someone in malacanang whose very mandate is questionable for having cheated in 2004 elections as the “hello garci” tapes created a furor that nearly toppled her from her power.
    second, the extra judicial killings being carried out with impunity. memebers of the so called “leftist” and media critical or the administration disppearing everyday.
    what did gma do? she gave a commendation to jovito palparan, the very same person who is accused responsible for these extra-judicial killings and also known as the “butcher”
    third, the massive corruption in the government and the fact that none of the big fish was ever convicted. abalos is still free despite the supreme court finding that there was a gross anomaly in the awarding of contact.
    the argument that military authoritarianism will take over after a people power IV is just sowing unfounded fear. we had two military backed people power and non led to military authotarianism althogh the later led to dicatorial authotarianism which we are trying to get rid of by the way at present!
    my fellow filipinos, the truth is already out! gma herself admitted to knowing and that the zte-nbn deal is indeed “flawed”, better put it a product of greed and corruption committed by abalos,fg and company with gma’s blessing!
    let’s call black black and white white. not gray not silver. i really hope this time we will see real change in the government and in ourselves as individual too! choose our leaders wisely and truly elect someone who is really representative of the filipino people. not the crooks and criminals, liars and thief that are running our government today. get rid of the enriles, zubiris,
    defensor(e)s, nograles and his comrades in the congress!

    • benign0 on February 26, 2008 at 7:50 am

    justice league,

    You’re all over the place, dude. Take some time to take a deep breath so you can structure your thoughts a bit better.

    It turns out that you did get the point of that last post of mine when you said…

    “And now to your hundred candidate scenario. So based on that scenario; the “Bozo” could be elected with as little as 1.1% with the other 99 candidates taking “equal” shares of the remaining votes.”

    … which is actually an extreme extension of the 80-20 scenario I used to clarify your original issue about our multi-party system.

    You’re right of course. The 98.9% in your hundred-candidate scenario will not have voted for the bozo who won. Common (and even popular) wisdom would give the “enlightened” 98.9% of Filipinos LICENSE to remark “e basta di ko binoto yan”.

    And it is that attitude that serves as one of the fuels to do one of them hollow-headed People Power things (see? it is still consistent with my view that Pinoys are being manipulated by oligarchs even if we fancy ourselves to be a free-thinking people).

    So while the hypothetical outcome here — a bozo president elected by 1.1% of the population — is not ideal. It does not diminish the fact that the ATTITUDE (‘di ko binoto yan!’) characterises that chicken-sh1t sense of accountability typical of Pinoys.

    It’s not too different from Pinoys’ penchant for identifying with some bird who wins Miss L.A. crowing “galing talaga ng Pinoy!” on one hand, and then on the other saying, ‘di ako ganyan’ whenever we see compatriots of ours jumping queues in a McDonalds store.

    The principle also applies to the reality (just like our multi-party system is a reality) that the Philippines is really an agglomeration of little bitty tribes into a political unit named after some obscure Spanish king. Tagalogs keep to themselves. Cebuanos keep to themselves. Mangyans keep to themselves. There is no sense of collective accountability for the overall outcome of the nation. So if, say, a horde of Mangyan’s suddenly take it upon themselves to terrorise a bunch of foreign tourists in El Nido, we can just as easily say, ‘mga Mangyan kasi yan e’, INSTEAD of feeling a sense of collective shame for an atrocity that happened within our sovereign national territory.

    It’s also similar to the concept of command responsibility, ironically something ‘Patalsikin-na-Now-na!’ morons are pinning on Arroyo. Any commander knows that he is in principle accountable for the transgression of even one subordinate he’s never met. So a commander who would say, ‘I wasn’t part of that deal’ will not be too different from the 98.9% who would say ‘di ko binoto yan’.

    And here we are trying to champion unity and build a collective identity. And here YOU are invoking the license to say ‘di ko binoto yan!’.

    Where do you ACTUALLY see yourself then, Mr. “justice league”?

    Whether 98.9% or 1% did not vote for a bozo like Erap, the REALITY is that the rest of the world sees Erap as a collective outcome of Pinoys’ discerning taste for politicians. The global community will simply laugh off an argument citing the ‘multi-party’ nature of our system or whatever lame excuse we may come up with to explain away a PHILIPPINE president such as Erap.

    And THAT is the reality, dude. 😀

    • nash on February 26, 2008 at 8:13 am

    @benigno

    “‘Patalsikin-na-Now-na!’ morons”

    I’m proud to be a moron. I guess that makes you a genius.

  1. I truly admire the bloggers here who continue to defend Gloria with a long history of deception,corruption and lying.

    I have three theories:

    1)You must know something which the great majority of the Filipinos do not know.

    2)You truly believe that there is nobody else that can compare with Gloria,warts and all.

    3)You are just joking or just playing the devil advocate’s roles in this blog.

    Can the old geezer help me understand how your minds really work please?

    I can still learn a few tricks from you guys.

    • UP n student on February 26, 2008 at 8:48 am

    to the equalizer: in combat, him to whom you scream “… show your face, you who I will kill when I see you!”??? He will shoot you as you scream.

    • UP n student on February 26, 2008 at 8:53 am

    and equalizer… if your chain of command did not teach you that, you have a lousy chain of command.

    • justice league on February 26, 2008 at 9:07 am

    Benigno,

    Well at least you got the “Mr.” part right.

    I’m just waiting for the proverbial “other shoe to drop”.

    • Kabayan on February 26, 2008 at 9:12 am

    A great morning to everyone.

    Hehehe pro-corruption apologists here still try to deceive themselves … so much the better, the harder the fall.

    Regarding divisions, well if some here say 80% of Filipinos from all professions (yes including the military, business and religious) wants Gloria out, and given that 8% to 5% doesn’t, while the balance are undecided, constitute the viewed “divided opinion”; I can live with that. 🙂

Load more

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.