Deal or no deal? (updated)
Update, 4:52 pm. (first reported by Inquirer.net) Arroyo revokes EO 464:
“Effectively immediately, I am revoking EO 464. Executive officials may no longer invoke EO 464 to excuse non-attendance from legislative inquiries,” President Arroyo said.
I have questions for the lawyers:
1. If the President’s formally revoked E.O. 464, what happens, does it mean what the S.C. allowed the President and her officials to invoke, can no longer be invoked? Or can you still invoke the provisions of an executive issuance that has been formally revoked? Specially since Memorandum Circular 108 is still in force?
2. The main arguments in the provisions that were still valid, up to the time of revocation, having been ratified by the court, does a new executive issuance have to be signed, to continue invoking them?
In other words, does revoking E.O. 464 while asserting the right to invoke executive privilege, at this point, and with the particular issues at hand, actually mean anything?
***
Playing for time paid off. The President, I understand, is due to go to Hong Kong at the end of the month, and it seems by the time she does so (to kowotow?), the forces of reform would have been held at bay. This statement says it all: Palace to presume regularity in ZTE deal until violations are proven. Contradicting, of course, what the President herself said, earlier. But then her cabinet already contradicted her: and she didn’t object.
In the face of mounting calls for her to relent in terms of E.O. 464 (see Assumption classmates ask Arroyo to dump EO 464, including the President’s half-sister, Cielo Macapagal-Salgado) The Palace held the line, while focusing its energies on the Supreme Court.
Iinitial reports had it that it would be a Close call on Neri case, the oral arguments at the Supreme Court didn’t go well for the administration:See and SC justice not satisfied with Neri’s state secret argument. and Supreme Court justices find loopholes in Neri defense. Yet in the end, Supreme Court offers compromise on Neri: Senate has 24 hours to agree:
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has arrived at a compromise arrangement with the Senate. In the case of national security adviser Norberto Gonzales, the Senate lifted its arrest order provided Gonzales went on leave.
Pacifico Agabin, counsel for the Senate, said that the discussions between the senators and justices are “more freewheeling†if they’re done in chambers.
Some observers are uncomfortable about the senators and justices meeting in chambers to arrive at a compromise. But a lawyer familiar with the Supreme Court said that, in the US, courts encourage Congress and the Executive to compromise or negotiate whenever executive privilege is raised.
“In this case, there is even no compromise because the Supreme Court will still rule on the first three questions, together with other disputed questions still to be asked, all in one decision,†the lawyer said. “This gives the public a better idea of the nature of executive privilege and avoids multiple suits.â€Â
The three questions are: 1) whether the President followed up the NBN-ZTE project with Neri; 2) whether Neri was dictated by the President to prioritize the NBN-ZTE project; and 3) whether he was told by the President to go ahead with the project after being told of the alleged bribe offer .
So as it stands, 12 senators agree to SC compromise on Neri testimony–Lacson. The result, if the numbers hold up, is that Neri to attend Senate NBN deal hearing: the questions of the Justices makes for interesting reading:
This initial agreement was reached Tuesday evening after about nine hours of oral arguments on Neri’s petition to stop the Senate from arresting him after he refused to heed summons to testify at the inquiry into the scrapped $329-million national broadband network (NBN) contract with China’s ZTE Corp., Supreme Court Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said.
Neri’s lawyer, Antonio Bautista, said the chairman of the Commission on Higher Education would appear before the Senate on Friday.
Marquez said that while Neri could invoke executive privilege to refuse to answer questions from the senators, he could be cited in contempt. The Senate, however, could not arrest Neri because of his pending petition before the high tribunal, he added….
Any contentious invocation of executive privilege would be brought to the Supreme Court, Marquez said.
Senate Majority Floor leader Francis Pangilinan meanwhile said that his colleagues have to be consulted first and they would notify the high tribunal on what they agreed upon within 24 hours.
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, chair of the Senate blue ribbon committee, said that he did not want the powers of the Senate to conduct legislative inquiries diminished. “There is already this resistance on the part of the executive department officials to appear in the Senate’s hearings either by invoking legalities or other means,†he said.
He said that under normal circumstances, the Senate may reject an invocation of executive privilege and order the official’s detention until he responded to the questions.
The justices, several senators and Neri’s lawyers met behind closed doors after the hearing where justices earlier said Neri could not invoke the privilege to cover up a crime.
Earlier, the high court, through Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, proposed that the Senate drop three questions they planned to ask Neri on a conversation he had with Arroyo on the NBN contract so the CHED chairman would appear at the inquiry…
…Carpio also said that the executive privilege could not be invoked to cover up a crime.
“Can executive privilege be invoked to hide a crime?†Carpio asked Bautista.
“No,†Bautista acknowledged.
Bautista denied that Neri was covering up a crime, pointing out that Neri had disclosed the bribery attempt allegedly made by Abalos.
What his client did not want to reveal was his “freewheeling†and unstructured conversations with the President about whether to continue with the deal or to modify or scrap the project, and about Chinese lending practices, Bautista said.
“If Neri would be called to disclose these, we will be letting the President rule in a fishbowl,†he said.
Carpio pointed out that it was Bautista himself who “said, ‘Dwell on the impact of bribery scandals.’ This is not even a question but a fact.â€Â
“Bribery is a crime under the Revised Penal Code,†Carpio reminded the lawyer.
“The moment you refer to a crime, it cannot be privileged,†Carpio said.
But Bautista pointed out that Neri and Ms Arroyo only discussed the scandal, not the bribery.
He said the alleged bribery attempt might embroil Chinese officials, which was why forcing Neri to disclose his conversations with the President could affect foreign relations.
“What’s the problem there, even if it cuts through members of the judiciary?†asked Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.
Bautista replied that conversations might endanger diplomatic relations and shame the country.
“Supposing there is bribery involving officials of China, it will embarrass us,†he said.
Carpio pointed out that if indeed there was bribery involved, then the payoff money would be shouldered by Filipino taxpayers since the project would be funded by a loan.
He then asked how the government should balance its interests when it comes to disclosing information about the deal.
“Should we protect diplomatic relations over interests of Filipino taxpayers? In weighing interests, what should the court do, protect Filipino taxpayers or the Chinese officials?†he asked.
Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago also asked which was more important — keeping the President’s communication confidential or uncovering anomalies.
Bautista said keeping the President’s communications confidential should take precedence because there were other sources of information to disclose the alleged anomalies, such as witnesses Rodolfo Lozada Jr. and Dante Madriaga.
Puno also asked whether the cancellation of the project had led to any diplomatic row.
When Bautista replied that there were reports of “ruffled feathers†in China, Puno said this was different from a diplomatic row.
Bautista said that if China would not lend the Philippine government money in the future, that would be a form of a “diplomatic reaction.â€Â
The justices also asked Bautista how Neri’s attendance at the Senate inquiry would affect Arroyo’s performance of her duties.
Puno asked Bautista to “please tell the Court how the Office of the President will be hampered in the performance of its duties if Secretary Neri will attend the Senate hearing?â€Â
The lawyer said there would be a “chilling effect†because the President might no longer talk in confidence to her subordinates if they are compelled to tell the Senate what she tells them.
But Puno said the claim of chilling effect was a conclusion, and the lawyers would have to explain the particular impact on Arroyo.
Puno and Carpio went through each of the three questions the Senate was interested in.
Puno said the first question whether the President followed up on the NBN project, if answered in the affirmative, would only show that she had an interest in the project, but not necessarily “undue†interest as Bautista argued.
Bautista said that if his client answered the question, it would affect the President negatively because of the prevailing “accusatory†atmosphere.
Carpio also wondered whether there was anything “morally or legally wrong†if Arroyo followed up the project with the NEDA.
On the question whether Neri was ordered to prioritize the NBN deal, Bautista said that if Neri answered this, the country could be subjected to criticism from other governments interested in the deal and from the public and lobbyists.
“But the project benefits the people … If she orders its priority, should heaven fall on the President?†Puno replied.
Carpio also said Neri could have answered that it was not the NEDA which prioritized contracts.
On the question whether the President told Neri to approve the NBN deal with China after being told of the alleged bribe, Carpio said Neri could have answered that he was not the approving party.
Bautista said that if the question was answered with a yes, it could show that the President had undue interest in the project, but Puno said undue interest was just the lawyer’s personal opinion.
Puno also asked Bautista how asking Neri whether Arroyo ordered him to prioritize ZTE would “affect the powers and privileges of the Office of the President.â€Â
Bautista said it would leave the President open to condemnation.
Tingog.com is furious. What is the point of a hearing if the crucial questions are off the table? He isn’t alone in feeling that way.
But a prudent view, as one lawyer explained it to me, might be this: the Supreme Court avoided having to rule on a tough issue, right now, while enhancing judicial supremacy in such matters. How? By having virtual control over the Senate proceedings yet avoiding setting the bounds of executive privilege in broad points at an emotional point in our history. Now the Supreme Court can rule over specific questions. The lawyer calls it a “deft” move: deciding the issue in broad terms might unwittingly emasculate the presidency as an institution. Ruling on specific questions, however, limits the issues. It allows for an incisive ruling limited to a particular case. So, from the lawyer’s point of view, a sober and masterful play of checks and balances.
Other lawyers also counsel prudence. Marichu Lambino paints a grim reason for the high court’s “solomonic decision”:
[M]aybe…the Supreme Court is trying to tell the parties they should behave like statesmen and diplomatically resolve their differences without asking the Supreme Court to use its own coercive powers.
If the Supreme Court were to use its own coercive powers and deny Romy Neri’s petition, paving the way for Romy Neri’s arrest to attend the Senate hearing, and then it is disobeyed, and disobeyed effectively by the executive branch, there would be a final breakdown in the last “democratic institution†that people rely upon, the Supreme Court. The Macapagal-Arroyo government would have held the record for that: destroying all the institutions of checks and balances in government including the final institution that people resort to for redress of grievances.
Where do we turn to when that happens?
Malacañang if it defies the Supreme Court, would have destroyed the last vestige of civilized order in our society.
Maybe the Supreme Court is not deferring a final resolution, it is deferring a final destruction.
No one knows, and no one will say, what the real thinking of the Justices was; but it initially reminded me of Ferdinand Marcos’ diary entries concerning his dealings with the Supreme Court after the imposition of martial law (see his Sep. 24, 1972 and Jan. 27, Jan. 29, Apr 2, 1973 entries). But the prudence counseled by the lawyer I talked to and Lambino’s analysis of the high-stakes the Palace is playing for, suggests that we should let the process unfold, further. Additional insights are in The Daily PCIJ report on the high court hearing.
But it’s also enough for the Palace to crow in press releases, regardless of the way the government case was hammered in oral arguments: DOJ claims 1st round victory in SC talks on exec privilege. For a glimpse into goings-on at the Palace, see Jove Francisco’s account of the Veep’s meet-and-greet with the President:
Kabayan then went inside the Rizal Hall.
Only to go back to the reception area because he was told he needed to escort the president when she enters the hall. Which is, well, not unusual but okay, special (?) because we know (and based on past media coverage) that the president doesn’t mind making an entrance alone. Well, as they say, these are not ordinary days.
It wasn’t 10am yet, so the president wasn’t technically late for her entrance. But since Kabayan came in early, he had to wait for PGMA. He chit chatted with fellow officials but after some small talk, he went over to the reception table where the Malacanang guest book’s nestled. He sat on the area’s chair while waiting for Mrs. Arroyo.
So we can actually say, that this morning, the man who is considered by some quarters as the “president in waitingâ€Â, literally waited for President Arroyo.
And when the chief executive came out of the room and saw her vice president, they exchanged pleasantries like there were no issues between them (especially about the possibility that Kabayan may replace her if the political crisis worsens).
The two of them, together with Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, even displayed a mini version of the now staple (and much criticized on the blogosphere) UNITY WALK, before joining their guests inside the Rizal hall.
They were civil to each other during the signing of the Civil Aviation Authority Act… sharing a laugh or two.
But they were evidently quite cozy during the merienda break, with De Castro breaking the ice by quoting the president’s oft repeated line during times of political crisis. They were talking to a congresswoman from Bulacan about a housing issue, when De Castro used the phrase “rule of law and due processâ€Â… sabay tapik kay PGMA like asking her for permission to use the line. PGMA laughed. (natawa din ako… earlier kasi, during her speech, she read a variation of this phrase din kasi. Sabi nga nila, hindi naman cut and paste speech, reiteration lang. hehehe)
Scenes like these only make some quarters reiterate their demand for the vice president to make a stand… if he will remain supportive of the president or not.
A fellow reporter following Kabayan asked him about the latest call made by the Hyatt 10, “Aysus!†was his initial reaction and he paired that remark with a smile, but he also didn’t hide his irritation (evidently not on the reporters but on the former cab secs) while he continued walking. When he stopped, he faced the cameras and with somewhat angry hand gestures, he declared: “Nobody! Nobody, can dictate kung ano ang sasabihin ko!â€Â
Minutes later, some of the TV teams who were not able to catch the above mentioned ambush interview tried to get the VP again. So he repeated the “nobody can dictate me†phrase. Thing is, some other TV team failed to get it on cam, so they chased him in another part of the hall. The in demand VP obliged and repeated the phrase again. A lot of us listened to him in all three ambush interviews and we noticed, “parang pare pareho ang intensity ang pagiging emphatic ni Kabayan sa pagbitaw ng quotable quote na iyun ah?â€Â
Interestingly, the president that some quarters want to replace with Kabayan reiterated her desire to stay in power until 2010, earlier in the event.
New Philippine Revolution thinks that the administration will now embark on efforts to consolidate its ranks:
In the next few days, I believe that Gloria will, definitely do the following things:
1. She will announce the lifting of EO 464 to prevent the CBCP from further joining the growing protest movement. That will give her administration a few more days to survive.
2. She will announce the suspension of controversial government officials involved in the ZTE scandal. That would contradict what the Palace announced today and yesterday, but, nonetheless, that would give her enough breathing space to prevent herself from totally being besieged.
3. She will announce new appointments in the Comelec, foremost of which, members of civil society, or one belonging to the Muslim sector.
I think the environment is being prepared for these pronouncements. Palace operators have allowed the people to hinge the search for truth with Neri, which is a tactical way of solving this issue. By concentrating all attention at Neri’s probable testimony, the palace is effectively leading the public’s attention away from Lozada and concentrate on Neri. I bet my bottom dollar that Neri’s testimony will not amount to anything since it has been months since the controversy first began. I am sure that palace operators have already cleaned every filth there is about this deal.
This is a variation on what Uniffors predicts: Romulo Neri is The Real Trojan Horse. i am not convinced: not that I think it’s impossible that Neri will lie, but rather, I think it’s much more difficult to cover up the paper and money trails; the problem is, not enough work has been done to uncover documentary and other non-testimonial evidence. The testimony, thus far, has been formidable and quite damaging; but it will not all come together until the paperwork and money trail are exposed.
Village Idiot Savant suggests fruitful lines of questioning:
First, the good senators should not impinge on any discussion about Neri’s dealings with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. At the merest hint of that, Neri will take cover under Executive Privilege and shut up tighter than a clam. Certain senators, unfortunately, have a manic compulsion to indict Arroyo in the most blatant and most dramatic fashion possible. That is not the way. Implication must be implicit: Neri must be coaxed; it is up to the senators (and the public) to connect the dots.
Second, make use of Jun Lozada. I believe there is still a strong personal connection between these two men (and not the sort that Jamby Madrigal wishes to imply). Lozada knows how Neri’s mind works; Lozada knows what questions to ask. The senators must exercise some humility and allow Lozada to guide them on the subject and manner of inquiry.
Third, there is so much out in the open already that it’s foolish to shake down Neri for more. Instead, they should use Neri to corroborate available testimonies and evidence, in particular, those made by Lozada and Dante Madriaga (bearing in mind anything that will directly implicate Arroyo.) Strengthen existing links instead of creating new and weak ones.
Fourth, have Neri explain his web-of-corruption charts. These charts have already been made public, and while Neri may claim forgetfulness in public statements, I do believe he will comply under oath.
Senators must exercise patience, cunning, and courtesy in order to get what they want out of Neri. With the right questions, he will not disappoint. There is no need to attack Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo directly; take out the men around her, and the house of lies will crumble soon enough.
The views of Kris at Kalasag on “moral thresholds” bears reading. It is something all the bureaucrats implicated but so far, not exposed, in all these official wrongdoings, should bear in mind.
Meanwhile, crowd control remains the order of the day: Amando Doronila explains why. Local government leaders, as Mount Balatacan Monitor points out, are beginning to feel the heat. As is the AFP. The Inquirer editorial advises the AFP to Clean up the barracks. And my Arab News column for this week is Let the Veep Succeed in Philippines: may not sit will with some people, but it’s my personal view of what should happen.
And here’s a statement from Team RP, that serves as a timely warning of where the sentiments of young people are. reytrillana’s Weblog also discusses the importance of engaging young people in political action. My So Called Life shares her thoughts on what’s going on.
The Annotated Chronicles points out that a government that takes for granted the right to withhold information, is a government predisposed to corruption.
And for those who haven’t read it yet, G.R. No. 169777 Senate v. Ermita. In particular, Valid Provisions of EO 464.
Still weaseling out eh, kapal talaga.
Neri’s such a shameful bastard.
manolo,
Agreed, and you know my sentiment regarding this. My question is, what is being done in this respect? Is anybody acting towards uncovering such evidence?
We desperately need them at this point, you know.
jon, i think steps are being undertaken. but the resources are slim. it’s not sexy.
mlq3, it seems like that the administrations interpretation of executive privilage won the day. right? wlll the oust gma crowd now stop pestering her on hiding in such legalities?
magdiwang:
you really think GMA can produce a satisfactory resolution to this crisis? really?
I’m actually quite disappointed at the SC. It has not resolved anything and it has actually added to the confusion. Is it because our laws are really so complex that decisions are so hard to come by? Is it therefore the system’s problem and not that of the justices?
I understand where the Supreme Court is coming from. As they say, hard cases make bad law.
Catch-22. You can’t invoke executive privilege to cover a crime, but you can’t prove there is a crime because the witness invokes executive privilege.
If the Supreme Court rules against the invocation of executive privilege, Neri can still invoke the right not to incriminate himself since he approved the ZTE deal. The administration has lots of outs in this.
Jon:
it’s understandable and i agree with the interpretation Manolo got from his lawyer friend. the Justices did not want the spotlight. they decided as they did, sort of passing the ball back to the other two branches of government, because they did not want to be in the centre of things as the judiciary was during Davide’s time. in an environment hungry for heroes, they chose to be judges. it’s not a bad choice. after all, they’re following after a tough act, Jun Lozada.
magdiwang:
oh wait… there is no problem for you, is there? all is happy in the pax corruptio/em> of your Glorialand.
magdiwang, it didn’t win the day. it won a reprieve. give the palace more room to hang itself, if you scrutinize the line of questioning of the justices. but what the sc refused to do was paint in bold strokes in favor of focusing on fine lines. those lines will, hopefully, be clarified on friday, if the senators don’t bungle it.
tonio, i do believe that the president together with the senate working cooperatively will be able to at least defuse the situation. The problem is, they are in a tug of war against each other with bruised egos. running to the SC to mediate their differnces. so pathetic.
magdiwang:
i can’t argue with you there. this latest crop of Senators, are, if anything, horrendous, egotistical, publicity whores.
mlq3:
what do you think of this? i believe it was right for the SC not to make this issue theirs.
Magdiwang, it is in the interest of GMA and the Senate’s Presidential wannabees to wait for 2010 so perhaps they can arrive at an agreement.
tonio, i tend to agree with those who believe it was a clever move on the sc’s part. either one is confident that one way or another, the admin will ultimately hang itself, or not. since i believe that whatever the admin does, it will ultimately hang itself, whether it does so sooner or later doesn’t concern me. but for those who want to go slow and cautiously, i appreciate the benefits this sc move will have. again, because, the more rope you give the admin, the more it will find ways to hang itself.
hahaha!tonio, no one will ever be happy when the country of ours is divided. no one wins. here we are discussing politics at the comfort of our homes and offices while millions of our countrymen wallow in poverty.
Yes isnt it amazing how clumsily this administration covers up its crap? Leave it alone and it screws everything up. Even in the 2004 elections. Ipa-tape mo ba naman si Garci. Naka! Ayun na-tape tuloy pati presidente.
Division is not the problem, corruption is
“tonio, i tend to agree with those who believe it was a clever move on the sc’s part. either one is confident that one way or another, the admin will ultimately hang itself, or not. since i believe that whatever the admin does, it will ultimately hang itself,” – mlq3
True. It has been tripping on its own feet eversince. With continous pressure, we’ll see more bloopers…
again, it’s about minimum and maximum objectives. if gma steps down in 2010 and either has to go abroad or goes directly to jail, everybody wins. if she steps down earlier with a broad public consensus that it’s required and will be the first step in a longer process of reforms, everybody wins. again, it’s the broad public consensus we’re after.
mlq3, isnt broad public consensus relative? whats important for many does not necessarily critical for others.
Executive Privilege is really a GAGo Order showing the arrogance and shameless impunity of the Arroyo administration in institutionalizing corruption at the very top.
The SC decision and the arguments presented really shows we are indeed deep in the muck and sinking further. What ticks me off over this is the administration’s line of “national security” and will probably have no qualms invoking this especially with numbnuts in the military who will pounce on their master’s enemy once given the opportunity.
It will be the height of stupidity and I will not be surprised if they hit the whistleblowers with treason since they are yapping about the breach in national security.
magdiwang, on single group will ever be happy. but the point of anything political is to find a consensus that hopefully improves things. the broader, the better, as in its absence hardline positions will rule by default. it’s the push and pull of the hardliners that helps foster a consensus among the majority though.
neri, get a new lawyer.
There’s another way of looking at this situation. Forget about getting to arroyo through Neri. Have Neri testified in the senate again, and hammer away towards Neri solidly implicating abalos.
Once there is a solid ground to move forward with abalos, bring abalos back to the senate and squeeze him like a nut until he cracks. As they say all roads leads to malacanang!
I don’t doubt that abalos will sell everyone out involved to save his own hide. Even his famous hamburjeer will not save him.
This maybe the long route to take but it will get us to our ultimate goal. Just find the weakest link in web of corruption, and the wall will come crashing down.
Will not win the fight with a single knockout punch. It will be steady barrage of jabs and combination.
I for one am satisfied so far with how events are unfolding. It’s about time that we learn that enduring reforms require patience and working within the system regardless of how daunting this may be.
I understand that the SC’s decision (re Neri’s plea) will become part of our laws, but even to the simplest of questions (at least to me) like what constitutes executive privilege was not even answered! It’s been three months since Neri filed his plea to the High Court. Three months is such a long time, it seems.
On Boy Abunda had Neri’s lawyer, Atty. Bautista, on that interview show he hosts on ANC. One feature of that show is the quick questions portion where Abunda throws our one and his guest responds with a one-word answer.
So Abunda asked Atty. Bautista : “Favorite position?”
Atty. Bautita: “Doggie style”
And Lozada, who was bent over when Bautista asked him to sign a false affidavit, can attest to that!
What’s sad and funny both, is how the Media has been celebrating Senate v. Ermita ever since 2006 as if that unanimous decision somehow sided with the Senate and not Ermita.
Good grief. The first time I read, I realized it was actually the Supreme Court establishing Executive Privilege for the president. Lookit: they upheld Section 1 of EO464 in its entirety–that happens to be GMA’s definition of Executive Privilege.
The reason of course is that where the Executive has only one Privileged Officers, the SC has 15 of them with lots of their own secrets!
Even in the decsion Senate v. Ermita, they extracted that admission of respecting Judicial Privilege (the equivalent of Executive Privilege for the SC’s justices.)
This was all two years ago, susmaryosep!
The Supreme Court has once again shown the limits of the legal system. The impending collusion between the Senate and the Executive will once again show the limits of any impeachment process. So it is not only Arroyo who is the cornered rat. We the people are as well. 2010 is a mousetrap.
jon, i think the supreme court operates according to a different sense of time than we mere mortals do
As a piece of English composition, nothing could possibly be more precise or clear than a Supreme Court decision.
It makes me wonder how many of those who write editorials, columns and blogs about executive privilege, press freedom, and public’s right to know, have ever bothered to read Senate v. Ermita.
Or at least the parts they now don’t agree with!
You can tell when they haven’t read it because they say a lot of pitifully ignorant things.
All these lawyers, writers and thinkers– I guess there’s not a single reader among them.
“All these lawyers, writers and thinkers– I guess there’s not a single reader among them.”
Buti na lang we have a DJB who not only reads for us but also tells us how to understand what we have not read.
MLQ3,
I strongly disagree with the attitude that regards these unelected judges as anything more than highly educated jurists of some use to the economic and political classes. But they must win our respect with superior intelligence and wise decisions that INSPIRE and EDIFY the masses, not discourage, demoralize or as cvj puts it, demonstrate the limits of the legal system. I do not share such defeatism, but neither do I go in for your apparent idolatry.
This business of their timing is the dirty lil secret of the Court for their greatest power lies in being able to decide when to decide anything, if at all!
We must learn the virtue of skepticism, but it must not be a blind skepticism.
The Supreme Court are not the Judges of old. The Constitution is a contract that all parties to it can and must understand.
They may have the power to say what is Constitutional or not, but that does not deprive us of the Right to Think!
It’s time that light of the Public’s Right to Know also be shined into the dark corners of the Judiciary.
We’ll find no saints there, and plenty of graft and corruption. In fact, I would say that is the financial and stock exchange of all corruption.
It’s amazing how lil amparo here and a lil habeas data there has so anaesthetized and hypnotized the press, the ever freedom loving Press!
Jeez.
As if naman this “institutionalised corruption” did not exist since the 1950′s.
Pinoy nga naman talaga…
DJB, after rereading your post 10 times, i get the impression that you are disappointed at the Supreme Court’s ruling?
I am not lawyer but isnt it that whatever the Justices decide on the Executive Previlege question today can be used as a precedence in a similar case in the future. So the future President who is currently a Senator is just ensuring that his future rule can invoke the same..That will explain the compromise…Makes perfect and logical sense to me….
Voice from the past:
GOOD MOVE, BAD MOVE
By Ricardo Saludo (Asiaweek:1999)
What makes a good power move? Or a bad one? No, devils and angels have nothing to do with it. Power has one objective: to make things happen, whether good or evil. What things? Whatever the power wielder wants. So one test of a good power move is whether it had the effect it was supposed to have. At the start of Manila’s People Power Revolution in 1986, Asiaweek asked Ferdinand Marcos whether there would be a curfew. He promptly ordered one. But nobody paid attention – a clear failure of clout. Indeed, blatant flouting of Marcos’s word just accelerated the implosion of his authority.
Which brings us to a second criterion for power moves: Did it enhance or erode the wielder’s clout?
Ricardo Saludo is now Gloria’s Cabinet secretary
————————————————–
Arroyo revokes EO 464
President Arroyo revoked Wednesday Executive Order 464, which bars top government officials from testifying in legislative inquiries without express permission from the President.
“Effective immediately, I am revoking E.O. 464. Executive officials may no longer invoke E.O. 464 to excuse non-attendance from legislative inquiries. Executive officials are instructed to abide by the constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence when invited to legislative inquiries,” she said in a statement.
DJB, more people realize the effect of Senate V. Ermita. Granted they can’t be long winded analysis since most are not lawyers, but they nonetheless get the whole gist of it.
It may not be that they totally celebrate the decision, but they wish to spin it in their own way. Either way, there’s two sides to the coin there.
Gloria cannot add unto the Executive Privilege already inherent in the constitution.
And the opposition cannot take away any parts of Executive Privilege that already exists in The Constitution.
PCIJ, as I’ve said, has a great podcast on this issue, when they interview three lawyers. And in this case, there’s two ways to spin Senate V. Ermita, both are right, but both are not the whole truth.
Scrapping EO 464 is decoration. The Bishops got it all wrong. They are now making Gloria look like a willing candidate for the Truth Award.
In the end, everyone agrees, you, I, and others (begrudgingly I’m assuming), that Executive Privilege is still inherent in our constitution, and any Executive Order must be in line or it will be edited (as happened in the final decision)
Better still, Neri, tell the whole truth and stop hanging around that Evil person whom you identified.
Does the revocation of EO 464 mean the Senate can proceed with the testimonies of Gudani and Balutan on Hello Garci?
cvj said,
Gloria administration will simply use other ways like using MC 108, Executive Privilege, and create a thousand new ways to prevent people from testifying.
Gad, if the government has nothing to hide, why the stonewalling.
Incidentally Spin Doctoring 101
1. We have had excellent GDP growth
Spin: “GMA’s fiscal programs are working” Hurray!
2. The number of Filipinos living on just $1 a day rose from 23.8 million in 2003 to 27.6 million in 2006, according to a survey released by the economic planning ministry.
Spin: “External factors such as higher oil prices played a role in this scenario,” GMA’s economic planning secretary.
Ah ganun ha, pag good results it’s driven internally, pag bad, externally.
“Does the revocation of EO 464 mean the Senate can proceed with the testimonies of Gudani and Balutan on Hello Garci?” – cvj
Manolo, does this have any impact on the ongoing court martial proceedings of these men? cvj, talaga naman magkapareho na yata takbo ng isip natin? That was the first thing that came to my mind after reading about the revocation here.
good point, cvj. you beat me on that.
kabayan,
What is MC108, sorry MC Hammer lang kilala ko?
Hi ramrod,
Check out above link regarding MC (Memorandum Circular) 108.
Parang ganun na rin, similar sa ginagawa ni MC Hammer sa pagsasayaw, gustong pasayawin ang hustisya sa paraan ng cover-ups. Kulang lang yung pagkanta, bawal kumanta ang mga tinatanong sa Senado.
cvj,
Just checked with our atty friend, probably not daw. SC said that even the illegality of the EO jusn’t justify disobedience, they should have followed first, then questioned the order. Relates to military discipline daw. Gadem!
okey lang maski divided tayo basta huwag lang sunugin ang bahay natin!
hehehehe
Mark Twain   ÂÂ
From his essay: ÂÂ
“On the Decay of the Art of Lying”
—–
executive privilege = lie of omission
The Biggest Lie About Lies:
http://www.choice101.com/19-lies.html
It is hard to catch “… if they speak no lie, they lie not at all.” All the more reason to vet the candidates thoroughly, not just for what they say in the past months, but for what they have said in the past decade. Beware the elect-me-exaggeration with a wink-wink “just kidding”. Witness Barack Obama NAFTA-gate — an exagerrated opposition to the ’93 NAFTA trade agreement with Canada and Mexico while in a behind-closed-door meeting assuaging the Canadian government that some of the protectionist Obama ads in Ohio had more to do with “political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans.”
cvj,
What ruling? All the lawyers I talk to are INSULTED by the Court’s brazen attempt to get out of the catbird seat when it tried to get the Senate to agree to have Neri but without asking those three questions. Now I hail the Senate for REJECTING that unprincipled and cowardly attempt.
They will force the Court to rule once and for all the way they should.
Who in the hell is this Midas Marquez to be speaking for the Court. No act of the court has any meaning unless it is properly put in a written decision.
yes, i disagree with the decision to HUMILIATE the Senate by saying that Neri can still invoke executive privilege and then the Supreme Court gets to decide if it is valid?
If I were younger and more foolish, I would call for burning down Padre Faura right now and putting these Jerks in Black Robes in jail
We must exact the highest price on the Judiciary by likewise opening up their operationsl.
I assert that all the skeletons to prosecute and convict the biggest criminals in this country is all their in their hidden closets.
I say the Judiciary’s Privileges also now ought to be called into question and opened up to Congressional inquiries.
Heck, the Congress can abolish all those Courts, except the Supreme Court, yet here these unelected fascists dares to tell the Congress of the People that THEY get to decide all questions not on general principles but the expediencies of the moment.
This is not a Court of Justice, but a Court of Casuistry.
MLQ3,
The President just abolished EO464. So what. She’s got Senate v. Ermita, which is more powerful, damaging and dastardly.
Abolishing EO464 doesn’t abolish Executive Privilege, especially in the distilled and refined form that the Supreme Court produced from the flawed and vulnerable EO464.
Executive Dept officials now can invoke Senate v. Ermita!
CVJ – or the Left (and Right) use the Supreme Court compromise to shout that no grievances or just causes could be addressed in the present state of affairs, even by the Supreme Court. The armed rebels call for an escalation of attacks. The military respond by heightening security alerts to the highest level. GMA trumps the senators with a state of emergency declaration.
Oh, and who set up the Judicial Fascists in their comfy lil hoood where the Senate is but a footstool and the Presidency its main client? Right. People Power Fascists in 2001. Now the Senate is fighting back and trying to regain its place in the Machine. If they have any shred of respect for the Law, for the Constitution, it is now their unremitting duty to do all things necessary to restore the proper Separation of Powers in a tripartite govt.
To me the Supreme Court is the locus of Evil in this society, because they were the last resort of the law, yet it was they who destroyed it.
Their crime is intellectual, which to me is the worst and most destructive kind.
I must confess to having little respect for the Philippine Supreme Court. Some of the historic decisions they have rendered are immoral and illogical (like Estrada v. Arroyo), and some even contain the kind of laughable textbook errors that the Media has been regaling the public with using Antonio Callipje Go. But Go never found anything more ludicrous than Reynato Puno’s ponencia on Indigenous Peoples. In that amazing decision, he is oblivious of the fact that the decision makes all Christian tribes NON-INDIGENOUS, like the Tagalogs, Pampangos, Ilocanos, Cebuano’s etc.
I’ve seen their CLAY FEET. It’s not a pretty sight. But the amazing supinehood of the intelligentsia towards the Court, blind, idolatrous, ever bending backwards, is even worse.
Why should they be exempt from the same weapons of public accountability like Congress investigations and investigative journalism. We have fifteen more reasons for examining them than even the Presidency.
gudlak! di yata cunning meron ang mga senators kundi kuning. di patience kundi impatience. and cmon! senators wouldn’t be able to spring a trap question even if it stared them in the face.
re djb’s opinion abt the judiciary, i have to agree. every, and i mean EVERY landmark case questioning some of the acts of this present admin have been ruled upon by the SC in, shall i say: indefinite way.
if those were resolutions, pigs would fly. it threw more questions than it resolved some. it gave the people some candy to suck on while upholding the most grievous of the palace’s pronouncements.
activist court? at times of greatest pressure, the SC has always preferred to run away from full resolution and always opting for compromising decisions.
and i think marichu lambino hit the right spot when she wrote:
the SC stared down the executive’s barrel of a gun and found themselves powerless in the end. having discovered their own inutility, the SC chose the cowardly path. for if the SC would force the issue, there will be no constitutional crisis. there would just be the executive blatantly disobeying the SC. and after that, every SC decisions would be meaningless. they’d be a kangaroo court pretending to wield powers they know they no longer possess.
let’s face it. the SC has NO POLICE POWERS. and hence, no real way to enforce orders than to rely on everyone to recognize its authority as legal arbiter.
so instead of facing down the barrel of a gun, the SC chose to blink and live another day.
disappointing. the SC does not believe the people will rally to its cause and uphold its authority over the executive. police power or not, the state’s power lasts only as long as people are willing to recognize it. can the SC not see this? authority is conferred upon by the majority, not by arms.
righteous men have been shamed for less.
of course that barrel of a gun showed the justices only one thing: civil war.
Thanks DJB, i’m beginning to see that you don’t like the Supreme Court.
in later years, future justices would steer clear on making decisions like Hilario Davide did that fateful day when he swore in GMA.
it will be called “Davide’s curse”
and all future justices would be admonished, “meditate, ponder, and asked God for wisdom or suffer Davide’s curse“
More like a supporter of Status Quo
dean JB:
being one of the country’s legal luminaries, from the Davide Court up to the present, is there any ruling of the HT on pivotal issues such as: Affirmation of Gloria’s presidency, EO464, 1017, writ of date, writ of amparo, Neri’s case etc. etc., which you consider laudable? What is your analysis of the behavior and the line of thinking of the crop of justices since the Davide Court up to Puno?
ramrod, the lawyers can answer, but i’d think not. because the articles of war and the military code of justice still stand.
Hindi ko masyado nasubaybayan ang manga desisyones nang Korte Suprema, pero sa manga kaunti na nasulyapan ko, parang nagbutohan ang 15 membro pareho sa manga Botante, depende kong sin-o ang kanilang Idolo na politiko. Kaya makita natin sa manga Close Decisions, Partisan ang Botohan, korte suprema ba yan???
for those interested in the economy, you may want to dissect this:
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=peterWallace_feb29_2008
Hi Manolo,
Thanks for the Peter Wallace, Manila Standard link. Now time for the Palace spin doctors to earn their keep.
What are the odds for removal of members of the Supreme Court via impeachment?
Article IX. Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter.
Latest news
Inquirer
GMA signed special authority on NBN-ZTE deal.
By Tony s Bergonia
President Macapagal-Arroyo was more than just a witness to the signing of the scanal-ridden NBN deal with chinese firm.
documents showed that when dotc sec leandro mendoza signed the deal on april 21, 2007, he did so on behalf of the president.
ms arroyo, on april 20,2007, signed a special authority allowing mendoza to sign the deal on her behalf.
ms arroyo issued special authority desite information relayed to her on irregularities that surrounded the project…..
cheers for GMA! kapal talaga
This is it MLQ. although how difficult to secure documents of the NBN-ZTE deal, somehow some of them still manage to dodge malcañang’s net-trap.
if you allow me to borrow the words in your column: the paper trail is so wide and so damning, that the Palace can’t muster the means to destroy it.
Manolo, as you pointed out six months ago, Peter Wallace first made that observation back then:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=83077
In the linked article, today, he is taking his suspicion a step further by using the word ‘skullduggery’:
As i mentioned in my previous blog entry on this topic, the opposite directions taken by per capita GDP and Average Family Income (as per the FIES) is odd.
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2008/01/tale-of-two-statistics-family-income.html
Peter Wallace has also picked up on this when he says:
I was arguing the above points with (mostly with Anthony Scalia) a few threads back. I’m hoping Peter Wallace would have a better chance convincing him, and all of those who readily swallow the high GDP growth narrative of the Admin to take a second look.
mlq3,
great article by Peter Wallace. great observation also in
in my own little modest way, i try to help create jobs. ‘patalsikin na now na’, rallies and people power won’t create those jobs
statistics can’t be eaten. as a layman, who can’t mesh well with statistics, i only have a simple test to see if the economy is really growing. in the past, the price of the petroleum product i used for cooking was P500 plus. Now its more than P700. God Almighty. if GMA’s propaganda is right, why is it the price is increasing.
“in my own little modest way, i try to help create jobs. ‘patalsikin na now na’, rallies and people power won’t create those jobs” – anthony scalia
Very commendable indeed(help create jobs),Anthony. But I also think that there are those who join the rallies that in their own little way are also contributing to the economy by way of helping create jobs. Of course, I could be wrong with my presumption.
re: GMA’s propaganda is right-GMA’s propaganda is true
this will be off-topic, but i had to raise it bec it is also my campaign.
an excerpt from michael tan’s column today (emphasis mine)
yes. you’ll hear them claim they support natural family planning but you don’t hear or see any of them actually doing information campaign on how to do this. its called lip service. they don’t want population control AT ALL. god knows why. you go and do the rounds in rural areas and poor barangays and you will hear conservatives advising couples with ten kids: sige lang po. biyaya yan ng dyos.
eh kung pinagsasampal ko kaya sila? sa simula’t sapul pa lang, groups campaigning for a more progressive population control have made their stand clear: we are NOT FOR ABORTION. so i don’t understand why this LIE is still being peddled by these people. prevention IS NOT ABORTION!!! how can you abort something not already formed?
and the old lie abt sex education, condoms increasing promiscuity is really, IDIOTIC.
promiscuity comes first and foremost from curiosity. what are they so afraid of about sex education? education sets people free from misconceptions and wrong information. sex education may even be the key in teaching kids to VALUE sex as a sacred act.
at por dyos por santo naman, pigil sila ng pigil na ituro ang TAMANG sex education sa schools samantalang yung mga bata tuloy sa kalye lang natutunan ang tungkol sa sex. kaya ayan tuloy, mali-mali, at di pinapahalagahan ang importansya ng sex. e kung naituro sana yan ng TAMA sa paaralan eh di, di na kelangan pang mag eksperimento ng mga kabataan para lang malaman kung ano meron dyan.
we are back to where we started. senate rejects SC compromise on EP. what a circus? i wonder who cant handle the truth?
Some further dissection of Peter Wallace’s column. He said…
Recall what Madriaga said in the Senate about a certain oligarch engaged in Oil Smuggling as well as the ‘TA’? (Oil)? as indicated in Neri’s Oligarchy (aka ‘Booty Capitalism’) diagram.
Any smuggled oil will not be reflected as imports so will not be deducted from GDP. Wallace’s observation gives us an indication of the scale of oil smuggling as well as the overstatement of GDP.
Recall what Madriaga said in the Senate about a certain oligarch engaged in Oil Smuggling as well as the ‘TA’? (Oil)? as indicated in Neri’s Oligarchy (aka ‘Booty Capitalism’) diagram. – cvj
If TA is involved in oil smuggling, are the smuggled stocks for immediate re-sale to the other oligarchs e.g. FAb (with their power plants)? I know TA’s family is involved primarily in agri-buisness.
cjv, do you, or is there anyone we know online, good at making matrices and charts?
Maginoo, i have no way of knowing. I did a quick google and they do have oil-fired power plants, but we cannot conclude anything from that.
Manolo, i can do Visio, Powerpoint and/or some basic excel charts. What do you have in mind?
cvj-
can jet fuel be smuggled as well? then LT will be benefited as well.
cjv –
if TA’s power plants are still under IPP incentives, triple whammy!
no-tax inputs, no output, but getting substantially paid.
that’s rent-seeking at its best!
Came somewhat late in this “deal or no deal” by mlq3. Just heard the news this morning that EO 464 was revoked. But Memo Circular 108 is still there, according to Sen. Biazon, which is “exactly the same” as EO 464.
Also, the executive can always invoke so-called “executive privilege†as if the issue never happened before “hello Garci†and the NBN mess did.
And how does a generally passive SC take the matter? Wait for another complaint on that circular which, in effect, is another gag order to conceal the “truth†(read: stink) of the executive?
Another colossal kalokohan!
CVJ I crnge looking at your bar chart comparing GDP per capita and average family income. para kang nagkumpara ng isang ulo sa limang ulo. per capita nga eh di per head.
Average family income include all members of the family.
and the famiy my not necessarily have the same number of members.
yong isa average, yong isa per capita, how can there be comparability.
sheesh.
with regards correlation of oil imports to GDP growth, is there a study which shows there is high correlation? then what is the correlation coefficient.
There may be correlation but it is not significant enough to follow the trend of the GDP.
sus.
“per capita nga eh di per head”
Made my day. Very funny.
It is better to shut up and be mistaken for a fool than to open your mouth and erase all doubt.
nash, you just did “erase all doubt” about you!
@bencard
at least I’m not as pompous an ass like you. I readily accept defeat and admit my mistakes.
why do you need a lesson in latin too to know what ‘per capita’ means?
how can anyone win against these people? after pestering the president into revoking eo464, they are still complaining after she did just that. of course, executive privilege remains intact, eo 464 or not. it is an essential component of separation of powers. shouldn’t their bright boys think of that beforehand? are they now asking for a constitutional amendment to ‘abolish’ the principle of separation of power and the doctrine of executive privilege?
aber, what do you understand by “per capita”, bright, non-pompous, one?
Bencard,
There is another principle that is important to your concern. It is the fact under our Constitution, the highest Court of Public Accountability is NOT the Supreme Court. I repeat NOT the Supreme Court but the Senate of the Philippines. It is Congress’ power of inquiry–the very essence of the Public’s Right to Know the Truth as determined in a Court of Law, which is precisely what the Senate is when it convenes as an impeachment Court. This refers to the 30 or 31 Constitutional officers…the highest officials of the land…in all cases of impeachment the sole and exclusive power belongs to Congress. The Supreme Court does not even have the power of judicial review in all cases of impeachment.
This is another fundamental tenet that is yet little appreciated.
The central problem of systemic dysfunction lies in this cuckolding of the Congress since 2001, the work of People Power fascists.
There was a portion in Bandila last night featuring how a bunch of HI SCHOOL students have supposedly “taken it upon themselves” to mount their own protest rally to pressure Arroyo to resign.
How LOW is the Media and all these architects of street antics willing to go?
It was a half hour news program with feature after feature of who’s whos’ statements and verdicts on the matter of the president’s culpability or legitimacy.
MEANWHILE a story about a typhoid outbreak in Calamba affecting hundreds of families languished at the 29th minute and lasted all of 15 seconds.
Ang galing talaga ng Pinoy!
@bencard
I plead no contest. I’m still laughing so hard I can’t think at the moment about cat’s per capita comment.
worry not about me.
@bencard
I plead no contest. I’m still laughing so hard about cat’s “per capita nga eh hindi per head” comment that I can’t think at the moment.
worry not about me. i’m enjoying the endorphin rush. it’s very rare these days.
Pagpasensyahan niyo na si cvj.
He can certainly do the numbers, but when it comes to gleaning the right INSIGHT out of these, well… you do the numbers.
Here’s another one:
I also saw in Bandila last night that ABS CBN have now stooped to getting “statements” from imprisoned mutineers.
How’s that for pathetic scraping the bottom of the barrel.
-
Pinoy society is just a barrel of laughs!
djb rizalist, i think the sc still is the final arbiter on all controversies involving the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions on impeachment. an example would be whether an impeachment charge is properly brought before the senate, sitting as impeachment court, for the latter to exercise jurisdiction. however, i think you are right that the decisions of the senate, as an impeachment court, is not reviewable by the sc, except as to constitutional issues.
benignO, it’s really sad to see our kids being politicized by their elders in the wrong way, including disrespect and disregard of the rule of law and fairness, and prejudging others without due process. these young children are the future of our country. how can we expect them to be better citizens if we are teaching them virtual anarchy, cynicism, and defiance of authorities? civility and good discipline are among the vanishing ideals in our present society. how sad!
are yous still laughing?
is a Latin phrase meaning for each head. Per meaning ‘through’ and capita meaning ‘heads’ Which comes to the common use of for each head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
Siguro naman noong tinatapos ko ang aking Phd sa Eco alam ko na ang meaning ng per capita. kinakain ko yan sa almusal tanghalian at sa hapunan kasama ng mga coefficient correlation, GDP, GNP. what about you nash?
if you speak my language then you can present to me the computation of this coefficient and convince me of the high correlation.
as i can see it clown ka lang ba dito na tagatawa.
cjv, will email.
bencard, actually, if you go over what the bishops said, no one is asking that executive privilege be abolished, that would be like repealing the law of supply and demand.
but the bishops asked the president not to invoke executive privilege as far as corruption-related investigations is concerned. that’s fully within her power.
DJB:
I wouldn’t kick out principle of “executive privilege” over the principle of “public accountability” so lightly. How would you feel if your boss was looking over your shoulder every time you’re making a report, or giving instructions to your staff?
The Supreme Court compromise strikes a delicate balance, preserving the autonomy of each of the three branches without unduly compromising the principles of checks and balances.
The key issues relevant to the long term are :
1. the lack of congressional oversight over foreign-assisted projects. It seems that ODA projects are solely decided upon by the executive department, specifically the NEDA-ICC. Hence, the significance of MC 108, the GAGo order (as Pedestrian puts it) that makes it virtually impossible to check on deals executed by the executive branch.
2. government procurement loopholes that allows “permissible zones” among the decision makers in the executive branch. It takes, give or take a couple of months, six months to get payment from the government. I was talking to a government bureaucrat, and I was told that this was one reason why the overprice in procurement is allowed, to factor in cost-of-money issues. Other factors are: the exchange rate, inflation, etc.
I believe that these are policy issues, the result of which are amendments to the existing procurement laws to plug up loopholes in the system.
There is another thing vanishing.
—-
Excerpt from:
newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080305-123012/Another-China-contract-missing
Another China contract missing
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:19:00 03/05/2008
MANILA, Philippines — Another China-funded government contract has been reported lost and Senator Maria Ana Consuelo “Jamby†Madrigal is fuming.
In a press conference on Wednesday, Madrigal denounced the Philippine National Railways Corporation’s claim that it could not find an agreement it signed on April 27, 2005 with China National Technical Import -Export Cooperation for the $932 million South Railway project.
The opposition senator charged that this was a “cover-up similar to the NBN-ZTE deal.â€Â
Government officials had also claimed the agreement with ZTE Corp. of China for the $329 million National Broadband Network project had been lost, or stolen…
—-
What will vanish next, the Philippine’s share of the Spratly islands? Maybe this administration will show us a map and say “Actually the Spratly island does not exist, therefore there will be no need to investigate Gloria”.
Kapal nyo, losing a $932 million contract? A 40 Billion Peso worth contract LOST?
What now Macapal, declare Executive Privilege to protect your sorry a**? … LIARS.
Kabayan
Another China contract missing
This must be a joke!
Yes, there are a lot jokers up there. Only if I can consider what they’re doing funny at least there’s some saving grace.
jambay madrigal???? consider the source!
Bencard, you really tooth and nail believe the credibility of the Executive Branch of this administration don’t you. Believe what you want to believe, eventually the hammer will fall.
Nawala nanam ang Memo nang South Rail Contract, sabi nang boss nang PNR nang ito ay isumone nang Senate. Ito rin ay Kasama sa Allegations ni Lozada na may Kickback na approximately 22% at sabi daw kasabuwat na namam daw si FG Arroyo.
Sa akin lang, hindi na ito bulong bulongan, subra na, pati yong Scanning X-ray na ginagamit para sa Smuggling (sino kaya itong manga smugglers?) over priced rin daw, at yong manga na trained dati na mag operate nang machines ay hindi na ang operators ngayon kundi sa kanila na. ibig sabihin, alam kong kanino ang lo-ob nang Containers….
Perhaps, the Supreme Court, like God, doesn’t write in straight lines. Their collective wisdom may be too profound for mere mortals to comprehend.
But on whether there is a deal or no deal, the answer of the senate seems to be “No Deal”. The hard line comes despite the concern of some senators, like Mar Roxas, who fear a standoff may only lead to gridlock.
The senate may have justifications for its decision, but there will always be suspicion that the hard line is a face-saving way for the senate not to arrive at the truth.
As some, including Mr. Quezon, have pointed out, the “presidentiables” in the senate actually prefer the status quo. While they may be vocal against the President, her removal from office is not in their best interest since Noli de Castro, who still ranks high in the surveys, would be the legal successor and would become more formidable as a candidate in 2010. Better to let the situation fester. With GMA left dangling in the wind, it is hoped that she will become even more unpopular. In such a scenario, it is hoped that Noli’s ratings will ultimately suffer.
Looking over the list of “presidentiables” in the senate, only Mar Roxas and Ping Lacson were amenable to a compromise. Villar, Legarda, Pangilinan were strongly against a deal. Perhaps it isn’t only the Supreme Court that does not write in straight lines.
Sonny Belmonte, 2010!
Excuse me, The Cat, this is my coffee break…
Re Oligarchic Monopolies, especially some of the names mentioned by Neri have something to say which makes sense also but I’m not in the position to rebut. They say that they invested in these infrastructures (which is big money really) at a time when no one else would dare, is it wrong for them to ask for certain concessions (or incentives) from government to at least assist them to recover their investments?
Wait till someone from their end will speak, they will going along these lines…
Hello Mita,
Do you have any links, or material, about Sonny Belmonte? Much appreciated…thanks…
Mita,
I wanted Sonny Belmonte for 2010 too.
And BTW, Hilary is back after Ohio and Texas. Kaya bawiin mo yung goobye mo sa kanya doon sa previos thread. At least for now. She may not get the nominations but Im just a big fan of people who has the ability to rise up from behind.
mlq3, it seems to me that when executive privilege is invoked, state secrets involving foreign policy or national security are involved. i believe it is not without good and valid reason that the executive avails of the privilege. in any event, in case of dispute as to its invocation, sc is there to resolve it. why should there be a need to curtail the president’s prerogative and make it impotent just to satisfy partisan demands? and why should the president give it up for the same purpose?
Another contract with the Chinese is again declared “missing”? Stupid!
First the missing NBN deal contract, now the Southrail project. Somebody must be trying to do magic again (the magician fooling the public).
in any event, in case of dispute as to its invocation, sc is there to resolve it.
How does the SC do this, Bencard? By invoking the privilege, they won’t be able to hear the testimony and rule on it. The Senate can hear the testimony under executive session of course, but I dont think the SC is represented in the session. Or are they? DJB, your thoughts?
good thing Hillary is not a man or this innocent remark might draw some other colorful meaning, hehe.
i still hope barack would win the nomination. hillary is just another republican in dem’s clothing.
i still hope barack would win the nomination. hillary is just another republican in dem’s clothing. – DevilsAdvc8
indeed! obama represents true change in america’s politics. wonder why asian-americans, including fil-ams, support clinton?
executive previlige cannot be invoked to cover a crime and that is what is going on here. no national or military secret involved that will put the country in danger. for goodness sake it is an IT contract/deal whatever you one call it. common sense will tell a reasonable individual if the executive has nothing to hide then why invoke e.o..
it is a patent abuse of e.o. to cover-up the stinking crime that is zte-nbn deal. i don’t need a law degree or a ph.d.( pubic hair-do!) to tell me malacanang is hiding something. if the intention is good why subject the whole country to this mess? why not have neri tell what he knows. if what he knows contradicts that of lozada then malacanang can claim that lozada is a big liar!
why exhaust all malacanang’s energy in trying to discredit lozada when neri can refute lozada in sworn testimony in the senate. then they can charge lozada and madriaga with perjury and will end all this haka-haka.
the problem is malacanang is afraid that neri will not follow the script prepared by ermita et al, and he tells the whole true story which will jive with lozada and will implicate gma.
just my rich and fertile imagination? then malacanang can prove us all doubters or troublemakers wrong by having neri tell all he knows in the senate.
Regarding this TA supposedly involved in oil smuggling, could he have been targeted because his older brother is the government-appointed Chairman of Petron?
Re Barack Obama, I really doubt whether the Jewish establishment in the U.S. would allow him to become President. He has telegraphed his intentions to be less belligerent and to be more open to dialogue with countries that the neo-conservatives have unilaterally labeled as “the enemy”. This includes Iran, Venezuela and Cuba. He will probably not be as heavy-handed against Muslim countries as Israel would want the U.S. to be. He will certainly not allow unrestrained genocide and destruction as Bush did with the invasion of Iraq and allowing the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon.
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is certainly under the influence of the Jewish establishment, specially the financiers in New York, her home state.
John McCain is a dyed-in-the-wool Hawk. He, too, will toe the Isreali line, perhaps even more than Hillary.
So the U.S. establishment will do everything to make sure either Hillary or McCain win the White House. Obama as President will be too unpredictable for them.
maiba lang, PhD in econ. citing Wikipedia as source re. “per capita”? i’m…. well, laughing too.
good point istambay_sakalye.
ang problema, hindi makita ng sc. masyado yatang serious doon sa symbol ng justice na nakapiring yung mata.
sabi nag ni jdb, sc is the “supreme circus.”
One possible way to solve all of this is for Neri to have a closed door session in the Senate with just the proper comittee head(s).
But I think Cayetano’s ruined that potential venue when he broke the rules and leaked info. How can such a venue be trusted now? (And why didn’t Cayetano ever get in trouble?)
Too bad the Senators are pretending the recent SC recomendation is somehow an infringement on their rights. This kills yet another avenue for “truth seeking”.
The foolishness continues.
Lose-lose for all.
I suppose you mean ‘yung isa per family‘ (i.e. FIES) while ‘yung isa per capita [aka per individual]‘ (i.e. per capita GDP).
If you have one individual (i.e. isang ulo) earning more income, as implied by per capita GDP increase, then if you take those individuals and group them into a family of five (i.e. limang ulo), then taken together, they should also be earning more.
Let’s take a simple example. Given an economy with four people, e.g. Ca T, Bencard, Anthony Scalia and Bencard.
Let’s say each of your incomes increased by 10% (e.g. from 100 USD to 110 USD).
Let’s then suppose that the four of you also belong to one family.
Doesn’t it follow that your combined incomes would have increased by 10% as well (i.e. from 500 USD combined income to 550 USD combined income)?
Can you give me a scenario where each of your individual incomes would increase and then your combined income still decrease (e.g. from 500 USD combined income to 450 USD combined income)?
…oops sorry for mentioning Bencard twice, the other one should be Titanium.
…sorry pakidagdag na rin si UPn Student sa example so that it becomes a family of five.
But I think Cayetano’s ruined that potential venue when he broke the rules and leaked info. How can such a venue be trusted now? (And why didn’t Cayetano ever get in trouble?) – geo
But I think Cayetano’s ruined that potential venue when he broke the rules and leaked info. How can such a venue be trusted now? (And why didn’t Cayetano ever get in trouble?) – geo
cayetano is playing to the gallery. Pandering to change and truth activists. He’s using same strategy that got him elected to the senate. a trapo in “new kind of politics” clothing.
aspires to be VP; running mate of Villar.
If we go by present trends where GDP grows at 7.3% and, at the same time, oil imports decrease by 5.6%, then that means that if we continue growing our GDP, our oil imports will eventually go down to zero. Beyond that, if we continue growing our GDP further, then we will start exporting oil.
cvj: So 5 people related by blood (each earning $100) live together in the same house, so gets counted as ONE family in 2003 with household income of $500. By 2006, there is a 50% jump in the income of each of the 5 (something about elitists). BUT by 2006, two of the 5 pool their funds and buy a condo in Pasig. Result will be per-capita of $150, total income of $750, and two households (one with $450 income, the other with $300 income). Per-capita goes up 50%; per-family goes down from $500 to $375(=$750/2). You really don’t think the 5 people you identified can stand living together under one roof for that long, did you?
Here is a link pointing to FIES definition of household and income.
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/technotes/poverty/concept.asp
cvj — Were the oil imports measured in dollars? Pesos? In peso, it might not seem so strange if imports registered little or no growth.
Perhaps we should look at oil/gas imports by volume, not value.
As to why GDP can go up over a 3 year span while household income goes down, Cielito Habito alluded to a reason when he “warned” that 7.3%-growth is unsustainable. Habito suggests that GMA has been frontloading on capital projects (and I suppose borrowing money from overseas to do this).
GDP has components that get added to household income) and (components that do NOT get added to household income)
Construction projects have a lot of line-items that get added to GDP which do not get added into wages/salaries/household-income, e.g. sand, gravel, cement, computers. Other government “projects”, too, e.g. expenditures for bullets, made-in-RP M16′s. [Imported WiMax and vote-counting equipment do NOT get counted into GDP.]
UPn (at 1:41pm) you’re right, that’s a valid scenario, i.e. more families, but with less members per family. That means one possible reason for per capita GDP to increase and per family income to decrease is if the number of families is rising at a faster rate than the total population (in your example a 100% increase in number of families, i.e. from one to two families versus a population growth of 0%, i.e. still 5 people before and after the split).
Your scenario is certainly worth checking, so i checked the FIES for 2003 to 2006:
2003 – 16,480,000 families
2006 – 17,403,000 families
http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2006/ie0602.htm
Annual increase in number of families:
(17403/16480 – 1) / 3 years = 1.87% increase in
In comparison, the projected population growth rate is at 2.05% (for 2000 to 2005) and 1.95% (for 2005 to 2010) both of which are lower than the above.
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_popnProj.asp (see ‘Average Annual Exponential Growth Rates, Philippines: 2000-2040′)
Unlike in your example, the number of families did not increase as much as the population growth rate so that cannot be the explanation for the opposite directions taken by per capita GDP and average family income.
“You really don’t think the 5 people you identified can stand living together under one roof for that long, did you?”
Forget about your data, somebody’s going to end up dead in just one week, I wonder who will be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Geo, the improving peso:dollar exchange rate (from around 50:1 in the start of 2007 to around 40:1 in end of 2007) coincided with the increase in the price of oil from 60 USD per barrel in start of 2007 to 90 USD per barrel towards the end of 2007. The two effects would have offset.
A barrel of oil at the start of 2007 would be 3,000 pesos (50 pesos per dollar x 60 dollars per barrel). At the end of 2007, a barrel of oil would be 3,600 pesos (40 pesos per dollar x 90 dollars per barrel).
The Ca t,
for cvj, if he has a one-outlet lechon manok business, and he grosses P1M a year, all of the P1M can be likened to his GDP. This P1M is also his family income.
ace,
oh yes you are.
“oh yes you are”- anthony scalia
Is that a matter of fact or a presumption?
ace,
nothing wrong with wikipedia. as for The Ca t’s assertions that led her to cite wikipedia, anybody can check her assertions using other sources
Correction, the paragraph in my comment above (at 2:39 pm)…In comparison, the projected population growth rate is at 2.05% (for 2000 to 2005) and 1.95% (for 2005 to 2010) both of which are lower than the above.
…should read…
In comparison, the projected population growth rate is at 2.05% (for 2000 to 2005) and 1.95% (for 2005 to 2010) both of which are higher than the above.. Sorry.
ace,
oops i should have isolated “Of course I could be wrong with my presumption”.
my “oh yes you are” is for “Of course I could be wrong with my presumption”
“nothing wrong with wikipedia. as for The Ca t’s assertions that led her to cite wikipedia, anybody can check her assertions using other sources” – anthony scalia
You’re talking to the wrong blogger, my handle is ace and not acer.
“my “oh yes you are†is for “Of course I could be wrong with my presumption—- anthony scalia
Again, Is your – “oh yes you are†for the “Of course I could be wrong with my presumptionâ€Â- a matter of fact or a presumption?
cvj,
****clears throat****
here we are again my friend
may i dare you to quote anything i said to the effect that i am praising gloria for the 7.3? that i said that quality of life/spending power has greatly improved due to the 7.3? that the number of unemployed greatly decreased due to the 7.3?
in case you have forgotten (or maybe you choose to forget), I have always maintained that GDP only measures economic activity. Never standard of living, never quality of life, never purchasing power.
uulitin ko again for the nth time – credit for the 7.3 belongs to the Pinoys who produced that. No credit to gloria. They (we) pause for a few seconds and rejoice that economic activity rose, then they (we) go back to work again to ensure the 7.3 is sustainable in the long run. (and hopefully along the way economic activity will be widely dispersed)
kulang pa? talagang kulang pa. kelangang sustainable yan for at least a decade. malalaman lang natin kung sustainable ang 7.3 several years after pa
the work continues
ace,
oops my sincere apologies. sorry about that. my eyes failed me again.
(ano ba yan may bencard, beancurd, ace, acer)
Anthony, you’re arguing to the wrong point. What i’m questioning is not the implications of GDP (on quality of life, standard of living etc.) but rather the accuracy of its measurement. Same does Peter Wallace when he says that imports may have been underestimated because of smuggling.
No problem Anthony, it happens to everyone.
cvj,
iho, my point is this:
you are assuming that I equate GDP with standard of living, purchasing power, quality of life.
i am not making such an assertion
all i ever said about GDP is it measures economic activity. no more, no less
take note Peter Wallace is not disputing the 7.3. he cautions gloria to look at the facts behind the figure.
kahit hindi tayo magaling mag ingles, kahit hindi tayo nag aral ng law. makikita natin ang paglalaro nila sa batas. kahit pa anong gawin nyo GLORIA, THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT ON THE CRIMES YOU COMMITTED. MALAPIT-LAPIT KA NA, KITANG-KITA NG DYOS ANG LAHAT NG GINAWA NYO. SIGE LANG, GAWIN NYO PA ANG MGA GAGAWIN NYO, MAY ORAS DIN KAYO.
the whole Truth is… THESE PEOPLE ARE MANIPULATING THE LAW. THAT IS WHY, I ONLY DEPEND ON THE SPIRIT OF MY FATHER… THE HOLY SPIRIT… HE THAT CAN REALLY SEE EVERYTHING. GOD BLESS THIS COUNTRY +++IN JESUS CHRIST!
no debate on the def of per capita there. only point is that if one must put his/her degrees on the table, including the fact that he/she ingests 3 square meals of “per capita”, does one have to got to wiki? (my thesis adviser does not even allow wiki for a reference).
but moving on.
JerryLD,
intro to religion – God can and will still bless this country even with gloria still seated
acer,
maybe the reason for citing wiki is for easy counterchecking/access
can’t help to notice here that some people love to banner their degrees, ph.ds, lawyer etc., i see nothing wrong with that per se as they earned i believe so, but to prove an argument and use it as an affirmation. ang dating ay parang insecure sa sarili.
just an observation.
…and i thought this place is where you can share and argue your position without being prejudiced. ang nangyayari ay kesyo abogado sila o ph.d in econ sila ay mas marurunong na at ang iba dito ay bobo.
ginagamit pa ang iha o iho na parang ang dating ay mga mestizong kastilang sosyal.
just an observation again.
“intro to religion – God can and will still bless this country even with gloria still seated–anthony s.
anthony,it seems God did not and might not because with the ‘evil’ (term borrowed fron neri) one, we become the laggard of asia, the kulelat.
@cat
I know what per capita means. I was being sarcastic with the teaching lesson.
nice that you put up your cv. kulang nalang seminars attended
now having said that, i’m wary of economists who admit to lacking data (that correlation) and yet on the last sentence you drew a conclusion. (which is the fool reference).
you are obviously an economics wizard and who knows what you might pull out of that black hat.
again, i plead no contest.
That’s not how an economist thinks. Show me the correlation coefficient between the two variables that you are comparing.
Wrong conclusions lead to wrong plan of action. Wrong plan of action leads to failure.
Groups of people who correlated the number of people cheering Lozada to the number of people who are going to ask for her to stepdown got nothing but disappointment.
That’s the same with you cvj. YOu can only convince me if you have statistics to prove your assumption. Evidence without context is purely ambiguous assumption.
I’ve been a veteran in forums and I know your kind. If you call it a Cv, the work experience is not yet included. Why don’t you read the entire blog.It is just a profile and not a resume. Besides, I gave the seminars and not the other way around.
From available statistics (based on consumer behavior in the United States) the correlation coefficient for GDP and oil consumption per capita is 0.68.
http://www.graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2006/02/us-addiction-to-oil_27.html#Fig7
In other words, an increase in gdp per capita highly correlated with an increase in oil consumption per capita.
I leave it to the reader to decide whether the assumption that the behavior of the Filipino consumer will be similar to that of his/her American counterpart is a reasonable one.
You are therefore asserting that most of the gdp per capita growth could be in the area of business income and not personal income. We can test the viability of your hypothesis by checking which component of GDP has been growing.
What happens when a business experiences multiple years of high profits? It is unlikely that a business will just park its money in the bank, rather it will do either of the following:
1. invest in additional capital (or other businesses) for expansion. or
2. invest in people (e.g. higher salary, hire more people).
If businesses spend on #2 above, then personal income (and therefore family income) will increase. So, if your scenario is to apply, then businesses must be doing #1 much more than they do #2. What do the statistics show?
Here are the GDP growth statistics for 2004 to 2007 (3qtr) per expenditure component that i posted in my blog.
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2007/11/philippine-quarterly-gdp-growth.html
You will see from the dashboard (labeled ‘Growth Rate per Type of Expenditure’) that the opposite is true. In most periods, it is personal consumption expenditure (i.e. ‘pce’ column) that has increased more than capital formation (i.e. ‘cf’ column).
So that means the scenario that you are proposing, where business income is driving per capita GDP growth, is unlikely.
closed italics.
susmarya! di ko na kelangan ng pie charts, graphs, at kung ano-ano pang letse buretseng statistics na yan para lang masabi na ang ekonomiya natin ay CONSUMPTION DRIVEN</b?
observation, observation, observation.
millions of OFWs dependent, all those remittances coming in are all spent on: consumables and perishables.
then company owners (those friggin oligarchs) earning from these OFW dependents, take that cash, not to invest on their employees or their business, but goes on to stash it outside the country.
the number 1 reason why oligarchs should be roasted alive along with politicians when the day comes.
DevilsAdvc8: Your calls to roast them alive class-warfare rhetoric may be explain the persistent resistance to calls for a march to the Malacanang gates. To many, better a devil they know than a DevilsAdvc8 who calls for torching the storefront businesses of the country.
“Burn, baby, burn!!!” does not sound like a motivating slogan, Devil-cate, even if you add for the greater good!!!
Bert,
first – what is said is ‘can and will’. ibig sabihin, di sagabal si gloria sa kakayahan ng diyos i-bless ang ‘Pinas
second – wala na sana sa mapa ang ‘Pinas kung walang blessing ng diyos
third – are you saying that naging laggard lang ang ‘Pinas nung umupo si gloria? iho, ilang dekada nang ‘sick man of asia’ ang ‘Pinas.
tsk tsk tsk tsk. really looking for anything na maibabato mo kay gloria no?
“…and i thought this place is where you can share and argue your position without being prejudiced. ang nangyayari ay kesyo abogado sila o ph.d in econ sila ay mas marurunong na at ang iba dito ay bobo.
ginagamit pa ang iha o iho na parang ang dating ay mga mestizong kastilang sosyal.”–istambay_sa kalye
akala ng mga iyon kasi, porke nasa kalye tayo at sila nasa 20th floor, ‘eh, angat na sila.
oo nga naman, we are on the ground, they are at cloud 9.
cheers!
Bert, Istambay, sabi ko nga no-ong isang araw, kahit sabihin ko rito na Neusurgeon ako,wala naman maniwala, di ba?, kaya yon nagsasabi, (di naman natin kilala ang manga yon eh!!)manga abogados, accountant, phds, o’ kahit na milyonaryo pa, anong pakialam natin?, di ba, ang minsahe kong baluktot, baloktot, yon kahit anong klaseng torotot…
From available statistics (based on consumer behavior in the United States) the correlation coefficient for GDP and oil consumption per capita is 0.68.
http://www.graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2006/02/us-addiction-to-oil_27.html#Fig7
In other words, an increase in gdp per capita highly correlated with an increase in oil consumption per capita.
I leave it to the reader to decide whether the assumption that the behavior of the Filipino consumer will be similar to that of his/her American counterpart is a reasonable one.
why use that of the United states which is a highly industrialized nation. Philippines is still considered an
agricultural country where farming process is not even higly mechanized.
And i thought you’re one smart person who knows statistics. Why don’t you come up with one using the Philippine data on oil importation and GDP.
if one is expressing an expert opinion, he should be an expert on the subject.
kung kagaya mo lang ang mga sinabi sa forum na ito. tama lang you remain anonymous.
but then many commenters here would qoute statements or articles of people whom they believe to be experts just so they can present an argument. yon ang mga taong walang kalidad, kaya nakikisakay.
hohoho silver away.
When m. buencamino wrote that he is a diplomat anti -Gma cheered. When anti-anti GMA mentioned their credentials, same people booed.
Bias is not a diagonal cut of a fabric. hohoho
“hohoho silver away.”
“Bias is not a diagonal cut of a fabric. hohoho”
Ngayon naman feeling fashion designer / santa claus. Ngiiii.
Bias is not a diagonal cut of a fabric. hohoho”"
I hope the feline is not alluding to the Supreme Court.
“Bias is not a diagonal cut of a fabric. hohoho”"
I hope the feline is not alluding to the Supreme Court.
kung kagaya mo lang ang mga sinabi sa forum na ito. tama lang you remain anonymous.
but then many commenters here would qoute statements or articles of people whom they believe to be experts just so they can present an argument. yon ang mga taong walang kalidad, kaya nakikisakay.
hohoho silver away–
i guess it’s a hopeless case. too much hot air up there.
i am not worthy you highness! give yourself a pat in the back on more time. yehey!
you are 100% right and prrrrrrrrrrrfect.
…and actually i have been involved with civic movements since the anti-marcos movements. my family were actually present in the edsa dos. we were part of that gathering that brought gma to malacanang. i actually walked the walk not just talk and bannered my so-called expertise and ph.d. for everyone to see here in blogsites. this is very typical of pinoys who made it to “tate” and think they are better than everyone here in philippines.
i have met and conversed with individuals who are far more accomplished in life yet most of them didn’t act like they were better than me or than the rest. they were neither condescending or talked down to anybody. but then again i don’t want to get into pissing contest and if it makes you happy so be it.
istambay,
Cool ka lang. As they say, talo ang pikon. This is just a blog, its not real life…for most, its a fantasy come true…
Tate? Yah! After bending over and saying thunk yuh suh may I have anutha?! They forget how to speak Filipino and think like one…pathetic huh? What matters is that you’re real, you have passion, and that your existence is impacting other people in a positive way (people who matter at least).
…like they like to say in “tate”, “it’s all cool bro”.
don’t worry so much istambay, pretty soon it’s election time and me here will be meeting even our PM or most of the Candidates, some didn’t even finish their secondary education, some have mba or phd, but surprise, they will never use them in their campaign as it will be unfair to those without those mbas and phds and will turn off voters. ’til now, don’t even know what degree our PM has if he had any, who cares, he seems to be doing fine and no issue whatsoever of taking what’s not his..
“indeed! obama represents true change in america’s politics. wonder why asian-americans, including fil-ams, support clinton?”—-Maginoo
As many voters say, Obama is an excellent ORATOR. However, where is the BEEF? Many believe it is all rhetoric, no substance at all!
Between the three possible candidates, John first, Hillary second and Barack is third for me.
@Pilipinoparin
Wouldn’t Mr. Obama be able to do more or at least sympathize with your immigrant causes out there in the U.S.? Makes one wonder?
If the sympathy you are thinking has something to do with giving priority to some groups of people because they are immigrants, Asians, etc. as opposed to giving TRUE equal opportunity to everyone, I would rather not have it. That is the main reason why so many are now against “equal opportunity” which I think is really a misnomer. We need to live by the rule of merits and demerits.
“…and i thought this place is where you can share and argue your position without being prejudiced. ang nangyayari ay kesyo abogado sila o ph.d in econ sila ay mas marurunong na at ang iba dito ay bobo.”
There is really nothing wrong arguing as PhD or lawyer or businessman for as long you argumenst is supported by facts and you defend your dessertation very well.
Now its really up the individual to argue with Econ PhD, Lawyer or businesman knowing that you know nothing much on teh subject. Pero kung mapapataob nyo ba sila even when you are not a an Econ PhD , lawyer or businessman, why not. Most pobably I will be very impressed!
Usually what I do, I read and reread them well to learn from it. Rather than argue with experts like then when I know nothing much of the subject.
“’til now, don’t even know what degree our PM has if he had any, who cares, he seems to be doing fine and no issue whatsoever of taking what’s not his..”–vic
disagree, vic. the PM is a she, a degree holder, she’s not doing fine, lots of issues, too, but by proxy.
I mean, here in Pinas, hehehe.
i agree with you, rego. we don’t have to have a phd or jd (llb) to be right. our argument speaks for itself. our ability to discern, analyze rationalize and articulate, or the lack of them, (rather than our use of fancy words or profanities, or our cv) can make us worth being taken seriously or ignored.
most of us are incognito here. there’s hardly room for personal kayabangan or oversensitivity. we are not impressing anyone by who or what we are. we try to offer them our points of view and why we maintain them, which they can believe, reject or rebut. nothing personal. we may not be idiots, but our comments can be idiotic sometimes.
Cat, akala ata ni nash ang pinag-uusapan ang meaning ng per capita.
mukhang hindi niya nasundan ang running discussions ni cvj and anthony scalia tungkol sa GDP. 
except for one who’s a standout. yung ihi lampas na sa inedoro.
sobrang hangin dito. ilang beses pa bang uulitin, may yabangan kayo sa saringling blog ninyo. at kung hindi niyo mapakita ang diploma ninyo sa kung saan community colleges, you are nothing with figments that represent your handle.
tama si bencard at si rego, what has your degree got to do with your arguments? sus mi, may na published na ba kayong article sa refereed journal (and not just one pleeze) at matatawag man lang kayong expert?
Pilipinoparin,
so feel nyo dyan may fighting chance ang republican candidate? akala ko, dahil sa performance ni bush, ayaw na ng mga ‘kano sa republicans. di ba yan ang nangyari sa congressional elections, nilampaso ang republicans
Seminars given :
1) Soap Making
2) Hair Dressing
3) Post Mortem Cosmetology
4) Pedicure, Manicure, Alot*
5) Astrology 101: Madam Auring Divination Techniques
*alot – bisaya for gupit
istambay, sa totoo lang. natatawa din ako. parang akong nakikinig sa prof ko sa MS na kinakausap ang blakbord, hindi namamalayan, time’s up na pla at wala na syang estudyante. naiwan na lang ilang mababait para sabihang wala nang tao sa room. at naiilang pang lapitan.
too much devotion to zzztatistics numbs one common sense.
pilipinoparin,
McCain din ako. the Repubs may not be too “immigrant” friendly sa face value. but that is just because they advocate LEGAL immigration. Obama wants to give drivers license to ILLEGAL immigrants. change ba un? o chaos?
even between Obama and CLinton, Hill pa rin. really, masarap pakinggan si OBama, pero at the same time, nagtataasan mga balahibo when I start thinking about substance.
sabi nga ng ibang pundits, he is riding on fairy-dust. not on substance.
Scalia,
McCain may not win but at present, I think he got my vote. Bush and Republican party do not change my reasons for voting for John after all John is not Bush and he definitely is not the Republican party. I am an independent. I vote for the man who can depend his convictions at anytime regardless of the situation and environment, in short, he has the backbone, he got balls. unlike the Pilipino politicians we have right now.If ever, the president is keeping the black box and he is the only one among the three who can push the red button if needed.
This does not mean that John will win this November. I have only one vote.
bert, know how easy it is to meet the PM during the campaign, especially for card-carrying member of the party? or during the visit to the riding? a day or two notice and a RSVP and your address and just a perfunctuary check at the door and just like that, you get to have a few seconds with your PM. not even enough time to ask him if what made him click, but just enough time to have a pix for souvenir if you’re lucky, very simple people making it simple..
“bert, know how easy it is to meet the PM during the campaign, especially for card-carrying member of the party? or during the visit to the riding? a day or two notice and a RSVP and your address and just a perfunctuary check at the door and just like that, you get to have a few seconds with your PM. not even enough time to ask him if what made him click, but just enough time to have a pix for souvenir if you’re lucky, very simple people making it simple..”–vic
I envy you, vic. here in our land, the future PM is ironclad. because she’s afraid of her own people, the army is all around her all the time. maybe that’s because she’s no simple people, a degree holder with foreign study credential, and that’s something to be proud of. so, being not a simple people, she tries not to make things that simple.
politicians in any position in government are most accessible during campaign period. they are willing to talk to you, photo-op with big smiles, shake hands with jsut about anybody and willing to say all things you want to hear. but when they get elected to the office, they have a wall of security personnels that make it impossible to get near them!
security purposes against threats they will say. who needs a leader that needs to be protected from her/him people who elected her/him to the office?
then again you can never discount the radicals with in your ranks. take for example the israeli pm yitzhak rabin who got assasinated by his own countryman, an israeli also.
again, it’s nothing quite simple when it comes to politics in this aspect. just know the person really well and try to know everything on your own not just what the media says. past actions, voting records and people who surround him/her or the company that he/she has, would be a good indicator of what kind of leader he/she’s going to be. in short do your homework. not easy huh?
Bagsak ka sa statistics? Sorry, sa arithmetic? hohoho
“hohoho silver away.â€Â
“Bias is not a diagonal cut of a fabric. hohohoâ€Â
Ngayon naman feeling fashion designer / santa claus. Ngiiii.
Thank you for the belly laugh. hohoho
Don’t worry, slow brain is not a disability. There is still hope to make it work fast.
“hohoho silver away.†– the Cat
Correction! Its HI HO SILVER, AWAY!
followed by tararan tararan tararantantan tararan tararan tararantantan tararan tararan tararantantan tan tararan tantan
The LOne Ranger and his sideckick TONTO!
The LOne Ranger and his sideckick TONTO!– ramrod
tonto pala? akala ko ibig mo sabihin TONTA!
sa Pusa:
haha. di ko po binagsak ang istatistika. actually, ginapang ko yan. at nakakuha ako ng tumataginting na TRES mula sa aking terror pero lababol na professor!! yihaaa!!
for a “Ph.D”, you so spend an awful lot of time making patol to mortals like us. don’t you have come seminars to give, or some tea time with amigo and amigas of the same academic breed? or some tennis match perhaps?
oh, sorry. then again, i’m talking about the lifestyle of real PhDs .
For NAFTA-Gate that may tip the Democrats Presidential Nomination in favour of Hillary Clinton you may clik my handle and don’t worry.. no ads in there but some kind of campaign for my party and so far was able to convince one vote other than myself..
“…voting records and people who surround him/her or the company that he/she has, would be a good indicator of what kind of leader he/she’s going to be. in short do your homework. not easy huh?”–istambay
oh, we did our homework alright, tambay, that’s easy. our future PM had very good indicator, indeed, before she occupied the throne. but it seems being there was not quite the same as going there, so the indicator somewhere while sitting on that gilded chair got lost. you will be surprise to know how surprise we are to find out that the person we knew is not the person we know now. it’s a tricky business!
“Bias is not a diagonal cut of a fabric. hohoho”
for this “retort” to make sense, i think it should be “Bias is not JUST a diagonal cut of a fabric. hohoho”.
hay naku. cut-and-paste nga naman kasi kung humirit.
Thank you for responding. YOu qualify under the category of people with blurred vision. It is not me who is the “cut-and-paste scoundrel in this forum.
BTW, another bonus, you also fall under the category with an SHQ of 50.
Puro na lang personalan ang manga asal nang manga pusa’t aso dito at puro na lang palantanran nang kanilang manga karunongan liban kong pa-ano malutas ang maalinsangan na problema sa bayan natin. Habang mahigit sa biente milyones na Pilipino ay naghihirap, nagugutom at kulang sa lahat na nesesedad pang araw-araw, ang ilan naman ay ubod nang Yaman habang nakapuesto sa Goyerno, Yan po, ang katotohanan, na walang pakialam sa sarili natin naratingan
@ Pilipinoparin, acer:
on your point about the driver’s licenses, mr. Obama had replied “they didn’t come here to drive, they came here to work.”
aren’t you being a little more american than the mainstream population. now that you have your rights, i sense a little doscomfort on your part to give others the chance. makes me wonder?
no problem with giving people a chance. but they’re gonna have to deserve that chance – like getting in line and “going in through the front door”.
“Thank you for responding. YOu qualify under the category of people with blurred vision. It is not me who is the “cut-and-paste scoundrel in this forum.
BTW, another bonus, you also fall under the category with an SHQ of 50.”
wow. “blurred vision”? ano naman connect nun sa mali mo na pinpoint out ng hindi PhD? hmm?
at wow ulit. may “categories” sya ng mga forum participants. galing naman. me basbas ba yan ng may-ari ng blog na to? sa uulitin kasi, galingan mo ang mga smart-aleck attempts mo at wag kulang-kulang.
yan tuloy, nahuhuli ka.
ngaun, sang category mo na naman ako ilalagay? i can’t wait to find out.
kaw? alam mo ba kung sang category ka nakalagay?
@Vic: Canada’s Prime Minister is an economics-degree holder like GMA and an oilman like Bush (but not certified for flying a jet fighter) .
Stephen Harper == born April 30, 1959, in Toronto, Ontario — moved to Alberta in 1978 to work in the petroleum industry and went on to obtain both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in economics from the University of Calgary. Mr. Harper and his wife, Laureen (Teskey) Harper, have two children, Benjamin and Rachel, and maintain a permanent home in Calgary.
maginoo on #211
I am for the rule of law. If everyone wants to give the same benefits to all illegals, then change the law. Make them legal residents by what ever means, the best way is by amnesty to all illegals like what they did during the 80′. Then, strictly enforce the immigration law, no TNT, no border crossings…EVERYONE SHOULD FOLLOW THE IMMIGRATION LAW. This strict enforcement is done everywhere, illegals in North Korea, Red China maybe shot. Even developing countries including the Philippines have immigration laws otherwise there will be a deluge of Chinese , South Koreans, and Indians in the Philiipines.
Ooooops!
sagot pala iyon sa #209 (3AM) ni Maginoo. Sorry.
Leave your response!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Archive
Books from my library
Most Commented
Recent Comments
Categories
MLQ3′s Social Network Profiles