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.”
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.”
“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.”
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?”
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.”
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 waiting”, 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 process”… 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!”
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?”
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