It was a nice experience.

you just demonstrated the model way to engage in a discussion. hats off to both of you

Regarding Lerner’s statement on what then Justice Panganiban said; just in case it was indeed stated by Justice Panganiban, it may been referring to the authority given by the Justices to the Chief Justice on January 20, 2001 to administer the oath of office to Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which makes it an administrative matter on the part of the court without necessarily prejudging any case that may be filed questioning the oath taking.

Well like I stated before; Estrada and his lawyers just believed differently. Well, at least till they lost.

Thirteen Justices deliberated on the matter, though some wrote separate but concurring opinions; they all agreed on the decision dismissing ex-Pres. Estrada’s petition challenging PGMA as the de jure Prsident of the Philippines. That makes it unanimous.

I do understand your point regarding the acts and word of foreign governments.

And it was a pleasant exchange with you too.

On Estarada’s discretion, as I was saying, while I agree with Bert’s statement that the act of Estrada was self serving, I don’t second guess that decision to be bad for the people.

It’s like comparing Edsa Dos to the US invasion of Iraq. Americans and its allies feel so good that time thinking to have done the right thing about liberating an oppressed populace only to have regretted the move years later when things got worst.

Just like you, I don’t subscrive to the idea of a bloody confrontation that could have resulted if Estrada had insisted on staying.

But regarding the consultation, I understand that what was implied is that CJ Davide and Panganiban have already made their decision on the oath taking before any of such occurred.

From Lerner’s article, he mentioned “Panganiban says it was at that time that the justices acted to save “the constitutional system from collapse”.

I really don’t know if those words were written by Panganiban on his book or just the interpretation of Lerner. But going with that reasoning re savior of our constitutional system and with the oath taking already done, there’s no question in my mind that the other justices would have supported their two colleagues action all the way. But that’s my own opinion, I really don’t know how the legal mind works (although I understand they consult the bible also).

By the way, if you happened to read the SC ruling, how did it go? Was there any dissenting opinion among the SC justices? I thought it was unanimous.

But then your description of the act of members of the international community may also be apt for foreign leaders’ words.

I think most countries have hands-off policies when it comes to other countries’ internal affairs. This holds true specially on changing govts prematurely. Foreign leaders would always talk about upholding the rule of law and constitutional processes but either way, once a new govt is restored, they will have to eventually recognize it. In a way, you’re right about these foreign leaders. I think they are only after their country’s own interest. The international community can impose sanctions but I think this option has been found to be counter productive and would just hurt only the people but not their leaders. At least, that’s the reason given by ASEAN leaders on not sanctioning Myanmar.

Good luck on your job and be safe always.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I wish you all the best also. Thanks again for the pleasant exchange although my response comes sooo late (or early?).

I wonder why my earlier post did not materialize.

But anyway, thanks for indulging my personal question and I hold the same for your opinion and beliefs too.

But regarding the consultation, I understand that what was implied is that CJ Davide and Panganiban have already made their decision on the oath taking before any of such occurred.

And I am not questioning Bert’s idea that Estrada could have done it for self serving reasons. It may indeed have been that.

But then your description of the act of members of the international community may also be apt for foreign leaders’ words.

Good luck on your job and be safe always.

In addition to an earlier post under moderation, I’m viewing more of Bert’s statement that Estrada’s discretion was bad for us more on the line that Chavit’s supposed marines were already set for the kill and were unable to carry it out rather than on what future actions Estrada’s successor might have done.

To answer your question, I’m an ofw. An absentee voter who gets the chance to go home 2x each year only. I”ve been religiously following the events that have been happening in our country though.

Again, about that “landmark” SC decision pertaining to Edsa Dos, I think DJB (I’m quoting his comment below) and I came into the same realization of that event. For me Edsa 1 should have been enough. I do respect your opinion and belief though.

My views on Edsa Dos were shaped by my discovery of Artemio Panganiban’s book and the TRUE STORY of what happened and how, at Edsa Dos. DJB March 10th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Re consultation with other justices, Panganiban mentioned it on his book (the book was later recalled or withdrawn from the bookstores) which was partly quoted on Lerner’s article. But just like you, I have not really read the book except learn parts of its contents from news clippings and from various blog discussions.

As for Estrada’s discretion that time, I do agree with what Bert here said, I maintain my belief that Estrada did it for the safety of his family and himself. He fled out of fear from the mob that’s about to storm malacanang. It was not an act for love of country or saving people’s lives. That’s how I read the event that happened that time. We have to remember that Estrada was escorted by Angie Reyes in leaving malacanang. I think he was given a fair enough warning on what to expect if he chose to stay that day.

With regards to your rebuff of Bert’s comment re Estrada’s discretion is bad for the people, I agree with you. How could we say so unless that time? Unless of course we know what the future brings. We are just saying it now because Gloria messed up the country pretty badly.

Maybe foreign leaders considered the event as mob rule or unconstitutional or then maybe not, nevertheless, such did not prevent members of the international community from extending their recognition of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines.

You are right, I agree. But then again, this act of members of the international community is not really something extra-ordinary. To cite some, just take the case of Musharaf of Pakistan, or say the military junta of Thailand or even Myanmar. The world simply doesn’t care.

Oooppsss. Maybe I should have said your post are coming rather “early”.

Regarding your other concerns; I haven’t read CJ Panganiban’s book so I don’t know what kind of consultations with other Justices you are referring to. Lerner’s article tends to imply that the decision for the oath taking was reached prior to any so called consultation. However The SC did release an administrative letter stating that Arroyo’s request for administration of the oath was treated as an administrative matter and not as a case as even exemplified by the statement of “This resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable case that may be filed by a proper party.”

Of course the words of Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma had clout, but the entire SC that deliberated just saw it differently. Maybe foreign leaders considered the event as mob rule or unconstitutional or then maybe not, nevertheless, such did not prevent members of the international community from extending their recognition of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines.

With regards to your view that Gloria’s take-over was illegal; the SC just doesn’t share it.

The discretion of Erap may have been indeed good for him and the PSG, but how the heck was it bad for “us”? The PSG were deployed with high powered firearms and tanks to boot. I surmise that one the first of many things that a soldier does when fired upon is to return it (and bullets have a habit of being sent “to whom it may concern”). The only direct relation to Erap’s discretion that I can think of at this moment being bad for anyone are the funeral parlor owners, coffin makers, etc.

But if we are to go by your belief that it’s going to be tough days for all of us; it seems those (may GOD have mercy) funeral parlor owners, coffin makers, etc. are going to rake in that previously unrealized profit.