The aesthetics of redemption
March 17, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
My column for today is The aesthetics of redemption. It’s as much a response to items such as this one, see Clarissa Ocampo vs. Jun Lozada, as anything else, but also a reiteration of a point I’ve felt strongly about for some time, see She is as they are, from March 2, 2006.
In the news, Think tank to draft 10-yr economy blueprint: it’s about time such a think tank buckles down to work. What can we see, 10 years ahead? A provocative article in The Asia Sentinel says, a peso-dollar rate of 56 to 1! See Philippine remittances could slow: The global slowdown may mean a fall in remittances, the Philippine lifeblood, and an end to the party for the peso :
That said, the trend is clear and at some point it is likely to impinge on all remittance sources to varying degrees. High and rising energy and food import costs are also likely to erode a Philippine current account which has been in a healthy surplus for an almost unprecedented time. Looking ahead, the issue will be whether remittances will stagnate because of the US (and probably very slow growth in Europe), resulting in a weaker peso and the unwinding of a cycle that has taken the usually sickly peso from 56 to 40 against the dollar over the past three years, the fastest rise of any Asian currency.
Many would argue that the strong peso has been damaging the wider economy, encouraging imports, reducing the peso value of remittances, deterring investment in industry and agriculture, helping rentiers at the expense of productive capitalists. But to politicians, not least Arroyo, it is a virility symbol.
The nation has become so dependent on the seemingly endless increase in inflows which created the strong peso that any major reversal or even slowdown will be shock to the system. Don’t be surprised if the peso is back at 56 before the decade is out.
In History Unfolding, historian David Kaiser ponders the collapse of Bear Stearns in the context of the Baby Boomer Generation to which he belongs:
The Boom generation has never believed much in restraint, least of all in the economic field. We have cut marginal tax rates from 91% in 1963 and 50% in the late 1970s to 35% now, vastly increasing the incentive for managers to increase profits as much as possible–partly by cutting the labor force–because they can keep so much more of the proceeds. We have chpped away at the Depression-era restraints, allowing commercial and investment banks to combine during the late 1990s. (The Clinton Adminstration did impose fiscal discipline–probably its one real domestic achievement–but it paved the way for the coming crash in many ways as well.) We have developed new financial instruments like bonds backed by sub-prime mortgages that have been every bit as seductive as the Mississippi bubble in the early 18th century or prime Florida land in the 1920s. And by creating new institutions not subject to regulation, such as hedge funds, we have allowed clever Boomers and Xers to avoid the regulations that their parents and grandparents so wisely put in place. Last Friday almost became the Black Friday of a new generation when Bear, Stearns melted down. Bear Stearns, the New York Times informed me, works on 96.66 margin–of every $1 million it invests, $966,000 is borrowed. Much of those investments have now collapsed along with the subprime market, undoubtedly threatning a whole range of banks, hedge funds, non-profits and pension funds as well as Bear Stearns itself (since they are presumably the ones whose money Bear Stearns was playing with.) The Federal Reserve stepped in to ward off the catastrophe, but it will not be able to continue to rescue failing firms that way without implicating the whole nation in the potential crash.
The Warrior Lawyer points out why the Bear Stearns collapse matters to us:
Why should we care then if another capitalist enterprise should go under ? Banks like Bear Stearns serve a worldwide clientele of corporations, institutional investors, governments, and wealthy individuals. Its almost a given that the Philippine government has done business with investment banks like Bear Sterns and its kind and will continue to do so in the future. In a globalized economy, the fallout from a U.S. financial crisis will impact us adversely. The resulting volatility and panic in the US stock market will send shock waves to European and Asian markets. These fears and uncertainties are driving world stock markets to their recent lows. Furthermore, the US, one of our major trading partners, is already experiencing a de facto economic recession. This will dampen our prospects for continued economic growth.
Incidentally, remember the foreign analyist I met, back in 2005? See The President’s “sweet spot,” from July 28, 2005. He was from Bear Stearns.
During an economic downturn, or worse, in times of an actual shortage in basic commodities, a government has to wield its authority and at the same time, appeal to a reservoir of good will and expect a certain amount of instinctive obedience on the part of the population. You have to wonder what reservoirs the present administration has left.
In Already we have riots, hoarding, panic: the sign of things to come? by Carl Mortishead (hat tip to Thoughtcrime), there’s this:
The President of the Philippines made an unprecedented call last week to the Vietnamese Prime Minister, requesting that he promise to supply a quantity of rice.
The personal appeal by Gloria Arroyo to Nguyen Tan Dung for a guarantee was a highly unusual intervention and highlighted the Philippines’ dependence on food imports, rice in particular.
“This is a wake-up call,†said Robert Zeigler, who heads the International Rice Research Institute. “We have a crisis brewing in rice supply.â€
While Neal Cruz says Rice shortage, no; high prices, yes , prospects of a shortage or higher prices at least, is enough to inspire an impassioned plea from The Magnificent Atty. Perez:
Look at the sugarfields of Negros Occidental, where you still see to this very day, poor and uneducated laborers being paid so much less than minimum wage for backbreaking work. Look at the farms and haciendas that conveniently side-stepped coverage from CARP by allegedly growing “cattle†and having “agricultural corporations†on their land. Go to the farmlands of Capiz where in this age of tractors and the scientific method of farming you still see farmers tilling the land with the lowly carabao and drying their grain by the roadsides where it may be swept away by strong winds and rain.
You see, the problem is not that our population is too big for our food production to supply to. Our problem is that our current agricultural system for the whole country is still stuck on methodologies and farming techniques used at the turn of the 19th Century, which does not yield enough to feed our starving nation. Hence, we have to import food at a higher premium when we have the capacity to solve our own problems with the right farming science and technology.
A U.P. professor I talked to a few weeks back bluntly told me that our agricultural productivity is still at 1940’s levels while our neighbors have vastly increased theirs. And recall, as well, the observation by Dr. Michael Alba that the government isn’t keeping track of formerly agricultural lands being lost to real estate development, because of a change in methods (instead of having people actually conducting a periodic inventory of land, less precise aerial surveys, I believe, take place).
And, as usual, the problem’s compounded by another reality: that one of the many criticisms leveled against this administration is how smuggling is not only rampant, but allegedly condoned at the highest levels of government.
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
supremo on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:21 am
JPMorgan Chase will absorb Bear Stearns with help from the Fed Reserve. That’s bad news for the 14000 employees. Their future is bleak as Chase is only interested in the company assets and clients in the long run. Expect a major layoff in about a year.
tonio on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:31 am
why can’t our farmers upgrade their capabilities?
(it’s a question that’s bothered me for some time.)
supremo on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:44 am
Chase got Bear Stearns for a fire sale of $2 per share. It was the Carlyle Group’s failure to get enough cash that broke Bear Stearns’ back.
mlq3 on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:45 am
tonio, me too. one answer i’ve gotten (viz. coconut farmers for ex.) is that farmers are ageing, their children preferring to go overseas. another is, farming requires lavish subsidies from the government, which the farmers aren’t getting (for ex. for modern irrigation, high-yield seeds that the up prof. says are at irri but not availed of by the farmers, for fertilizer and equipment, etc. because, the prof. claims, of two things: rampant smuggling by cartels, and also profiteering by the middle men, and the political consideration of keeping prices low but also, keeping prices the farmers earn low, too, which makes farming practically not worth the effort). how this is solved seems a combination of the straightforward (curbing smuggling, reducing farmer to customer costs) and the more dexterous (how do you keep rice cheap for the population but paying farmers top peso to boost productivity?). and of course, the shifting of land from agricultural to real estate purposes.
spliceanddice on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:48 am
“You see, the problem is not that our population is too big for our food production to supply to. Our problem is that our current agricultural system for the whole country is still stuck on methodologies and farming techniques used at the turn of the 19th Century, which does not yield enough to feed our starving nation.”
And then Gloria’s response to the problem:
“The President of the Philippines made an unprecedented call last week to the Vietnamese Prime Minister, requesting that he promise to supply a quantity of rice.”
Assuming that there are concrete reforms in developing the agricultural sector, one can say that is hasn’t been sustained through the years and that the momentum lacked a serious move on the government’s part. Instead of falling back on sustainable agricultural reforms, the government has subsumed itself on immediate and temporary solutions.
IRRI’s Robert Zeigler makes an ominous forecast, that the “crisis brewing in rice supply” should serve as a “wake-up call” not only because we don’t have sustained agricultural reforms but also because there is an apparent increase in food import costs.
benign0 on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 12:19 pm
There is also the reality that imported grains rice and corn are far cheaper than those produced locally. Part of this is due to primitive transport and handling infrastructure. Locally harvested corn is still handled in bags and shipping containers rather than in bulk (silos, conveyors, and bulk shipping). So transport on a per tonne basis from Mindanao to Manila is more expensive than international rates.
It follows Nick Joaquin’s “heritage of smallness” principle. Everything in the food supply chain is small scale — small mom-and-pop farms, vegetables are transported by the jeepney and tricycle load, cold storage is limited to small privately-run facilities, etc. There are hardly any industrial grain drying facilities (rice and corn is spread over roads to dry in the sun). At every point in the transport chain, there is waste and loss.
Bridge capacity connecting major highways all over the islands are far below the minimum 20-tonne weight of the average 18-wheeler truck.
Small time talaga ang Pinoy.
The only thing we are big-time at is in our ability to double our population every 20 years or so.
The Philippines’ food security is virtually zilch. If ever war breaks out in the region or if our Asian neighbours suddenly decide to mount a food embargo on the Philippines — siguradong tepok ang Pinas, unless someone invents a way to convert all of those celphone trinkets we import from China into some kind of food substance.
As the saying goes. If we don’t take steps to change our irresponsible behaviour, nature will do it for us.
Kawawang Pinoy.
cvj on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 12:25 pm
Tonio, Manolo, it’s the landed oligarchy. Both China (communist) and Taiwan (non-communist) got rid of them in 1949 and 1952 respectively. From then on, the government in Taiwan used a carrot and stick approach (via their monopoly in Fertilizers) to extract rents from the farmers and channel into investments in industry. After two failed experiments, China got its act together in 1978 and adopted a two track system where a certain portion of the produce is sold to the State while the remainder is sold to by the farmer to the open market. In our case, the Oligarchs are still there and are being joined by younger ones.
Anyway, economically, we are moving from the ’sweet spot’ to a ’sore spot’. The price of oil is increasing as well as the demand. Any implementation of biofuels will take away from our rice (and other food) production. So the tradeoff between affordable oil and and affordable rice will be harder to make.
rego on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 12:38 pm
“The question then is perhaps this: Why must either one be considered a hero? It is not whether Clarissa Ocampo was a hero, and Jun Lozada is not, but rather, that neither was a hero but both were undeniably brave.”
=========================================================
To me the question is who produced good results? Clarissa Ocampo was able to overthrow Erap without so much funfare. While Lozada until now is still talking and talking and talking ang talking and talking……
rego on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 12:40 pm
O di ba Benigno, ano ang masabi sa results orientation ng Pinoy?
benign0 on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 12:47 pm
Spot on as usual.
Kung baga sa project, roadshow lang nang roadshow pero wala namang business case for funding approval.
tonio on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 12:54 pm
rego:
i find it amazing how you can pull out the most amazing conclusions from disparate data… i gotta admit, it’s a singular talent.
cvj:
well, we’re back here again. kind of sucks how once you bring up the oligarchy, one can immediately see how useless any solution to the country’s problems is, if it requires their participation.
KG on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 1:10 pm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384353/index.htm
Africa in Bloom
Led by Uganda, a continent better known for food shortages is becoming the center of an agribusiness boom – with fertile opportunities for entrepreneurs everywhere…
The rice business faces constraints, mainly because the heavy subsidies that the United States, Japan, Korea, and others pay their growers distort prices and restrict the market…….
comments
2006 article pa ito
kung africa nakakagawa na ng paaan kahit mahirap ang mga constarints like subsidies by governments to their farmers.
tayo-wala we are stuck with promising land reform,when we cannot make land reform work.
The world bank tried to offer market assisted land reform,but oour NGOs rejected it for some reasons.
http://www.philsol.nl/D-RicReyes-WB-mar99.htm
Rice cartels? This is the time to make matters worse by hoarding rice and wait for the prices to get much much higher.
KG on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 1:29 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080307/hl_afp/philippinesfarmriceunaid
“The UN agency now provides food aid to about 1.1 million of the Philippines’ 90 million people.
Guarnieri said the UN was unlikely to ramp up its food aid to the Philippines immediately since it is considered a “middle-income country” with lower priority.
She also warned Manila could be hit in the pocket by having to boost spending on subsidies just to maintain current prices of the lowest-quality rice that it sells to the poor.”
Un can’t increase it’s food aid because we are not that poor enough, we are conidered as middle income, then good di pala tayo naghihirap masyado, eh di walang problema.
Diyoskolord, we have to rely on subsidies from gov just to maintain prices of lowest quality rice.
anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 1:52 pm
clarissa ocampo’s testimony was a smoking gun
jun lozada’s testimony is not. too bad no public funds was spent yet for the NBN-ZTE project.
it all boils down to this: there’s just an attempt at bribery and kickbacks. im not sure if there is such a crime as attempted bribery or attempted ‘kickbacks’
actual ZTE money going into public men’s pockets is another matter.
frombelow on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 2:33 pm
“it all boils down to this: there’s just an attempt at bribery and kickbacks. im not sure if there is such a crime as attempted bribery or attempted ‘kickbacks’”— a. scalia
Should we always frame our mind as if we are in courts of law, we are lawyers and/or in debating halls?
sometimes, in our eagerness to defend our stand, we forget to…
Jon Limjap on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 2:39 pm
Ah, CARP. Sure it removes hacienderos but, when those farmers get to own their land, in many cases they just sell it back to real-estate developers and hence, your subdivisions. So much for “agrarian reform”.
I am so disgusted with the way our farming has stagnated at its levels. I have only recently begun to travel to different parts of the country (with my wife in the travel industry) and that is my main gripe. Is there a way to massively mechanize our agricultural sector?
I wonder.
Mr. L. Duran on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 3:45 pm
Naaawa po ako kay Lozada at sa kanyang pamilya ngayong medyo hindi na alintana ng karamihan ng mga pinoy ang usaping ZTE-NBN. Minsan tuloy naitatanong ko sa sarili ko kung ito po ba marahil ang dahilan kung bakit karamihan sa mga pilipinong nakakaalam or nakakakita ng mga anomalya at korapsiyon sa gobyerno ay nagtitikom na lamang po ng kanilang mga bibig at pumipikit ng kanilang mga mata o dili kaya ay naki-ki-join in na lamang, tumatanggap na lamang ng kabayaran at makikisamang gumawa ng anomalya. Kasi nga naman po mas magiging maganda pa yong lagay nila or estado nila sa buhay kung ganon kesa nga naman pong magsalita ng katotohanan. Kaya po naitatanong ko rin sa aking sarili ngayon kung sa tingin ba ni Lozada ngayon eh worth it ba ang mga pinoy sa nangyayari sa kanyang buhay ngayon pagkatapos niyang isiwalat ang nangyaring anomalya sa ZTE-NBN deal. Para pong si Jesus Christ na pini-persecute noon ng kanyang mga fellow hudyo hanggang sa mapako siya sa krus. Pasensiya na po kayo medyo disappointed and disillusioned lang po talaga kasi ako ngayon sa mga attitude ng karamihan ng mga pinoy sa ngayon.
WillyJ on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 4:16 pm
“problem is not that our population is too big for our food production to supply to”.
Someone has to say it, finally.
But its big enough for votes, see? Let them stay poor, its easier to buy their votes.
Kamote on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 4:33 pm
I hated CARP. Agrarian reform my ass. If Macapagal didint implemented it on my lolo s estate I could have inherited at least 50 hectares of land. Now I see subdivisions built on the lands that were supposed to be mine and oh yeah some resorts too near the river.
The agricultural sector we have at the moment are being threatened by what we call progress. Most of the farm lands I see are turning into Malls and Subdivisions. Even the children are not even interested in tilling the land now. If you ask a child what he wants to be when he grow up? then you will have the answer why we are having less farmers now.
I guess we have more laborers than farmers at the moment. I bet most of the people would just work as a factory worker than singing while planting palay and being burned by the sun.
again, I hate CARP.
vic on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 4:34 pm
Between Lozado and Ocampo, Lozada has a lot to loss including his personal Freedom, in case his testimonies fail Big Time and would not put a dent on the sitting Power and more to loss if the Government will be retained by the same Group after her term ( assuming she’ll step down after 2010, by not inventing anything to prolong her stay). Ocampo who was not involved in any shenanigans in her works could only loss her livelihood, which she may already had.
Therefore Lozoda has to do some acting (natural or fake, only him should know) to mitigate his own shortcomings and at the same time not to diminish the strength of his own knowledge of wrongdoings on the part of the others..
But let us look at the other Two Disgraced Presidents; not one voluntarily stepped down and not one was ousted by Constitutional Process, unless people power is a de facto one of the means under the Charter ..Expecting GMA other than after 20l0 to step down on her Own will be the FIRST If it happens. And it will be another Fave for every President that will be coming after??
tonio on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 4:35 pm
Mr. Duran:
sir, please do not compare Lozada with Jesus. he’s probably closer to Barabbas if anything. i’m not really a religious person but that comparison grates.
tonio on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 4:39 pm
Kamote:
I know what you mean, man. CARP essentially was a way for the upper echelons of the hierarchy to get rid of their rivals. I don’t think it was ever for the people. It was (is) an internecine conflict between hacenderos with the rest of the country held hostage, dressed up as a government initiative. What CARP did was ensure that only a few landowning families (the large ones) remained.
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 5:19 pm
This is why broad solutions like population control and agrarian reform are much preferred over the economically-enlightened macro-management of Gloria Arroyo. A little change in the economic weather and all she’s worked for is for nothing.
maginoo on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 5:25 pm
as far as rice is concerned, its cheaper to import from vietnam and thailand with our less-efficient production system. some of the ricelands were converted to fish/prawn farms which genreate higher export revenues than rice.
but really, RP should seriously look at our own food security, especially that many hectares of land are being for bio-fuels (not edible) and being leased out to china for the latter’s own food needs.
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 5:35 pm
Manolo, any word on planting potatoes?
Blackshama on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 5:40 pm
The factors that threaten our food security are more than farmers’ capabilities to produce more. Environment deterioration is a major threat.
As I have written in my blog blackshama.blogspot.com this should make Gloria reexamine her priorities. If Jun Lozada can’t dethrone her,this one certainly will.
anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 5:43 pm
Kamote,
“I hated CARP. Agrarian reform my ass. If Macapagal didint implemented it on my lolo s estate I could have inherited at least 50 hectares of land.”
maybe the blame should be on Tita Cory who signed it to law in the late 1980s. blame also the Congress then for blocking the people’s agrarian reform code (PARCODE) which was attempted to be passed thru people’s initiative
anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 5:51 pm
frombelow,
“Should we always frame our mind as if we are in courts of law, we are lawyers and/or in debating halls?”
isn’t the end in view (for this NBN-ZTE circus) is the prosecution of those who are guilty? so thinking with prosecution in mind (thinking like a lawyer) is inevitable. there must be a ‘connect’ between the acts complained of and existing laws that could penalize such acts
nash on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 6:15 pm
@Kamote
What?
Hindi kayo na-exempt from CARP unlike Cory Aquino? and the other sugar barons of visayas? Bakit sila exempted sa CARP?
Jeg on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 6:25 pm
Nash: What? Hindi kayo na-exempt from CARP unlike Cory Aquino? and the other sugar barons of visayas?
And as MLQ3 has pointed out repeatedly in the past, the Arroyo’s haciendas have also been excempt from CARP.
blackshama: The factors that threaten our food security are more than farmers’ capabilities to produce more. Environment deterioration is a major threat.
The government has made it a point that the rice problem is a worldwide phenomena, that is, “It aint our fault.” To be fair, it isnt GMA’s fault nga naman, since this policy of neglecting the agri sector in favor of a globalized ‘great leap forward’ was already the policy after Marcos was booted out. GMA just perpetuated it.
nash on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 6:29 pm
@benignO
I too agree with the salient points of Nick Joaquin’s “Heritage of Smallness” although I will not be to quick to disparage ’small mom & pop” operations.
The key is really is to encourage these small self-sufficient entities to combine their produce (ie. cooperatives). Perhaps, you should look at the small wine cooperatives in France or the olive groves in Andalucia. Those farms are small, on their own they would not get the benefits of scale, but by combining their produce, they are able to push their products to market efficiently and profitably..
However, in my lifetime (and I’m young), I’ve seen the rise and fall of cooperatives in the farming community I grew up in. Cooperatives are good in many ways, especially with providing loans at small interest to struggling farmers, pooling money to by the communal equipment…etc. Sadly, money gets drained because some will treat the cooperative as one big cash cow (withdraw lang ng withdraw)..one or two people doing this is ok, but once too many people do it, the cooperative is a goner. Of course, you can say “Then they should have been more strict with giving out loans” but it’s not so simple as cooperatives are run by close-knit communities who know each other…human nature kicks in and it’s hard to say ‘no’ to your neighbour…
in the meantime, the government is not doing us a favour by turning a blind eye to smuggling or appointing incompetent ministers (like Mike Defensor when he was at DENR)
cheers
nash on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 6:35 pm
@maginoo
“many hectares of land are being for bio-fuels”
We have that cheating senator from maguinadanao Migz Zubiri who is pushing for these biofuels, as if they will solve our fuel needs!
Also, let us not forget the Golf Developments. These golf course draw copious amounts of water, water that is needed for farms and drinking…(and these golf course attract shady dealers like Abalos)
Madonna on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 7:01 pm
Two words: aesthetics and redemption.
Aesthetics — the main concern of Gloria Arroyo and her defenders. Their main concern is proof. Everybody knows that proof is everywhere and is staring down at our very faces, only that the system has made it almost impossible for the proof to be pinned down back to perpetrators of lies and injustice.
Redemption — what the whole country needs and our fundamental concern here. We are fighting for the very survival of our society, a society that is anchored in honor and sense of decency, one that we will be proud of and will pass on to our children.
Aesthetics is pretty and easy to get and come by. Just listen to Imelda Marcos’ stupefying rants about the true the beautiful. She should have been shot at Luneta a long time ago.
Redemption is beautiful and difficult and messy. Tune in to Jun Lozada’s words, without the histrionics and imagine, that there for the grace of God or equally without it, there goes each and every one of us.
A meaningful Holy Week to everyone.
maginoo on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 7:27 pm
a society that is anchored in honor and sense of decency, one that we will be proud of and will pass on to our children. – Madonna on Redemption
Many people think the oust-GMA movement is Erap’s redemption.
How many times do have to have redemption?
Kamote on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 7:28 pm
Kasi ang alam ko hindi naisip ng matanda na gawin industrial land ang lupa nya. Plus the fact na he supported the wrong politicians that time. At kala nya porque bigay sa ninuno nya ang lupa ng mga maharlika sa espanya e hindi sya sakop. Spanish title my ass ulet.
I think the key to not submit your land to being carp’ed is to convert it into a industrial land or commercial one.
the food shortage that we are supposed to be going to suffer have many factors that we have to consider why it is so.
Like
1) the price of oil – Transport
2) the price of fertilizers and feeds – farming
3) the lack of government oversight for hoarders
4) the lack of agricultural seminars for farmers to boost their output
5) the lack of somebody to lend out some money to the farmers for number 2
6) the lack of manpower
7) and the small time mindset of the farmers ( La pa akong nakilalang Big picture thinkers sa kanila). Due to number 4.
Bert on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 8:43 pm
Gloria was too busy somewhere else she totally forgot irrigation. While our agricultural Asean neighbors are rice exporter, we, an agricultural country, imports much of our rice needs. The main culprit is the neglect of our irrigation system nationwide. During the time of Marcos, our National Irrigation Administration (NIA) was a very efficient agency developing the system that we have a surplus of rice stocks which the gov’t. then could even afford to export. At that time, our farmers could utilize their farms for rice planting four times a year using the same methods being used today because of the availability of abundant water sources for field irrigation. Today, that NIA is a sleeping agency. Now, farmers could plant rice three times a year in some lucky locations only where an efficient irrigation system exists, and that is far in between. In most agricultural location, specially those outside of Central Luzon, farmers only rely on the onset of rain to be able to plant, and substantial rain comes only once or twice a year. Even in said lucky locations in Central Luzon, and rice fields near NCR, the irrigation system is not efficient enough to water large swath of riceland, so the farmer/landowner has no other option but to sell the land to subdivision and golf course developer.
Give our land the water it needs and it will give us all the rice we want.
But it seems our president has other priorities!
nash on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 8:56 pm
“Now, farmers could plant rice three times a year in some lucky locations only where an efficient irrigation system exists, and that is far in between.”
I noticed this too. We can pretty much plant 3x a year in Nueva Vizcaya, but this isn’t so in some areas of Pangasinan (I wonder what JDv was doing). Benguet is also well irrigated (although mostly do-it-yourself rather than government stepping in) but crossing across the border to Abra, some lands are just barren. Local patronage politics maybe at work….
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 9:31 pm
Madonna, right on. I have a question, though. Do you have any info on the ghostwriters employed by Philippines Star Lifestyle or the writers of these pages?
The Ca t on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 9:32 pm
Even in the first world economy as the US, subsidies for agricultural products is a practice to ensure adequate supply in the market.
The Ca t on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 9:37 pm
Are u not tired of your prediction ?
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 9:39 pm
Manolo, did you make that 12:16 comment of the official Guccigate blog. I believe it’s you. He he. I wonder how you can resist at least writing an analysis on quezon.ph.
The Ca t on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 9:46 pm
clarissa ocampo’s testimony was a bomb that exploded.
jun lozada’s testimony was a bomb that went pffft.
i like to go to the archive where many commenters predicted that Lozada’s testimony would end GMA’s admin.
i feel it’s useless.
It’s my prediction which is coming to reality. The star of lozada is losing its sparkle.
Pretty soon, he will be “archived” as the whisteblower who lost his whistle.
Next.
nash on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 9:56 pm
ok si Mang BrianB ha, sa taas, asking about potatoes…now it’s guccigate…
anyways, that other blog is truly addictive…nga lang puro anonymous commenters doon much like the alleged ghostwriters that philstar hires…
jakcast on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 10:02 pm
Jun lozada should save his bottom.
The Senators are not after the bottom of the truth. They really scraped the bottom with the dud witness Leo San Miguel. And the palace denizens showed they could spew a bottomless pit of tricks.
A race to the bottom indeed!
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 10:14 pm
nash, ever heard of “tabbed browsing”?
mlq3 on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 10:18 pm
nash, someone mentioned to me briefly, once, that in the cordilleras some rather interesting projects were ongoing, mini-dams or solar-powered pumps or something… do you have any info on that?
mlq3 on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 10:26 pm
brian, no.
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 10:31 pm
What’s the nutritional value of kamote and how practical is it as a crop?
nash,
anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 10:55 pm
“Even in the first world economy as the US, subsidies for agricultural products is a practice to ensure adequate supply in the market”
maybe it will surprise most bloggers here that agriculture is heavily subsidized in the US and other rich western countries
nash on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:08 pm
@manolo
Mini-hydro plants is the advocacy of Rufino Bomasang (who used to head PNOC). He is the resident expert. If you are keen, I can dig for his contact details somewhere.
Mini-hydros, by all accounts, do little damage to the river systems and more importantly, once it is installed, the upkeep and maintenance is taken over by the local communities.
@ BrianB
Kamote is mostly starch so it’s used as a binder. It’s the leaves which are nutritious pero yung tuber, pang-tawid gutom talaga.
By experience, we only plant kamote (sweet potato) for our own needs…mura kasi compared to potatoes.
And like you, I so want to know who Celine’s ghostwriter is…kasi naman it takes talent to be able to write like her
jakcast on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:08 pm
agriculture made civilization possible. without having to produce one’s own food, men were able to specialize, become artisans, merchants, scientists, and politicans.
that’s why farmers have a special place in every society, including the rich developed ones. there will always be agricultural subsidies.
supremo on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:12 pm
The Philippines should consider a green belt policy to prevent urban sprawl. Drive along the M25 motorway in London and you will see that it is not really hard to control urban sprawl.
Madonna on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:12 pm
BrianB,
Huh? What an odd question. Ikaw cguro ang ghost writer ni Celine Lopez about her treatise on Jean Valjean and her lolo ano hehe? Just kidding. Por dios, if true that Celine Lopez hired a ghostwriter on this one, the damage control won’t stick. How could you reconcile the Paris Hiltonesque-coffee to cocktails column to this sudden literary turn?
Excuse me, manolo. But I guess most of your readers are spending more time in Brian Gorrell’s blog these past past weeks.
nash on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:12 pm
@anthony scalia
“maybe it will surprise most bloggers here that agriculture is heavily subsidized in the US and other rich western countries”
totoo yan, i often wonder why swiss farmers who plant rapeseed are doing ok…yun pala subsidies…they just have to have something token growing in their farms….
kaya na dito, medyo nakakaiinis yung mga anti-gmo crops! kung alam lang nila kung gaano kahirap kumita ang farmers sa third world. we need high yielding disease resistant crops because we don’t get subsidies or typhoon insurance.
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:15 pm
Nash, exactly. There are two Celine styels. The spritely prose, which is good, and the copywriter’s English which is better. I read her take on Macbook users and it actually convinced me to buy Mac. Her response to Brian Gorrell’s blog titled “Book report” is actually pretty good, perfectly written.
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:23 pm
Madonna,
I did write a short story about Celine’s family titled “A Time to Run.” It was published in the Graphic, and I believe there was a passage there about the light in the (Celinesque) female protagonist being extinguished after the grandfather died. This was written several years ago. Pretty accurate, huh?
I wonder why that didn’t win the Palanca?
I’m taking a real interest on that blog because of her. (It’s pretty well known many of this rich people do Coke. Someone even pointed out one personage mentionedafter I asked him where a guy, theoretically of course, could get pricey drugs like coke or heroin in Manila. So I’m not curious anymore.) Never heard of her before she had her column, though I knew many females from her high school and as a young person with some literary talent and from an important Ilonggo family at that, her name should’ve circulated some. I think there was even some mention in her bio before of her going to Columbia (journalism, I believe). Colubia is one of the big four, imagine what you have to be to get in.
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:25 pm
farm subsidies,
This is often criticized to possibly cause future shortcomings in world agriculture.
nash on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:27 pm
@BrianB
I have a copy of her book (Coffee to Cocktales) lent to me by a Palanca winner. It’s autographed pa by Celine herself!!!
It should be used in every literature course….filed under “how not to…”
I actually feel bad that it gets printed in hardback yet there are some good Pinoy writers who can’t even get published. Kaya ayan, blog blog nalang. Sayang.
Incidentally, I’ve asked this of an Inquirer writer – and maybe Manolo will broach it to his editors: Why not have digested literary inserts in the weekend paper instead of lifestyle ek-ek? The Guardian and The Times try to outdo each other with small booklets inserted in their daily editions that tackle one great author or idea..
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:27 pm
shortages, I mean
Guys, spam control is on so just fill up the code and your comment will be posted.
BrianB on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:35 pm
Nash,
If you take all of her writing together, yes, awful but some will surprise you, actually. The use of idiomatic is educated. I haven’t read her column in a while so maybe we’re coming from different eras here, but in the years 2002-03 (I was researching) she often wrote well.
Madonna on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:48 pm
Her response to Brian Gorrell’s blog titled “Book report†is actually pretty good, perfectly written.
– BrianB
So did she write it herself? That’s the question. If she did, then where has she been hiding her “talent” all these years? The subject to write about is not the question. It’s how she writes about them. One can write about parties and moisturisers and a reader could still gauge if the writer is writing crap or not. Heck, I like to read Vogue as much as a like reading the Economist. Well, Celine, she has been writing crap mostly.
Yes, you got that to a tee, her style is spritely. That’s allright. I saw her once and she appears just that, parang fairy, so thin and kulang na lang e pakpak. So she went to Columbia, then she has at least the credentials to be hired as a columnist.
hvrds on Mon, 17th Mar 2008 11:50 pm
The notional valuation of the global financial economy is approximately $500 trillion dollars. The global economy is approximately $50 trillion.
The financial markets are highly leveraged. Benign conditions have helped the Philippine economy in the last few years.
Our BSP is highly leveraged in debt. They will be simply rolling over the debt with new debt courtesy of the huge amount of liquidity. Hence the magic of creating money out of thin air continues. (All primarily based on future receipts from OFW’s)
Lower interest rates also were a result of new financial innovations – currency and credit default swaps.
Our real central bank the Federal Reserve steeped in to save investment banks creating a new precedent. The full faith and credit to the tune of $30 billion was made available to JP Morgan Chase to support Bear Stearns in their bank run.
No one wanted to see the domino effect of letting Bear Stearns going under with the sudden hard de-leveraging effect that could have become similar to an atomic chain reaction resulting in a financial atomic bomb.
In the final analysis socialism for capitalists has been the the backstop for capitalism since Keynes came into the scene. (Fiat monetary systems.)National financial systems. All based on future taxes.
The moral hazard of saving the few to benefit the common good.
Benign conditions are changing quickly for a country that is almost entirely based on entitlements. OFW’s sending their hard earned labors home being the mother of all entitlements.
Maybe the country will learn how to plant rice all over again.
Bert on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:07 am
“Kamote is mostly starch so it’s used as a binder. It’s the leaves which are nutritious pero yung tuber, pang-tawid gutom talaga.–nash
In the place I came from, which is a most rural part of the country facing the Pacific Ocean, most of us natives ate kamote as our daily staple because we can’t afford the price of rice. Pero tabing-dagat kaya ang ulam namin sa kamote ay lapu-lapu, most times oyster clams which is the cheapest, being very abundant clinging to mangroove’s protruding roots, at times crabs and lobsters, easily catchables. Kamote is easy to plant, very productive in terms of tubers and leaves, so abundant also, and very cheap. In the place I came from. Now I live in Caloocan City, the present price of kamote in a Caloocan market near us is P25.00/kg., almost the same as rice. In the event of a rice shortage it’s not hard to imagine that the price of kamote will follow that of rice. So, in the urban centers like Metro Manila, kamote cannot be a good alternative to rice given that, one, it’s also expensive and scarce too, two, its nutritional value is full of hot air (methane).
Kaya, pag hindi tayo pinagbilhan ng Vietnam ng bigas, kanta na lang tayo:
Goodbye, I hate to see you go
But have a good time….
nash on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:20 am
@bert
P25/kilo na ang kamote?????
Incidentally, medyo natawa ako sa oyster clams, crabs and lobsters na ulam mo with kamote…sa amin sa bundok, luxury items ang mga iyan
Nagutom tuloy ako.
Bencard on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:32 am
mlq3, how could you make a factual conclusion in your article “The Aesthetics of Redemption” that zte-nbn witness lozada “had to face abduction and potential liquidation”? i know he made this claim which is now being investigated by the doj’s office, but his claims are being disputed and nothing has been proven yet. why should every utterance of lozada considered “gospel truth” just because he was able to convince some close-minded, or gullible, people with his “dramatics”?
crisanto on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:41 am
Compared to the testimony of Col. Mascarinas who was falling over himself trying to explain miserably his situation, Jun Lozada was forthright in his testimony. And contrary to the statement that the Senate could not be a forum for discovering the truth, nothing could be further.
The Senate is the perfect venue to discover the truth. The Senators can ask any question devoid of any technicality and what is sauce for Jun is likewise sauce for the PNP. If Jun is asked leading questions, so were the other personalities.
Repeated questioning from various senators can bring out any inconsistency. So far, Jun has stood firm on his testimony. On the other hand, the PNP could hardly collect their thoughts. Razon and Mascarinas could not put their act together especially Col. Mascarinas who was really pitiful. Even Senator Enrile could hardly believe the guy.
manuelbuencamino on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 1:25 am
bencard,
Dyos ko naman at naniwala ka sa sinabi ng mga kidnappers? Mahirap ka nga kumbinsihin pero ang dali mo palang bolahin.
Bencard on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 1:56 am
mbuencamino, at paano mo naman naseguro na hindi ka nabola ni lozada? dahil ba sa luha, ngisi, iling-iling at pagtarak ng kanyang mata? ang sa akin lang, hintayin munang makita ang ebidensya bago maghusga ng tapos. btw, meron yatang polygraph test na gagawin. tingnan natin kung sino and madaling bolahin (lol).
istambay_sakalya on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 2:12 am
dalawang tanong lang ho…ilang beses na ba nag-iiba ng statements sina razon, gaite, mascarinas at iba? si lozada nagpalit pa sya ng statements nya? inconsistencies yata ang tawag doon at isa sa mga basihan ng mga imbestigador para matukoy kung sino ang nagisinungaling o
ngasasabi ng totoo.
The Ca t on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 2:56 am
OUCHHHH, kalyo ko, madonna.
The Ca t on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 3:11 am
Re:Ghost writers
I’ve once audited a publishing company where I encountered so many ghosts errrmmmm ghost writers.
Here in the States, if you enroll in a short term course on Writing Novels, Children’s and Inspirational Books, you will meet the ghost writers of some popular authors with best selling books.
Kahit si Lolit Solis, may ghost writer. Pero siguro mas maganda sa kaniya.
grd on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 3:48 am
DAY 18…
nash on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 4:46 am
Incidentally, how does one feel to be a speechwriter Manolo? When you wrote GMA’s speeches in the early days (when we all thought she was a rising star), for her to claim credit for the prose? It must be a tough thankless job because when the media reports the soundbites the next day, it will be attributed entirely to the speaker. Imagine nalang the patience of Barack Obama’s speechwriter.
I can only admire those who write for The Economist – a popular weekly where the articles have no byline.
To be a ghostwriter suggests that you are a good writer…but good writers also want to be acknowledged, it’s but human nature….
Teka ha, check ko lang sa kabila kung merong bagong update on the guccigate…
benign0 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 6:21 am
I saw on Bandila last night how a student was PHYSICALLY removed from an audience in an assembly being addressed by Lozada. All he did was ask Lozada some “difficult” questions like why for he is conducting this roadshow instead of channeling these “truths” through proper channels where processes exist to investigate, evaluate, and RESOLVE them.
The irony there is that this student had the opportunity to express his views on national television.
Indeed. The circus is STILL in town.
benign0 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 6:25 am
Then there is Cardinal what’s-his-name copping a bit of flack after barring his flock from conducting masses in Lozada’s honour.
Ayan ang napapala ng simbahan as a result of its meddling in politics. It gets imbroiled in the whole circus as well.
Of course all these so-called “priests” get into this hollow-headed rebel mentality and summarily over-rule their “vow of obedience” and go out and conduct these masses in secret for Lozada.
Talaga naman oo. Parang Gulong ng Palad talaga ang Pilipinas.
You can’t trust government officials to do their jobs. And you can’t trust priests to honour their vows.
Pinoys TRULY deserve each other.
-
benign0 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 6:31 am
Another blogger once succinctly described the Filipino with one word:
Pilit.
Yes. One word to describe an entire history of not-getting-it.
That’s a credit for Pinoys though.
There may be no single Pinoy word for “efficiency”, yes.
But there is no corresponding single English word that aptly wholly expresses the uniquely-Pinoy concept of pilit.
Chalk one up for the Pinoy!
hvrds on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 6:40 am
“Americans enjoy the inestimable privilege of consuming much more than they produce and financing the difference with the currency they alone can lawfully print. The reports about the record-high euro or the post-1995-high yen mean that we privileged ones will soon have to start spending less and working more.” James Grant
We ape the American model but we send our human resource out to send in the dollars. The generation me and the generation unborn will pay the price in malnutrition, maleducation and be ruled by Kabayan and Ate Vi and their ilk.
Saudi Arabia sold their interest in Petron which was earning them more dollar assets which they want to avoid. They prefer to put up refineries in China and India to earn in other currencies that will gain in the future.
benign0 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 6:49 am
According to a few more hear-says I picked up (di ba Pinoys resolve things based on hear-says naman? If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!), Lozada was also disappointed in his kid graduating from La Salle without honours because of everything that was transpiring.
Let me guess, that was Gloria’s fault too.
For that matter, La Salle na lang nga, di pa nag-honours. Di ba Parking lang naman ang mahirap sa La Salle?
-
KG on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 7:09 am
Cat and Scalia,
I know rice is subsidized in first world countries.
In my uganda example,yun ang constraint na problema nila sa pagexport to its neighbors,wala silang laban sa low prices of subsidized rice of the first world economy.
Di ba yan ang inaangal tuwing me WTO, at me counterpart ang G8 na G100+ kung anumang numero pagtapos ng G,na nagrerepresent ng mga grupo ng poor countries na si Mar Roxas at Cito Lorenzo pa ang pinaka active that time.
Kung ang point nyo ay kailangan na kailangab talaga isubsidize ang agriculture ; and there is no other option, dahil pati first world ginagawa ito; then there is no arguient to that..pero dyan umaangal ang mga poor nations who intend to export their agricultural products.
They cannot subsidize,because they can’t give what they don’t have.That is competition,survival of the fittest.
KG on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 7:18 am
CVj, no matter how you defend your thesis that it is always the oligarchs,and that they do not belong in the modern society.
That thesis only works for the authors who sold,millions of copies of their best sellers. Yung author ng Empire at ng Multitudes na you cited to me, even considers democracy a continuing experiment.
as I have said; is the only way to eliminate poverty is to kill all the poor? ganyan din ang tingin ko sa pag tanngal ng oligarchy sa picture.
TonGuE-tWisTeD on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 8:17 am
“I am so disgusted with the way our farming has stagnated at its levels. I have only recently begun to travel to different parts of the country (with my wife in the travel industry) and that is my main gripe. Is there a way to massively mechanize our agricultural sector?…”
In the late seventies to the early 80’s, a company I worked with saw unprecedented levels in sales of its farm tractor line. I was part of the group that provided after-sales technical support also tasked with researching then designing a strategy to sustain the sales growth.
At the higher end of the scale, we monitored a “massive” mechanization of a huge corporate corn farm in Piat, Cagayan. On the lower end, a two-tractor rice-based cooperative in Bombon, Camarines Sur was our subject.
The Cagayan farm, funded by local and international loans, bought 15 middle and large sized tractors from our Coventry, England plant. It was a big success the bumper harvest brought down the price of corn from about P10/kg to just P0.10. Despite the giant slide, the corporation made a decent income. But the glut that emerged was devastating to the rest of the industry. Harvesting then transporting the produce was more expensive even to mid-sized farms I can’t imagine how worse it was for “mom and pop” farms. They don’t even have money to pay for dumping of the crops. A gallon of gasoline and a matchstick was the cheapest solution. Many defaulted on their agri-credit I’m sure many failed to make the next planting season/s.
The Bicol cooperative, on the other hand, made good during the first two years, the members’ annual rice yield almost doubled. The problems kicked in as soon as maintenance and repairs had to be done. Since the rental paid by members was just about that which paid for the amortization, the cost, for example, of new 38-inch tyres at P50,000 per pair would mean doubling the rental rates! The rise in income was effectively wiped out by the rental increase. Labor, which is not reflected in the cost equation, doubled without any meaningful gain in profit. The cooperative was barely surviving as repair costs started to pile up when some enterprising businessmen introduced the cheaper alternative of hand tractors.
Not long enough, the coop’s funds were running dry, when just two years earlier, I witnessed how the town mayor broke Tanduay long-necks at the rigs’ hoods, I was then personally supervising the pulling out of the near-dilapidated tractors back to our company’s scrapyard. The bankrupt coop folded up.
The first study proved how one’s success could mean disaster for another. Bigger successes could mean bigger disasters. Although the corn glut paved the way for newly-revitalized industries like feeds and starch, the greater danger was the newly-displaced corn farmers, many of whom cannot plant anything but corn.
In the second case, the management of finances, though many would blame it back on education, was the sole culprit as the feasibility study was quite comprehensive judging by the ease by which our British principals approved of the “radical” financing scheme.
Though it was in Marcos’ time, and knowing that Marcos was a big cooperatives advocate, the frontline agencies failed miserably in preparing the farmers for contingencies in the Cagayan case and again, in monitoring and supervising registered cooperatives, in the Bicol case.
On the supply side, these experiences taught us hard lessons – our success in landing one big deal cost us far more with the lost opportunities industry-wide. The other case, we dropped the cooperative financing scheme altogether since we didn’t realize the planned targets. In both cases, gov’t shortcomings had dangerously failed or worse, threatened the modernization of industries out of its focus. All government resources were in Cojuangco’s copra and absent in almost all the others.
This happened two to three decades ago. And even with a much-vaunted economist at the helm, the same conditions prevail.
KG on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 8:18 am
About food from mindanao being more expensive than food from vietnam or even a country further….
Aboitiz is moving out of shipping because they gave up on domestic cargo and moved to power, they even submitted that airlines are the choice of passengers that is why they gave up on passenger ferries as well.
Non sequitur except for a translation:Nothing follows!
cvj on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 8:47 am
Karl, the belief that Oligarchs are the problem is nothing new. In fact, the idea was even used by Marcos as a pretext for his New Society. FVR also subscribes to this thesis and is one of the reasons he pushed for Neoliberal reforms. Neri has been saying the same thing for years and has even drawn a map for us.
(The related, but separate, belief that elitism has no place in modern society that i shared with you is something i derived from the writings of Niklas Luhman. I don’t think he’s sold millions of copies though but i find his line of reasoning sound.)
As for dealing with the oligarchs, there are a range of alternatives being proposed. Hvrds proposed ‘coddling’ them (i agree.). UPn Student suggests working with them. Abe Margallo suggests a Bayanihan Pact which involves more sacrifice on the part of the Oligarchs. I had my own suggestion in my blog focusing on the 300 wealthiest families. On the other end, you have those who propose roasting them alive.
The economically successful countries had to deal with their Oligarchs one way or the other. In the United States, there had to be a Civil War between the industrial oligarchs of the North and the landed Oligarchs of the South. In Britain, they had the inheritance tax and other socialist reforms. In China, they drove their oligarchs to Taiwan and in Taiwan the Oligarchs, fearing that the same might happen to them, instituted the reforms themselves (forcing the Taiwanese oligarchs to go along).
(BTW, i agree with the authors of Empire and Multitide that democracy is a continuing experiment. Their proposals in this area involve going beyond the liberal idea of democracy via representation.)
mlq3 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 8:58 am
bencard,
http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4155&Itemid=88889296
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryID=108381
Bencard on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 9:19 am
mlq3, thanks for the links. i suppose that’s in response to my question about the basis for your conclusion that lozada was facing “abduction and potential liquidation”. however, i didn’t see anything on that regard other than lozada’s own allegations made at the senate hearing and media interview which were immediately disputed by the persons he implicated. maybe it’s just me, or it could be that we have a different understanding of the word “proof”.
mlq3 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 10:08 am
bencard, i suppose we do differ on these things. first, in terms of the proper venues, of which i recognize two, and you, only one. for me, there’s the court of public opinion and then there’s the court of law. both play their own roles, and for political matters, of which the exercising of oversight by congress over the executive is one, and in probing official acts which are the public’s business, which is another, the court of public opinion is not only the proper forum but the superior one, because no non-negotiable (life, liberty, property) is at stake. the court of law is by right superior and the proper venue for determining questions that might deprive someone of life, liberty, or property (on a permanent basis). for the same reason an impeachment court refers to the rules of court in an advisory or organizational sense, but which subordinates them to the political matter at hand, which is politicians judging other politicians, while the court of law does not give any latitutde in the interpretation and use of the rules of court. evidence, etc.
the testimony at the senate, combined with the public actions and statements of the officials concerned, with regards to lozada clearly establishes, to my mind, that two things took place. first, a conspiracy to prevent his testifying before the senate, and second, an abduction. i also believe a potential liquidation was in the works but thwarted because of public attention and the quick-thinking of lozada’s relatives, who raised hell.
you will not find a memorandum establishing a state policy of liquidating lozada, or any directives, on paper, to get around a senate subpoena or warrant of arrest, and if that is the bar that needs to be met you have set it so high as to wilfully make it impossible to determine anything at all. but it was that kind of thinking that is the best prepared-for, on the part of our officials, for the same reason that hitler never issued a formal memorandum with his signature establishing the final solution. he left it to the bureaucrats.
as far as i’m concerned, the evidence is convincing, both in terms of testimony (who is best qualified to determine if one is facing potential assassination, except the person who might die, particularly in the company of strangers and after hours of being driven to dark places where others have been rubbed out?) and other things such as statements issued to the public and attempts to explain those statements.
Bencard on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 10:53 am
mlq3, sorry to say, there are NO courts of public opinion in the philippines that can render verdicts that count for anything except on election time. truth is not determined by the number of people believing in a proposition. it is determined by PROOF offered by the interested party, and accepted by a competent authority, in accordance with established rules of fairness. this is the way it is until we are granted the power to see through the heart and mind of men and to know whether or not they are telling the truth.
benign0 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 11:48 am
My God, mlq3, do you actually BELIEVE these things you say?
So you mean that if I do a roadshow and proclaim to the public and the media that the Ayalas owe me 10 million pesos, that I actually have a shot at being issued a cheque for that amount sometime soon?
I don’t think so. Nothing short of a Court Order will prompt any member of the Ayala Corp to issue a cheque for that amount to moi. Hey, wait, WHO issues court orders nga ba?
Testimony is the same whether it is issued to be judged by this “court of public opinion” OR the Court of Law.
But it is only the Court of Law that outlines specific processes, protocols, and rules around qualifying, substantiating, and RESOLVING any claim made by any citizen against a fellow citizen.
Right. As far as YOU are concerned, “the evidence is convincing”. So what. What are you gonna do about it? Is your being convinced gonna RESOLVE anything? What are the NEXT STEPS then?
zzzzzz (ten years later and n+1 Edsa “revolutions” later…) Results = 0; Resolutions = 0
I thought so.
Lots of people get driven into a dark alley to get their brains blown out. Sad indeed. Even sadder considering that maybe a few of these poor sods actually reported a threat to their life to the cops. Cops may investigate but without evidence, no arrests can be made. And generally people who are murdered are usually murdered by people they know.
Suffice to say, Lozada and other bozos like him didn’t exactly hang out with angels at the height of their “commissioning” days (which makes the sight of his madre-de-cacao bodyguards today a bit hilarious, don’t you think?).
And by the way conducting roadshows all over the country doesn’t seem like “convincing” behaviour for someone who is pleading for his life.
rego on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:06 pm
also Manolo, when the court of public opinion found the accused guilty, what will be the punishment or resolution? I have this feeling that it is this court of opinion that messed up everything. It doesn’t resolve anything but more and more debates and arguments.
BrianB on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:10 pm
Explaining to bencard is like explaining to a child. If all he knows are legal procedures, he’s practically irredeemable.
Bencard, do you know how modern laws have become and how modern law courts have evolved from a past littered with bloody revenge and witch hunts? Truth is not bicameral (“PROOF offered by the interested party, and accepted by a competent authority, in accordance with established rules of fairness”) as you put it. These procedures we must accept not because they insure truthfulness, but because they insure order–or peace of mind if not order.
Ordinary people are probably better juries than your so-called “competent authorities.” Even in bencard’s terms it’s actually easy to find out the true value of Lozada’s testimony. Compare it with other testimonies that have contributed to convicting a suspect. I swear people have been put in jail for far inferior testimonies.
And it’s crazy how people sometimes nitpick on terminologies in this blog. So pinoy. Puro definition of terms.
I apologize for the temper. Just frustrated how people actually prefer to vent out and slander people on Brian Gorrell’s blog rather than do something more useful, i.e. enable the authorities to put a stop to these coke dens and the “social scene” that breeds it.
benign0 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:18 pm
I’ve got another term for this so-called “court of public opinion”.
Lynch mob.
-
BrianB on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:19 pm
CVJ,
Taking down the current elite a few notches is good, but what if the artistas and the basketbalistas took over, what then? We must also consider that confidence of the poor is low. The middle-class don’t actually desire governance and I’m afraid as a class they have not truly contemplated self-governance.
Again, this leads us to democratic education. Teaching the lower classes to fish, instead of catching the big fish for them via social reforms could lead to more permanent changes. I believe that our constitution as it is is good enough. All that is needed is for 85 million filipinos to believe in it, especially in the Bill of Rights. Already, as we have discussed before, the conglomerates and most Filipino businesses are directly dependent on OFW money and on BPO wages. The lower classes have the power now. Kulang na lang applcation.
BrianB on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:20 pm
I mean the middle class do not desire to govern.
anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:23 pm
KG,
“They cannot subsidize,because they can’t give what they don’t have.That is competition,survival of the fittest”
ang inaangal nina Roxas Lorenzo et al ay di raw level playing field dahil the rich countries subsidize their agri, the poorer ones don’t (or can’t). kaya try nila to get the rich to stop subsidizing their agri
siguro its about time agri gets as much budget as education
anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:34 pm
mlq3,
i wonder how would you react to this -
absent any proof that ZTE money got into the pockets of government people, this entire NBN-ZTE circus is just about attempts on bribery and kickbacks. the deal was cancelled, even before 1 peso of public funds was appropriated.
yes there is proof that the project is 100% overpriced. as proposed. but at best its still an attempt
if there is a crime of attempted bribery or kickback, then thats the only charge that can be filed against the culprits
the abduction of Lozada is another matter. thats ‘prosecutable’
but the NBN-ZTE deal? forget it
rego on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:35 pm
Another concern will be, what if the court of public opinion made a mistake? How will it correct itself?
Then how will you consider the opinion the other side? Is it possible of us to have to courts of public opinion? The anti Gloria court of public opinion and the pro Gloria court of public opinion? Who should prevail? The one with percieved larger number? Is this the reason why we need people power to declare which court of public opinion won?
cvj on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:38 pm
It is often necessary to use the court of law to filter reality as perceived by individuals. That’s how you prevent otherwise innocent people from being unjustly punished either by the powerful or by the unthinking mob. However, there is nothing inherent within the system of courts (of law) that keeps it from being used to perpetuate an injustice.
Same applies to the system of making laws (i.e. Congress), the system of executing laws and policies (i.e. the Executive) and the system of protecting the State (i.e. the Military). Each of these subsystems need a Code of Ethics which depends largely on self-restraint. If their respective internal code of ethics fails, then that’s when morality coming from the outside Environment (which is more likely than not to be alien to the system) steps in (or threatens to step in). In our case, this alien morality is expressed in the arena of Public Opinion. In other places and at some point, maybe this alien morality will come in the form of one of the subsystems (i.e. the military) taking over the other subsystem (i.e. the Executive).
This may or may not be a good thing because outside morality may not be compatible with the system it infects and can threaten to destroy that subsystem along with the good that it can do.
mindanaoan on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:50 pm
the court of public opinion is where people go to try by publicity
DuckVader on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 12:57 pm
Benigno:
“There may be no single Pinoy word for “efficiencyâ€, yes.”
If you do a google search:
There is no single German word for “governance.”
Does it mean that the Germans don’t know the concept of governance, or good governance?
In the same way that working hard is not always working smart, trying to sound smart is not always smart.
cvj on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 1:00 pm
Benign0’s definition of efficiency could be translated to gawaing tamad.
cvj on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 1:02 pm
Brianb, in a level playing field, the Philippine elite are largely unable to produce anything useful themselves so they rely on government favors and loans which they then leave to the public to pay. If we are to turnaround our society, this process leading to the greater concentration of wealth needs to stop so we can channel our resources to ‘democratic education’ to benefit our Society. Otherwise, the gains achieved by the OFW (via what Sparks calls direct injection) would be wasted.
Anyway, the best form of democratic education is not the one in school but in making an example of those who hold back our Society. Do you know that even Park Chung Hee, the architect of South Korea’s economic miracle was shot when he started to outlive his usefulness? Also, that the two presidents who came after him were sentenced to death (later commuted)? Those are more powerful learning experiences for our society than anything you can teach in class.
BrianB on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 1:07 pm
CVJ,
Ha, making an example is subject to interpretation. You know how it is. Look at Erap. Look at the Marcoses. What’s the lesson learned in that? In school, you learn by rote. It’s practically brainwashing, and it is.
cvj on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 1:08 pm
Erap and the Marcoses were not shot (or jailed).
mindanaoan on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 1:13 pm
cvj, the “internal control” of our system of government is not based on self-restraint, it is based on “check-and-balance”.
the objective of courts is justice. now you’re saying it has nothing in it to prevent injustice. how come?
cvj on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 1:44 pm
mindanaoan, one form of self-restraint that used to exist among Congressmen is delicadeza. As we are seeing, check and balance alone is of no use if the Congressmen allow themselves to be influenced by bags of cash from Malacanang.
I’ve discussed this matter with lawyers (like Jaxius in his blog) and what i was told is that the objective of the courts is “Order” since Justice is too nebulous to define clearly in many occassions.
Anyway, if the Judge allows himself to be paid, or if s/he is beholden to an illegitmate and corrupt President such that it influences his/her decisions, then the cause of Justice is not served. Nothing built-into the process except for the Judges’ own sense of propriety (and our history) can prevent this.
benign0 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 2:15 pm
Actually this is quite typical of the judgmental stance people from backward societies usually take when faced with a new concept.
So for example if I figure out a way to to deliver at a push of a button an outcome that previously took someone 8 hours of back-breaking work to accomplish, does that necessarily make me a lazy bastard?
If that’s the case, I’d rather be a lazy bum than be part of the toiling cretins that losers in societies like the Philippines routinely put on a “hero’s” pedestal.
-
mindanaoan on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 2:35 pm
cvj, there is no internal control, even in a lowly sari-sari store, that relies on delicadeza. it’s always based on power: auditors for example can disallow; congress can impeach a supreme court justice, or the president, the president can fire his/her cabinet.
if something in a subsystem fails, the remedy is not in hoping that an alien morality comes in, or another subsystem takes over the failing subsystem. the solution is updating the system so it can handle the cause of the failure.
and the first step to providing a solution is to state exactly what is the problem, why it is a problem, and what causes it.
yeah, exactly. like banging on the screwy tv hoping the damn thing will fix itself. it will work at times, but each bang turns it inexorably to junk. there are better ways of doing things.
Madonna on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 2:38 pm
OUCHHHH, kalyo ko, madonna.
Cat,
Magpepenetensya ako this holy week, di ko na mag-che-check ng updates ni Brian Gorrell. OR at least I’ll try not to. hehe. Imagine he is close to having half a million hits on his site already in just two weeks. The envy of many bloggers now. Apparently the foreign press has noticed too and according to him, BBC, CNN have kept in touch already.
I can only admire those who write for The Economist – a popular weekly where the articles have no byline. — nash
Nash,
When I was younger I had a delusional dream of writing for the The Economist, kahit ba walang byline. I think it’s the best publication in the world.
inodoro ni emilie on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 2:50 pm
but aren’t you already subsisting on australian centrelink considering how much time you effectively spend blogging–and very efficient at that?
mindanaoan on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 3:02 pm
cvj,
cvj on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 3:28 pm
mindanaoan, i agree that enhancing the design of the system can help but there are limits to going this route. For dysfunctional systems, the tendency is to fix it with additional processes, additional checks and additional audits. By the time the auditor comes in, it is usually too late. We have seen the limits of this approach even in the corporate environment. Remember Enron where even external auditor Arthur Andersen was part of the scam? Peter Drucker emphasized the need for Management By Objectives and Self-control. While he is remembered for MBO, his latter prescription (’self-control’) is often overlooked.
Even a ‘lowly’ sari-sari store also relies on the quality of storekeeper (and their help). A big business in a corporate environment relies on Corporate Culture. Society also relies on social capital built on trust and reciprocity. On the practical side, poor social capital which relies on the safeguards of the system usually increases transaction costs to the detriment of their economies.
At some point, you can decide to get a new tv or live without one.
There is nothing in the internet that prevents my computer from disconnecting.
mindanaoan on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 4:15 pm
cvj, it is very expensive to get a new government, and we cannot live without one! and is it really hard to say which part of our system is not working?
KG on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 4:56 pm
Anthony S., oo level playing field nga hanap nina lorenzo,Roxas,et al. About agri having same budget as education,notwithstanding the fertlizer scam, maganda ngang idea yan.Sorry I have to bring the fertilizer scam up,which is not yet resolved by the way.
CVJ,
I wil no longer bother you regarding your oligarchy thesis,form now on.
Cheerio.
nash on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 5:02 pm
@justice scalia
“this entire NBN-ZTE circus is just about attempts on bribery and kickbacks.”
Please educate me, if this were the minimum offense of this sordid affair, isn’t this still a crime of some sort? Attempted bribery is still a crime innit?
Threats nga lang pwede mo ng ikaso at kunan ng restraining order diba?
mlq3 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 5:18 pm
i have explained what prevents a mob (lynch or otherwise) from riding roughshod over people and those are the principles of people power, or active non-violence if you will.
and i have explained over and over the distinctions that separate the court of public opinion from a court of law, and they are easily understood as comprising life, liberty, and porperty -taking them away is the sphere of a court of law, because these are things people have a right to retain unless it’s proven in court that they are no longer deserving of these things.
political office is not a human right, it is a privilege. in normal circumstances, you’re entitled to a fixed term. but just as you could theoretically throw in the towel at any time, there are circumstances when your term can and should be preterminated if the public feels you have betrayed the standards that should be met by public officials.
you do not lose your life, liberty or property if you lose political office. the public is entitled to explore all means to deprive you of that office if you betray them. which is not to say the public, all the time, will succeed. but just as civil disobedience is sometimes required to compel officials to change laws or policy, so is public protest required to try to compel officials to respond to public opinion.
which is why when the court of public opinion renders its judgment, a responsible official will take his case to the people or bow to their will. the official loses nothing except office, and can appeal to the judgment of history to vindicate him; but what will not be vindicated is if an official faces a harsh judgment and resorts to harsh methods to foil that judgment.
if someone doesn’t want to risk public judgment whether fickle or fair, then don’t seek and hold political office.
mlq3 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 5:21 pm
the lawyers can review the laws but i’m under the impression that attempted bribery is a crime, as is lack of zeal in prosecuting or reporting attempted bribery, and there is also the question of command responsibility and allegations that downpayments were given out for the bribes.
anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 5:51 pm
Diesel,
“Please educate me, if this were the minimum offense of this sordid affair, isn’t this still a crime of some sort? Attempted bribery is still a crime innit?”
im not sure if there really is a crime as attempted bribe/kickbacks. maybe a bribe offer need not be accepted, in which case the bribery attempt is no longer an attempt but a crime itself
“Threats nga lang pwede mo ng ikaso at kunan ng restraining order diba?”
threats meron kasi there is such a crime. yes TRO is available
ibahin natin yung mga pwedeng ikaso ni Lozada sa mga abductors nya
anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 5:55 pm
Kevin Garnet,
“I will no longer bother you regarding your oligarchy thesis,form now on”
napagod ka rin no?
ghostwriter on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 6:22 pm
Dear Atty Bencard,
Help! My friend desperately needs your legal advice! He is being slandered and is the target of vicious rumors and hearsay and yet there is no evidence to prove that my friend swindled his spurned lover! My friend is DJ Montano and he has been hiding under a pile of Gucci bags. Help him! He needs to weasel out of this quickly so he can go back to his normal life.
benign0 on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 6:51 pm
mlq3,
But this simply begs the question:
How exactly is this public opinion’s judgment expressed and/or delivered?
If say it is delivered via a moronic street protest, via the biased Philippine Media, or via one of these profiteering survey agencies, what in these channels makes this “judgment” binding?
If for example, this official chooses not to bow to the people, what then? If force is used to remove this official from office, how exactly are we to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such force was warranted?
What authority determines if a crowd of, say 100,000 in a moronic street protest, or ten informants giving an interview to a biased reporter, or a sample size of, say 500,000 respondents in a for-profit survey, represents a sound conclusion given the information made available to these undertakings?
Lots of questions rather than answers, dude.
Hardly a convincing principle or set of principles you espouse, Mr. Quezon.
nash on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 7:16 pm
Hay naku benign-zero I have two words for you:
Romano Prodi
that man had the balls to resign after the court of public opinion said he was not being effective..he wasn’t even involved in anything remotely unethical or illegal…actually, it wasn’t even the ‘majority’ it was an obscure party in the coalition which switched sides….
And yes if a street protest is moronic. I am a proud moron. Why don’t you organise a street rally to espouse your get real ek-ek…street protests are legal in a democracy you know…i hope you get more than 10 people in your rally (excluding relatives ha.)
cheers
Bert on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 7:16 pm
“On the other end, you have those who propose roasting them alive.”–cvj
What? There are extremists here?
cvj on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 7:30 pm
Expensive compared to what? So far, we already have two Billion US Dollars worth of dubious loans from China and the integrity of our institutions have already been compromised. A TV set can be broken to a point beyond fixing.
mindanaoan on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 8:06 pm
cvj, are you suggesting our system of government is broken beyond fixing, or that governments are discardable? which institutions have been compromised?
if you break down a problem into a finer and finer and more specific detail, you might find a simple solution, and you might not need to throw away your tv set after all.
nash on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 8:08 pm
“you might find a simple solution, and you might not need to throw away your tv set after all.”
Na-ah, once broken, no can fix. Must replace.
DuckVader on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 8:14 pm
Benigno says:
If that’s the case, I’d rather be a lazy bum than be part of the toiling cretins that losers in societies like the Philippines routinely put on a “hero’s†pedestal.
——————
The problem is that those toiling cretins as you call them can be far more decent humans than any of those button pushers that you idolize — or which you believe to be part of. Because everything is relative, to some people where I work, YOU are the equivalent of a toiling cretin.
vic on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 9:14 pm
MLQ attempted bribery is a crime indeed whichever Criminal Code you are referring.
But in our Case it is very explicit: “to attempt to bribe or bribe any public official or politician to influence his or her in performance of her or his duties is crime under the Criminal Code”.
PM Harper is now suing Liberal Leader Dion and the Liberal Party for Libel for the accusation published in Liberal Party website about the Attempted Bribery by former Harper Opposition Conservatives to Bribe a Terminally Ill independent MP to vote on their side to defeat the Minority Liberal Government of Paul Martin, didn’t not worked out, and the RCMP is now investigating in the attempted Bribery did really takes place…IT IS CRIME…
nash on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 9:21 pm
I think there are fellow commenters on this blog who are in one way involved in the agriculture sector.
I say this from the bottom of my heart, from one farmer to another, thank you so much to the Thai, Paki, and the Vietnamese farmers who are going to feed us this summer.
“The Philippine government has bought 335,500 tons of rice for $237.5 million to offset an expected shortfall in domestic production, the National Food Authority (NFA) said Tuesday.
The rice will be imported mainly from Vietnam, Thailand and Pakistan, said the NFA which is the agency tasked with importing rice, the country’s staple.
The price varied from $618 to $745 a metric ton, depending on the quality of the grain, the authority said.”
To the NFA, DENR, and Customs who are led not by competent people but by political appointees and who got us into this mess: A big F–K you for being useless!!!
nash on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 9:23 pm
I think there are fellow commenters on this blog who are in one way or another involved in the agriculture sector.
I say this from the bottom of my heart, from one farmer to another, thank you so much to the Thai, Paki, and the Vietnamese farmers who are going to feed us this summer.
“The Philippine government has bought 335,500 tons of rice for $237.5 million to offset an expected shortfall in domestic production, the National Food Authority (NFA) said Tuesday.
The rice will be imported mainly from Vietnam, Thailand and Pakistan, said the NFA which is the agency tasked with importing rice, the country’s staple.
The price varied from $618 to $745 a metric ton, depending on the quality of the grain, the authority said.”
To the NFA, DENR, and Customs who are led not by competent people but by political appointees and who got us into this mess: A big F–K you for being useless!!!
jakcast on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 9:28 pm
Damaged-culture assessments and year-zero scenarios are not the cure to the blight or maliase in our society. We Filipinos have some beliefs and values which are commendable like strong family ties, gratitude, etc. Of course, any cultural trait carried to the extreme becomes dysfunctional.
When espousing “revolutions” the messenger is as crucial as the message. Talk of Rep. Joe De Venecia calling for a moral revolution, after being ousted from power by his trapo-colleagues. The gall!
Do symbols still matter? Will it be a healing priest, Cory Aquino, or Lt. Trillanes who will be the messenger.
I don’t know the answer.
DuckVader on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 9:36 pm
Nash:
Going beyond the immediate culprits, the problem of insufficient rice production is a function of policies that:
a) underinvested in agricultural infrastructure and support services (from roads and irrigation to crop insurance and agricultural loans)
b) distorted agricultural prices to favor urban consumers (keeping farmgate prices artificially low)
c) failed to curtail the oligolipolistic control of rice marketing and trading in several key provinces\
d) delayed land reform
The end-result was inadequate overall investment into productivity in the rice sector, thus our yields are far below Vietnam or Thailand.
To put it into a more practical context — why invest in your ricefield if a) the risks from natural calamities are high b) there is inadequate infrastructure thus making your commodities expensive to market c) the distribution system is controlled by very few people/businesses who manipulate prices.
Just think of farmers as businessmen. What if you owned a business in the province that a) didn’t have good roads going to it b) was at risk of flooding every year c) could sell only to a few individuals and d) your prices were controlled? How high would your incentive to invest into productivity and efficiency be?
BrianB on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 10:02 pm
Just been to emerald avenue in ortigas and there are sampaguita sellers begging for “barya.” Has the price of rice gone up already?
ricelander on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 10:16 pm
BENCARD,
Just asking a little advice from an astute lawyer like you,
Halimbawa, ako me nalalamang anomalya sa opisina(assume I work in government under a powerful official) at marami talaga akong nalalaman, kaso minsan naambunan din ako. Ngayon sabihin na nating nakukunsensya na ako, at naisip ko nang ibulgar ang aking nalalaman, ano ang iyong ipapayo sa akin bilang isang matinik na abugado?
Ang impresyon ko kasi kung minsan sa iyong mga komentaryo ganito: kung gusto mong magsumbong o maging whistleblower kaibigan, kumuha ka muna ng law o kaya i-hire mo ako. Kung hindi, tumahimik ka na lang dahil wala kang mapapalang maganda diyan. Iistorbohin mo lang ang kapayapaan ng bayan. Maanong tumahimik ka nat tanggapin mo na lang ang biyaya tutal dati naman tumanggap ka na. Nagmalinis ka pa.
cvj on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 10:39 pm
I haven’t reached that point yet. If you look back to where our exchange started above (at 12:38pm), what i put forward was the far more moderate proposition that a system needs its own code of ethics (which depends on self-restraint), or else, an outside morality will assert itself.
For example, Neri tried to keep to the system’s home-grown code of ethics when he assigned Jun Lozada to “moderate the greed“, i.e. don’t let the players go beyond the unwritten code that allows 20% kickbacks. Neri (and Lozada) rightly saw that not adhering to such a code will invite alien morality to come in. Hostile public opinion is part of that alien morality that threatens to intrude into such a system.
TheColdKing on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 11:02 pm
I wonder why any of you still bother trying to persuade Bencard and Benigno about anything, when it’s obvious that these two are either paid hacks of malacanang who will never forever stop parroting GMA’s company line while her administration is still in power, or simply members of the Philippine oligarchy who hate the fact that they even have any brown-skinned Filipino ancestry and wish that they were some other foregin race instead, likely pure-blooded whiteys or possibly even Chinese, instead.
In addition , I am just shocked at the naivete that many of you exhibit, which if I may so, borders on sheer craveness. Seriously speaking, this country will not reform absent a violent revolution ala France or Russia, no country ever did, and no country ever will. Damn, what happened to all the so-called tapang of the pinoy? I think Conrado de Quiros was right in that we do not have real tapang, only tapang ng apog. Do you really think that the vampires and their monster servants on top of the sociopoliticoeconomic pyramid will truly ever stop drinking the blood and eating the flesh of the rest of us? Of course not! You have to drive them out of their nests by burning away their castles with the fires of vengeance and expose them to the sunlight of justice for them to actually be eliminated once and for all.
mindanaoan on Tue, 18th Mar 2008 11:42 pm
cvj, you cannot really reach anywhere if your notion of system controls is an amorphous “code of ethics”. while governments (and institutions) are soft systems, their structure, functions, workings and relationships are anything but soft. they are well defined and clearly laid out in the form of constitutions and statutes. i don’t understand why you need to introduce concepts like home-grown code of ethics or alien morality when all that is needed is point out where in the system (in what office) you think there is a problem, and why it is a problem.
as i said in another thread, if the object of “hostile public opinion” or “alien morality” or people power, or lozada, or whatever, is to force gma out using extra-system means, we don’t need to discuss about systems because it’s purely a power struggle. no justification needed.
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:00 am
mindanaoan, a code of ethics can and does exist side by side with formal processes. In fact, it is adherence to this unwritten code that often spells the difference between a working and a dysfunctional system. For example, in the face of revelations related to Watergate, and the threat of impeachment from his own partymates, Nixon chose to resign. You can contrast that with our own situation where Congress has turned a blind eye on Hello Garci. In the face of unethical politicians, judges and military enforcers, Constitutions and Statutes are not worth the paper they’re written on.
Aames on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:16 am
mlq3: “Yet she (Clarissa Ocampo) did not face what Lozada had to face: abduction and potential liquidation at the hands of his former masters…
The prudent banker faced with career death was brave, but had no cause to justify her bravery and composure by appealing to a higher purpose; but people who have faced the prospects of an untimely death can be excused for clutching at every opportunity to insist on their survival representing a higher calling, however tiresome it may sound to those who have to listen.”
mlq3, I hope you don’t mean to downplay the ordeal that that Mrs. Ocampo went through. Her career was not the only thing she risked. Why then would she have been staying at a safehouse, have eight bodyguards and fly to the U.S. after giving her testimony at the impeachment trial? I agree with you that she is certainly brave.
supremo on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:21 am
‘The Philippine government has bought 335,500 tons of rice for $237.5 million to offset an expected shortfall in domestic production, the National Food Authority (NFA) said Tuesday.’
The Philippines could have bought Bear Stearns with that amount and make money right away. NFA should be changed to Wala Talagang Food or WTF (what the f*k).
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:24 am
cvj: which public opinion is “..hostile public opinion” and which ones are not?
———–
ColdKing: Is it possible that deQuiros was referring to you (and not really to Equalizer) as one of the Pinoys who “..do not have real tapang, only tapang ng apog”?
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:34 am
cvj: my slant is that an idea, the very same idea (e.g. going to Beijing Olympics) can be met with hostility by a group of Tibetans and be most welcome to a group of Tsinoy travel agents.
And of course, there is only-via-impeachment versus surge-the-gates-now. Depending on the audience, one versus the other will be met with hostility.
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:35 am
UP n, can you give concrete examples and i’ll just answer yes or no or maybe?
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:38 am
Why limit it to those two options? Why not include ‘GMA for life’?
mindanaoan on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:19 am
cvj, it is not that we don’t need a code of ethics, but that an unwritten code of ethics is useless as a form of system control. if clear-cut rules can be abused (like what jamby did with section 20), will unwritten code do any better? and would you have suggested to the generals to just promote themselves (and throw jamby out the building) because she was abusive?
BrianB on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:32 am
UPn,
Here, here. More tapang nang apog at Brin Gorrell’s blog.
BrianB on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:34 am
cvj.
It’s the unwritten laws superseding the written ones that got this country in trouble in the first place.
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:35 am
cvj: Do you think there are Filipinos entertaining the thought of GMA as head of government into 2011, 2012 (and maybe even into 2013-2014)? I doubt this group number more than than a thousand.
But more important, GMA-in-Malacanang as President is forbidden by the Constitution. And Filipinos, after all, do seem to believe in abiding by the Constitution (evidence: “surge-the-gate” has a miniscule following).
Bert on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:51 am
“cvj: Do you think there are Filipinos entertaining the thought of GMA as head of government into 2011, 2012 (and maybe even into 2013-2014)? I doubt this group number more than than a thousand.”
Disagree, UP n. Every Filipino has it in mind. The anti-GMA (include me) are paranoid about it, the anti-anti-GMA are praying for it. Can anyone tell me what the ones in-between are thinking?
BrianB on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:53 am
From the Inquirer
They count unpaid family members who work with the employed? I don’t get this.
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:54 am
mindanaoan, there are ways to adhere to the formal process while circumventing the purpose of the system. That’s what happened with the bogus impeachment attempts in 2005 and 2007. That’s what unwritten codes like delicadeza are for. In other countries, those involved in the kind of election cheating and corruption scandals that GMA is involved in would have resigned.
UPn, how about GMA-in-Malacanang as as Prime Minister?
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:02 am
cvj: Somewhere out in the blogosphere is this sentence — once a specific number of our Congressmen forward the document to the Senate, then GMA will most likely get impeached out of Malacanang.
It is a cold-blooded sentence. And I like it (versus “..our congress has turned a blind eye”) because the sentence is implementable. The action-item — for the CBCP and other special-interest groups to coalesce and work on the congressmen to forward the document to the Senate.
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:03 am
Brianb (at 1:53 am), hvrds commented about that very issue:
http://www.quezon.ph/1212/contenders-remain-unchanged/#comment-453051
As an economist, Gloria Arroyo knows her way around statistics so there has been a lot of redefinition going on during her term. Pity, because it often makes the figures non-comparable with preceding years. Once Arroyo is gone, one of the first order of business would be to revisit and adjust, or if not possible, rebaseline the statistics to better reflect reality.
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:07 am
UPn, if you believe that impeachment is “implementable”, why don’t you actively work for it?
BrianB on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:13 am
Any statistic on number of Filipnos earning minimum wage or above. Anyone?
mindanaoan on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:13 am
cvj, now, there’s a problem we can work on. how to thwart bogus impeachments.
don’t fret our president is not like in other countries. at least she’s not idi amin.
hawaiianguy on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:16 am
UPnS: “GMA-in-Malacanang as President is forbidden by the Constitution.”
That’s why GMA and her cabal in congress would like to change the constitution. Then, GMA can assume a different title, as PM. Just a 1000 thinking of this? Just add Nograles and his crocs with ULAP, and their rabid supporters, that easily makes more than 5000 already.
I still believe that they are seriously planning to do a cha-cha before 2010, under the guise of fixing a broken system.
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:41 am
Brianb, i haven’t found the exact statistic but here are annual family incomes per decile for 2006.
http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2006/ie0604.htm
I don’t know the minimum wage but if you know the figure, you can use it to compute what you’re looking for.
Bert on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:46 am
“Incidentally, medyo natawa ako sa oyster clams, crabs and lobsters na ulam mo with kamote…sa amin sa bundok, luxury items ang mga iyan.”
It’s not as easy as it sounds, nash. To be able to get to the oyster clams, you have to brave knee-deep muck and mud under lush, mosquito-infested mangrove swamp, cut two or three pieces of about a meter long mangrove roots, which would yield about two kilos of oyster with shell. Extracting the clams from the wooden roots is another hurdle. The lapu-lapu or the lobster you have to swim and catch with crude spear, and most natives are pretty adept at swimming. The crabs abound in brackish water and easy to catch if you know how.
Anyway, it’s not an everyday feast over there in the place where I came, as the people live in grinding poverty, just occasionally when inertia and good luck would have it, for the rural folks, as in any other rural areas with same environment, are used to easy living inspite of their hapless condition.
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:46 am
Actually, impeachment is supposed to be a remedy, not a problem. While you’re at it, here’s a list of fifty-three (so far) Gloria-related problems that blogger Kabayan compiled.
http://www.bayanikabayan.blogspot.com/2008/02/blogswarmers-of-our-race-unite-gloria.html
Maybe you can add to the list.
Sounds like a good campaign slogan.
hawaiianguy on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:47 am
cvj, mindanaoan,
Formal codes are always the reference for behavior in governance. But there are other codes which public officials can use to circumvent or get around the laws. Funny, these codes – once made public – are even denied by those in authority as non-existent (non-evidence) like the sources where they supposedly come from. PCIJ decoded some parts of Hello Garci, where Gloria said “yung dagdag, yung dagdag” (www.pcij.org/blog/?p=241). Lozada also cracked the code (or its nemesis) “bubukol,” which many people understand in reference to the overprice that might get noticed.
Randy David wrote an elaborate analysis of the ethnography of pinoy communication on this. Someone like Gloria need not tell Garci bluntly, “I need more than 1 million votes over FPJ.” (What she said was: “Will I still get more than 1 million votes?â€) It’s enough that she phoned him 15 times and expressed concern over what the outcome might be. The cue is more than clear for someone who knows the meaning of “dagdag-bawas.”
But the worst of all is when these formal codes are deliberately misused to hide a messy affair. Am still thinking to this day how Gaite managed to get cash and advance P500k to Lozada, making it appear it’s his “own.” Who believes him?
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 3:08 am
hawaiianguy, i think unfamiliarity with the above codes that Randy David mentioned (whether such unfamiliarity is deliberate or not), is a prerequisite to continued support for the Administration. That, plus continued emphasis on formalities at the expense of substance.
hawaiianguy on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 3:32 am
cvj,
You’re right, I agree.
Bencard on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 3:37 am
mlq3, i see that benigno, rego, mindanaoan and upnstudent have addressed the points you raised on “court of public opinion”. i think i have nothing more to add or detract from their observations, to which i agree. just one thing though, if i may. while a public office is not a “right” but a privilege, its deprivation is still governed by law. no one can be removed involuntarily except under the terms and the processes provided by law. no man, or group of men, can deprive a president of his/her office just because they don’t like her, or they think she is unfit to continue in office. that’s anarchy, no more, no less!
brianb, yeah, you’re right. my faith in the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of men) as an ideal concept in governance of human society, is childlike. but take my advice. before making a comment, make sure you know what you’re talking about. the rules and procedures on truth-seeking in a civilized society are accepted, not for “peace of mind”, but because they are the only ones which can ensure “human truth”, as distinguished from “divine truth”, the latter being beyond the realm of human understanding. better than mortal combat, “jack en poy” “palabunutan” or hulaan, right? but i guess, it’s too much to expect you to understand that.
i leave it up to the readers of my comments, other than you, to judge whether “all i know” are legal procedures and therefore, i am “irredeemable”. i’m sure you’ll find a lot of agreement from like-minded people (as yours) in this blog. honestly? i don’t think you are so hot yourself!
nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 4:00 am
” i think i have nothing more to add or detract from their observations”
…but here is another 100 words of more of the same thing…
Tingnan mo nga naman how inconsistent our resident counsel is…I have nothing more to add tapos verbal diarhea naman na paulit-ulit…hindi porke’t malalim na ingles na tamang subject-verb agreement eh may substance ano.
nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 4:08 am
@bert
Yes, it’s such a harsh reality.
Kaya naman I always hope for an ideal and just market where fishermen and farmers always get a decent price for their produce.
You mentioned the P25/kilo kamote… it is likely that 4 levels or more of middle men have padded that price..Of course, you can never eliminate middle men, pero sana nga lang mabawasan. Smuggling isn’t helping us either.
Sometimes, when I go down to Manila I’m shocked that cabbages are at such a high price knowing that it was bought for less than half that back home…
Bencard on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 4:09 am
nash, so what’s your beef? rebut it. if you can’t, just shut up!
nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 4:12 am
@cvj
“As an economist, Gloria Arroyo knows her way around statistics”
YOU MUST BE JOKING.
On the contrary, remember when GMA lost her temper at this teacher who told her of the classroom shortages????
GMA doubled the capacity of the classrooms (instead na 50 pupils per class, minasahe niya into 100 or something like that) and said that the shortage was solved!
Economista my ass! More like a magician who isn’t funny.
nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 4:21 am
@duckvader
True.
Sometimes, we don’t even bother to plant at all knowing we will be operating at a loss.
I can’t say we don’t have good roads or irrigation (because we do in Benguet and Nueva Vizcaya) but for the other reasons you mentioned plus the rampant smuggling..it’s just really hard for farms to break even.
And so jobless farmers = social problems (alcholism, depression) My clan alone has suffered many suicides…iniinum nalang yung pesticide
nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 4:26 am
@cvj
sorry, wrong basa…I should have said “you are right – gma knows her way around statistics” naduling ako, i jumped over the word ‘way around’
mea maxima culpa
nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 4:30 am
@bencard
I meant you contradicted yourself in the first sentence alone.
I normally stop after an inconsistency.
Why should I rebut a flawed argument?
You claim to be a lawyer then you should know that. 101.
I can, like I did before but Wala ako sa mood magpatawa ngayon. Pasensiya ka na.
Bencard on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 5:49 am
if you are trying to bait me, forget it mister. you are not in my league!
Bencard on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 6:42 am
ricelander, i don’t pretend to be an “astute lawyer” but i’ll humor you. take or leave what i say here (afterall, libre naman- you get what you, or don’t, pay for). kung may plano kang magbulgar, kailangang paghandaan mong mabuti. segurohim mong meron kang ebidensiya (dokumento, litrato, videotape, voice tape, o ibang testigo na may tuwirang kaalaman sa pangyayari) maliban sa iyong sariling testimonia. isipin mo lang na kung kasapakat ka sa katiwalian, maari ka ring balikan, unless makakuha ka ng deal sa prosecutor bilang “star witness”.
mabuti rin kumuha ka ng magaling na abugado na mapagtitiwalaan mo para mapangalagaaan ang iyong kapakanan at maalalayan ka sa iyong gagawin.
benign0 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 7:03 am
Unfortunately for hopeless romantics like you, efficiency as a measure does not distinguish between “decency” and ACHIEVEMENT.
Losers are losers whether they were robbed of their entitlements or not. Life’s not fair.
Winners get to write the history books while watching the amusing but petty antics of Third World societies on their wide screen plasma TVs
Losers, on the other hand, get to sit around and complain about how imperialism robbed them of their “natural resources” and how the despots that rule them to this day continue to get away with murder.
Tough luck.
benign0 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 7:05 am
Here’s another good one courtesy of Sean Connery’s brilliant character in that late 1990’s film classic The Rock:
Tough luck to all the world’s losers!
anthony scalia on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 8:25 am
Bert,
“Disagree, UP n. Every Filipino has it in mind. The anti-GMA (include me) are paranoid about it, the anti-anti-GMA are praying for it. Can anyone tell me what the ones in-between are thinking?”
disagree – the anti anti gloria aren’t praying about it. anti anti gloria is not the same as pro gloria
the anti anti gloria just want to tolerate her stay till 2010, no more no less
i can already foresee a constitutional challenge to gloria becoming an MP and eventually a PM (after 2010)
though there is no precedent yet to rely on, there’s a legal principle which says what can’t be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
gloria cannot be chief executive for another term, whether immediately following or later. that cannot be skirted via the MP then PM route (assuming constitutional amendments are ratified)
the only way for gloria to be a PM is to be an interim PM until 2010 (that is if constitutional amendments can be passed and ratified way before 30 June 2010). beyond 2010 di na pwede
kaya my friend, don’t be paranoid. sobrang nadadala na ang mga anti gloria ng too much emotion
an amendment that extends a term of office cannot benefit the incumbent; the extension takes effect at the term after the incumbent’s term. so halimbawa, in-extend ang term ng congressman from 3 years to 5 years, the 5 year term will start to be enjoyed by those who will be elected at the next election
anthony scalia on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 8:46 am
clarissa ocampo went against her big boss EPCIB CEO george go when she testified. a career suicide move, it would seem at that time
(hey i suddenly remembered “go Erap go, go to george go” sang to the tune of ‘i will survive’)
benign0 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 8:59 am
Based on a view over the limited horizons of a forum discussion, it seems more people (particularly young people) are on to the brazen bias exhibited by the Philippine Media nowadays — particularly ABS-CBN or what some commentors now call ebs-CBN.
http://www.peyups.com/posts.khtml?mode=viewtopic&topic=33940&forum=5&start=360
The rate at which great ideas are created in the Philippines is outstripped by Pinoys’ world-renowned abilities at corrupting the same ideas.
Cory has gone from Ms. Edsa Revolution to Pathetic Chump in 20 years. Lozada has gone from Star Witness to circus chimp in a very small fraction of that time — a matter of months.
If ABS-CBN weren’t the profit engine that it is, it would’ve suffered the same fate of progressive irrelevance.
Then again, I see no shame in profiting from the ignorance of a people who find no merit in intellectual growth in the first place.
ABS-CBN and the rest of the Philippine Media (JOURNALISTS included) at some point have to drop this whole pretensious, messianic perception of themselves and come across clean and SIMPLE as professionals and businesses out to make a buck for their trouble. That way, everyone is CLEAR on what one another is all about.
It’s simple, really.
-
rego on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:11 am
“Then again, I see no shame in profiting from the ignorance of a people who find no merit in intellectual growth in the first place. ”
Benigs,
Im actually happy to note that people power is not happening anymore. Im taking it as somehow pinoys are growing. Slower but getting there.
ricelander on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:13 am
BENCARD,
Paano ‘yan, Bencard. Mukhang they get good advice from another good lawyer like you because witnesses are disappearing at wala namang document kasi nakatago. I would need the help of FBI, don’t you think, for their snooping gadgets?
Do you think ang unang qualifications dapat ng whistleblower e dapat walang bahid, as in faultless…?
Kasi, kung ganito din lang, aba, I think therefore citizens are better advised, huwag na kayong magsumbong. Delikado. Magugulo lang ang buhay n’yo wala namang mangyayaring mabuti. Kakantiyawan lang kayo ni Ca T, RegO, benignO, atbp hehehe.
Tanggap na lang nang tanggap. benignO will call you a winner.
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:26 am
to benigno, who says “….. I see no shame in profiting from the ignorance of a people who find no merit in intellectual growth in the first place.”
It appears you haven’t forgotten those leadership lessons from your seminarian-days.
Quick… someone send beningn0 Noli Me Tangere!!!!
mindanaoan on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:31 am
hawaiianguy, kabayan’s list you pointed to is not a list of system problems. they are gripes against a pet peeve. in any case, the issue we were discussing was: is it permissible to go around the system, run to the court of public opinion, cite unwritten code of ethics, invite some kind of alien morality (or just call it people power) to effect a system change given that you are boxed in by current parameters? can we allow someone to take the law into his hands because the person he suspects of murdering his brother was acquitted by the courts?
mlq3 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:43 am
benign0: review the poll tax, the protests, and riot, then the eventual resignation of margaret thatcher and every single one of your questions will be answered. the 8 month unraveling of her government began with a protest and then the supression of that protest.
review as well the causes of de gaulle’s resignation as president of france.
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:44 am
benign0 making light of Cory : “Cory has gone from Ms. Edsa Revolution to Pathetic Chump in 20 years” is a reflection of the politics of power. This is my perception of how this works:
FVR commands the attention of the Malacanang-resident because FVR has a power-base in the military brotherhood code-of-whatever. Plus Carlyle, maybe there is something in Carlyle.
Cory has no power-base, except money, and apparently, the money she is willing to “unleash” ain’t sufficient. Now things should change if Cory can deliver 5% of the votes on her say-so. Then the Malacanang-resident (and many of the members of Congress) will be more inclined to listen to Cory’s pleadings for whatever cause she pleads for, and “minorities” who want their pleadings to be acted on by Malacanang can “coalesce” with Cory.
The resident of Malacanang has closed-door sessions with the CBCP, not because of religiosity, but because of (the threat of) votes delivered. “Minorities” who can “coalesce” with the CBCP (like those American anti-birth-control anti-sex-education groups) can then have the men-in-cassocks be messengers for their cause.
mlq3 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:49 am
aames, she was undeniably brave, but those were precautionary security measures. no aspersion of her was intended or should be construed.
mlq3 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:51 am
mindanaoan, the whole confirmation system is being abused:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080318-125539/Trivial-pursuits
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:01 am
mlq3: Margaret Thatcher’s “reign” unravelled because she had lost the confidence of the members of her own party (as the members of her party began to feel the heat from the population concerning Thatcher’s policies on local government taxation, plus “it’s the economy!!! Madam!!”). She was effectively voted out.
mindanaoan on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:06 am
mlq3, yes, the system needs rethinking. my point tho’ is that the attitude of those involved did not include throwing jamby out because they assent that the rules is on her side.
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:17 am
mlq3: what I wanted to point out to (re Margaret Thatcher) is that she left office per “normal script”. It was not the “surge” in Trafalgar Square that forced her out. The booting-out process involved members of her party (whose actions reflected (a bit) of what they thought their constituency were concerned with).
“Lost the confidence of her party” is analogous to “forward the impeachment documents to next step”.
DinaPinoy on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:25 am
benign0,
ABS-CBN profiteering ba ika mo?
panoorin ang ingenuity ng pinoy….er…EBS-CBN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UZpMJtUlTY&feature=related
rego on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:28 am
“Kasi, kung ganito din lang, aba, I think therefore citizens are better advised, huwag na kayong magsumbong. Delikado. Magugulo lang ang buhay n’yo wala namang mangyayaring mabuti. Kakantiyawan lang kayo ni Ca T, RegO, benignO, atbp hehehe.”
=========================================================
Sus Ricelander nag paka OA.
Read carefully all my comments. In this particular thread, I praised Clarissa Ocampo while I cant give the admiration for Lozada. Clearly, I am not against anyone na gustong magsumbong. I Just wanted them to do it more effectively. Nang matapos na tayo noh.
Geeezzz this has been taking soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:48 am
Side-topic: Important conference kicks of Yale University July 2008
———————
Christians, Muslims move ahead on global talks
Religious leaders plan to meet this year in the US, Britain, and at the Vatican to defuse tensions.
By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Gatherings of top religious leaders and even some heads of state will take place this year in the United States, at the Vatican, and in Britain, aimed at defusing tensions between the West and the Muslim world.
The first-of-their-kind dialogues – which will kick off in July – will begin with theological discussions but seek practical results. Yet they’re stirring some debate within the faith groups as to the proper way to engage “the other” and whether common ground can be found.
THEY STARTED IT!!!!
The initiative was sparked last October by “A Common Word Between Us and You,” an open letter from 138 Muslim clergy and scholars from more than 40 nations to the leaders of all the world’s major Christian churches. Concerned that “the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians,” the Muslim leaders proposed dialogue on the basis of the shared principles of “the love of God, and love of the neighbor.”
Most of the churches responded positively, buoyed both by the letter and the authority of those who signed it – representing most schools of Muslim thought.
“The Christian response was overwhelming, and we’ve been humbled by it,” says Sohail Nakhooda, Jordanian editor in chief of Islamica magazine and a member of the Muslim planning team. “This meant we had a lot of serious work ahead!”
Yale University will host the first global conference in July, which will involve a broad spectrum of Christian denominations, as well as Jewish clergy and political leaders. At a Vatican meeting in early March, plans were set for a Catholic-Muslim forum in November, in which the pope will participate. Muslims plan a conference with Anglicans in Britain in October focused on the scriptures, and are talking with the Orthodox churches as well.
“One of the best things that’s happened is the opening of an avenue of discussion with denominations where we never thought it possible – with Evangelicals,” Mr. Nakhooda adds.
The most in-depth Christian response, a letter authored at Yale Divinity School, included many prominent Evangelicals among the signers. But that response, “Loving God and Neighbor Together,” has spurred debate among Evangelicals, whose views on Islam and dialogue with Muslims vary greatly.
….
Some influential conservative leaders were distressed by the wording of the response. John Piper, pastor of a large Baptist church in Minneapolis, and R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the letter and any dialogue should speak from the unique Christian standpoint, including the nature of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Given different understandings of God, “to talk as though the love of God is a common standpoint is wrong,” Dr. Piper said in a video that’s played on YouTube.
The president of Wheaton College, a prominent evangelical school, initially signed the letter but later withdrew due to concerns within his college community. Numerous influential evangelicals are on board, however, including megachurch pastors Rick Warren and Bill Hybels.
Viewing this discussion among Christians as healthy, Yale has put the questions being raised on its website along with responses. For example, is Allah the same God that Christians worship?
“The point of the Muslim letter was starting with common ground,” Mr. Cumming says. “They resisted the temptation to polemicize against [Christian] doctrines, and our response resisted the temptation to polemicize for them.”
On the Muslim side, there are those who are reluctant to join a dialogue because of negative statements some Christian leaders have made about Islam, Nakhooda says. But those voices are overshadowed, he says, by “the fact that so many of the most important figures who have street credibility in Muslim capitals are fully behind it.”
DuckVader on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:52 am
Benigno says:
Here’s another good one courtesy of Sean Connery’s brilliant character in that late 1990’s film classic The Rock:
Losers whine about doing their best.
Winners go home and fnck the Prom Queen.
Tough luck to all the world’s losers!
————–
Prom queen gets pregnant and you’re forced to marry her and you find she’s got a lot of space between the ears. The real winners right the book and then appear on Oprah
DuckVader on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:54 am
Benigno writes:
Unfortunately for hopeless romantics like you, efficiency as a measure does not distinguish between “decency†and ACHIEVEMENT.
———-
Fortunately for me, I still believe in decency vs. plain achievement.
mlq3 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 11:02 am
upn, precisely, the heat is what’s felt, and to save itself, the party will sacrifice the leader.
there are many ways and many fora to put the heat on a ruling party and its leader.
and part of the heat comes from the tactics the leadership pursues when it comes to those critical of it. such as sending mounted police to charge protesters in the heart of london.
cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 11:03 am
The pointer to Kabayan’s list came from me. What’s your criteria for accepting something as being a system problem or dismissing it as a “gripe against a pet peeve”?
If our well being depended on it, i believe the answer would be yes. The political system does not exist for its own sake. It forms part of the environment in which we the people exist. As individuals, we deal with it as with any other environmental problem. Al Gore’s analogy of boiling the frog is applicable to our situation.
benign0 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 11:05 am
mlq3,
I think UP n student already responded to what you highlight above.
What was implicit but not explicit in UP n’s response was the scenario where the official in question chooses not to resign as I stated explicitly in my original comment to you:
Thatcher resigned voluntarily bowing to pressure from members of her party as UP n highlighted. Such a process is possible under a parliamentary system of government.
Unfortunately the only analogy of that process in the Philippine setting is impeachment.
So the original question remains:
If the court of public opinion renders its “judgment”, what then? More importantly, so what?
More questions but still no resolution Mr. Quezon. This discussion is a microcosm of the world you espouse.
UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 11:48 am
mlq3: I will agree that demonstrations, rallies (along with Letters-to-the-Editor, TV-interviews, and hiring of lobbyists) are among the many legitimate ways/many fora for a population-segment (or a business-segment) to communicate their concerns, issues, priorities to a ruling party and its leader.
mlq3 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:14 pm
again, the question is, if a leader espouses policies or represents a government that has lost its appeal to the public, and the leader is protected by a fixed term, what are the options?
for the leader, to toughen it out, and stamp out protest. this can work or fail, it can boomerang. so thatcher imposes a poll tax, people get angry, she sends in the mounted police, people get even angrier, the party jettisons the pm and by so doing hopes to stay in office (which the tories did), but the point is theparty was responsive to the people -after making a mess of crowd dispersals.
for the population, it’s to engage in protest to express its sentiments, and protests can include marches, petitions, demonstrations, civil disobedience. if violence is resorted to, the authorities are strengthened, because the authorities can employ superior force. unless the situation (using force) strips government of its legitimacy -forcing the politicians to jettison the leadership for self preservation.
returning to the leader, in between formal elections the leader can resort to a referendum to revalidate the leader’s mandate. this is what de gaulle did in the face of student demonstrations. he lost the attempt at revalidating his mandate. he resigned.
peaceful demonstrations, and mounting peaceful political pressure, is what makes a resignation, i suppose, “voluntary,” whether in the case of thatcher, de gaulle, nixon, estrada, etc.
the what then or so what depends on the interplay between leaders and the public. at the very least, public pressure forces a leader to reform or be more conciliatory, if formerly confrontational. public pressure from europe, for example, led to the dropping of the policy of liquidating the above-ground forces of the left, even if there was similar domestic pressure but the administration chose not to bow to that domestic pressure. it bowed, however, to international pressure.
public pressure and legislative oversight led to the jettisoning of the nbn-zte deal; whether it will lead to actual convictions is a different matter; what was resolved, however, was that a policy the public was not convinced of, and which kept raising inconvenient questions for the administration, had to be scrapped. there is an ongoing review, too, of the administration’s policies towards the spratleys, which can only clarify that policy, and justify it before the people or which opens so many new cans of worms it will deservedly be reconsidered if that’s the case.
at the very least: what then? oversight, pressures that work in favor of transparency, and possibly, genuine accountability whether sooner or later, in other words, limits on the instinctive desire of leaders to exercise impunity.
what then if, in the face of public opinion, officials won’t budge? it raises the ante and increases the pressure for retribution, again, if not sooner, then later (or yes, possibly never at all: but at least the citizenry tried). you may not remove the president before 2010, because of many factors, including the inability of her critics to understand public disgust with *all* officials and not just those of the administration, or the lack of clear-cut action plans, or the disillusionment of the public with past exercises, or their biases that a clever crook with good table manners is preferable to a bumbling, lazy, drunk crook, etc.
i’ve written about minimum and maximum expectations. at the very least those who want to move faster and those who don’t want to move at all, are fostering a debate on methods and objectives. this can only be healthy, if your premise is that the public is capable of a certain wisdom, and for example, if they are upset with the government but don’t want to take to the streets, but on the other hand condone those who do, it works out, somehow, in the end.
another example: those who want the president to go, but do not accomplish it before 2010 -but along the way, make it impossible for her to perpetuate herself in office beyond that, then that is an achievement that makes the vigilance from 2005-2010 worth it. if it results in lakas-kampi being trounced at the polls, better yet, come 2010, or if it results in the beginning of the end for them, politically, and the rise of a reform constituency that may not win in 2016 but begins to flex its muscles and does even better by 2016, then that’s great, too.
but every act of citizen-involvement has a role to play in the democratic setting. secretiveness and unresponsiveness are instinctive in the present crop of officials; if they weren’t hounded, they wouldn’t budge; if they budge, they can be made to budge more. it’s never futile because it forces other people to clarify their own stands and limits.
mlq3 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:25 pm
upn, thanks for that. and as different groups and individuals propose their solutions, it is up to the body politic to debate those proposals, or shrug them off. in the end, whatever one’s individual advocacies may be, one must accept the public’s will.
mindanaoan on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:39 pm
cvj, yes, the political system does not exist for its own sake. it exists for all of us and those of future generations who will benefit from an orderly and stable government. to undermine its institutions for the sake of your well being is, i’m sorry to say, selfish.
benign0 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:25 pm
It’s interesting to note though that “public will” was not what drove Singapore down the road to spectacular prosperity. The same thing can be observed in the equally impressive rise of Malaysia, S.Korea, and Taiwan.
Singapore to cite a standout example, was engineered from the top down by a single architect.
And by the way, there is one name that provides a strong argument against this amusing beholdenness to “public will”:
Erap.
-
nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 5:57 pm
“f you are trying to bait me, forget it mister. you are not in my league!”
Of course I’m not in your league. And thank god for that.
rego on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 12:21 am
if they weren’t hounded, they wouldn’t budge; if they budge, they can be made to budge more. it’s never futile because it forces other people to clarify their own stands and limits.
======================================================
But why concentrate the budging on the president Gloria alone. I never heard you budging, Lacson, Jamby and other politician that need budging. Is that bias or hypocritical?
Bencard on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:07 am
mlq3, i hope you don’t mean “public will” as determined by sws.
mlq3 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:18 am
rego, there is only one president, and only one president with a cabinet, and only one president whose instructing her cabinet… you get the drift.
in the senate, one senator doing anything has 23 others immediately chiming in and all decisions are taken collectively in that body.
mlq3 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:21 am
bencard, the point precisely is that individual prelates aren’t being neutral. they have taken sides. their choice -theirs to endure the brickbats, too.
you are free to review what iv’e written over 14 years concerning the church and state.
grd on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:53 am
@nash,
i think it wouldn’t hurt a bit if you could care to visit PCIJ Blog (pcijdotorg/blog) and read Ms. Malou Mangahas article about this imminent rice shortage which is about to become a global crisis.
here’s part of that article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DAY 20…
justice league on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 3:31 am
Benigno,
Sometimes your staying power intrigues me.
There are times when I wonder how your ideas “stand” for so long. (Of course I have a couple of ideas why but I’d rather not tell; it being Lenten season and all.)
I was fortunate to have passed through an “area of knowledge” yesterday and saw several English-Tagalog dictionaries and vice versa.
I saw dictionaries written by Maria Odulio De Guzman, Ana Adriano, J B Santos, etc…
Also included was that of a Fr. Leo James English which happened to be the only one (english-tagalog tagalog-english) available in hard bound besides that of being available in paper bound.
The foreword of that book edition was written by Jose Villa Panganiban who turned out to have been a director of the Institute of National Language. The dictionary was first published in the 1970’s. (I also looked it up in amazon.com with the paper bound being available for 38 dollars. Maybe you’d like to purchase one from them.)
In it, it listed the translation of the word “efficiency” in Tagalog as “kasanayan” and/or “kakayahan” (I faintly remember someone stating “kakayahan” several threads back already).
Some of the earlier authors cited, listed much of the same as either of the 2 words or even both as well.
Now I don’t know in what context you are using the word “pilit” but have you tried to use the word “forced”?
And it seems you have adopted for use a new term (loser) as well as still employing the term “pathetic chump” in describing others. I can always use “your” terms to refer to “someone” presently in this thread, but I’ll pass; it being Lenten season and all.
BTW, efficiency as a measure is relative. Nazi Germany saw the efficiency of the gas chamber while the Khmer Rouge noted the same on the pickaxe, shovel or even a plain plastic bag.
justice league on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 4:17 am
Anthony Scalia,
You might find the Republic Act No. 3019 ANTI- GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT interesting.
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: A) – K)
(In some aspects, the mere requesting for something of value is already prohibited)
Sec. 4. Prohibition on private individuals.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
And there is also the Omnibus election code where already the offer or promise of anything of value in a certain aspect is prohibited.
justice league on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 4:26 am
Cvj,
I’m just asking but did jaxius ever admit that the objective of the courts is “Order†because of law or did he just end with what you stated? (Probably viited his blog once but that must have been a very long time ago so I don’t think I read your exchange ever.)
benign0 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 8:43 am
justice league,
Kawawa ka naman.
Happy Easter!
justice league on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 9:47 am
Benigno,
And another end all be all defense which is getting to be typical of you.
Happy Easter to you too.
cvj on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 12:09 pm
Justice League, my exchange with Jaxius happened in this thread in his blog.
http://www.quixotickibitzer.blogspot.com/2007/08/legal-advocacy-and-political-advocacy.html#links
His relevant statement is:
You can check whether i misread him.
justice league on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:22 pm
Cvj,
Thanks for indulging.
I’ve read the exchange now.
You yourself stated the following in his blog -
Now i discover that the ease by which those in power use the legal system to their advantage is because of the legal system’s built in bias for order, no matter its “source”.
And Jaxius may have given that impression but I think he also made an admission in his quotation of a dialogue between Roper and St. Thomas More.
“… The law, Roper, the law. …”
It is the law that brings about clauses like Double Jeopardy, etc… which does not seem to point towards justice; well certainly as far as the victim will be concerned.
cvj on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 5:24 pm
Yes Justice League, as a reaction to Jaxius’ statement that i quoted above, my complete response was:
I also told Jaxius that i believe that the St. Thomas More justification for giving the Devil the benefit of the law is less valid in today’s modern society. I repeated that point in thread after this…
http://www.quezon.ph/1732/interdicts-faith-cardinals-and-morals/#comment-768695
…this time in relation to the matter of truth.
anthony scalia on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 5:45 pm
avengers, este justice league pala:
thanks for the citation. applying that to the NBN ZTE deal:
only Abalos made a bribery attempt, at Neri (the famous ‘may 200 ka dito’)
thus far in that eternal circus called the continuing senate investigation on NBN-ZTE deal:
no one said anything about another bribery attempt. the 2008 hearings just focused on overprice and kickbacks (how much each one gets), which are, strictly speaking, still potential, not actual.
was there an allegation that anyone from the greedy group asked a share from a public official? if there is, and if true, then theres a violation
as far as i can remember, the allegations of witnesses centered on the ‘distribution of potential spoils’ rather than on ‘who asked for a kickback from whom’
UP n student on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 6:46 pm
One of the purposes of the codification of law is for the protection of the innocent. And interestingly, the “THING” that the law wants to protect the innocent from, is less his neighbor, but more his government. Double jeopardy is a good example of this item.
Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 12:43 am
cvj, when you stop giving the “devil” (the accused criminal) the benefit of the law, what if it’s you, or your beloved father, who is the generally perceived devil by the whole community? what are you gonna invoke then?
when solomon decided to cut the child in half and give the pieces to the claimants who have equal rights to the child, wasn’t that justice? if it was, was it consistent with good “order”?
when you rob a store using a toy gun to pay for your dying child’s hospitalization is it ‘justice’ to sentence you to prision mayor, or is it necessary for good ‘order’?
cvj on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 1:23 am
Bencard, for ordinary people (like me and my Dad), the legal system and lawyers have their use in terms of protecting our rights and upholding justice. At the level of big-time cheaters like Gloria Arroyo and plunderers like Mike Arroyo, the law (and lawyers) serve to perpetuate injustice. However, the reality is that, in the Philippines, it is the latter that gets the benefit of lawyers (and even judges) because they are the ones with money and power. In this situation, truth and justice are hardly in the picture.
Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 2:07 am
using false and defamatory statement against the president and her husband will not get you anywhere in debating with me, except with like-minded people as you. if you need to be reminded, i was commenting in connection with your response to justice league (re your discussion with jaxius) wherein you were discussing the concepts of “justice” and “good order” and in which you make the outlandish claim that st. thomas moore’s dictum of giving the benefit of law to the devil is “less valid” in modern society. now, instead of responding to my post, you resort to your old dirty trick of reconfiguring the discussion to your vitriol against the first family. re-read my post and address it responsively, if you can. if not, it’s o.k., you don’t have to win in this game and prove you are as smart as you think you are. i think no one would care except maybe your immediate family.
Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 2:11 am
ooops, that one’s for you, cvj.
cvj on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 2:14 am
Bencard, the alleged First Family is central to our discussion because they are a counterexample to Ramon Magsaysay’s dictum that “Those who have less in life should have more in law.” which is the point that i was trying to make as a response to your first question (at 12:43am).
Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 3:08 am
cvj, are you now advocating a double standard? even “ordinary people” like you and your dad are not above the law, any more than the first family is. as i said before, the sun shineth on both the good and the evil. the same constitution, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, the same due processes, apply to each individual members of society without fear or favor. that’s why fg arroyo had to go to court to try to vindicate his honor, as everyone in his situation would do.
inability to hire the best doctor to treat a disease, or the best lawyer to defend an accused, is a matter of economy, not justice. there’s no ‘injustice’ to being poor, nor to sufferings because of poverty, unless caused by the unjust action of another individual.
David on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 3:43 am
cvj: “there is nothing inherent within the system of courts (of law) that keeps it from being used to perpetuate an injustice.”
cvj, I am confused by the above statement and your exchange with jaxius. Could you clarify whether, in your view, it is the law or the application of the law by the courts which is unjust?
Secondly, are you “grappling with the concept of justice”?
justice league on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 1:13 pm
Cvj,
Seems you’ve been answered on the viewpoint of you and your father being perceived as the devil.
How about when the “devil” turns on you?
How ordinary is ordinary for you? Are Senators ordinary people?
You were engaged in a discussion with Jaxius regarding Sen. Trillanes. In similar fashion to what UPN was saying; what if Sen. Trillanes somehow wins his case but the government continually press the same charges again. Would you allow him to plead double jeopardy? It may not have worked the first time for Sen. Lacson but what if the same charges on the Kuratong Baleleng are pressed again; would you allow him to plead double jeopardy also?
cvj on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 2:02 pm
Bencard, i did not claim above (at 1:23 am) that me and my dad are above the law. In fact, i said that we should be allowed legal recourse to defend against false accusations.
What i pointed out is that the Arroyos have been using the cover of the law to shield themselves from the consequences of their wrongdoings. It may be in their personal (and their families’) interests but it is still unjust from the point of view of Society as a whole because they are using the legal system as part of a cover-up and in aid of their continuing crime while holding Public Office.
Your statement above that “there’s no ‘injustice’ to being poor, nor to sufferings because of poverty, unless caused by the unjust action of another individual.” is something that i disagree with. Social systems (or its components) can be unjust even without any single individual being ‘at fault’ (from a legal point of view).
David, both. Boths the laws and their application can lead to unjust outcomes. This is because there is nothing inherent in the legal system, absent an internal code of ethics, that can prevent it from being subverted by those with money and power (or by self-interest). Isn’t that what we are observing today? I am not grappling with the concept of justice in the sense that i can distinguish a just from an unjust outcome. The same cannot be said of those in the legal profession for understandable reasons. Jaxius told me that legal practitioners, because they have been confronted by hard cases where what is just is not clear-cut, have been grappling with this concept which is why they have settled for ‘Order’ as an objective.
Justice League, relative money and power is a measure of ordinariness. Since i’m an ordinary person, i need the law as a defense against others. Senators (including Trillanes & Lacson) and other public officials have to be subjected to a different standard because of the powers of their Office. As i told Bencard above, we have seen how the powerful have been using the law (and lawyers) to their advantage. That is not justice.
I have no disagreement with the principle of double jeopardy because i don’t think the legal system can survive without it.
justice league on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 3:42 pm
Anthony Scalia,
From where will the alleged “200″ to Neri come from? From the spoils, kickbacks, overprice, or what?
justice league on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 3:53 pm
Cvj,
Are you suggesting that Senators like Trillanes and Lacson be denied the use of the law as their defense while/should the administration run after them?
The power of the office of Sen. Trillanes doesn’t seem to be of much help to him as of the moment.
cvj on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 4:07 pm
Justice League, the Administration, with all its resources, cannot be put on a similar footing as the ‘ordinary people’. Trillanes and Lacson are entitled to defend themselves from the Admin’s lawyers and allies in the military as necessary.
In contrast, in situations where the conflict is between ordinary persons versus Lacson and/or Trillanes, then the ordinary persons should have the benefit of greater protection by the law. Is Ramon Magsaysay’s principle really that hard to understand?
justice league on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 4:43 pm
Cvj,
If an ordinary person owns a 300 meter lot occupied by squatters (who happen to be also ordinary persons) and that owner goes to the court; what should the court do?
Supposing a similar 300 meter lot occupied by squatters is now owned by Sen. Trillanes and he goes to court; what should the court do?
And I understand Ramon Magsaysay’s principle fair enough. In fact, I understand that there are more laws that directly affect the non-ordinary persons than the ordinary persons. The ordinary persons aren’t directly affected by laws that affect corporations. The “lowly” ordinary persons don’t get to be affected by tax laws too. And they definitely don’t have to file Statements of Assets and Liabilities.
cvj on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 8:30 pm
Justice League, i don’t have enough information in your hypothetical example to judge either way. The law in relation to squatters involves property rights, a matter that strikes at the heart of our underdevelopment. In certain cases, the decision should go to the lot owner but in other situations, it is the squatters’ property rights that must be upheld via formalization. The complexity in deciding this matter has a lot to do with the process of discovering the law as per Hernando de Soto:
The members of today’s legal profession have largely neglected this process of discovery. Worse, they have adopted order as a yardstick and have treated the attainment of justice as a bonus. That’s why no matter how many pro-poor laws there are, the advantage still goes to the rich and powerful. More than codification, it is the legal profession’s Code of Ethics that matters.
justice league on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 10:37 pm
Cvj,
Very well, then I will use a real example.
You previously stated that relative money and power is a measure of ordinariness.
Socorro Alicia R. Quirino is the grand daughter of a previous President of the Philippines. She’s an entrepreneur, televison host and producer then of her own TV magazine show “Citiline”. Surely you would not consider her as an ordinary person.
At 7 pm of September 23, 1995, Cory Quirino along with her wardrobe assistant Helen Salaver and temporary driver Panfilo Catuday were accosted, robbed and kidnapped by a group of people in Laguna. Contrary to popular belief, the group members were not associated with the NPA and were just ordinary persons.
The group eventually separated Panfilo Catuday from the rest and shot him in the head.
They then brought along the 2 for “entertainment purposes” as well as getting further money from Quirino’s bank.
But due to nature (thunderstorm), they suffered an accident, which injured practically all of them. A samaritan family came by and brought them to a hospital where Quirino was able to inform the doctor that they were being kidnapped. Due to the injuries of Helen Salaver; the unknowing samaritan family agreed to bring them all to a larger hospital but by then the roads were blocked by policemen which led to the rescue of the 2 and the samaritan Magistrado family (owners of the van).
Eventually the perpetrators were apprehended, charged, and found guilty.
In situations where the conflict is between ordinary persons and a non-ordinary person such as Cory Quirino; how much benefit of greater protection by the law do you want ordinary persons to have?
cvj on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 10:56 pm
Justice League, looks to me like a straightforward case of kidnapping for ransom. It is just right the perpetrators to be penalized. Cory Quirino’s economic or celebrity status is not relevant.
Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 11:19 pm
cvj, the ignorance of your argument is splattered all over your comments. any person accused of wrongdoing, including presidents and family, has every right to use the law to defend themselves – the same law that you and your dad rely to protect you. there you go again with your homespun verdict: “consequences of their wrongdoing”; “continuing crime”, says who? b&w, abs-cbn, hyatt 10, lacson et al., trillianes, et al., sanlakas, bayan muna, gabriela & some such extremist and media groups?
are you saying God is unjust for allowing poverty to exist, mentally and physically crippled people to be born, natural calamities to happen; whereas rich countries abound with smart, rich, beautiful, and healthy people living in them? God created men and societies, didn’t He?
you quote hernando de soto as though it will buttress the argument you are trying to make. all he is saying is that law is a living organism, not static or carved in stone. it grows even as man grows in reason and understanding. a lawyer’s learning process never stops. juriconsults and judges come from lawyers – men/women who pursued, and continue to pursue, specialized studies in law applying what they learn as practitioners, judges, legislators or professors. what in tarnation do you mean by “the legal profession has largely neglected” the process of discovering the law? that only happens when, for instance, a lawyer switches to computer programming as his life’s vocation.
justice and public order are both objectives of the law. there are compelling situations when one must be tempered with (but not sacrificed for) the other, as in the king solomon example that i gave you. order cannot be the “yardstick” of justice, or vice versa, unless you have a particular, personal concept, or definition, of the two terms to suit your biases.
btw, there are actually a code of ethics for lawyers and a code of judicial ethics for judges. both have real sanctions, unlike the so-called “journalists’ code of ethics” which, i understand, prescribes no retribution for its violation.
justice league on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 11:20 pm
Cvj,
So who decides when a person’s economic or celebrity status is relevant or not?
BTW, if it doesn’t matter how many pro-poor laws there are, and that the advantage still goes to the rich and powerful, and it is the legal profession’s Code of Ethics that matters more than codification; why bring up Magsaysay’s principle and what use therefore is your need for the law as a defense against others (rich and powerful) when you are as you say an ordinary person?
cvj on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 11:59 pm
Hernando de Soto wrote that lawyers are generally content to leave the law ‘as they found it’:
As to blaming God for Society, i suggest you read the Sermon on the Mount.
Justice League, it is reasonable people both within and outside the legal system who have to decide given the context. If it’s a kidnapping like what happened to Cory Quirino, then economic status is not relevant. If the dispute involves property rights, then economic status becomes more relevant. If it involves a public official who misuses the powers of her stolen office to block justice, then it is most relevant.
Ramon Magsaysay’s dictum is a necessary first step but is unfortunately not a sufficient condition for giving justice to the poor. To operationalize pro-poor laws, we need the willing and active participation of the members of the legal profession.
Pro-poor Codified laws + Pro-poor Code of Ethics = Pro-poor action
As it is, many lawyers, lawmakers and judges are content to be mercenaries.
David on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 12:00 am
cvj: “David, both. Boths the laws and their application can lead to unjust outcomes. This is because there is nothing inherent in the legal system, absent an internal code of ethics, that can prevent it from being subverted by those with money and power (or by self-interest). Isn’t that what we are observing today? I am not grappling with the concept of justice in the sense that i can distinguish a just from an unjust outcome. The same cannot be said of those in the legal profession for understandable reasons. Jaxius told me that legal practitioners, because they have been confronted by hard cases where what is just is not clear-cut, have been grappling with this concept which is why they have settled for ‘Order’ as an objective.”
cvj, As far as I know, the legal profession does have a code of professional ethics. Secondly, where the law is unjust (i.e. oppressive, discriminatory, overbroad, etc.), the legal system permits the law to be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Third, where the application of the law by the court is unjust (for any number of reasons, e.g. wrong appreciation of the facts, erroneous application of the law, etc., whether resulting from mistake or from corruption), the legal system allows the court’s decision to be appealed to a higher court. In sum, there are mechanisms within the legal system that can invalidate unjust laws and correct an unjust decision.
cvj on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 12:02 am
Sorry, the equation should be multiplication (not addition)…
Pro-poor Codified laws x Pro-poor Code of Ethics = Pro-poor action
…to reflect zero action given zero Code of Ethics.
cvj on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 12:11 am
David, the question is, how well is the code of ethics being implemented? How seriously do the lawyers take the pursuit of justice? In practice, it is the rich who can afford to hire good lawyers, judges can be bribed and lawmakers accept bags of cash from Malacanang. The reality is that in the Philippines, those mechanisms within the legal system that invalidate unjust laws and/or decisions may be there on paper but are mostly dead letter in the face of money and power. The members of the legal community have become active partners in the repression of justice.
justice league on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 12:28 am
Cvj,
So we’re definitely going to be BLACKLISTED by the International community for film and software piracy, etc…
And then who decides now who are the reasonable people? And what is the purpose of reasonable people outside the legal system deciding on the matter?
BTW, ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS Sec. 1- No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
cvj on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 12:44 am
Justice League, not sure where that reference to film and software piracy is coming from since i have not argued in favor of such practices. (Generic medicine is another matter though.) Anyway, I agree with the Bill of Rights but i don’t think that provision you cited gives the landlords and the oligarchs the license to use the law to deprive large numbers of Filipinos (for example the Sumilao farmers) the right to own property.
I also hope you’ll agree with me that the Presidency is not Gloria Arroyo’s ‘property’.
Bencard on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 1:10 am
cvj, i’m familiar with the sermon on the mount, and i find nothing there that suggest poverty is “unjust” as you appear to postulate. on the contrary, it says “blessed are the poor in spirit for their’s is the kingdom of heaven”, and “blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth”.
the works of h. de soto (the economist, not the explorer) that you quote is obviously not from a perspective of one who is grounded in law. i don’t agree with his generalizations, and using them do not validate your homespun theories. of course lawyers are supposed to defend the law as they find it. the law is the law until changed or modified by a competent authority, which is the legislature. lawyers don’t make laws even though some members of the legislatures may be lawyers. in our system, lawmakers are elected by the people (electorate), therefore, it is the people who are responsible for the law that governs them, not the lawyers.
with due respect to rm’s memory, the statement “those who have less in life should have more in law” is a political rather than juridical dictum, and should be treated as such. for one thing, it runs counter to the constitutional precept of equality before the law. it creates a double standard and institutionalizes inferiority. it is non-egalitarian. i think social justice, as articulated by justice j.p. laurel in the celebrated case, calalang v. williams, doesn’t mean giving advantage in law to the poor over the wealthy, rather it is the equality of the distribution of justice to all the components of society, including both the masa and the elite.
justice league on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 1:17 am
Cvj,
Didn’t you just write about that if the dispute involves property rights, then economic status becomes more relevant?
So in a conflict between a pirated DVD seller and a film company over intellectual property rights; the economic status of each of them is going to be considered, right?
And I was referring to “… nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” You wanted a separate and different standard for the rich and powerful, didn’t you? In the U.S., there was once a policy called separate but equal till the U.S. S.C. struck it down by saying separate is not equal (Of course, male and female toilets etc… don’t count)
And if you mean PGMA has no permanent hold on it then definitely yes.
cvj on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 3:15 am
Bencard, i think you misread the Sermon on the Mount if you believe that Jesus, by ‘blessing the poor’, does not consider poverty ‘unjust’. Why else would he later say…
“You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.†Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?†Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.â€
…? Jesus doesn’t sound too pleased with poverty and those who turn a blind eye on those who suffer.
Justice League, there is indeed a discussion around how stringent intellectual property rights (a lot of which revolves around WTO’s TRIPS) are unfairly closing off opportunities for developing countries to catch up economically. However, my assessment is that film and/or software piracy would not be to our economic advantage.
I do support relaxing intellectual property (i.e. patent) restrictions when it comes to pharmaceutical drugs. As far as real property is concerned (i.e. land), i have already stated my support for land reform.
I believe that the rich and powerful (including those who have power by virtue of their public office) should not be allowed to use their wealth and power to gain an undue advantage when it comes to legal matters. Doesn’t such use effectively circumvent the equal protection clause?
I agree but i meant more than that,i.e. more along the lines of Manolo’s comment above (at March 18th, 2008, 5:18 pm)
grd on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 3:16 am
justice, sapul na sapul mo. mukhang nalito na si cjv at hindi makuha ang mga halimbawa mo patungkol sa gusto niya. hirap talagang makipagdebate sa mga abogado (lalo na at tatlo pa ata).
but knowing cvj, i don’t think he will just give up so easily.
>>>>>
DAY 22
Bencard on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 6:30 am
cvj, i’m still looking for a passage in the sermon where Jesus says poverty is “unjust”. of course, He is not pleased with the fact that some people are poor, and he commends those who would feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, etc. but He would not interfere with the natural order of things by eliminating poverty from the face of the earth. i think you are the one who is misreading the sermon to fit your argument.
grd, i agree. cvj is not one to give up an untenable position. it’s personal to him. he will try to wiggle out of it and reformulate the discussion, and then say “that’s exactly what i was trying to say” (lol).
mang_kiko on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 10:08 am
Kawawa naman ito si Jesus, pati siya pnakialam pa sa argumento na wala naman patutugnohan.
kong sa bagay, kong husgahan kaya natin kong sin-o ang magaling sa inyo, wala na man mangyari dahil wala naman tatanggap nang desisyon, di ba? kaya sabihin lang natin, puro kayo tama para sa sarili ninyo katuwiran..tawa naman si mang_kiko..hehehe..
justice league on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 6:03 pm
Cvj,
I had my own issues with Intellectual property rights but mine centered on prices. It had something to do with the relative price of a blank cassete with a music cassette as against the relative price of a blank CD with a music CD. (But that’s another story)
But regarding your issue on undue advantage, how would your proposed different standard address the rich (I’ll forego the powerful) to prevent them from using their wealth to gain your alleged undue advantage which you claim circumvent the equal protection clause?
Are you planning to have the Public Attorney’s Office handle the representation of all the people? At which it will not be a different standard as it will be a standard for all.
Well whatever different standard you are proposing; how many democratic countries employ it already?
And regarding Manolo’s comment; I’ll just say that I supported both EDSA 1 and 2.
BTW, all I really wanted was to find out if Jaxius just ended his explanation on order and justice with what you stated. I already got what I came for when he quoted Thomas More wherein Jaxius implied the Law.
This issue just branched out into all sort of things.
But if you re-read your post on March 21 2:02PM; you agreed on the need for the principle of double jeopardy.
When an accused invokes double jeopardy and the court grants it; what kind of legal justice now awaits the victim? Will the victim still get justice in such a scenario? What then does double jeopardy serve if it will not lead to justice for the victim?
Happy Easter
Grd and everyone,
Happy Easter
cvj on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 7:18 pm
Happy Easter Justice League (and the rest)!
Bert on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 9:30 pm
Happy Easter Mlq3, AND ALL!
grd on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 10:50 pm
Happy Easter Justice and everyone!
anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 7:26 pm
JLA,
“From where will the alleged “200″ to Neri come from? From the spoils, kickbacks, overprice, or what?”
di ko alam. pwedeng promise of a near-future pay off (kickback) or meron nang advanced payment where the 200 will be sourced
justice league on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 12:15 am
Anthony Scalia,
Since you don’t know where it will come from and the hearings brought out the alleged potential spoils, kickbacks, overpricing; are you then in favor that the hearings continue so you’ll know where the alleged “200″ to Neri come from whether it be a promise of a near-future pay off, advanced payment, etc.?
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 12:32 pm
JLA,
if they can get a witness, an insider, who will tell how the kickbacks would be paid off – one lump sum, on installment, downpayment muna, etc. – then the hearings should continue
the problem is, our bright senators just want to focus on the ‘how the pie is divided.’
justice league on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 1:12 pm
Anthony Scalia,
Well there is still the possibility that ‘how the pie is divided’ might reveal where in that pie that alleged “200″ will come from as well as showing that there is actually that pie.
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 3:23 pm
JLA,
i doubt it. seeing the direction of the perpetual hearings, nobody is interested in knowing how the kickbacks would be sourced. it would seem that highlighting the greed is the quest.
isn’t it amusing? even if a witness leaks from where the kickbacks would be sourced, it would be all for naught. dahil cancelled na ang project! all potential kickbacks became vapor
justice league on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 5:03 pm
Anthony Scalia,
Cancellation of the project doesn’t negate the allegation of the “200″ bribery. If the alleged “200″ was supposed to be sourced from the now supposed to be unrealized kickbacks; the alleged group that was supposed to “handle” the alleged kickbacks will definitely still be culpable.
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 5:31 pm
JLA,
“Cancellation of the project doesn’t negate the allegation of the “200″ bribery. If the alleged “200″ was supposed to be sourced from the now supposed to be unrealized kickbacks; the alleged group that was supposed to “handle†the alleged kickbacks will definitely still be culpable.”
yes, cancellation does not erase the 200 offer of Abalos. i pointed that out earlier. it turns out that that is the only incidence of bribery.
nobody knows from where the 200 will be sourced. but one thing is for sure, Abalos’ 200 offer is a violation.
as for the group that will handle the kickbacks – this group’s reason for being is its receipt of the kickbacks. without the kickbacks, theres nothing to handle. as things stand now, without the kickbacks, they are not culpable
justice league on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 9:28 pm
Anthony Scalia,
Well at least you’re sure now that the Abalos’ 200 offer is a violation.
But since you are not sure where the “200″ will come from; how sure are you that the “200″ offer would not be coming from the group’s supposed kickbacks? It that was indeed 200 million Pesos then that would have been a hefty cut from Abalos’ supposed share if it was to come from his share alone.
Was Abalos even representing himself alone when he offered that “200″ bribe and not representing the group already?
If you are not sure of the other issues then I suggest you don’t write off yet the others as not culpable in the “200″ bribe.
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 11:55 pm
JLA,
“Well at least you’re sure now that the Abalos’ 200 offer is a violation”
hey never did i doubt that for one moment! i even mentioned that in an earlier comment!
“But since you are not sure where the “200″ will come from; how sure are you that the “200″ offer would not be coming from the group’s supposed kickbacks? It that was indeed 200 million Pesos then that would have been a hefty cut from Abalos’ supposed share if it was to come from his share alone.”
look, theres no way of knowing, unless (as i said earlier) they get another insider. but from the looks of it, our bright senators are more concerned on the size of the (potential) kickbacks!
the greedy group does not care where their kickbacks would be sourced, as long as they get their share!
“Was Abalos even representing himself alone when he offered that “200″ bribe and not representing the group already?”
i dont know
“If you are not sure of the other issues then I suggest you don’t write off yet the others as not culpable in the “200″ bribe”
only Abalos is culpable for the 200 offer. the greedy group comes in the picture if the project is implemented already, and when public funds are disbursed. the greedy group wasnt tasked with getting the project approved. thats Abalos’ task.
in short, the greedy group didnt offer a bribe. they’re only culpable once they get the kickbacks. but the project was cancelled, so they wont get kickbacks anymore. so what are they culpable of?
justice league on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 12:51 am
Anthony Scalia,
If you never doubted that for one moment; how come you’re previously wondering if there even is such a crime as an “attempted bribery”? (Read your March 17 1:52 pm post)
You are acknowledging that there are many things you don’t know about the matter. Yet you are already exonerating the greedy group.
Abalos is supposed to be a member of the greedy group. But you seem quick to dissociate his actions from that of the group.
If Dante Madriaga is to be believed; 41 million Dollars has already been advanced to the greedy group. That is in contradiction to your claim that the greedy group will come in the picture if the project is implemented already, and when public funds are disbursed. Madriaga claims that another member of the greedy group other than Abalos took the initial money via his (the member) Hongkong Account from a Cayman bank.
If that is to be believed; seems they already got a large share.
Madriaga even claims that the greedy group asked the chinese for another 5 million Dollars for Joey De Venecia to “control” him. But since it was only Abalos who approached Neri and offered the “200″ with no other members of the greedy group in attendance; you’d exonerate the rest already.
We don’t know if the “200″ for Neri was already supposed to be included in the initial 41 million Dollars that the greedy group supposedly got.
But since we don’t know for sure; you would contend that it is still Abalos alone and no other members who is culpable.
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 2:36 pm
JLA,
oops sori, i failed to clarify.
some kind soul quoted relevant provisions of the anti-graft law after i asked the question ‘is there such a crime as attempted bribery’. i think even manolo said that there is. i was persuaded, and thus that changed my mind that a bribery attemopt is already a crime in itself; from then on, theres no doubt in my mind that Abalos committed a crime.
hence my ‘correction’ on march 24 at 11:55 pm, especially my statement ‘only Abalos is culpable for the 200 offer’
as to the culpability of the others – my conclusion is based on what were presented during the hearings. you’re still hoping for future witness/es.
the US$41 million is an advance, so it can only come from one source – the Chinese! if the greedy group got money, thats not really kickbacks, but direct bribe money from the Chinese. but theres no evidence on the greedy group’s receipt of bribes on the same magnitude as Abalos’ 200 offer to Neri. hearsay, as lawyers would say
the 200 offer of Abalos is a smoking gun. all evidence on the greedy group presented before the circus that is the Senate is all hearsay.
justice league on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 9:52 pm
Anthony Scalia,
Well we are just going to have to agree to disagree on certain points and have to move on.
But if indeed there was an advance of 41 million Dollars; whether kickbacks or not, that would should be covered under the Anti Money Laundering Act.