Read it and weep
March 25, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
ABS-CBNNews Online (with SC rules Arroyo-Neri talks on NBN are secret ) and GMANews.tv (with It’s 9 vs 6: SC favors Neri’s plea vs ZTE probe – sources ) out scooped Inquirer.net on the Supreme Court’s decision on the Neri case. The GMANews.tv report boils down the case as follows:
Neri, who filed the suit in his capacity as former director of the National Economic Development Authority, claimed that the three questions posed to him during his first and only Senate appearance last year were privileged communications covered by the principle of executive privilege and which can only be divulged during an executive session.
The three questions are whether the President followed up the NBN-ZTE project with Neri; whether he was told by the President to prioritize the NBN-ZTE project; and whether the President told him to go ahead with the project after learning of the massive bribe offer.
Neri’s invocation of executive privilege on these questions had prompted senators to cite him for contempt. The Senate also issued an arrest warrant against Neri after he refused to attend the inquiry into the NBN-ZTE deal.
Inquirer.net’s report, SC: Neri can invoke executive privilege, summarizes the decision as follows:
Commission on Higher Education chairman Romulo Neri can invoke executive privilege and cannot be compelled to answer three questions the Senate feels is crucial to getting to the bottom of the scandal-tainted national broadband network (NBN) deal, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Voting 6-9, the justices also ruled that the Senate cannot cite Neri or anyone in contempt because the rules of procedure of the 14th Congress had not been published, Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said.
The breakdown (according ABS-CBNNews’s report), the ponente and the voting was as follows:
The majority ruling was penned by SC Associate Justice Teresita de Castro.
She was supported in her decision by Associate Justices Renato Corona, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbitero Velasco, Antonio Nachura, Dante Tinga, Arturo Brion, Leonardo Quisumbing, and Ruben Reyes.
The six who dissented were: Chief Justice Reynato Puno; Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Adolfo Azcuna, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Alicia Martinez, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago.
Associate Justice Ynares-Santiago was actually on leave during today’s deliberations, but she left her dissenting vote.
It’s interesting to note that the the ponente wasn’t Justice Velasco, as originally reported; and that the freshly-appointed Justice, Brion, voted -and in favor of the government. In his blog, lawyer Teddy Te, Vincula, has something to say about the voting:
There is an unsurprising lack of shame in Brion voting on a petition where he did not participate and where popular sentiment held that his appointment was precisely to forestall the effects of a Velasco inhibition. There is also an uncharacteristic lack of delicadeza in De Castro writing for the majority, where her appointment was clearly seen as a reward for convicting Estrada.
This vote, coming on the heels of the 10-4 vote in the Chavez decision, shows just how much headway the Gloria appointees are making in controlling the court. If she lasts until 2010, Gloria Arroyo would have appointed all but one of the Justices (Puno is the exception; but since she appointed Puno Chief Justice, technically she could be considered to have appointed all the Justices).
How’s that for separation of powers? Checks and balances, anyone?
Both parts of the decision, are possibly highly controversial. The reasons why can be gleaned from the March 10 column Fr. Joaquin Bernas wrote, Anatomy of a rejected compromise,
But from the way the Puno Court has been waging a campaign for the protection of rights through the writ of habeas corpus, the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data, I should not see the Court as being willing to be an instrument for the enfeeblement of democratic institutions.
What then do I hope to see?
I hope to see witnesses coming forward when summoned as witnesses and answering questions asked and, where proper, claiming that the President has instructed them to claim executive privilege.
I hope to see such witnesses being required to elucidate on what privilege they are claiming and submitting such claim for judgment by the Court, if need be, in chambers.
I am confident that the Court will be able to examine the claims presented before it and sift what is truly privileged and what is an attempt to hide wrongdoing.
Among the roles of the judiciary is the exercise of the power of judicial review. The power is a two-edged sword. It can either legitimize or exorcise. Thus in the current controversy the Court will either legitimize the power of the Senate to compel a witness who refuses to heed a subpoena and in the process rebuff Neri and his superior’s resistance to the Senate; or it will legitimize Neri’s refusal to testify and in the process clip the power of the Senate to compel defiant witnesses.
The Senate had occasion in 1950 to detain an uncooperative witness in Arnault v. Nazareno. But in that case Arnault was already before the Senate.
The Neri case now is different. The Senate already had him the first time, but they let him go, and Neri now is saying “Catch me, if you can.†Will the Court help the Senate?
Apparently not. In his blog, Philippine Commentary was predicting a decision in favor of Neri, but doesn’t mince words as to the implications of such a decision:
I cannot imagine a more compleat and disastrous demolition of the Separtion of Powers and a curtailment of the Public’s Very Right to Know what their government is doing than this 9-6 decision of the Supreme Court. We are now under an effective Dictatorship of Judicial and Executive Privilege in which the principle of Checks and Balances is no more.
Philippine Commentary supports new legislation patterned after American whistleblower laws, for the following reasons as he explained iin a previous entry.
The decision hasn’t been published on line, yet, so it remains to be seen whether it will go down as one of those decisions that maintain “a color of constitutionality” but which ends up placing the high court in disrepute. For now, The Mount Balatucan Monitor may be premature but not necessarily wrong.
It all hinges on whether the Supremes have enabled executive privilege to help cover up crimes, something that past jurisprudence was held to forbid (see my columns, A color of constitutionality and It’s how you play the game). Up to today, it was a given that the ultimate veto on executive privilege was that in matters involving crimes, executive privilege couldn’t be invoked.
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court’s arguments in its decision will be. I understand that the decision is over 100 pages! Anyway, Phoenix Eyrie, Reloaded finds it interesting.
Here is the decision and the dissenting opinions: Index of G.R. No. 180643, Romulo L. Neri Vs. Senate Committee, et al.
Meanwhile, an indication of where public opinion lies, is Arroyo trust, approval ratings down while Opposition senators top latest Pulse Asia survey.
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
The Equalizer on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 4:29 pm
I truly admire Chief Justice Reynato Puno for his independence of mind.
But is sad to note that the supreme court is now packed with Gloria’s loyalists(including recently appointed Arturo Brion).
Expect the 9-6 split on major SC decisions involving the Pidals.
cvj on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 4:35 pm
Since those three questions of fact cannot be answered by either a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, then that means that Gloria Arroyo can no longer claim to be innocent of wrongdoing when it comes to NBN/ZTE.
cvj on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 4:48 pm
As i said a week ago, there is nothing inherent within the system of courts (of law) that keeps it from being used to perpetuate an injustice.
http://www.quezon.ph/1731/the-aesthetics-of-redemption/#comment-768211
It all boils down to the the system’s internal code of ethics and whether that code is being practiced.
tonio on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 5:06 pm
well. i guess it’s all over now.
Jeg on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 5:27 pm
It is still up to Neri. He can choose to talk.
tonio on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 5:30 pm
i know. and well, we know his track record on that matter.
Floyd Buenavente on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 5:32 pm
9-6… my goodness when will it end… yes lets weep…
maginoo on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 5:51 pm
So the vote went along party lines.
It will be good to know this: if Justice Carpio’s former law firm (Villaraza & Cruz) is out of favor with Malacanang, which firm are the palace lawyers consulting?
jhay on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 6:15 pm
Oh well, it gives us more reason to go out into the parliament of the streets.
Abe N. Margallo on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 6:30 pm
Archdiocese of the SC. Now, the Hierarchy is complete.
Jeg on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 6:33 pm
Men in diaphanous skirts. But without the funny hats.
DJB Rizalist on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 6:39 pm
Anyone who read Senate v. Ermita and not the Inquirer editorials praising it for being “so finely balanced” they could’ve seen this coming. After 80 pages of zigzagging through US and RP jurisprudence, cherry picking from both sides of the question, the SC ruled unequivocally there and in the case of Gudani, that the Supreme Court would decide any case of Executive Privilege vs. Power of Oversight and Inquiry of the Congress. That is what Neri took advantage of. Then of course Senate v. Ermita basically perfected and replaced EO464 and Memo Circular 108 as THE statement of what Executive (and Judicial) Privilege are: hehe, GMA’s own Sections 1 and 2a of EO464 which they upheld!
So as it stands what we have is Judicial Review as the deciding power whenever Congress asks a question and the Executive won’t answer. That is a non self-executing solution in which Judicial Privilege become Lord and Master of the Govt. Remember they adopted the conclusions of USA v. Nixon that Executive Privilege does not cover criminal evidence in a trial, i.e. it proclaims Judicial Privilege to be superior or prior to Executive Privilege.
Now the Philippine Supreme Court has completed the attainment of supreme power, since Neri v. Senate is a decision never even made by SCOTUS–it rules that Judicial Review or Judicial Privilege as it were is also superior to the Power of Inquiry in aid of Legislation and that of oversight of administration.
We are living in a Judicial dictatorship in which Congress is the footstool of both the President and the 15 impeachable unelected Judges whose privilege is truly 15 times greater than anybody else’s.
This exact same thing already happened in the US, when Teddy Roosevelt and Wm Howard Taft both passed EOs just like EO464. SCOTUS also upheld those! So in 1912 the US Congress passed the first comprehensive whistleblower law, which in effect turned the whole federal bureaucracy, including the military, into protected watchdogs who can go to Congress and divulge what they know of wrong doing in their jobs. Even janitors! Of course, you cannot just make wild accusations. You are still subject to Congress rules, laws on libel, perjury etc. But you cannot be prevented from being asked questions or volunteering answers, maybe in executive session. Then and only then may the Executive assert privilege, but the Congress may not be prevented from getting information in aid not only of legislation but OVERSIGHT.
When I said in April 2006 that SCORP had anti-Solomonically “cut the Baby in half” this is what I meant: SCORP claims that Congress has an enforcweable right to information only in aid of legislation. What the Americans make crystal clear in such documents as the US CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT MANUAL is that OVERSIGHT is part of legislation, because legislation is MAKING NEW LAWS and REMAKING OLD LAWS. Oversight is the necessary ingredient to the “remaking old laws” part of it.
So damn the Anti-Solomons, (as in Anti-Christs) on SCORP.
They’ve cut the “BABY” called the Congress’ Power of Inquiry in two. That is how they’ve murdered the Public’s Right to Know, which is really ONLY Congress’s right to know as part of their legislative share of the Separation of powers. Media only has Freedom of Speech and Press, WITHOUT processes to enforce.
Oops come to think of it that is what SCORP has done, reduced the Honorable Senate to well…the Philippine Daily Innuendo!
DJB Rizalist on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 6:49 pm
One last thing: I hope this will finally dispel the incredible idolatry of people towards the Supreme Court. I hope the Mass Media now shine their bright lights into the vast dark corners of Padre Faura where lurk crimes and coverups of dastardly crimes, quietly but lucratively executed. Remember that every justiciable case of the highest value and controversy passes through there with nary a mention or attention from the Press. But I believe that ZTE/NBN are nothing compared to all the subrosa cases they’ve decided in favor of the highest bidder.
If we think Executive Privilege is bad, the Supreme Court even forbade Newsbreak last year from looking at the PUblic Log book of the Court to find out who gave some judge 10 million in giftwrapped package.
Why weep?? That’s silly! Burn Padre Faura down with withering exposures and investigative reporting or bear your chains in abashed silence forever grovelling as mental slaves of those blackrobed shysters forever!
Jeg on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 7:05 pm
Welcome back to the fold of the traditional conservatives, DJB. Does that mean youre not a neocon anymore?
Mike on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 7:07 pm
Oh my Lord. From where can we expect relief now?
The next steps are obvious: Congress constitutes itself into a Constituent Assembly. The Senate brings the question of whether the House and Senate vote jointly or separately before the SC, and the SC rules they vote jointly. The parliamentary system is speedily enacted.
cvj on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 7:18 pm
Mike, there’s always the “I Will Wait for 2010″ movement.
nash on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 7:21 pm
Hmm, are we out of good Supreme Court candidates?
Remember Davide at the impeachment proceedings? He started sessions with a prayer (the overtly Catholic “Jubilee Song” sung with gusto by Loren Legarda”)….
rego on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 7:47 pm
inquirer.net
rego on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 7:48 pm
ooop sorry about that.
ricelander on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 7:52 pm
Let’s hear now from the respect-the-institution crowd.
ricelander on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 8:00 pm
Imagine this scenario:
Senator: State your position and functions in your office and your working relationship with the President.
Government official: I invoke executive privilege Your
Honor!
Senator: WHATT?
GO: You have any problem Your Honor, go to the SC… basta I invoke executive privilege… if the SC says it’s not good invocation, I might appeal or if I’m in the mood, I might answer… but today I am invoking executive privilege…
DJB Rizalist on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 8:13 pm
ricelander,
It is the balance among institutions that is important. It’s like a Machine with three parts. The decision is the culmination of Edsa Dos which started the demolition of the Senate as the supreme court of public accountability. Now it doesn’t even have the right of regularity to ask questions.
Take this literally: when it comes to holding those 31 impeachable officers judicially accountable, the institution that is supreme is the Senate. The supreme court has NO jurisdiction in ALL cases of impeachment. NONE. But now they’ve castrated the Senate and House, since they’ve now practically given the Executive the mechanism for hiding any crime by claiming executive privilege.
Folks, this is a dark, dark day for Constitutionalism and Justice. Joma should rejoice. With the country run by a Judicial Mafia, national security takes a back seat to executive and judicial security.
From their initial reactions, the Senators obviously don’t even know what just hit them. Pusillanimous pussycats!
Mike is right, with nine in her pocket SCORP and the Hiouse could ramrod Chacha through and make Gloria their Queen beyond 2010.
nash on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 8:29 pm
@DJB
Sir, what makes you think that dinosaur/leech Joma will be any different were he to run our country! Joma should not be in the same paragraph with the word ‘justice’
Just a mention of that man’s name makes me boil with red rage. (To think I’m a bit leftie.)
DJB Rizalist on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 8:34 pm
If he is half as honorable as he claims, Chief Justice Puno could resign to demonstrate just how transcendental the issue really is. But if amparo was anaesthesia for the body politic, habeas data now looks like laughing gas. I don’t think we can even maintain the semblance of a democratic government. We are now living under a Dictatorship that is only awaiting formalization in chacha. SCORP has sent out a message to all litigants and contending parties, you have to PAY even more now for victory in your cases before SCORP . And even in the cases where they don’t, what losing side will believe they weren’t paid off or politically pressured to rule in a certain way?
Good God! In other countries where that has happened, the losers just shoot the judges dead. This is a prediction, not a hope!
UP n student on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 8:39 pm
Maybe jhay, Abe and DJB have a point that the next people surge should be against the Padre Faura gates,
UP n student on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 8:42 pm
What are the odds that Ping Lacson’s Whistleblower Bill gets moved up for discussion?
UP n student on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 8:50 pm
Now, still, some thing about 9 to 6 (versus 8 to 7) that says that the writers of the 1987 Constitution did intend it to be this way. Is there anything in the English or Tagalog version of the 1987 constitution that has been completely ignored? Even Fr. Bernas seems to suggest that co-ercion by the Senate can’t do it, the reliance has to be on willing witnesses.
manila bay watch on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 8:57 pm
Heheheh!
Welcome back to the fold of the traditional conservatives, DJB. Does that mean youre not a neocon anymore?
Good question well put Jeg!
john marzan on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 9:07 pm
at least hindi kunwaring “8-7″ ang decision katulad ng dating “controversial decisions”. hehe.
Phil Cruz on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 9:18 pm
The last several weeks I was hanging on to the possibility that the Church and the Supreme Court would not turn its back on the people. They did.
That does it. Every conceivable legal and constitutional avenue has been blocked.
Only one avenue left.
J. Cruz on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 9:19 pm
At the rate all these intellects are openly promoting dishonesty and surging….
A strong sense of hopelessness just might lead to the emergence of VIGILANTE JUSTICE……….
vic on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 9:41 pm
It was predictable and I expected nothing else. When it comes to ruling that favours whoever in Power , the SC can twist and turn the Charter and even Screw it to perfection and it is the Institution that needs the either the Radical Reform ahead of anything else or just just simply abolish it..Its decisions make the mockery of the otherwise salvageable vibrant Democracy.
J. Cruz on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 9:44 pm
To: Jun Lozada
Your friend, R. Neri has friends in high places.
First, the illegal occupants of the People’s Palace.
And now, most if not all of the appointees of the Supreme Court.
And you? While frustrating, do not despair!
Take solace knowing your friends are WE, The Filipino People!
We will shield you and we will NEVER kidnap if an intent to maim you permanently!
You and Cory will be in our thoughts & prayers!
UP n student on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 9:50 pm
To Phil Cruz: Two avenues left. One of them is OFW-ism, never to return.
UP n student on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 10:08 pm
Actually, another avenue is partitioning. Cebu seems to like how it is being run, anyway, so an independent Cebu is an avenue.
Another is grin-and-bear-it-then-2010, but this time (like it was not true the first time) to elect only those with integrity. Of course, this (another round of elections) is attractive only when you disagree with vic of Canada, who in an earlier thread had suggested — that Filipinos in the Philippines seem to be endemically predisposed to corruption when faced with opportunity to loot for the betterment of immediate family and the clan. If vic is correct, then vetting and analyzing past actions provide no guarantee. Honasan or Trillanes-the-coup guys just as likely for thievery as Mar Roxas (the issue becomes who will be a thug).
Another is slugging-it-out (including impeachment-or-2010 and another round of elections) in the belief that Filipinos in the Philippines can self-govern and within Filipinos in the Philippines are citizens who can do better than the ones who had preceded them.
nash on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 10:12 pm
@UP n
“What are the odds that Ping Lacson’s Whistleblower Bill gets moved up for discussion?”
Nice. Oh the irony.
Kelan pa nagkaroon ng matinong whistleblower si Ping Lacson????
But at least he is pushing such a bill…
ricelander on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 10:20 pm
DJB,
Now that the balance is destroyed, the Senate rendered oh so powerless, and was it lost on them?, I wonder now if they feel the pain of their castration, or are they in sedation yet. Tomorrow, if Villar is worth the leadership, we will know. What I know is Joker, otherwise known as Mr. Graftbuster, is rejoicing.
vic on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 10:25 pm
UPn, the one Possibility that could be of big help if the congress Right Now can get their acts together and draft a stronger Accountability Law (goggle the 2006 amendments to Federal Accountability Law) that will be the basis for the Government after GMA. Straightened the Foundations as strong as possible, from the Judiciary, to the Electoral Body, the Congress itself, and the Governments..two years is a plenty of time.
Bencard on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 10:26 pm
phil cruz, speak for yourself, man.
tonio on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 10:28 pm
ricelander:
you’re really having fun with this development, eh? dammit, money and utang na loob are still the strongest forces in this godforsaken hellhole.
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 10:32 pm
come on people, accept it. move on.
mukhang ang kasabihang walang natatalo sa eleksyon dito, nadadaya lang, eh gusto ding gamitin sa mga desisyon ng husgado (sigh)
tonio on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 10:33 pm
i still stand by my position though. if we tear the institutions of this country down, if we take another shortcut…
we’ll be hitting the streets again in a few years, after money and utang na loob determine the next people who walk the halls of power.
tonio on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 10:37 pm
wheee! move on. yahoo! i will wait till 2010. yay! blech.
nash on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:06 pm
@justice scalia
“come on people, accept it. move on.”
I suppose you have never worked in Quality Assurance or Quality Control?
UP n student on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:14 pm
nash: when quality assurance fails, then the fire sale follows (or as magdiwang said, huge bargains as blood flows in the streets).
hvrds on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:16 pm
The Marcos dynasty also started at a time of great global economic distress in the early 70’s. The effect of which the country has been formed today. That is when OFW labor exportation was initiated to save the economy.
The Supreme Court then did it’s part.
Fast forward to today and the Supreme Court has effectively given the go signal to the executive department to do as it pleases.
In the last few weeks we have seen the power of the state taking on and taking over Mr. Market and it’s main ally Mr. Margin ( “leverage” -fiat currency system based on the fractional reserve banking system)to announce to one and all that it will not allow deflationary expectations to take the U.S. economy (capital/labor and the government)to enter the gates of hell.
The U.S. economy had been selling their toxic financial wastes to the world and now the world has to participate in the ecological clean up. The world is in for interesting times. Next up will be currency intervention as the line will probably be drawn when the dollar crosses the $1.60 to the Euro level.
Let us all now have a coronation for the royal couple in the Palace.
I do not see anyone in the Senate who can now lead a struggle to restore a balance of power between the legislative and the executive.
The American Jihadist Bocobo should be congratulated for his incisive analysis of the state of almost absolute governmental power of the new dynasty that is probably going to flower in the Philippine Islands.
Bencard on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:28 pm
the supreme court has spoken. winners MUST win, losers must obey (and weep, if he/she wants to). let’s try to develop a habit of obedience, as Christ obeyed the Will of the Father to suffer and die on the cross.
the system works. let it be, until it’s changed properly.
Anonymous on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:30 pm
I’m greatly disappointed but I must move on.
Moving on includes supporting dissenting actions.
hvrds on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:32 pm
The Congress is the repository of popular and participatory democracy. It is the living reality of the social contract.
It’s legislative/oversight functions cannot be separated similarly like politics/economics and fiscal/monetary policy. It is like a coin.
The Federal Reserve Chairman is bound by law and is required to report to the Congress on all his actions based on the broad mandate given the institution to preserve price stability and maintain growth in the United States. The world is bound to follow.
The Philippine scenario is one of a regressive nature. The entitlement society has now permeated the Supreme Court. Marcos intimidated the SC then. Most of the SC have turned themselves to whores.
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:53 pm
nash,
“I suppose you have never worked in Quality Assurance or Quality Control?”
??????????????????????
nash on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:53 pm
@UP n
“when quality assurance fails, then the fire sale follows (or as magdiwang said, huge bargains as blood flows in the streets)”
Exactamento. That is why it’s better to do proper QA before it reaches that point. “Accept GMA, move on to 2010″ is for lazy myopic people.
nash on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:58 pm
“the supreme court has spoken. winners MUST win, losers must obey (and weep, if he/she wants to). let’s try to develop a habit of obedience…….”
Eh? That’s it? That’s our legal advice from our resident counsel for the day?
And I was hoping for an educational and illuminating exchange of law and jurisprudence between you and DJB.
nash on Tue, 25th Mar 2008 11:59 pm
@justice scalia
I was just wondering if you were from the school of ‘pwede na yan’….
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:02 am
what’s QA got to do with the judicial system?
nash on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:04 am
Gloria Arroyo is not just a lucky bitch, she’s also a brilliant economist…
“Our government has been importing rice from Thailand, not because there was a rice shortage, but merely to stabilize the price of rice at a lower rate, since production costs are still a little too high for the ordinary Filipino to afford,†Mrs. Arroyo said.
Can the resident economists please explain this statement???
cvj on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:10 am
Bencard, eloquent piece of blasphemy.
nash on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:15 am
@mindanaoan
Yes, we must now accept the SC decision….the votes have been counted…’we’ lost. That’s it.
The QA reference was for the general picture – determining the complicity of GMA in the Neri-ZTE affair and why do we put up with such a shitty president who is mired in all sorts of shenanigans
But as you ask, what does QA have to do with anything?
Everything! and in all branches of government. You need to QA the president, the senators, the congressmen, the justices, the MMDA traffic aide…
as DJB points out, justices are unelected (and difficult to impeach), the more you have to QA those appointments.
maginoo on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:32 am
In so many ways, the Philippine Constitution and government were patterned after the U.S. models.
It is good to know why Presidential appointments of justices to the Supreme Court are not subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as in the American system?
Kinda allow for stacking the deck, doesn’t it?
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:57 am
nash, it’s a poor metaphor. QA is from manufacturing but what we have here are cases where one is different from the next. a better paradigm would be ‘checks and balances’.
and if your approach to good governance includes citizen’s participation in everything, QAing the president, senators,…,traffic aide, it’s like going back to the time when everyone has to hunt for his own food! progress came about from systematic ways of doing things. if we want to improve our government, it’s the system we need to improve.
Bencard on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:03 am
don’t start with your usual nonsensical one-liner, cvj. say what you mean. i’m not a mind reader!
grd on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:09 am
well said mindanaoan.
>>>>>
DAY 26
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:11 am
maginoo, we used to have the justices confirmed by the CA but the 1987 constitution adopted a system of nomination using the judicial and bar council, an innovation made “to eliminate politics from the appointment of judges.” [from the JBC webpage]
maginoo on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:18 am
Thanks Mindanaoan. Maybe, the JBC should only nominate one (instead of five?) to eliminate possible utang na loob.
Maybe our resident political economy commentator could help us. So, mr. hvrds what is your take on this SC decision on political economic terms?.
Is it gratitude, power, money, the ‘greater good,’ or all of the above.
hawaiianguy on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:06 am
What seems to be at play in the SC decision is the usual utang na loob paid to a master. The yes votes clearly show the outrageous correlation. DJB is right.
Bencard on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:15 am
since almost everyone now knows how the unbridled exercise of the senate’s power of inquiry “in aid of legislation”, or pursuant to “oversight” powers, can be abused to irrational proportions, the s.c. ruling is a breath of fresh air that provides a respite from the polluted atmosphere of philippine politics. it defines, once and for all, the parameters of checks and balances and separation of powers among the three branches of our government. this landmark decision enriches our existing jurisprudence, and should guide present and future generations in avoiding costly conflicts that get in the way of national progress.
legal scholars from both sides of the ideological divide will certainly dice, dissect, analyze, and criticize the decision. senators who got the better of it will continue attributing wrongful motivations on the part of the justices voting to uphold executive privilege. but one thing is irrefutable. the principles addressing each of the issues of the case are now part of the law of the land and may be disobeyed only at one’s peril.
i think the real winner is not neri nor the administration. it is the people of the philippines whose wishes, as enshirned in their constitution, has been given effect. all of us shall pass away, but our institutions must remain strong, untrammeled, obeyed and respected by everyone within or without our realm, if our nation must endure.
nash on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:27 am
@mindanoan
I submit, it a poor metaphor for the process of checks and balances.
it’s really more for the “let’s wait till 2010 and live with GMA.” she’s defective goods and must be recalled.
maginoo on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:38 am
…but our institutions must remain strong, untrammeled, obeyed and respected by everyone within or without our realm, if our nation must endure. – Bencard
Quite a statesman’s affirmation. I believe in the statement.
But, Bencard, don’t you think that there was more judicial activism instead of judicial restraint?
Judicial politics?
Bencard on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:05 am
maginoo, this is a case of first impression, i.e., no precedent to uphold or use as a guide except, i believe, a u.s. court of appeals decision. either way, it requires some measure of judicial activism to arrive at a solomonic resolution. c.j. puno is a gma appointee but voted with the losing side. j. quisumbing was not appointed by gma but he voted with the majority. the chief justice apparently knew the outcome at the time he proposed the “deal” which the senators rejected.
the entire decision teaches us all about both the arrogance and the limitations of power. only the people, as a whole, has absolute authority as expressed in its laws and carried out by its chosen representatives.
maginoo on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:12 am
@ Bencard,
Many thanks for the enlightenment! Mabuhay ka!
Pedestrian Observer GB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:41 am
This only shows the effectiveness of the administration in……. digging their own grave deeper, hahaha. Heck, I say ridicule the injustices of the supreme cover up eer court to show our disgust in rejecting the rubbish they throw on us. Toilet presidency indeed………… just go flush her out please…. anyone, lol.
Diego K. Guerrero on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:46 am
What do we expect from Gloria Arroyo’s Supreme Court? Majority of the magistrates are GMA’s appointees. I believe it’s repaying their debt of gratitude or ‘utang na loob’ prevails over the rule of law. The SC ruling on executive privilege can be abused by kleptocrats, future government looters-thieves, and Jose Pidal mafia cronies to hide their criminal activities. God save our motherland from kleptomaniacs!
UP n student on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:55 am
“Our government has been importing rice from Thailand, not because there was a rice shortage, but merely to stabilize the price of rice at a lower rate, since production costs are still a little too high for the ordinary Filipino to afford,†Mrs. Arroyo said.
TRANSLATION using PhD curriculum – University of Philippines School of Economics:
1. This country Pinas sucks. (You don’t need a PhD to conclude this). Pinas cost to produce rice is even higher than the cost for Pinas to buy the rice from Thailand.
2. This country Pinas is good. We produce all the rice we need.
3. This country Pinas sucks. A lot of Pinoys can not afford to buy rice at the cost that Pinoys “manufacture” rice. (You don’t need a PhD to conclude this, either.)
4. I am the greatest!!! I order lower-cost rice from Thailand, so that they can buy Thai rice these Pinoys who can’t afford the rice produced by their fellow Pinoys.
5. I am an economist (PhD – University Philippines Diliman) The lowered cost of rice means some Pinoys who need to charge a higher-price for their rice can’t make enough money. The inefficient Pinoys, they do not survive. They will be among the Pinoys who can’t afford to pay rice at the cost that their fellow Pinoys produce rice. Next year, we’ll need more imported rice.
6. cvj: stop mumbling “smuggling” like smuggling is a bad thing. Smuggling just means Thai rice gets into Pinas without having to pay taxes. No taxes means the rice-in-question is cheaper. And I have a pro-business administration. The smugglers can charge anything they want for the rice they smuggled in. Like these foreign banks can charge as much interest rate they want on credit cards.
UP n student on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 5:02 am
UP n curriculum, not a doctorate-in-economics: So why doesn’t GMA, instead of using P10-million to buy Thai rice, distribute the ten-mil to the Pinoy farmers so that the Pinoy farmers don’t have to charge their fellow Pinoys as high a price for made-in-Pinas rice? cvj: stop mumbling “smuggling” is a business opportunity.
DJB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 6:14 am
Your forefathers were men of peace; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forebearance but they knew its limits. They believed in order but not the order of tyranny. With them nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final” — but not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men, for they seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Mark them.
Bencard on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 6:33 am
djb, not to rain on your parade but can you name one of our forefathers who had “settled” anything on his own that was right and with finality? more than 200 years of foreign domination plus more than seven decades of self-government – where did they get us?
UP n student on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 6:57 am
Side-topic: US Supreme Court to Bush — NO!!!!
———————
Supreme Court rules against Bush in death-row case
A 6-to-3 majority said the president can’t order a state court to abide by an international court ruling
The Christian Science Monitor Mar 26, 2008
Washington
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a setback to President Bush’s expansive vision of presidential power, ruling that a unilateral attempt by Mr. Bush to order state courts to comply with an international treaty violated “first principles” of constitutional government.
“The President’s authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.
The court ruled 6 to 3 that the president overstepped his authority when he ordered the Texas judiciary to abide by a 2004 ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) mandating a new hearing for a Texas death row inmate and 50 other Mexican nationals.
…
“Nothing in the text, background, negotiating and drafting history, or practice among signatory nations suggests that the President or Senate intended the improbable result of giving the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that employed by many of our fundamental constitutional protections,” Roberts wrote.
But the high court didn’t stop there. The majority justices also took issue with Bush’s assertion of unilateral presidential power to trump state-court objections.
“The President has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations,” Roberts wrote, “but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing treaty is not among them.”
UP n student on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 7:01 am
Abe: There it is. Recent US Supreme Court ruling.
Quote: Nothing in the text, background, negotiating and drafting history, or practice among signatory nations suggests that the President or Senate intended the improbable result of
…giving the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that employed by many of our fundamental constitutional protections Close-quote
The Ca t on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 7:02 am
So why doesn’t GMA, instead of using P10-million to buy Thai rice, distribute the ten-mil to the Pinoy farmers so that the Pinoy farmers don’t have to charge their fellow Pinoys as high a price for made-in-Pinas rice?
Because my dear child in the rice trade business, it is not the farmers which dictate the price and control the supply.
It is the middlemen. And I am not taking about the cartel yet. I am talking about the loan sharks who lend money to farmers during planting season or supply the farmers’ family with imported stuff or ukay-ukay payable on the harvest season, 5/6 term.
Have you heard about economies of scale?
Reply from wannabe economist is going to be ignored. I rather read the sins of the high society people.
DJB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 7:04 am
For Bencard:
King Solomon and King David
Led merry, merry lives,
With many, many lady friends,
and many, many wives
But when old age crept over them,
with many, many qualms
King Solomon wrote the Proverbs
and King David wrote the Psalms.
In the long run, it is change that occurs, to men and to institutions, for it is self-discovery and wisdom that endure, not ignorance or indifference.
Stasis, as an ideology, is for the dead or dying, and becomes a largely self-fulfilling prophecy.
I choose institutions over insurgencies, but not acquiescence to inferior or mediocre thinking, even if it comes from the Supreme Court.
My vanity is greater than yours!
Jon Mariano on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 7:15 am
Ca t, do you statistics on farmers still producing rice using money from lenders?
I know of this too, it results to about 20% in interest in 3 months (from field preparation to harvest). But I thought that many farmers has gone to their OFW relatives for interest-free loans.
mang_kiko on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 7:52 am
At Itong Bagong Miembro nang SC kauupo lang sumali agad sa decision nang “majority”, di halata agad ang ‘bias’.
Wala nang pag-asa ang Korte Suprema natin, nahawa rin nang sakit yon, i pati simbahan Katoliko at manga pinuno nahawa-an rin ang iba, ang Korte Suprema pa, na mas “matalino ang naka-upo do-on”..Pareho rin yon sa halos lahat na Politikos, sa halip na kabutihan nang Bayan ang pagisipan, kabutihan nang Amo at Ama ang serbesyohan..
Tama nga si Erap, wether, wether lang Pare…Alam na niya ang gagawin sa susonod, palitan ang SC nang kanyang taohan..
UP n student on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 8:15 am
Probably the more important sentence in the recent US Supreme Court decision is the reminder:
“The President’s authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itselfâ€
vic on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 8:27 am
And any priviveles granted Politicians are just privileges, they should be abused so as to cover up wrongdoings..and the idea of having the SC is to make sure these should not happened..
vic on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 8:29 am
meant they should NOT be abused…
DJB Rizalist on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 8:34 am
Bencard,
Frederick Douglass was talking about America’s forefathers. The quotation was his reply to the Bencards of his time, which was right after a hundred years of US Supreme Court lawmaking UPHOLDING slavery.
Thus did Abe Lincoln prove them (and you wrong). Jose Rizal said the same thing many times. But it is not our forefathers themselves who settle things until they are “right”. It is we the people who do, when the Right Ideas of even one man become our own.
That is the victory of the Word that was there in the Beginning. That is the only victory of the spirit, when the heart and mind are united in agreement and all our rancor is directed at evil and wrongdoing and not at each other, when our self-confidence is inspired by the knowledge that we are better and stronger when we are RIGHT!
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 9:08 am
lol that give the 10 mil to Pinoy farmers instead of buying cheap rice from Thais..
that only goes to show how the attitude of neediness pervades in the mindset of us Pinoys..
mang_isko on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 9:24 am
….kitam. hehehe
cvj on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 9:28 am
Liam, i think what UPn meant was, if there is really no shortage of rice as GMA claims, why not the government, instead of importing rice, just buy the available rice from Pinoy farmers and sell it at a cheaper price to the consumer? In short, subsidize domestic rice a-la NFA. In this way, we do not waste dollars which we need to buy other stuff (like crude oil) and the Pinoy farmers get income. This, while the government and farmers work together to arrive at a more permanent solution that would reduce the cost of domestic rice production.
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:15 am
precisely..
the cost of rice production here is too high
that it becomes a more ‘economical’ choice
to import it from other countries than produce it here..
why?!
to start of, geographically speaking,
we do not have a reliable source of irrigation
aside from rains and one or two rivers..
unlike Thailand’s river system which gets uninterrupted
water in its rivers coming from the snow capped mountains
far north.. and our volcanos mountains cannot compare to the rich minerals and silt coming from the huge land mass that is Asia.. Being an archipelago does have its limitations, and volcanic soil can only do so much.. plus, the seasonal storms and typhoons adversely affect our agricultural productivity..
secondly, the refusal of most farmers, and of course greenpeace, to plant high yielding rice which will bring production levels down and reduce the need to use insecticides, etc..
third, subsidy is a very inefficient and ineffective way of lowering the cost of products given that we do not have the funds to do so, and we need money for other things, like corruption for example..
fourth, farm to market roads, ‘bagsakan’ centers, and farmers market are the infrastructural and operational solutions, but if we were to spend for this just for the sake of lowering rice production, the ROI (Return Of Investment) is really low, given the fact that we can import rice WAAAAAY CHEAPER, magpatong man ng 100% mas mura pa rin ang imported rice..
in short, trying to invest in endeavors towards agriculture, especially on low wielding agricultural products, is a very unwise thing to do, UNLESS, said crops produce sell really high..
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:17 am
^ that shouldve been ‘increasing’ rice production
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:20 am
oh.. and let me add..
personally knowing a rice importer,
rice from vietnam only costs around
9-12 pesos to import, depending on
the quality..
Jeg on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:37 am
I have a question on ethics, Bencard. For example it were you appointed by GMA as a brand-spanking-new justice of the Supreme Court, and an important, ground-breaking decision is up for voting but you were never there for the oral arguments because the arguments were before you were appointed. All you have are the court transcripts. Would you still vote or would you inhibit yourself?
UP n student on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:10 am
Liam: I do not believe the GMA statement that Pinas produces all the rice that Pinas needs. What I can believe is (because of poor infrastructure) that it is cheaper to supply Quiapo and Divisoria with rice from Thailand and Vietnam than to supply NCR-region with Pinas-rice.
Economics will tell you that that the last cavan of rice costs the least amount to produce. The price of a cavan of rice is also dependent on the demand for that cavan or rice. Translation: Vietnam can sell rice to Pinas cheap because they are selling us their excess production. Either they convert their excess production to dollars by selling to GMA, or the excess production goes to waste (or goes to feed). And what is a good price for Vietnam to sell us their rice production that exceeds their own demand? At a price lower than Pinas cost-of-production!!!! Vietnam is happy, Pinas buyers are happy, Pinas farmers… trouble.
In addition, Schumey had a blogthread which mentioned NFA. The problem he pointed out is that NFA is ill-funded (lacks ten-mil, maybe more). Had NFA been better-funded (by ten-mil, maybe more) then some of the vicious-cycle issues that Ca t pointed to — farmers selling future production so the farmers can buy fertilizer and seedlings — may be solved. [Needed will be NFA or rural-bank funding and farming-technique education.]
There is another URL (I think on Malaya) which mentions that Pinas farmers are really shafted by government policy to provide cheap rice to city dwellers. During times that Pinas has good harvests (just when Pinas farmers have opportunity to “rake in the money” from the harvests), the government imports rice (and onions, garlic). The potential profits to Pinas farmers goes up in smoke as the prices drop.
In the background is this issue of Malacanang quite scared of the hakot-crowd from Payatas and other NCR areas that they sacrifice the welfare of the La Union and Cordilleras farmers. This is not rich-versus-poor; this is poor-NCR versus poor-rural.
——————
There are no successful Filipino farmers. Either a farmland-owning person is an oligarch hacendero (boo!!!!!) or the farmer is a farmer. A Filipino farmer that grows his business suddenly becomes suspect. Give me a teacher or an accountant for a neighbor anytime, right?????
Unfortunately for Filipino farmers, they are not considered heroes of the motherland. Oppressed ones, dejado…. maybe, but heroes, not at all.
Towards the dejado, the attitude is to ignore them if you can’t help them. Guilt trip —- not pleasant. Now, heroes… different story. A country becomes more than willing to offer a little concession here or there to ensure the continuance of the bloodline of the heroes of yesterday.
balatucan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:21 am
We can now see the trend of the Supreme Court. Its decisions are now clearly pro GMA. Who would stop the plans and acts of GMA government.
I fear that with the revival of a Charter Change initiative, there will not be enough numbers to stop the runaway GMA train. With the way they are voting, favoring Cha Cha initiatives will be trouble free.
UP n student on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:38 am
towards the dejado, the attitudes can be:
(1) dejado? eh ang buhay, minsan, talagang ganiyan. Magpa-novena tayo para sa kanila.
(2) dejado pala, eh di lokohin pa natin, bakit hindi;
(3) dejado… kapit-patalim, madaling utuin.
(4) dejado… malas dumikit sa mga iyan, baka mahawa ka pa.
(5) dejado? siguro, may kasalanan sa diyos.
(6) dejado pala, eh ano ang maitutulong ng mga iyan?
(7) dejado? ang titigas kasi ng mga ulo eh, hindi sila mahanap ng ibang paraan. it’s simple, really!
(8) dejado dahil nagpupursigi sa negosyong walang kuwalta. Eh di iyan!!
(9) Gulong ng buhay…. Weather weather lang.
Mike on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:41 am
I wonder what the “I Will Wait Till 2010″ crowd will say when elections don’t happen in 2010–because the Con Ass that enacts the new constitution will allow the Con Ass members (that is, the current congressmen) a free first term as Members of Parliament, in order to “ensure a smooth transition.” This free first term is important–because there won’t be any term limits, so it’ll be very cheap to maintain the advantage of the incumbent.
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:45 am
Shades of Erap.
Mike on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:49 am
From the Wikipedia entry on “Term Limits”:
(emphasis mine)
Now doesn’t that suit somebody we know just fine?
Jeg on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:52 am
If elections dont happen, Im confident that a lot of the Wait crowd will join the Out Now crowd and the GMA administration knows this. This could mean more drastic measures are being prepared by the administration to suppress our rights even more. They will do it through the ‘institutions’ we all know and love.
renmin on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:52 am
What happens to an official who violates Executive Privilege? Let’s say the official decides that need for public disclosure trumps vow of silence. What are the consequences for her? I suppose she’ll get fired. Any criminal sanctions?
rego on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:04 pm
Teka lang, di ba yung pag appoint ng SC justice ay dumadaan sa JBC at sa Commission on appointments? At may At may opposition members ang dalwang yan? Kung utang na loob din lang naman ang pag uusapan, hindi lang kay GMA may utang na loob ang mga nakupong justices pati na rin sa bumubuo ng JBC at commision on appointments.
Kung may problem atayo sa mga naupong jusitices, bakit hindi tingnan kung may mali sa sistema nag pag aapoint. Mali at walang mang yayari dyan sa basta na lang finger point kay Gloria.
I just can not buy this “GMA appointee” trick of the pathetic losers crowd everytime Gloria and her administration scored a legal victory in the SC . And DJB even suggested burning the SC?.
Para sa akin kung may nakakaiyak man, eto yung mga over reactions through the comments made in this blog by the representatives pathetic loser crowds.
john marzan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:15 pm
“We may not like the President, but what are the people offering? Who is a credible alternative?â€
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:27 pm
nash,
“I was just wondering if you were from the school of ‘pwede na yan’….”
what mindanaoan said (3/26/08 12:02 am)
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:31 pm
Jeg,
a judge who never heard a case can decide on it, relying on transcripts of stenographic notes and all documents submitted
only a small percentage of SC cases are set for oral arguments. 95% of the time, cases are decided on documents and written arguments.
whats not allowed is if a judge gets appointed to the next court level and reviews an appeal of his own decision
Jeg on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:41 pm
a judge who never heard a case can decide on it, relying on transcripts of stenographic notes and all documents submitted
Thanks, scalia. I was thinking about landmark cases. Cases that would set precedent that would be referred to in decisions for generations to come. Not your everyday run-of-the-mill cases, that is, not in the ‘95% of the time’. I was thinking if you had a profound sense of ethics, not just a technical sense of one, you’d want to have been there. You want to have captured all the nuances. It’s a judgement call of course. Im just saying I wouldve inhibited myself. It’s in bad taste to just show up and then offer your vote and everybody, including the body politic knows you voted on a landmark case based on transcripts, and that the body politic was watching you because you were a new appointee. (cough-cou-Brion-ough)
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:03 pm
Jeg,
you’re reacting that way just because of how the verdict went.
theres nothing wrong with relying on transcripts. and theres nothing unethical about it
take note not one legal luminary raised a howl on that
maybe to appease you, try to make a little research on judicial ethics and see if the concerned justice violated an ethics rule
(besides, the vote of that concerned justice wasn’t a swing vote)
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:04 pm
Jeq, transcripts and documents are best. Objectivity is key. Supreme courts do not even need oral arguments from both sides, ideally speaking. They just need ALL the FACTS.
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:08 pm
rego,
“I just can not buy this “GMA appointee†trick of the pathetic losers crowd everytime Gloria and her administration scored a legal victory in the SC . And DJB even suggested burning the SC?.”
agreed. they sound like losing election candidates (“nadaya kami, di kami natalo!”)
“Para sa akin kung may nakakaiyak man, eto yung mga over reactions through the comments made in this blog by the representatives pathetic loser crowds.”
kaya matatawa na naman si benignO sa atin
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:12 pm
Besides, why hedge on Neri?
Jeg on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:21 pm
you’re reacting that way just because of how the verdict went.
With all due respect, scalia, you have no idea why im reacting ‘that way’. But let me assure you that Im not traumatized by the verdict, if that’s what you mean. It was more or less expected. I would react ‘that way’ even if it went the other way and Brion voted in the minority. I’d still say, Anong ginagawa nya dun?
take note not one legal luminary raised a howl on that
Appeal to authority and beside the point. Bad taste isnt against the law, after all. Like I said, Im not after the technical ethics. Just the ordinary mundane delicadeza type. A matter of taste, and not of rules.
BrianB: Jeq, transcripts and documents are best.
A matter of judgement and taste. Landmark decision and al l. I prefer to have been there.
Jeg on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:22 pm
kaya matatawa na naman si benignO sa atin
If Im not mistaken, that’s the second time you have appealed to benny’s sense of humor, scalia.
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:32 pm
“A matter of judgement and taste”
JEQ, logic, not taste. Judgment is the consequence of logic in matters of taste. Or something like that. Ask Kant.
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:32 pm
is this readiness to call names, suspect ill motives, disparage, or whine loudly when things don’t go on one’s way a psychological condition or a tactic in argumentation and debate? i wonder what it’s called?
rego on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:33 pm
Its not only that anthony, para bang end of teh world na for teh Phillipines. sobrang pagka OA talaga!
Jeg on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:36 pm
Ask Kant, Brian? Haha. Id rather not. He’ll put me to sleep.
JEQ, logic, not taste. Judgment is the consequence of logic in matters of taste.
Logic, sure. That’s why I would rather have been there. I can’t ask the transcript a question and expect it to answer, right? I do not want to be limited to what my colleagues asked. What if in my opinion they failed to ask a crucial question? (And even if they didnt, taste dictates I shouldve been there for the orals. My taste at least.)
Jeg on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:37 pm
Rego! Delikado daw ang manok natin sa AI. Binoto mo ba si Ramiele?
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:38 pm
Jesus, who says?
hvrds on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:39 pm
According to the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics the country grows about 16-17M tons of paddy rice (palay).
Out of that the country is able to mill approximately 9M+ tons. Domestic consumption is at 11M+
Hence the yield of rice from palay planted and eventually harvested and milled is not sufficient. The reasons are a complex web of supply side bottlenecks.
At the present level of prices everyone should be allowed to import not only the government.
Government should direct cheap credit to all farmers big and small and give them access to cheaper inputs by making the NFA the prime wholesaler of inputs instead of traders. Buy up at least 30-40 percent of yields at farmgate prices that guarantee a suitable yield every harvest season. The bulk of palay planted/harvested in the country is still rain fed and limited to one planting season.
Most people are ignorant of the fact that the BSP sets the price of credit in the country based on IMF dictates and not the needs of the domestic productive economy.
The NFA is running a deficit of over Php 60 billion +. All there from years of importing rice and buying high and selling low. Someone has made a lot of money from this and it definitely was not the farmers.
Shit, this business of entitlements again.
If the government would like to put Joma out of business the perfect opportunity is coming around. Laissez Faire has been thoroughly discredited by the U.S. They are burning more corn in the U.S. all on the public dime. Using the effective tools of the market with proper government intervention at the weak points of the supply chain would be revolutionary.
One can dream.
Jeg on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:40 pm
msnbc. It’s either her or Chikeze daw.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:41 pm
rego, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_and_Bar_Council
no opposition members.
background, here:
http://jbc.supremecourt.gov.ph/history.php
the congress has not had a say in appointments to the supreme court since the 1935 constitution was scrapped. fr. bernas, however, has proposed giving the power of confirmation to the senate exclusively:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=82127
in this column, bernas says the jbc is supposed to limit the choices of the president in making appointments to the supreme court, by limiting the choice to a pre-prepared list:
http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=43405
but he pointed out it depended on whether the jbc would take its job seriously or not.
in 2006, though, bernas observed that the jbc has surrendered much of its independence to the president.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:46 pm
scalia, you are aware that the legal luminaries are still busy reading the decision, the dissenting opinions, etc.?
cvj on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:53 pm
Manolo, i think many of them are still busy downloading from the website. It’s so slow…like waiting for 2010.
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:53 pm
mlq3,
i was referring to the alleged impropriety on the part of a justice who voted, yet wasn’t present during oral arguments. the point of Jeg was that that concerned justice should have inhibited himself since he never heard the oral arguments. my view is there’s nothing unethical about it
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:56 pm
Jeg,
“If Im not mistaken, that’s the second time you have appealed to benny’s sense of humor, scalia.”
yes. why do we keep on giving our favorite Fil-Aussie reason to be amused?
rego on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 1:57 pm
Jeg,
I continue voting for Ramiele. But I jsut cant help but fall for David Cook after I heard his version of Hello, Eleanor Rigby and and lately Billie Jean. I think he is the most consistent among contestants so far.
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:00 pm
mindanaoan,
“is this readiness to call names, suspect ill motives, disparage, or whine loudly when things don’t go on one’s way a psychological condition or a tactic in argumentation and debate? i wonder what it’s called?”
let me try – its called human nature.
to make it closer to home – its the Pinoy-losing-candidate-syndrome
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:05 pm
scalia,
well, quite frankly delicadeza, like virginity, once lost is impossible to regain. even a surgical procedure to restory the hymen doesn’t really make one a virgin again.
that being said, i suppose we have to make a distinction between outright prohibitions in law and regulations and tradition. certainly none of the justices broke the law, or violated regulations. did their participation violate the informal code of delicadeza? perhaps. nothing compeled justices corona and velasco to inhibit themselves and if people don’t like it, let them mount a revolution otherwise, they have security of tenure. was brion wrong to vote? not in terms of law or past practice, it seems. once appointed, he was entitled to participate in all pending cases. was it appropriate? who cares. if anyone disagrees let them mount a revolution.
which is not to say those who find something wrong either with the decision or the participation of these justices will mount a revolution. or that i even think it will drive people to contemplating a revolution. but it does offer up another opportunity to reflect on that old saying that what’s legal isn’t necessarily what’s right.
for now, a color of constitutionality remains the veneer on all things, comforting to the 2010 movement.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:06 pm
that’s making a dangerous assumption -that there isn’t a basis for those who complain they were cheated.
rego on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:07 pm
Manolo,
Thanks for the very enteresting links. I really appreciate it.
But that exactly is my point, kesa pag papaikayin nyo na lang ang mga tao, mas mabuting isama sa diskusyon yung pagtingin sa sistema. Pro active baga hindi reactive.
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:28 pm
Ramielle Malubay might do well listening to these Pinoys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRiVkJkAKgg
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:32 pm
rego iba lang ang perspektibo natin. sa aking pananaw hindi mo puwedeng paghatiin ang tao sa sistema, ang tao ang bumibigay o nagbabawas sa isang sistema. ang mga sistema ay gawa din ng tao, at ang nagdedesenyo ng mga sistema ay hindi mga diyos na nakakakita ng lahat. may mga tao na nakakaisip ng paraaan upang sirian ang isang sistema na may abilidad sa ganung bagay na di man lang naisip ng mga nagdesenyo na posible pala gawin ang ganun.
kaya hindi natin puwedeng ipaghiwalay ang pagkulang ng isang sistema at ng mga taong kasama ng sistema. isang halimbawa. sinasabi nila na nagkaroon ng isang afp chief of staff na nagsimula ng bagong sistema ng paghahati-hati ng pera para sa mga unit ng afp. imbes na pilitin ang mga unit na pumila sa ghq, pinadala agad ng afp chief of staff na iyon ang mga salapi sa mga unit, bahala na sila. nung ginawa niya ito, medyo nabawasan ang hawak niya sa mga unit, ngunit, naging kontento ang mga unit kasi hindi na sila napilitang mang-langis sa afp cos. mas fair, kumbaga. mula noon, hindi na naibalik ng mga sumonod na afp cos ang dating sistema.
madaling magsabi na pikon lang ang isang tao pag umangal siya. kelangan nating tanungin, eh baka naman dapat lang mapikon siya. may basehan ba ang kaniyang pagangal? pinagaralan ba niya yung problema, talaga bang dapat siyang mag ingay? o naiirita lang ba tayo sa ingay dahil eh yun pala, wala namang nakinig, walang kumilos -at iniisip natin tuloy na dahil walang naidulot kaagad ang ingay, bale wala lang pala yung ingay na yun. eh baka naman ang pagkukulang ay hindi sa panig nung nag ingay, kundi sa mga hindi kumibo nung narinig nila ang ingay. siyempre pwede rin naman naman na mahilig lang mag ingay yung taong iyon -eh maski naman ganun lang siya, eh paano naman kung may k siyang mag ingay sa panahong iyon?
ngunit eh paano naman kung may taong nasagasaan, umiiyak, humihiyaw, at may tumulong at mayroong hindi: at tayo lamang ay nanood sa lahat ng naganap. puwede ba nating paghusgaan yung tumulong at yung hinde? depende siguro kung gaano kalayo tayo sa naganap.
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:43 pm
But even emotion has to face the big picture, don’t you think, Manolo?
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:43 pm
to manolo and the rest of those who say that the SC is a puppet:
if your concept of delicadeza becomes the norm
in deciding landmark SC cases.. and all of GMA’s
appointed should inhibit on cases pertaining to
‘hot’ issues..
wouldnt that make CJ Puno the sole
decider of cases?
Abe N. Margallo on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 2:51 pm
Simony is when bishops fudge their pastoral in exchange for payolas.
Si money is when 9 shamans lap up a shoddy term paper on executive privilege because of utang na loob.
Thank God, we have a Puno.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:01 pm
brian, yes, which is why, err, two heads are better than one.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:03 pm
liam, again, pls. go back to the particular criticisms of particular justices and why their inhibition was proposed. no one ever proposed a blanket inhibition. for corona: it was because his wife signed a political manifesto for the president (andif she’d signed one against the president it would be the same argument); for velasco, because some questioned if he didn’t have a friendship with neri; others (not me) questioned the participation of other justices and it’s up to you to see if you agree or not (the justices obviously didn’t).
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:07 pm
In that case Manolo, judges should live lives of hermits, not marry or have children and break ties with friends and relatives.
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:07 pm
I mean supreme court judges.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:09 pm
actually, brian, in the past justices of the supreme court tended to live quite secluded lives, at least until the 70s or 80s. they tended to be scholarly people, anyway, and so not fond of the social scene.
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:12 pm
And I’m not turning over. I just think it’ stupid betting on Neri anyway.
We should learn from what happened to Erap. We threw everything under the sun at him, and they all stuck, even the unfair and irrelevant accussations, and what did we get from that… a spineless republic.
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:12 pm
mlq3,
er, my exchanges with Jeg are strictly on the new justice who was still with the executive branch during the oral arguments on Neri’s petition
not that i didnt appreciate your 3/26/08 2:05 pm comment
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:17 pm
mindanaoan,
one more time:
“is this readiness to call names, suspect ill motives, disparage, or whine loudly when things don’t go on one’s way a psychological condition or a tactic in argumentation and debate? i wonder what it’s called?â€
its called “doing a Marquez”
yung mga di matanggap ang SC decision kay Neri are all “doing a Marquez”!
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:27 pm
The anti-Gloria group already has enough on their hands. Taking on the SC as well is a big, big mistake, and there’s no guarantee Neri will give the goods. Neri has his own supreme court and it is located inside his head (or heart).
If we were wiser, we would’ve campaigned for the playing of Hello Garci to the general public and do our own distribution of the tapes ourselves.
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:34 pm
sa lahat na hindi matanggap ang SC decision kay Neri:
you don’t need his further testimony! with the existing testimonies given in the circus, este Senate, it can be established that gloria gave the go-signal to the project despite Neri’s advice of Abalos’ bribery attempt
ano ba kayo?!
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:35 pm
i am there manolo
but if the justices were to always bow down to calls for inhibitions, it will always tilt the balance of justice towards ‘loud’ sentiments or popular opinion, which i think should not be the case. why did we painstakingly create the institutions and the processes in the first place when we are inclined to bring it down the moment it swings against our favor?
the fact that it was the JBC who nominated the appointees, should erase any cloud of doubt as to the neutrality of each justice. remember, the JBC is composed of members as mandated in the Constitution, whose membership and nomination process is designed precisely to prevent partisan politics in miring the appointment of justices.
if there is something wrong with the way the justices are chosen or nominated, let the blame fall on JBC, for it is they, in the first place, whom chosen the nominees. hey, why dont we blame the framers of that particular provision? was it bernas?
what i am saying is, we are always quick to put motives on our SC Justices the moment some distant relative by consanguinity or affinity comes into light or by some seemingly serendipitous moment that a justice was seen with someone who has close ties to the palace.
we should judge SC justices(how ironic) based on how they formulated their decisions, not on a purported link like the ‘web of life’ in ecology. because if we all will examine really closely, everyone shall have links to everyone.
the decisions are published and the justices’ contentions are there, surely, we can hold them accountable if there is a blatant disregard for justice on their side.
jason born on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:40 pm
djb:
Thanks you very much for the information about the washburnlaw website. I received your philippine commentary essay today and got the link to the website of the thesis of Mary Kreiner Ramirez titled: Whistleblower Protection: A Tale of Reform versus Power
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:47 pm
and please don’t forget, the chief justice is ex-officio chairman of the JBC
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:51 pm
“is this readiness to call names, suspect ill motives, disparage, or whine loudly when things don’t go on one’s way a psychological condition or a tactic in argumentation and debate? i wonder what it’s called?”
“doing a Marquez”
by far this is the best definition and the best title for that tactic
Jeg on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:53 pm
you don’t need [Neri's] further testimony! with the existing testimonies given in the circus, este Senate, it can be established that gloria gave the go-signal to the project despite Neri’s advice of Abalos’ bribery attempt
Tumpak! That’s enough for a case for betrayal of public trust.
Puwede patawag si GMA and ask her about that radio interview where she said she knew there were anomalies with the project but decided to go ahead anyway. “Ekshecutive privilege, Mr. Chairman.”
jason born on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:54 pm
Liam:
during the time of marcos, the jbc also nominated the SC appointees, yet it did not erase any cloud of doubt as to the neutrality of each justice. The Ilagan case is still so fresh in my mind. How they allow the jailing of the three lawyers for more than 17 days on the basis of Marcos’ PDA directing their detention. Notwithstanding the SC’s earlier decision, granting their temporary release for lack of evidence, which they turned around after several days.
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:56 pm
are their supreme courts in other countries that accept outsourcing? maybe we can send our controversial cases there.
jason born on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 3:59 pm
Since the SC’s decision has a forced of a law, we just have to wait and hope in the future that the Neri vs Senate doctrine will be reversed.
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:01 pm
jason born, the JBC was created by the 1987 constitution
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:06 pm
@jason
but they have this fear for their lives in marcos’ era, now we dont have that sort of fear..
@mindanaoan
rofl..
can’t we just outsource everything?
including running the country?
i am very tired of having to defend institutions..
brilliant idea mindanaoan
btw.. im a mindanaoan as well, davaoeño in particular..
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:12 pm
And Manolo, what would you say if someone calls you and your group arrogant for takin on the President, the Bishops and the SC? I don’t think a lengthy explanation on why you think all of the above are wrong would work.
Stick to what is immediately apparent. Jeq, Anthony and I (and others not mentioned) think we have more than enought to keep this going and escalating. I wouldn’t want to raise a family in country where anything goes if the rich and powerful want it enough. Gloria cheated, and so will the others after her. It’s like the Marcoses all over again. Because the Marcoses were never punished, corruption increased exponentially.
Your problem right now is that your insecurity is showing. Instead of acting morally superior you are sinking to their level, nitpicking and generally trying to out-pol the pols, to outmaneuver them all. Why do you need so many reasons to remove Gloria?
Too bad the SC decided to allow Neri to keep mum, but their decision is a small “and” INsignificant target. Many times I called the bishops stupid but that’s only because they are being Obviously stupid. Not so with the SC decision. They cite national security and a lack of compelling reason… well, I dunno, maybe, who knows.
So let’s not get side-tracked here…
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:17 pm
Liam Tinio, only controversial cases. it would probably be expensive!
Madonna on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:20 pm
The underbelly of our society is showing right up in this SC decision. The center is not holding. Frisson of a likely bloody revolution in the future. No more wimpy Edsas. A least a consolation, a 6-9 vote. Outnumbered but not outfought. And the Chief Justice penned a dissenting opinion.
Hay, WTF, too numb to weep.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:23 pm
brian, you’ve lost me. am engaging in dialogue with those who have opposite views, is all.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:23 pm
madonna, frisson is perfect.
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:23 pm
oh.. and let’s outsource our elections as well..
let contractors from Scandinavia or Slovak Republic
do it.. it seems we can’t just let us trust ourselves anymore..
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:29 pm
If Gloria falls, the rest will follow, but if you go after the rest first, Gloria may never fall. It’s not very difficult to go after her directly. No further evidence, bombs (bencard: metaphor) and revelations are needed. There is no need to whittle away her defences, to me she has no defence; it’s all smoke and mirrors… they are playing the emperor’s new clothes. Lucky bitch means she’s lucky very few people are seeing her nakedness.
Diego Torres on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:38 pm
I am utterly floored by the SC decision. Baboy in robes is all i can write.
tonio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:39 pm
rego:
this is the first time i’ve ever seen a “sore winner”.
excuse the rest of the people on this blog if they are a bit upset about the SC decision. what? you’d think these people are so beholden to the Supreme Court that they would give zombiefied nods of assent the minute they bring down their decisions? should we all be happy that your patron gets to stay in the Palace?
sheesh.
tonio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:40 pm
all of what’s going on right now are the consequences of a lesson the people should have learned a long time ago. this is the fruit of treating your votes in the elections as unimportant. cheating aside, had more people valued their votes during the last presidential election, this might not be happening.
this system has been played. and played really well. The President has made full use of the powers of the executive, and successfully co-opted her checks and balances through patronage appointments and congressional largess.
in short, we’re screwed. the country has no choice but to dance to the whims of that ‘lucky bitch”.
now is the time to learn what she did to play the system, and to change it at the right time.
jason born on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:45 pm
Mindanaoan:
yes. Tnx
Liam:
Yes, maybe they are not scared. but while they passed through the JBC, the president still has to pick one from the short list. that very last act of the president may fickle the neutrality of a justice.
Like in the case of newly appointed justice brion, he’s holding an important position under the executive while this mess started. His ties there might have sleeked past when he decided to vote.
Liam Tinio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:52 pm
but who should pick the justice? senators?
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 4:56 pm
Guys,
If the SC ruling was so bad, why didn’t Puno and the no voters resign? If they agree with some of us here that the decision spells the final defeat of democracy, why keep up the pretense. Surely the last bastion of democracy is not the SC but the people themselves.
Rob' Ramos on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 5:02 pm
MLQ, first, thank you once again for the pingback. Me nagbabasa pala ng blog ko XD
BUT, I wish to correct your impression that I was, er, delighted at the decision. Well, di naman. Masyado.
I said it was “interesting” because, after all the praises the Puno Court got from those seeking the Little Girl’s ouster, it would be… interesting to see the reactions to this one. The posts here in your blog, Manolo, prove my point.
As for my “expanded” view on the decision, Liam’s post of March 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pm more or less captures what is in my thoughts. I have nothing new to add to the discussion for now, so I more or less go with what Anthony and the others not calling the SC decision as purely a “Gloria’s boys” thing said.
Again, MLQ, I’m not (exactly) delighted at it. Just found it… interesting. Whether its in a Chinese sort of way, haha, that’s something we’ll all find out soon, eh?
I DO want to read that decision, too. Like what Liam said, it would be the best gauge on whether the 9 justices sold out or not. But before that, can we, as supposedly intelligent individuals have the “jury out”, so to speak and pun not intended, on whether this was partisan or a sell out?
Personally, though, I’ve long lost my awe for the SC. Anyone who saw how they decided on the LP case – unless you’re from the Drilon Wing – would not be able to keep believing its above reproach, nor is it always “solomonic.” The SC’s handling of the LP case left me depressed for months. Para bang di mo na alam kung kanino ka pa sasandal when it comes to what is true or just.
Kaya, ayan ha: hindi ko dine-defend ang SC dahil hindi ako rabidly anti-Gloria. I’ve seen the SC at its worst and know a bit of those “dark corners” DJB is referring to.
But at the same time, if you’re going to castigate someone or something – let alone an important institution of society – it better be for solid reasons.
tonio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 5:35 pm
Brian:
while you do have a point there, the fact remains that the Palace has something to hide. Something Neri knows. And now something that is beyond the reach of the people. Is it truly that damaging? all the hoopla of the past few months is on the public’s right to know. Is this information really something we have no right to know?
what i do like about the decision though is that it should discourage the Senators from pursuing investigations “in aid of pa-pogi and mass media sound bytes”.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 5:38 pm
brian, the sc is the most tradition-bound institution we have. they don’t resign when outvoted. they hope their dissenting opinions are ratified by history.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 5:42 pm
rob, my bad. will correct my entry.
the jury’s still out but even with the most famous judicial cop out in our history, javellana v. executive secretary, the cop out was beautifully adorned. the court’s composition is changing and so, it’s simply a sign of things to come. which is good or bad i suppose depending on those for or against the administration which will face more cases, or interesting to those who are neutral.
BrianB on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 5:55 pm
manolo, resign re the co-opting of the sc by a corrupt malacanag, and not on losing. You suggest the decision was along party-line and worse, bribery and personal interest had a play. ZThe judgment of history is only relevant when the opinions were made out of beliefs, principles and personal understanding of the law.
mlq3 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 6:21 pm
brian, the justices are the first to uphold the “presumption of regularity” even when their peers make bad decisions. incidentally, i never said or implied bribery. i believe it’s a bad decision, and one marred by the justices declining to attend to the issues that would have made inhibition a prudent option. and i am beginning to think it’s a decision that will only escalate tensions, politically.
The Ca t on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 7:18 pm
They can do it one time but not all the time. OFW returnees found this lending to farmers a lucrative underground economic activity and more profitable than putting the money in time deposits and other commercial papers which will yield them only about 1 per cent a month.
Others do not charge interest but they buy the harvest at a discount. The effect is the same.
As I have said the price in the market is not dictated by the farmers. It is the middlemen who are capable of buying the harvests to cash-strapped farmers.
US Government subsidies to farmers come in different forms like buying the excess production.
Then they dump the products to the third world economies like the Philippines either as an aid or as an export processed product. The rest are used to supply the Food program for the needy in the US at a very low price using government money for the purchase. Ask the old veterans what they do with the big bars of cheese provided to them by the welfare agencies. Minsan ginagamit door stopper.
Where do these cheese come from? From the excess milk production bought by the government from the farmers.
Inabot mo na ba yong powdered milk na binibigay daw sa mga public schools sa pinas? Ako hindi na. Galing din doon yon.
Can the Philippines do this? Nah Not until these congressmen who “represent” the business sector with lobbying money and not the constituency stop blocking proposed legislations that may affect their “buddies’” businesses.
Joselito Basilio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 8:34 pm
I am of the view that the majority ruling is jurisprudentially defensible but it is morally wrong. I don’t want to say this but the 9 justices acted in accordance with expediency. It’s a display of judicial favoritism which disturbs the tranquility of the doctrine of checks and balance. I have lost my admiration for Justice Nachura when I read his separate concurring opinion.
How could a President’s implied power of executive privilege, which is not even expressly defined in the Constitution, prevail over an express and explicit power of inquiry of the Senate which is specifically spelt out in the Constitution? That’s is beyond me. To my mind, the breach of the separation-of-powers principle is more on the side of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it castrated the Senate of its express constitutional power of inquiry.
UP n student on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 9:21 pm
to Joselito :
When “jurisprudentially defensible” equates to “based on the constitution”, what did you expect the justices to do? For you, the blame should fall on the old folks from 1986/87. They wrote the constitution.
The future action is on Congress (to pass new laws) or on GMA(to initiate a new constitutional convention). Or on a People-surge of Padre Faura gates, but this will be too late because the decision has been penned.
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 9:25 pm
somebody should simplify this concept of executive privilege. why not a blanket privilege, or none at all?
mindanaoan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 9:36 pm
Joselito,
perhaps, because this power of inquiry has an attachment: The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected. if the right of the person include executive privilege, how is it respected if not by honoring it?
jason born on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:51 pm
but who should pick the justice? senators?
————————————————-
Senators? With the present crop, Cold King is even a better choice where we can put our trust to pick the next jurist without a shadow of doubt of political patronage. Of course, it’s the president, that’s what the constitution says. But the point i want to hammer on is that the JBC is not a 101 percent insurance policy to keep the independence of a SC candidate intact. Neither the appointment of the president will outrightly make the appointee loyal to the appointing power. The test of the pudding is through eating. Retired Justice Artemio Panganiban congratulated justice brion after his appointment with all honesty but with reservation and i quote:
“Congratulations to new Supreme Court Justice Arturo D. Brion. As the 1974 bar exam topnotcher with a grade of 91.65 and class valedictorian of the Ateneo de Manila College of Law, he is, no doubt, intellectually qualified. His integrity and industry are unquestioned. Should he pass the test of independence, he would surely be hailed a great jurist.
grd on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 3:01 am
not only justice brion, but the other 8 justices as well, all failed the test for their decision.
the battle between good and evil has now reached the supreme court…
revolution is the answer as what mlq3 has repeatedly implied here.
Liam Tinio on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:12 am
“enators? With the present crop, Cold King is even a better choice where we can put our trust to pick the next jurist without a shadow of doubt of political patronage. Of course, it’s the president, that’s what the constitution says. [b]But the point i want to hammer on is that the JBC is not a 101 percent insurance policy to keep the independence of a SC candidate intact.[/b] Neither the appointment of the president will outrightly make the appointee loyal to the appointing power. The test of the pudding is through eating. Retired Justice Artemio Panganiban congratulated justice brion after his appointment with all honesty but with reservation and i quote:
“Congratulations to new Supreme Court Justice Arturo D. Brion. As the 1974 bar exam topnotcher with a grade of 91.65 and class valedictorian of the Ateneo de Manila College of Law, he is, no doubt, intellectually qualified. His integrity and industry are unquestioned. Should he pass the test of independence, he would surely be hailed a great jurist.”
we can amend the constitution to make this happen.
but i guess we dont really trust anyone in the government
that’s why almost everyone here wants a revolution.
but id rather have a civil war rather than a revolution. revolutions in our country tend to be undertaken by a coalition of different groups with conflicting and irreconcilable difference. while civil wars, if it may happen, have two sides to choose from. now let this civil war happen between the moralists on one hand and the institutionalists on the other.
but if we want a simpler solution, why dont we just OUTSOURCE everything we dont want Filipinos to handle?
treason? a slap to freedom and independence? what is freedom anyway if we dont give any official the benefit of the doubt.
anthony scalia on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:00 pm
Jeg,
“But let me assure you that Im not traumatized by the verdict, if that’s what you mean.”
no, thats not what i meant. our discussion is solely on Brion’s vote with the majority.
“It was more or less expected.”
not really. recent SC decisions on ‘landmark’ cases are not exactly Malacañang friendly
“I would react ‘that way’ even if it went the other way and Brion voted in the minority. I’d still say, Anong ginagawa nya dun?”
really? if the SC voted the other way around (executive privilege pierced), I seriously doubt you’d still score Brion for taking part in the voting
“Appeal to authority and beside the point. Bad taste isnt against the law, after all. Like I said, Im not after the technical ethics. Just the ordinary mundane delicadeza type. A matter of taste, and not of rules.”
you’re alleging impropriety, an unethical act (not being prompted by delicadeza). no one has ever taken issue with Brion taking part in the decision though he was still with the executive branch during oral arguments.
In legal and judicial ethics, a lawyer or a judge may perform some legal act which at the same time is completely unethical.
anthony scalia on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:15 pm
Joselito Basilio,
“The Supreme Court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it castrated the Senate of its express constitutional power of inquiry”
not really. what the Supreme Court in effect is saying is this – its the Senate who is acting with grave abuse of discretion.
among the 3 branches of government, the SC has the sole power to interpret the constitution. The SC alone can determine if the other two branches are acting within their respective constitutionally delineated boundaries. In effect also the SC is telling the Senate it is going beyond constitutional limits if executive privilege is removed.
and let us all be reminded – what castrating are you talking about? the whole circus is about an investigation in aid of legislation. our bright senators do not need Neri’s further testimony to craft whatever legislation they want to make.
its already a known fact that gloria gave the go signal to the project despite Neri’s advice of a bribery attempt
investigation in aid of legislation. hindi judicial hearing.
Joselito Basilio on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 6:38 pm
Not many know that newly appointed Justice Brion is actually deaf. Notwithstanding that, he heard the political whisper of the President and concur with the majority opinion.
Joselito Basilio on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 7:05 pm
The Supreme Court abused its discretion for evading a positive duty to preserve the constitutional principles of separate of powers and checks and balances.The Supreme Court is not supposed to be concerned with the wisdom of laws, but only in the interpretation and application of the law. It is not their constitutional mandate to pass judgment upon the internal rules of a co-equal body, much more limit the power of the Senate whose authority directly emanates from the people through election.
Bert on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 8:36 pm
Revolution or civil war, unlike sexual intercourse, are not spur-of-the-moment events that can be invoke when moment of desire arise, as world history would tell us. When the people are desperate, and the advice of their stomach is too compelling to ignore, then lovemaking erupts into its blissful climax.
Vietnam rice may save us yet!
Bert on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:29 pm
correction: should have been ‘invoked and initiated’. damned keyboard!
maginoo on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:20 am
mlq3:
Our efforts could still be ‘weed and reap’ instead of ‘read and weep.’ Remember your admonition, give them a longer rope to hang themselves.
2010 is a long time and way. Let us sweat the big stuff when we get it.
Bencard on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 5:13 am
joselito basilio, you don’t know what you’re talking about. go, join your comrades in the boonies!
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 6:06 am
Joselito Basilio,
“The Supreme Court abused its discretion for evading a positive duty to preserve the constitutional principles of separate of powers and checks and balances.”
no, theres no abuse of discretion here. the SC is not encroaching on the Senate’s wisdom (or lack of it) in making laws
“The Supreme Court is not supposed to be concerned with the wisdom of laws, but only in the interpretation and application of the law.”
true, yet sorry to say this, but what are you talking about? what ‘wisdom of laws’ is involved in this Neri episode before the SC?
“It is not their constitutional mandate to pass judgment upon the internal rules of a co-equal body, much more limit the power of the Senate whose authority directly emanates from the people through election.”
same statement – what are you talking about? what ‘internal rules’? take note ‘investigations’ per se aren’t the primary job of the Senate. remember, any investigation is supposed to be in aid of legislation!
as you said, the SC is not concerned with the wisdom of laws. in the Neri episode, the SC is not dictating on the Senate on what the law should be, because in the first place, the issue is not on a law or a pending bill
please remember – the issue here is on the investigation, not on a law or a pending bill
you can google the SC case about the Senate ratification of the WTO treaty in the 1990s. among other things, the SC ruled that it is a policy, not constitutional issue
Joselito Basilio on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:55 pm
“please remember – the issue here is on the investigation, not on a law or a pending billâ€
Legislative power of inquiry is the power of the legislature to investigate any matter that can be the legitimate subject of legislation. In the Neri case the pending bills of Roxas and Miriam and several Senate resolutions gave rise to the ZTE investigation. Such investigation is grounded on the necessity of the information to the legislative process so it is coextensive with the power to legislate (Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, 18 July 1950, 87 Phil. 29). The inquiry is actually in aid of legislation and the Senate has complied with the parameters laid down in Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon, G.R. No. 97793, 19 November 1991, 203 SCRA 767.
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:53 pm
Joselito Basilio,
****clears throat****
in Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee – the Senate inquiry was STOPPED because the topic of inquiry was also the subject of a criminal case with the Sandiganbayan.
Here’s the actual ruling of the SC – for the Senate committee to probe and inquire into the same justiciable controversy already before the Sandiganbayan would be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that had much earlier set in (turns out the Sandiganbayan case was filed much earlier than the start of the Senate invetsigation)
in Arnault vs. Nazareno – the issue is whether Arnault can be arrested for contempt of court for refusing to answer a specific question in a Senate inquiry. the SC said no, so Arnault remained in jail until he answers the question
take note – before Neri could be cited for contempt by invoking executive privilege for refusing to answer a question, he already filed a case with the SC. naunahan na naman. mga opposition talaga, mga bobo. huli palagi!)
iho, don’t just quote rulings right away. the rulings have a context – the facts of the case
for your further education on constitutional law, read Angara vs. Electoral Commission (a pre-WW II case) for a much clearer discussion of ‘judicial supremacy’
and one more thing iho:
the issue in Neri vs. Senate is not the pending bills on the ZTE deal, but precisely on the validity of executive privilege!
Joselito Basilio on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:50 pm
The problem with some self-confessed constitutionalists who have inordinate opinion of their own superiority is they do not fully understand what constitutionalism is all about. There is no such thing as judicial supremacy. What I learned in Constitutional Law is the supremacy of the Constitution, not judicial supremacy.
The contempt power of the Senate was already legitimized by a non-political Supreme Court in Arnault in 1950. But the doctrine laid down in Arnault has been disturbed by a political Supreme Court in Neri. I believe the executive privilege is not valid. The power of the Senate to legislate and the right of the people to know the truth about ZTE must prevail over the implied right of the President to invoke executive privilege.
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:40 pm
Joselito Basilio,
****clears throat****
obviously you have not yet read Angara vs. Electoral Commission.
to everyone out there – you can google Angara vs. Electoral Commission. its very enlightening
take not i wrote ‘judicial supremacy’. with quotation marks!
judicial supremacy is “the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority” (Angara vs. Electoral Commission)
and which branch do you think has the task of interpreting the constitution? whose interpretation of the constitution matters – the executive’s, the legislature’s, or the Supreme Court’s?
halatang di mo na-gets yung quotation I cited earlier – an ex-US SC justice said “We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what we say it is”
obviously you’re still a freshman in law school.
iho, ad hominems won’t get you anywhere. you win arguments on the strength of your own arguments, not on the weakness
of the person holding contrary views!
iho, in your 12:55 post today napakasablay ang iyung pag-cite sa Arnault vs. Nazareno and Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee!
mukhang ikaw ata ang ’self confessed constitutionalist’!
you have not heard yet from bencard!
the SC isn’t blocking the Senate from legislating.
iho, believe me, if our bright Senators are only after crafting new legislation, they wont waste time waiting for Neri to testify again without the executive privilege!
jcc on Thu, 19th Jun 2008 11:18 pm
i said in my post at PCIJ website:
A corrupt executive, being pursued by a corrupt congress and the issue is being litigated before a corrupt supreme court.
oh boy, we are totally screwed.
for more shenanigans of the supreme court, please visit my blog: http://jcc34.wordpress.com/ and look for Sins of the Supreme Court.