A perfect trap
March 26, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
Whoever expected them to cash in so soon? See Palace: Many items in ZTE deal confidential. But then, cash in, they must, since Puno ‘disappointed’ with SC majority decision.
I myself am surprised the Chief Justice has gone beyond his dissenting opinion and made the rounds of the media outlets. But then again, with nine of his colleagues retiring next year, he is in the unenviable position of having his name attached to what might end up being called a puppet supreme court.
See SC ruling on Neri shows a Palace-controlled court: sources:
It was a case where Malacañang worked overtime lobbying with justices who could provide the swing vote, abs-cbnNEws.com/Newsbreak gathered from court insiders and observers who requested no attribution for fear of reprisal or jeopardizing their pending cases in the Tribunal.
We learned that just before the oral argument last March 4, the justices were evenly divided on the issue, a situation that did not favor Neri since he had to get an absolute majority for his petition to be granted.
It was in the two-week gap that followed that the Palace applied pressure on some justices. One justice reportedly was promised something in exchange for voting for Neri, while the loyalty check was applied on the others.
A justice known to be close to Arroyo was reportedly instrumental in the appointment of newly-named associate justice Arturo Brion, a move that assured the President that Brion would vote for Neri.
Brion, who was appointed only last week, participated in the voting.
One of the sources said the Palace learned its lesson from the Feb. 12 “Hello Garci†decision where a majority of nine justices, against six, ruled that the warning of the National Telecommunications Commission and the Department of Justice against the playing of the controversial tape is illegal.
In that case, the Palace apparently did not exert pressure on its appointees in the SC.
One of the sources said Puno was aware that the initial stalemate would not hold, and that the numbers will tilt in favor of Neri. This was why he proposed the compromise solution that would have allowed Neri to testify in the Senate but without being confronted with the three contentious questions where he invoked executive privilege.
The Senate, however, rejected the compromise solution, took the risk, but paid a heavy price.
Simply put, the Neri ruling implies that “the SC is under the control of the President and that Puno does not seem to have the majority of the justices,†the sources said. “9-6 will be the configuration for the rest of the year.â€
It is one clear sign, they said, that the SC will be Malacanang’s rubber-stamp in the last two-and-a-half-years of her term. Arroyo is supposed to step down in June 2010.
One source, who has intensive background in the SC, said that from a short-term standpoint, Malacanang may control the Tribunal, but her hold could loosen in the long-term.
The justices, who are her appointees, might see the need to finally exert independence as the end of Arroyo’ term nears. “There will be a change of feelings shortly before she steps down.â€
And so, if he is to be the lone warrior left in the high court, perhaps the Chief Justice wants the public to know that he won’t be tied down.
Chief Justice Puno penned a dissenting opinion with history, with posterity, in mind. It’s a dissenting opinion with future generations of lawyers, perhaps, in mind, and to this end, I find the comments of soliloquyboy, a law student, interesting:
On TV, Biazon was wondering whether or not the case would be applicable for all members of the Cabinet, or only for Romulo Neri. Sadly, that’s not exactly something that can be answered on its face. As part of our country’s jurisprudence, the case has become technically, a part of our legal system, thanks to Article 8 of the Civil Code. As my ObliCon professor Sir JJ Disini would say, time will tell whether the case is good law or not.
Think of it this way: this case, to me, is a case of Ermita-Malate Hotel vs Manila Prince Hotel. It’ll either be Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila , where it can become one of the most oft-quoted cases in Philippine history, especially since it’s the first or one of the few where you have two branches of government really duking it out, on the basis of executive privilege (Senate vs Ermita doesn’t count). Or it can become Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS , where it’s a legal punchline, according to my Legal Method professor.
Back to the Chief Justice. Read his dissenting opinion, the whole thing. But for now, some extracts from what he wrote, and which gives the gist of what he was trying to argue:
The doctrine of executive privilege is tension between disclosure and secrecy in a democracy. Its doctrinal recognition in the Philippines finds its origin in the U.S. political and legal system and literature. At the outset, it is worth noting that the provisions of the U.S. Constitution say little about government secrecy or public access. In contrast, the 1987 Philippine Constitution is replete with provisions on government transparency, accountability and disclosure of information. This is a reaction to our years under martial rule when the workings of government were veiled in secrecy…
…A hard look at Senate v. Ermita ought to yield the conclusion that it bestowed a qualified presumption in favor of the Presidential communications privilege. …U.S. v. Nixon, as well as the other related Nixon cases … as well as subsequent cases, all recognize that there is a presumptive privilege in favor of Presidential communications. The Almonte case, quoted U.S. v. Nixon and recognized a presumption in favor of confidentiality of Presidential communications.
The statement in Senate v. Ermita that the “extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure†must therefore be read to mean that there is a general disfavor of government privileges …especially considering the bias of the 1987 Philippine Constitution towards full public disclosure and transparency in government. In fine, Senate v. Ermita recognized the Presidential communications privilege in U.S. v. Nixon and the qualified presumptive status that the U.S. High Court gave that privilege…
Throughout its history — beginning with its use in 1792 by U.S. President George Washington to withhold information from a committee of Congress investigating a military expedition headed by General Arthur St. Clair against Native Americans — executive privilege has never justified the concealment of a wrongdoing… the first U.S. President, Washington, well understood the crucial role he would play in setting precedents, and so he said that he “devoutly wished on my part that these precedents may be fixed in true principles.†(emphasis supplied) President Washington established that he had the right to withhold information if disclosure would injure the public, but he did not believe that it was appropriate to withhold embarrassing or politically damaging information.
Two centuries thence, the principle that executive privilege cannot hide a wrongdoing remains unchanged.
…Article VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides for the power of the legislature to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. It explicitly provides respect for the constitutional rights of persons appearing in such inquiries. Officials appearing in legislative inquiries in representation of coequal branches of government carry with them not only the protective cover of their individual rights, but also the shield of their prerogatives – including executive privilege — flowing from the power of the branch they represent. These powers of the branches of government are independent, but they have been fashioned to work interdependently. When there is abuse of power by any of the branches, there is no victor, for a distortion of power works to the detriment of the whole government, which is constitutionally designed to function as an organic whole.
It will take some time for legal scholars to digest the Supreme Court’s decision but some views have begun to emerge from lawyers and non-lawyers alike (see Brown SEO, and The Philippine Experience and Dissenting Opinion). Not being a lawyer, I’m having to read and reread the decisions. But I do find Philippine Commentary’s argument convincing: The Fallacious Heart of Neri v. Senate is a False Distinction About the Powers of Legislation and Oversight.
But then, as I’ve said before, I subscribe to Woodrow Wilson’s view that Congress’ oversight power is actually more important than its law-making functions.
Read, too, what smoke has to say.
As for lawyers, I asked Atty. Edwin Lacierda, who teaches constitutional law, what his initial thoughts were and this is what he said:
It’s a really bad decision. It pays lip service to the doctrines laid down in Ermita and expands executive privilege to the detriment of legislative inquiry and right to public information.
What is awful with the decision is that the majority took as gospel truth the claim to executive privilege. This ran counter to the actual oral arguments where Atty. Bautista could not even specify how diplomatic relations with China would be damaged. Parang hindi nakikinig… sa oral arguments. The explanation of Bote was pathetic… If you go to the transcripts of the oral arguments, you will find Bote wanting and was demolished by the questions and arguments of Carpio, Puno et al.
In his blog, The Warrior Lawyer opines,
Of course, CJ Puno did not have the numbers.
This will allow Secretary Neri, and Malacanang, to sleep better at night as, unless the Court reverses itself upon motion by the losing respondents (an extremely remote possibility),Neri and members of the President’s official family now have the full weight of the Supreme Court behind their refusal to testify at future Senate hearings. Even if they appear, they will not provide the answers the Senate and the people are looking for and simply hide behind the skirts of executive privilege. Neri was a big fish that got away, leaving Jun Lozada and party high and dry.
Unless the Senate has another “surprise witness†in the wings, its investigation into the ZTE scandal is bound to run out of steam.
In his blog, A Simple Life, using a chess analogy, suggests everyone should pack it up and go home:
Three weeks ago, the essential pieces for the end game – the black rooks (senators) were busy playing arrogant by rejecting the SC compromise, and the white rooks (Supreme Court justices) were simply choosing not to get into play right away by deferring their decision on Neri’s petition.
Yesterday, the white rooks made a decisive move that caught the black rooks by surprise, a blitzkrieg move that crippled the black rooks and rendered them irrelevant towards the end game.
Since the white rooks have now effectively flanked the white king (Arroyo administration), and since the white knights (military and police) are still strategically positioned at the center of the board, ably supporting the white queen (Pres. Arroyo), the game now appears to be winnable for the white pieces.
However, since the black pawns (Lozada, et al.) and the other black pieces (anti-Arroyo groups) are still in a relentless, but ineffective checking mode (coup attempts, calls for resignations, interfaith rallies, Masses “for truth”, Senate inquiries “in aid of grandstandingâ€, media offensives, etc.), the game could still end in a draw – due to perpetual checking.
The black pieces should now concede to the futility of a perpetual check. It could go on forever, but it could lead to nowhere. We all should accept a mandated draw. Nobody won. We all lost somehow. The ZTE-NBN game is over.
So here we have two perspectives essentially in agreement on one thing: that the Senate hearings have been so seriously undercut as to be useless, though Warrior Lawyer thinks another witness could give the hearings a second wind while A Simple Life thinks it’s game over, folks.
But could it be that all it is, is yet another stalemate: too soon to tell if the stalemate is permanent, because no new fronts can open up? Not that all previous fronts haven’t resulted in a stalemate. They have.
Last August, Randy David, in Hello Garci and Philippine democracy , observed:
Both the generals and the Comelec officials have dared their accusers to bring them to court. They know, and everyone knows, that you need solid evidence for this — the kind of evidence that precisely only an authorized and empowered investigative body can put together. But whom should we turn to for this? The National Bureau of Investigation under the Department of Justice headed by Secretary Raul Gonzalez? The Philippine National Police under the Department of Interior and Local Government headed by Secretary Ronaldo Puno?
No one trusts the independence of these government agencies, particularly when it involves Ms Arroyo. Together, Secretary Gonzalez and Secretary Puno have done more than any of their predecessors to undermine the autonomy and efficiency of the investigative and prosecutorial offices under them. This is the crux of our present institutional crisis. The imperatives of regime survival have assumed a higher priority over the integrity of our institutional system. The outcome of this has been the corruption of institutions. In turn, the weakening of our legal and administrative institutions has encouraged the politicization of almost all issues. This is what eventually turns the public against politics itself, paving the way for a government devoid of politics — a dictatorship.
What accounts for the Palace being able to hold the line?
The public insistence on constitutionality, when confronted by an unconstitutionally-inclined regime, requires those who oppose it to be in the situation of being in a boxing ring but fighting with one hand tied behind one’s back.
All the while duking it out with an opponent who is not only fighting with both hands, but who’s concealed horseshoes in both gloves. I explored this to some extent in A limited and limiting consensus last December.
I am continuously astounded by those who insist there’s no need to worry, because the present isn’t an exact duplicate of the past. Since Marcos isn’t being aped, the orangutangs in power must neither be Marcosian or up to Marcos’s tricks.
It is like saying, Marcos mugged democracy. Today, no one is bruised and bleeding, no one’s being mugged; everyone is walking around (within limits, but each limit is perfectly legal even if unprecedented!); therefore, there must be no mugging of democracy and if there’s no actual mugging, there’s no criminal, either. It ignores the changing nature of crime -and criminals. Why engage in mugging if you’ve perfected white collar crime?
It’s a perfect trap: if it doesn’t exactly act like Marcos, it can’t be a danger on par with that Marcos presented in the past; but even so: what is the alternative? The ultimate trump card. It justified the original sin -stealing the election in 2004 was excused as par for the course because it was preferable, anyway, to risking the defeat of the incumbent- and excuses every continuing crime on the basis of “I will wait ’till 2010!” And if, as I personally believe, 2010 finds her still in the saddle?
Well, that old trump card yet again: “Yes, but… who will replace her anyway?”
From my computer’s handy-dandy dictionary, comes what this perfect trap resembles:
Möbius strip |ˈmÅbÄ“É™s|
noun
a surface with one continuous side formed by joining the ends of a rectangular strip after twisting one end through 180°.
Oh well.
Mon Casiple says the Supreme Court passed the buck -to the people:
The Supreme court decision further burdened the people with the responsibility of exercising sovereign direct democratic action in settling the political crisis. All the other power institutions have failed or are failing in enforcing the majority people’s will expressed time and again in surveys, street actions, and other fora of direct democracy.
People power is on the march but it will have to spread and broaden among the people even as it develops its leaders and constituency. It will not be a simple rally in EDSA or Makati but more of the same mobilization process reminiscent of the struggle against the Marcos dictatorship.
Given the required time for mobilization of the people, we are facing the real possibility of an extended political crisis in the coming months and years. The 2010 elections–far from a benign and normal democratic exercise–may be held within the context of tumultuous constitutional or extra-constitutional challenges. This may include attempts to force a constitutional change process designed to extend the power of the President, electoral machinations to have a pro-GMA presidential successor, desperate opposition moves to unseat the president, and a general political polarization.
It really depends, I suppose, on how serious one thinks the threat is, and whether the threat can be forestalled by playing for time, or playing to win. The Palace wants everyone to think that the country wins by playing for time; I think that the country loses if it plays for time, because the Palace is playing to win -and win big. But I also believe that most people want to think that the Palace wouldn’t -or won’t, or can’t- extend the game past the time limit.
Some people I talk to think that the minimum goal has already been met: that the President can’t stay in office past 2010. My response is if you believe that, well and good -then pack it up, right now, and hold your peace henceforth. the thing is, I can’t pack it up, because I’m personally convinced that the moment there’s a lull in the fighting, the trumpets will sound in the Palace and they will go on the offensive.
And part of me has the sinking feeling that those who claim they would be first in line the moment the President shows any inclination to stay on, won’t be hastening to the front.
Instead, they will shrug, and say…
“Well, she has a point. Who will replace her, anyway?”
A perfect trap. And a color of constitutionality is preserved throughout!
But then the color of constitutionality might be the only alternative for those unwilling to look down into the abyss.
A satirical look at the decision, courtesy of Uniffors.
Or, as Ricelander’s Blog puts it, satirically, too, it was a win-win:
Two souls are at stake, his and his President’s. He tells the truth, he damns his boss. He tells a lie, he damns his own. He can’t be too selfish taking care only of himself. His boss is such a nice woman.
How do you solve this dilemma, economist-style?
Well, throw the problem to an institution. An institution has no problem about souls. The Supreme Court is an institution; it has no soul… I mean, like that supposedly humans have. Perfect shield. He answers no question, he tells no lie, he tells no truth. Two souls saved— at no cost.
Speaking of souls, and so that I might as well close this on a more optimistic note, here is, first of all, a letter of endorsement from the Jesuit Provincial, Fr. Huang:Letter endorsing Guidelines, 3-25-08, final version.pdf
The letter serves as an introduction to the following, which makes for instructive reading:SJSA Commission Guidelines for Communal Discernment and Action.pdf I can say that it is an objective document that is worthy of widespread disseminationand consideration. Consider, for example, the following:
“How does one address the GMA problem?â€
d. Call on GMA to resign. There are individuals and groups who have been calling for President Arroyo’s resignation since 2005 and continue to hold that position as a matter of principle. At that time, the CBCP itself recognized the call for the President’s resignation, as well as for a “Truth Commission†and impeachment, as legitimate options under the guiding principles of accountability, constitutionality, non-violence and effective governance. While the bishops did not call on President Arroyo to step down, they asked her to discern “to what extent she might have contributed to the erosion of effective governance and whether the erosion is so severe as to be irreversible.†Therefore, those who in conscience have made a decision that the President should not remain in office deserve respect. Their call for her to resign voluntarily is one of the options provided for in the Constitution. However, it also needs to be pointed out that while this position is one of principled moral conviction, it ceases to be a real political option if GMA remains resolute that she will not resign voluntarily.
e. Cabinet declaration of incapacity of the President. The Constitution provides that a majority of Cabinet members can declare in writing to the Senate President and the House Speaker that “the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his [her] office†(Article VII, Section 11). This is a constitutional way of removing a President who is seen to be physically or mentally incapacitated, but the meaning of this provision may be interpreted more broadly. This is one scenario for an “internal or Palace coup†within the GMA regime. But such decisions on regime change tend to be elitist, as they are dependent on so few people. This declaration can be challenged, however, by the President, in which case Congress may confirm the Cabinet decision by a two-thirds vote of the two houses of Congress voting separately. Note that this requirement is even more stringent than the one-third percentage required for the House of Representatives to send an impeachment complaint to the Senate for trial.
f. Oust GMA. When faced with the President’s refusal to resign voluntarily, those who are willing to push the demand for her to step down to the point of employing even extra-constitutional means must be reminded that democratic institutions may be harmed in the long-term, especially if a political vacuum is created for groups with an anti-democratic, adventurist or power-grabbing agenda to try to seize power and hold on to it indefinitely.
g. People Power. People power is a precious legacy from the struggle against the dictatorship and the restoration of democracy in the Philippines. EDSA I was the culmination of a long process of political education, organization and mobilization throughout the martial law years and especially during the nearly three years after the assassination of former Senator Benigno Aquino. Active nonviolence was a defining characteristic of EDSA People Power. It is enshrined in the Constitution, which values initiatives from below as a way of harnessing the direct participation of the people in politics and governance. In its current usage, however, it is problematic because it is often equated with popular insurrection and takeover as a method of regime change. This creates a dynamic where crisis situations continue to be resolved through extra-constitutional means which are not predictable, weaken democratic institutions and install leaders with questionable mandates. Thus an endless series of EDSA’s spells serious instability.
h. Snap elections. Any call for “snap elections†would be extra-constitutional, since there is no such provision in the present charter. What the Constitution provides for is the holding of “special elections,†should vacancies arise in the offices of both the President and the Vice President. Therefore, those who are advocating this option presume that both the President and Vice President will step down or will be made to do so. Moreover, special elections before 2010 without meaningful preparation and electoral reforms will only lead to a contest between those already entrenched in power and thus will not produce genuine change.
i. Military intervention. Some have called for an interventionist role of the military to effect regime change. While recognizing that there are reformminded members of the military who have a genuine concern for the good of the country, military intervention in whatever form must be eschewed, especially in the present context of a weak Philippine democracy. Allowing the military to become the arbiter to resolve political conflicts and stalemates undermines civilian supremacy, long-term democratization and political stability.
j. An Independent Counsel. Some have called for an independent institution with the credibility and capacity for investigating and prosecuting government corruption at the highest levels. This proposal has been made because some see the Senate investigations as partisan, while the Ombudsman is overloaded with corruption cases and is perceived as partial to the government in power, given its recent track record. For this option to prosper, however, three difficult issues need to be addressed: (i) creating such a body through a law approved by Congress, (ii) defining the scope of its power and responsibilities, especially in relation to the Ombudsman, and (iii) giving it real autonomy, particularly from the President, who would be the appointing official.
k. Impeachment. This mechanism is provided for by the Constitution to exact accountability from the President. It is also a way by which allegations can be verified, thus giving the President a fair hearing and an opportunity to defend herself. However, impeachment will only work if people are willing to participate actively in pushing for and making sure that this process is effective (e.g. sustained lobbying, pressuring their representatives in Congress to prioritize the search for truth and accountability). Thus, it can provide excellent opportunities for active political participation, especially for citizens outside Metro Manila.
And its nine-point action agenda (along with the whole document), merits our attention, too:
Action Points
7. It is precisely during times of great upheavals and crises that the call to hope becomes more urgent. Desperation and cynicism cannot be allowed to eat up people’s inner resources. To move forward from this crisis means identifying and pursuing specific forms of action, such as: (a) joining circles of ongoing reflection and discernment, and efforts at political education and organization, including training in anti-corruption advocacy (Ehem) and active nonviolence; (b) supporting institutional efforts to get to the truth and creating a broader climate of truth-telling which encourages and protects whistleblowers; (c) joining activities that promote accountability; (d) articulating long-term ideals and policies for national political reform; and (e) establishing sectoral and multi-sectoral organizations and networks to promote dialogue and concerted action.
Concretely, eight action areas fall within the range of options which are consistent with the principles identified above, especially the need to build strong democratic institutions and promote engaged citizenship for socio-political reform:
a. Support for the ongoing Senate investigation of the ZTE-NBN case not only to bring out the whole truth on matters of public interest but also to strengthen the institutional system of checks and balances that seek to prevent the abuse of power.
b. Creation of a credible Independent Counsel, in order to ferret out the veracity of various allegations and promote accountability within the judicial system, in which unfortunately many of the official institutions are seen as severely compromised politically. Thus there is a need for an institutional venue and mechanism that will be viewed as autonomous of the government currently in power and free of the antics of traditional politicians.
c. Initiation of a genuine impeachment process, particularly by pressuring Representatives in the House to hold the President accountable for serious violations of public trust if there are sufficient bases for doing so.
d. Pursuit of reforms towards government transparency in all its transactions, especially in processes like procurement, decisions on loans, development projects, social reforms, and on issues such as mining, energy and land use that have a profound impact on poor communities and the environment. There is a need to ensure rigorous implementation of laws and policies, the institutionalization of a culture of social accountability, free access to information, and the enhanced participation of civil society in governance decisions at all levels.
e. Promotion of electoral reforms to ensure the conduct of clean, honest, and credible elections in 2010, including the revamp of the Comelec, beginning with the appointment and confirmation of commissioners of unquestioned integrity and competence; the modernization of the electoral system; the eradication of warlordism; the monitoring of campaign finance and expenditure; and the continuing political education of voters.
f. Search for worthy candidates and potential leaders, parties/coalitions and platforms for 2010, through positive preparations, planning and strategizing. This would mean clarifying political values and development priorities, candidate selection and recruitment, resource mobilization, and political organizing.
g. Organization of and support for basic sectors, to enable them to have a real say in democratic processes and to address the urgent needs of economic development and social justice.
h. Engagement of the youth in current issues, through political education, organization and mobilization for democratic institution-building, lobbying for transparency and accountability, policy reform, and involvement in electoral politics.
8. These specific and concrete calls for action are not isolated and discrete but are precisely interconnected in a framework that seeks to promote truth, accountability and reform. They address gross injustices in the country through active citizen participation that will support and be supported by efforts at political education, organization, mobilization and network-building in order to strengthen and transform democratic political institutions under the Constitution.
Responding to the Call for Communal Discernment, Conversion and Action
9. We offer these guidelines as a response to the call of our bishops for “circles of discernment†to “pray together, reason together, decide together, act together.†We trust that these reflections help clarify the context, principles and options for people – especially the youth – who seek to respond in action to the current crisis rather than succumb to the temptations of despair. For as Pope Benedict XVI has said, “All serious and upright human conduct is hope in action†(Spe Salvi 35).
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
john marzan on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 7:48 pm
i have to disagree with kuya Manuel. Arroyo will “step down” after 2010, but will become RP’s Putin.
it’s a more elegant solution for maam.
Madonna on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 8:16 pm
john marzan,
Sorry, you are dead wrong. GMA will never be a Putin, that is, will never have the character of the Russian strongman. Heck, Putin is beloved by the Russian people for all his autocratic tendencies. Why? Because he loves his country as well. That can never be said of GMA.
Joselito Basilio on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 8:36 pm
Judicial history repeats itself. This is Javellana Part II. Coincidentally, there were also six dissenters in Javellana namely CJ Concepcion and Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee.
nash on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 8:44 pm
Who will replace GMA if we kick her out now?
Noli de Castro – VP
At least he won the elections.
manila bay watch on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 9:42 pm
Agree with Madonna’s take.
Bencard on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 9:58 pm
with all due respect to cj puno, i believe his action of publicly criticizing the neri decision is injudicious, if not totally reprehensible. he already has written a 100-page or so dissenting opinion in which his views are made part of public record for all the world to see. airing his criticism on t.v. and other media outlets is, i think, a faux pas that runs counter to traditions of the best judicial temperament. it is a blatant display of the political morass in which courts, including the highest court, has been perceived to have sunk.
the supreme court is a collegial body and there’s no reason to doubt that cj puno is aware of it. the prevailing decision becomes the official decision of the whole body and must be accepted and respected as such by all, including the dissenting justices.
by going the rounds of the media circuits to put down the decision, the good chief justice, wittingly or unwittingly, undermines the role of the judiciary in the democratic scheme, reducing it to no better than the contentious senate in its quest for political adulation.
i believe that coming from the chief justice, such media appearances to purvey his critical views are fodder for the anti-gma crowd and further exacerbate, rather than ease, disunity among the people.
i really miss the days when judges were judges and politicians were politicians. in this sense, i concur with mlq3’s views on “delicadeza”.
DJB Rizalist on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:09 pm
MLQ3,
Regarding oversight here is an analogy that might help us all analyse this.
Think of Congress as NASA and Laws as the Space Shuttle. Before the first one flies, NASA and its scientists do a lot of research and development designing and building the thing. After the maiden voyage, what do they do? Well more research and development PLUS they must review the performance of the first flight. How did their design and engineering do in the real world of space flight. Then they revise their drawings, materials, flight procedures, etc.
Now when Congress makes a new law, it conducts hearings “in aid of [new] legislation”( R&D). Here the Court says the Congress has compulsory process to make sure it can get the info it needs to make legislation. After the law is enacted and the Executive implements it (the maiden voyage), the Congress must exercise OVERSIGHT to find out how the Executive implement the law, and what changes need to be made. This is equivalent to redesign of the space ship.
It is therefore inconceivable that oversight information does not come with process to enforce the acquisition of it.
Engineering is the making and remaking of designs and hardware.
Legislation is making AND remaking the laws.
But what confuses the issue, I think, is the SECONDARY purpose of oversight: to uncover malfeasance, wrong doing, etc. in the government. I think at most we should say that such an oversight hearing would produce EVIDENCE leading to a finding of probable cause by the Ombudsman for criminal proceedings, OR as in the case of investigating possible wrong doing by the President (or any Justice of the SC!), evidence for an IMPEACHMENT case.
It would have been historic if the SCORP had extended the SCOTUS jurisprudence in USA v. Nixon by ruling that just as the Executive cannot use E.P. to deny evidence in a criminal trial by the Judiciary, so too E.P. cannot be used to deny the Legislature’s right to evidence in a possible case of impeachment, over which the Supreme Court would have NO jurisdiction whatsoever, that sole and exclusive power of PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY belongs to Congress, and Congress alone.
DJB Rizalist on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:20 pm
You and Woodrow Wilson are absolutely right! Oversight IS more important than inquiries in aid of “new” legislation, because how many “new” laws is the Congress really making, compared to how many new laws it must watch over and revise to make sure the whole thing “flies”?
Even NASA would agree with you both. For as they say, in any complex process (like space flight engineering or law making) it’s the last one percent of fixing the thing where 99% of the problem actually lies.
DJB Rizalist on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:21 pm
oops sorry, i meant “compared to how many OLD laws it must watch over and revise to make sure the whole thing flies.”
rego on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:28 pm
I was also having saom bad feelings about what CJ Puno is doing. And I cannot understand wher it was coming from until I read your comment above.
I was even thinking earlier that US Supreme Court has decided so many controversial and bitterly debated and I dont see their cheif justice dont do that.
I think this started with Panganiban.
I hope none of the 9 justicess will be tempted to to rebutt Puno on Media or TV. Otherwise we will have another debate on TV.
DJB Rizalist on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:29 pm
Bencard,
You don’t seem to mind it though that a low level nobody like Midas Marquez appears in all the early morning tv and radio talk shows ballyhooing the administration justices line. He has no right to speak for the Justices on their ruling. Yet there he is talking like Michael the Archangel.
Besides even the Chief Justice has Freedom of Speech last I checked. That is an institution too, you know. Simple lang di ba? : )
DJB Rizalist on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:37 pm
I think impeachment should be resuscitated or else we are really in for a Dictatorship of the Judiciariat.
I am convinced several of the Justices have been on the take in big but very low profile cases. That 10 million peso “gift” to a justice that Newsbreak was investigating is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg (it had to do with the decision of that justice in Naia 3 case if I recall correctly). There are fifteen impeachable officers in there that the media mostly ignore for the most part. And there is no one year clock running on their possible impeachment for graft and corruption.
It’s really Congress best weapon for holding the 31 impeachable officers to Public Account.
Now what do people say about rights and powers: use or lose it right?
hvrds on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:02 pm
“With the victory of Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, the mood in the country and on the high Court turned increasingly conservative. In this new era, Nixon-appointed Chief Justice Warren Burger stepped up his public statements supporting the rights of crime victims. In February 1981, the Chief Justice spoke before the American Bar Association and criticized the judicial system for providing “massive safeguards for accused persons” while failing to provide “elementary protection for its decent, law abiding citizens.” With this new “get-tough-on- crime” mood, Justice Marshall felt that the limited protection of criminal rights would be lost in the trample for punishment. Breaking ranks with his Brethren, Marshall spoke out in this highly publicized May 8, 1981 speech before the Second Circuit Judicial Conference in what struck many as a direct response to Burger and the conservatives: next entry
The heart of CJ Puno’s argument:
“these questions are pertinent to the subject matter of their investigation, and there is no effective substitute for the information coming from a reply to these questions.”
He said the three questions were not covered by executive privilege since the Senate needs the answers to these questions so that it can enact laws to remedy flaws in the government’s procurement system.
“In the absence of the information they seek, the Senate committees’ function of intelligently enacting laws to remedy what is called a ‘dysfunctional procurement system of the government’ and to possibly include ‘executive agreements for Senate concurrence’ to prevent them from being used to circumvent the requirement of public bidding in the existing Government Procurement Reform Act, cannot but be seriously impaired,” wrote Puno.
Justices of the SC keeping quiet and minding their own business was never part of the protocol of separate but equal branches of government.
hvrds on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:08 pm
“But when we accepted the judicial mantle, we yielded our right to advocate publicly our favored solutions for society’s problems. The tools for solving these problems are in the hands of the other branches of government because that is where the Constitution has placed them. That is also where we should leave them. I therefore urge that you politely disregard any suggestion that you give up the robe for the sword.” Thurgood Marshall
http://www.thurgoodmarshall.com/home.htm
http://www.thurgoodmarshall.com/speeches/sword_article.htm
Kanutos (those who are enjoying their standard of living in kanuto land) have this man to thank for their present status.
UP n student on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:50 pm
CJ Puno is reducing the Supreme Court into a group of names. His lobbying is a message that the Supreme court decision — the collective decision — is to be ignored and that personality-politics should be the rule of the land.
maginoo on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:10 am
In a sense the SC is like the CBCP. Collegial but divided. Independent but political.
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:23 am
Side-topic :
This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site’s content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation. For more information about Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy visit the following URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp
Hosted by Network Solutions.
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:25 am
Fitna the Movie : from EuropeNews
The film isn’t live yet. When it goes live, it is recommended to download it to the hard drive immediately. Islamists can be expected to attack the web site with every means at their disposal, and for sure someone will try to abuse some obscure law to get it legally banned, too.
Update3:
As anyone watching the URL has notice, it’s gone dead. Not even the preview image was deemed acceptable to display.
The URL is
http://www.fitnathemovie.com
Bencard on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 1:15 am
djb, when the senate is transformed into a giant police interrogation room where the inquisitors are given the power to abuse, browbeat, mislead, cajole or intimidate with threat of perjury and/or contempt, the “witnesses” not for purposes of a contemplated new legislation, or in exercise of “oversight” function, but to look for a “smoking gun” for an alleged crime and nail a particular person as the culprit, that, i think, is a grave abuse of legislative power that finds no justification in the constitution.
it’s not a legislative function to find probable cause of crime, much less of impeachment where the senators would eventually sit as “impartial” judges.
as to cj puno, you’re right, he has freedom of speech just like any other ordinary individual. but he is no ordinary individual and, as far as that is concerned, he is the best judge (pun intended) of his proper role in society. btw, midas marquez has every right to comment on the decision, as you and i and everyone in this blog, and criticize fairly the judges who rendered it.
manuelbuencamino on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 2:10 am
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more. They have the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps” – Thomas Jefferson
Look at the 9 who voted to to expand the coverage of executive privilege to cover criminal activity. In any decent society at least four of those jerks would have had the delicadeza to recuse themselves.
grd on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 2:14 am
mukhang hindi media shy si cj puno. his move indeed is unprecedented. but how will this affect the SC, as a collegial body, known for its members’ reservedness in the past?
anyway, it’s a welcome move for everyone here. there’s our new hero. cj puno for president! (i think someone already proposed it here).
>>>>>>>
DAY 27
Bencard on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:28 am
the way i see it, the neri ruling defined, not only the parameters of the president’s executive privilege, but also the investigative powers of the legislature. the constitution limits the exercise of such powers by specifying the purposes for which it can be pursued, i.e., “in aid of legislation”, and in pursuance of its “oversight” functions.
prior to the court’s pronouncements, some senators operate on the mistaken belief that their powers are all-encompassing, evidently leading to abuses that enable it to conduct veritable witch hunts and fishing expeditions some of which destroyed a lot of reputation and besmirched the names of innocent citizens.
it is hoped that, with this new precedent-setting decision, we can expect a little more responsibility and civility among our legislators in the conduct of investigations and public hearings.
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:55 am
CJ is not a presidentiable — lack of leadership skills. Evidence : failure to convince 7 of 14 to agree with him.
BrianB on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:55 am
Check mate.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080327-126640/Arroyo-happily-tells-real-story-for-2008
benign0 on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 6:50 am
Yes. But if you look at it from a BROADER perspective, today is no different from the past. There is the same stupidity in Government and the same stupidity amongst the governed.
I see the only difference as more of an increase in apathy amongst the governed towards the petty politics that Old Farts seem more inclined to focus on.
Let’s not forget, we’re talking about the generation of Pinoys that SQUANDERED the poster-boy status the Philippines enjoyed back in the 1950’s). Why should we be guided by the ideas of an age group under whose leadership the Philippines withered into a pathetically flacid excuse for a nation.
I see this growing APATHY TOWARDS POLITICS as a good thing. Because it is a progressive breaking of that 50-year-old umbilical chord that ties people’s perceived prospects for personal improvement to the outcomes of political jostlings.
Mag-trabaho na lang tayo!
Good luck organising the next street “revolution” then!
-
manila bay watch on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 6:52 am
That 10 million peso “gift†to a justice that Newsbreak was investigating is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg (it had to do with the decision of that justice in Naia 3 case if I recall correctly). – DJB Rizalist
But who will do the investigating officially? Razon’s police? The NBI? The Ombudsman? Raul Gonzalez?
Hah… Don’t count on it. That would be like asking Gloria to confess to her participation in Hello Garci dagdag bawas operations.
Nick Nichols on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 7:41 am
O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason!
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 8:07 am
Bencard,
The Ombudsman disagrees with you. Last week they ordered that all Senate transcripts be taken judicial notice of by them and have subpoenaed them, as possible evidence in a criminal proceeding in the proper judicial forum.
What I have said is that a secondary purpose of oversight is uncovering evidence that could be used to establish probable cause for either criminal proceedings or impeachment proceedings. The primary purpose is still legislative. This is independent of the MOTIVES of the Senate investigators, as CJ Puno points out, which are beyond the court’s powers of judicial review.
Surely you cannot ignore the historical fact, pleasing to common sense, that often the Congresses of many countries have indeed uncovered such evidence of wrongdoing in the normal course of legislative oversight investigations that then proceeded to either criminal proceedings in the judiciary or impeachment.
US Grand Juries are often impanelled as a result of House and Senate hearings.
But I want to emphasize the matter of impeachment and why it is proper for the Senate to investigate possible impeachable offenses.
CJ Puno makes the point that the power of the President to contract foreign loans for projects like ZTE is SHARED with the Central Bank. This power is not exclusive to her.
But he does not in turn mention that the POWER of impeachment is NOT SHARED by Congress with any other government body. It is their SOLE and EXCLUSIVE power (those are the words of the Constitution.)
I think this was the only omission in the whole matter that CJ Puno made. If he had considered this fact, his arguments would have attained the closure of a proven mathematical proposition, because he already controverts your assertion Congress is not responsible for uncovering evidence that could lead to judicial proceedings.
There are no judicial proceedings available against impeachable offenses outside of the Congress. Any purported evidence uncovered by the Senate would still have to be adjudged by the House for relevance and materiality.
But if we accept your position then the “functional impairment” of the Congress to exercise its SOLE and EXCLUSIVE power to hold impeachable officers to account would be compleat.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 8:14 am
Bencard,
On a lighter note, you may wish to consider the probable FACT that however awful the browbeating Executive officials get from the Senate, it is nothing compared to the browbeating and headbashing and P-i-m tonguelashing they regularly get from their own capotita di tutti capi!. Simple lang di ba? : )
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 8:25 am
Nick Nichols,
If GMA be Julius Caesar,
noble and not ambitious,
as thou declaim,
Then indeed are we fled to brutish beasts
and reason long ago departed.
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 8:35 am
DJB: You talk of US Grand Juries as if the Philippine congress has taken the time to make the concept law.
CJ Puno, at this particular moment in time, failed as a leader. Despite the correctness of his position based on your view of things, he could not convince 7 of his own colleagues to his point of view. The media-blitz is him doing the sore-loser whiney whiney.
Liam Tinio on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:04 am
‘CJ Puno, at this particular moment in time, failed as a leader. Despite the correctness of his position based on your view of things, he could not convince 7 of his own colleagues to his point of view. The media-blitz is him doing the sore-loser whiney whiney.”
doing a marquez?
tonio on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:10 am
rego:
aww rego, you sad that CJ Puno didn’t toe the party line? boo-hoo for you.
bencard:
agreed. while the Chief Justice is indeed a citizen with the basic right to freedom of expression, he is also the Chief Justice of the highest court in this country. His dissenting opinion should’ve been enough. the sound bytes were totally inappropriate. i think one of the problems here is that the media is sooo hungry for a story nowadays. i was at conference yesterday morning where BSP Deputy Governor Espenilla was speaking and the minute after the proceedings adjourned, a gaggle of four journalists and a cameraman hounded the guy all throughout lunch. I don’t know what they managed to dig up, but man, these guys are relentless. So, it wouldn’t be hard I think, for anyone to succumb to “hamming it up” for the cameras if a journalist pressed hard enough.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:14 am
UP n student,
would you rather have the supreme court as his rubber stamp?
“whiney whiney” <– better than ‘doing a marquez’
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:18 am
UPn Student,
The CJ is primus inter pares in a collegial body. He is not a “leader” in any sense of the word and I certainly would not want him entering politics, though that would be his right.
For you to judge his leadership qualities as President, by his performance as Chief Justice, is a tad unfair as he has rejected every call for him to head that silly “Transition Junta”.
Moreover, even the Supreme Court admits that this decision is NOT final and executory. I’ve just finished reading his Dissenting Opinion. It will almost surely become the fount of the Senate’s Motion for Reconsideration.
So you must yourself suspend judgment on his effect upon the other Justices. Of the nine, two merely “concurred in the result” but not in the reasoning. If they change their mind for ANY reason, even political pressure, which perhaps played a role also in their first go at the issue at bar, then the Decision could be reversed 8-7.
I repeat, the decision is not Final and Executory. With even admin congressmen warning of an emboldened President and a constitutional crisis, there is no guarantee how Neri will end up.
Lookit, someone mentioned Javellana vs. Executive Secretary yesterday. J. Castro said about it that “A Supreme Court decision is a prediction of what the Law will do.”
Well, if you read Puno’s decision carefully, you will realize he is describing how the United States proceeded from the same situation we are in now.
I daresay that is how we are likely to go to, in the long run. Maybe not now, but the Powers Congress to make and remake laws are indivisible. Oversight is legislation and legislation is oversight.
What leadership capabilities Puno has can only be deemed to be “intellectual” because that is all the Supreme Court is…a group blog of really brainy people. (We are all in the Comment Thread and the Justices ARE reading the blogs, believe it or not. Or at least some have been visiting regularly from the SC website according to my logs. I assume this blog is heavily visited too.)
But his dissenting opinion is probably an accurate picture of what Philippine jurisprudence on the matter is gonna look like eventually.
The Law really is like science and mathematics. It is the science and mathematics of the English Language applied to social justice. There is a logic and reality to the way the thing evolved in America which we have ended up adopting, eventually because there is nothing “colonial” about science, mathematics or Justice.
I predict the decision will be OVERTURNED on appeal. You heard it here first.
mlq3 on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:21 am
upn, you assume the cj could have used reason and logic to change the minds of those who’d received presidential orders, and who’d been appointed precisely on the basis of their higher loyalty to the appointing power than to their profession.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:51 am
mlq3,
There is every reason to be suspicious of political motives. But may I suggest perhaps a more powerful way of grasping the Law so it empowers us and not just Justices of the Supreme Court.
I think we must come to believe that the Law itself, and especially the Democracy over which it rules, contains a certain logical and philosophical force that is unlike MORALITY and more like ENGINEERING.
Sooner or later, “wrong” decisions have effects in the real world that become obviously unacceptable even to those who initially support them.
This eventual condition is guaranteed as long as there is even a modicum of freedom of thought in any society.
Liberty is like a gravitational force that eventually guides every reasonably well-ordered society along the paths that other similar societies have been channeled into by historical realities and social conditions.
Thus all democracies look basically alike in the long run. Even France and America, supposedly so different, are nearly identical on the grand principles of Separation of Powers, individual liberty and human rights and all key aspects of Law and Jurisprudence.
And of course Philippine Jurisprudence is different from American jurisprudence only because we drive a jeep they drive a Cadillac. But internal combustion physics is the same, just as all the SC decisions for the most part.
In its century of existence SCORP is probably only about half a century behind SCOTUS in its judicial evolution. We have not yet evolved a jury system for example.
But in the portions of the Judicial Mind that we have already grown, I daresay there is an almost compleat congruence.
The Law is guided by a form of “natural selection” and survival of fittest memes!
Otherwise it mutates, and dies either fascist, totalitarian or some other unfit system’s death.
Thus there is a metaphysics to the progress of the Law, akin to the laws of evolution standing above biology and chemistry themselves.
The Constitution is not a Bible to be interpreted by Judges.
It is a chapter in the Book of Nature, just like Physics and Mathematics are, and its Author is THE Chief Justice, the Greatest Lawgiver of all.
The Law
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:53 am
At this point in time, CJ Puno’s decision is in the minority. “… gonna look like eventually” may mean that CJ Puno’s position needs a few more events to happen — new laws, maybe???? or maybe a future supreme court justice will cross-reference to what has transpired in Thailand, England, France, Syria or China — before his position becomes the decision of a future Philippine Supreme Court.
Abe N. Margallo on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:00 am
[Neri v. Senate] is really bad decision. It pays lip service to the doctrines laid down in Ermita and expands executive privilege to the detriment of legislative inquiry and right to public information. – by Prof. Edwin Lacierda (per mlq3)
The majority in Neri v. Senate, while pretending to sing paean to “the fundamental constitutional principles which underlie our tripartite system of government†has ultimately decided, invoking the Court’s so-called expanded certiorari jurisdiction under Section 1), Article VIII of the Constitution, to clip not just one particular checks-and-balances mechanism expressly committed by the Constitution to a co-equal branch but effectively emaciated the very core of the power of Congress, the power to make laws.
Needless to state, when the Court proceeds to nullify an act of a co-equal branch, especially the most representative of the three branches, it should only do so when the unconstitutionality (or grave abuse of discretion) is shown to be so manifest as to leave no room for reasonable doubt because even a court of last resort must also confess the limits of its own powers. Therefore, whenever an act of Congress is rational it must be presumed to be regular and constitutional and the Court must respect the great range of legislative power or discretion whether in legislating or interpreting the constitution by leaving it unperturbed in the absence of moral certainty as to its infirmity. In like fashion, Congress should not by law interfere in the way the Court arrive at its decision or in the deliberation over its cases, or in the manner the Commander-in-chief for instance prosecutes a war against an enemy because one power or the other does not belong to it but to a co-equal branch.
By force of this logic, there was no reason for the Court in Neri to unnecessarily try to import its own judgment at the very inception of legislative process or of initiating remedial legislation and waste its own time, when it could have easily conceded that on the hand the President is entitled to executive privilege (to withhold information requested by other branches of the government) by established constitutional doctrine and that on the other the Senate or its committees by express provision of the Constitution have the power of inquiry in aid of lawmaking (which includes the power to probe into government agencies to expose corruption).
Considering however that Mr. Neri himself, without seasonably invoking the supposed lack of proper publication of the Senate rules, has already testified under oath before the joint Senate committees being offered a “bribe†of 200 million pesos, (“Chairman Abalos offered me 200 million for this,†Mr. Neri testified) involving the incurring of a foreign loan, it would have been logical to look in the Constitution for express exception or limitation not to the congressional power of inquiry but to the invocation of executive privilege. Section 21, Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) provides such express limitation to the executive privilege of non-disclosure where it states: “Sec. 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public.†(Italics mine.) Perforce executive privilege must give way to such a categorical mandate of disclosure in the plain language of the Constitution.
Dismissing forthright the petition of Mr. Neri would have been the simple end of the matter since neither the President nor the Supreme Court is above the Constitution.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:07 am
The Three Part Machine that is being described in Neri vs. Senate has the Big Spinning Thing where the Small Spinning Thing should be in a helicopter design. It cannot fly and that will sooner or later become obvious. But keep your parachutes and passports handy!
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:15 am
Tonio,
I would agree with you if you also agree that Midas Marquez should not be defending the decision in the Media either. he is not a even a member of the court but they use him as an errand boy.
Their decisions should also be enough, eh?
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:19 am
DJB Rizalist,
of course. government is a man-man system.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:30 am
i mean, a man-made system
Jeg on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:34 am
On principle, I agree that the Chief Justice should stay away from TV unless it is to discuss court procedure. Certainly not to defend a dissenting opinion if that is indeed what he did — I havent been watching TV (except for AI, of course). Let his assistant do that. At the same time, if Midas Marquez’s mug is on TV defending the majority decision, then that too is in bad taste. (Although it could be possible that Atty Marquez’s statement are edited to make it appear he is defending the majority decision.)
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:44 am
Tonio,
I’ve often criticized, disagreed with, and even ridiculed some of the written rulings of Puno and his public statements and speeches. I think the establishment of amparo and habeas data were misbegotten mutations whose deleterious effects will dwarf their dubious benefits. That remains to be seen. I could be wrong.
But I’ve never questioned freely expressing their honest opinions about things. He was very decorous and straightforward in his description of his decision, which after all is a public document and is of his personal knowledge and competence to describe. Justice cannot be MUTE since it is already willingly BLIND.
The Code of Judicial Ethics forbids participation in partisan political activity. Go bugger Davide and Panganiban why don’t you?
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:23 pm
DJB, Mindanaoan, the law just like any system, consists of both structure and code. The ’structure’ consists the processes and rules while the ‘code’ directs the behavior of a given structure. This internal code within the system is what i previously mentioned as the code of ethics. ‘Morality’, or more precisely, ‘Ethics’, is an integral part of the system’s engineering.
We may have similar legal structures as the United States or France, but our structures operate by a different code.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:33 pm
cvj, an engineered system consists of goals, parts and relationships. there’s no `Ethics’ there.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:39 pm
cvj, on second thought, ethics should constitute one of our goals, but it cannot be a ‘part’.
Jeg on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:40 pm
Wow. Talk about taking an analogy too far. Society is not a machine, mindanaoan.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:43 pm
wow. government is a system, Jeg.
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:44 pm
mindanaoan, that is conceptually deficient. As you pointed out, the legal system is ‘man made’. The system’s Code of Ethics is what directs a man made system’s behavior. You can try patching up or re-engineering a system with rules [aka new laws, new processes] but such attempts will be defeated if these are incompatible with the system’s underlying code of ethics. Just as the structure influences the code, the code can and does influence the structure.
Code [of Ethics] and Structure (aka your ‘parts and relationships’) coupled with context (aka the environment) determines a System’s operation.
grd on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:46 pm
right. after the rounds of the media by cj puno (expressing his dismay on the sc decision), i’m sure by now those nine “jerks†are all scared to death that either they recuse themselves or they reverse their previous votes once an appeal is made. what other reason and logic could change their minds (assuming of course that they’re not “jerksâ€)?
Jeg on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:52 pm
government is a system, Jeg
Made of cogs and spare parts, mindanaoan? Im sorry but are you arguing against ethics in society? Im not too clear.
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:53 pm
From a System’s standpoint that i described above, CJ Puno’s expression of dismay at the SC decision is his attempt to influence the ‘environment’ and therefore change the ‘context’. This is the recourse he is taking because of the failure of the structure and internal code of ethics on the part of the SC. He is making an appeal to the environment (i.e. the people).
If DJB (and grd’s) prediction is right (as i hope they would be), then such a reversal would have been because of the influence of the environment (aka the people).
Jeg on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:54 pm
Grd, it won’t take 9 to reverse themselves. DJB pointed out that 2 of them just voted to concur with the majority and did not participate in the decision. Parang, “Sige sama na lang kami sa kanila.” Baka pag sumali na sila sa deliberations, baka ayun, mabago ang desisyon nila.
john marzan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:56 pm
madonna, arroyo doesn’t need putin’s popularity. all he needs is his characteristics. “love for country”? sure, sure… same deal as marcos’s love for country too.
anyways, what i’m saying is that i think is that “the (wo)man behind the curtain” theory is more plausible than the other theories i’ve heard.
john marzan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:57 pm
edit: anyways, what i’m saying is that i think “the (wo)man behind the curtain” theory is more plausible than the other theories i’ve heard re Arroyo after 2010.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:58 pm
cvj, if ‘code of ethics’ = rules, yes it directs behaviour. it’s a part of the system. but ‘ethics’ = morality can be either a goal or part of the environment (i.e., outside the system) but definitely cannot determine it’s operation. it cannot be a ‘control’.
tonio on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 12:59 pm
DJB:
we’re in agreement there. and Midas is an errand boy, because (in the words of a few of my female friends who are now eagerly waiting for tomorrow to see if they can join Midas in his profession) “he’s the cutest thing to ever come out of the Supreme Court. he’s so gorgeous! grabe!”
but yes, the SC should’ve left all the talking to the decisions that they wrote. as for the media… ah well.
(i now would like to categorically defend my friends. they are rational human beings, when not intoxicated.)
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 1:02 pm
Actually, viewed from within, a system does not have a ‘goal’. It only operates in relation to its internal structure and code as influenced by the environment (which provides the context).
What we discern as ‘goals’ are attributes that we (as observers) in the environment assign to the system (e.g. ‘Justice’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Liberty’ etc.) The opposite attributes can very well be assigned to that system depending on the situation.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 1:11 pm
Jeg,
made up of institutions and people. it’s a very complex ’soft’ system, but if you look hard, it has goals, parts and relationships, structures, organization, feedback and control mechanisms, too.
grd on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 1:15 pm
after his tantrums yesterday in front of media, bishop cruz is now singing a different tune. backing-off? media na naman ang may kasalanan.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 1:23 pm
cvj, goals are central to systems design. you cannot start design without specs, your ‘goals’. are you thinking of a ‘natural’ system, like an ecosystem?
Jeg on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 1:45 pm
And in other news (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080327-126728/Police-graduates-assure-Arroyo-of-loyalty):
“CAMP CASTANEDA, Silang, Cavite — The new batch of junior police officers have assured President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of their loyalty…”
I spent Holy Week watching old movies and one of them was Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will. This pledge of loyalty to a person is so… chilling.
tonio on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 1:46 pm
Jeg:
whoa! where’d you get a copy of that?
Jeg on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 1:53 pm
tonio: whoa! where’d you get a copy of that?
Im afraid I have to plead the fifth, tonio.
grd on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 1:56 pm
jeg, i know but i was actually talking sarcastically what would be the impact of cj puno’s rounds of the media outlets on the future decisions of the 9 justices.
Joselito Basilio on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 2:21 pm
The Neri case is now a legal doctrine, a good precedent for a bad president.
Dirk Pitt on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 2:30 pm
with all due respect to justice secretary gonzales, i believe his action of publicly criticizing the garci tapes decision is injudicious, if not totally reprehensible. he already has issued a memorandom in which his views are made part of public record for all the world to see. airing his criticism on t.v. and other media outlets is, i think, a faux pas that runs counter to traditions of the best judicial temperament. it is a blatant display of the political morass in which the executive department has been perceived to have sunk.
the supreme court is a collegial body and there’s no reason to doubt that sec gonzeles is aware of it. the prevailing decision becomes the official decision of the whole body and must be accepted and respected as such by all, including the department secretaries.
by going the rounds of the media circuits to put down the decision, the good secretary, wittingly or unwittingly, undermines the role of the judiciary in the democratic scheme, reducing it to no better than the comelec in its quest for election manipulation.
i believe that coming from the justice secretary, such media appearances to purvey his critical views are fodder for the pro-gma crowd and further exacerbate, rather than ease, disunity among the people.
i really miss the days when judges were judges and politicians were politicians. in this sense, i concur with bencard’s views on “delicadezaâ€.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 2:58 pm
Folks,
The law as a system is NOT a mechanical system. My analogy is not to the Shuttle but to NASA. A piece of hardware cannot by itself evolve. The kind of physical system I am comparing the law to is what is called “a nonlinear dynamical system”–i.e. one that has rules which bring order to chaos, but which can itself produce NONLINEAR results. From small changes can come huge things. It is a quasi stable system that has many trajectories. But I claim “freedom” and “ethics” and “justice” are the strange attractors of such a dynamical social system, such that even if democratic constitutional systems start from widely varying initial conditions, they “tend to evolve” certain common characteristics which are the sets of conditions that those attractors define. A lil abstract, but compelling for me. This removes the need for moralistic skyhooks and inflexible dogmatic positions which only lead top fascism and totalitarian systems. Just to borrow some terms from the science I am familiar with, constitutional democracy is a nonlinear dynamical system, in which the law is an expression of FUTURE demanded by the strange attractors–the homeland of our ideals.
Liberty is the key ingredient that allows even temporary setbacks to be corrected and the whole to return to the “right path”.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 3:30 pm
DJB Rizalist, the reason ‘law as a system’ exhibit nonlinear dynamics is because it is so complex. that’s why it’s called a ’soft’ system. “strange attractors” come from chaos theory (not system design; from science not engineering), don’t be tempted to apply it on our society!
system design applied to law was a better idea, djb.
Ryan Maboloc on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 3:42 pm
The decision is sad, but it has to be respected all the same. We have to make clear distinctions here. What civil society wants is that of the non-public use of reason, and what the SC is doing is the public use of reason. To make the right assessment, we need to distinguish between critical and deliberative democracy. Rawls and Habermas debated on this matter.
Deliberative democracy concerns what Rawls calls the “public use of reasonâ€. It is, according to him, the “political use of reasonâ€, and concerns the instrumentalities of governments, i.e. courts, parliaments. He claims that the political should be insulated from our comprehensive doctrines (our beliefs) because only then can citizens under a constitutional rule work for an “overlapping consensusâ€. Public issues and matters pertaining to the affairs of government, therefore, belong to the forums that are constitutionally established, the constitution being a product of that overlapping consensus. Thus, complaints must be filed in courts so that both parties can avail of the due process. With regard to the ZTE issue, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Ombudsman, are simply doing their constitutionally mandated tasks, and they will not listen to what civil society says, since the truth they adhere to is the truth, ceteres paribus, that concerns “the rule of law”, which in fact, Sec. Neri used recently to comment on the SC ruling.
Civil society, which includes the “church, schools, the media, community organizations”, and now very recenly, bloggers like us, whose culture according to Rawls is considered as non-public, is outside the forum of the deliberative use of reason under the basic structure. This is the reason why however hard and/or valid our arguments are, they do not form part of how the SC will rule on the issue at hand.
Habermas, of course, disagrees with this idea, for he thinks that the people have a right to voice out their concerns on important issues. Civil society, according to Habermas, can act as the people’s sounding board on issues in a democracy. It may not be the legal forum but constitutionally we have the right to protest. But it ends up there. The final verdict belongs, as always, to SC. Of course, an abusive government is perilous for a democracy. But as long as facts don’t merit such a judgment, we can only remain vigilant to protect our right to know the truth.
My site: http://philippine-democracy.blogspot.com
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 3:47 pm
and your idea of a key ingredient that allows even temporary setbacks to be corrected and the whole to return to the “right path†is a description of cybernetics!
frombelow on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:18 pm
“The decision is sad, but it has to be respected all the same. We have to make clear distinctions here. What civil society wants is that of the non-public use of reason, and what the SC is doing is the public use of reason. To make the right assessment, we need to distinguish between critical and deliberative democracy. Rawls and Habermas debated on this matter.”
That implies that there is a level playing field when a decision was made by the so-called Instittions.
How about in a situation where there is a lingering doubt on the decision-making instittions. People, per se, are not questioning the wisdom of the instiution’s decision.They could be right, after all. But waht bugs them is the integrity of the decision. ( dumping of the impeachment by way of railroading the process, investigative body selective on its thrusts, courts whose loyalty to rule of law is not beyond question)
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:35 pm
mindanaoan (at 1:11pm), i believe you’re right that ‘goals’ are central to systems design but that is only from the point of view of observers (including designers of the system) which we have to distinguish from the system’s operation. Operation is determined on the basis of structure, code (both within the system) and context (as determined by. It is only after this operation is carried out that observers (whether by insiders like CJ Puno or outsiders like DJB) can assess whether the ‘goal’ has been met. From this standpoint, the ‘goal’ is no different from any attribute that is assigned by observers.
DJB (at 2:58pm) and Mindanaoan (at 3:30pm), the complexity and nonlinear dynamics is a result of the nature and strength of interactions, namely.
1. the capability of the social system (or its subsystems) to observe itself (e.g. CJ Puno or the military mutineers, i.e. its reflexive nature.
The strength of interactions between the system and its environment, the latter of which could and do involve multiple systems. Even between two physical systems, the consequences of perturbations can only be solved if such interactions are weak. Otherwise, the problem becomes intractable and the outcome unpredictable.
The question between Waiting for 2010 versus People Power revolves mainly on the issue of predictable vs. unpredictable (and potentially catastrophic) outcomes. The level of predictability is a function of the strength of interactions between the Public Sphere and the State. Elections are a much weaker form interaction compared to People Power.
Niklas Luhman did just that. He applied systems theory to the study of society.
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:38 pm
Sorry, the above should read ‘(as determined by the environment or the system’s current state)‘.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:42 pm
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:46 pm
Sorry, the sentence above that begins with The strength of interactions between the system and its environment…. should have a ‘2.’ before it.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 5:48 pm
cvj, “don’t be tempted to apply it (chaos theory) on our society!”
anthony scalia on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 6:06 pm
hmmm. he must know something that we don’t. its possible that the SC is just testing the waters, as it can reverse itself later.
but the batting average for the SC reversing itself in ‘landmark’ cases is less than 1%
history is against the SC reversing itself
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 6:26 pm
cvj, you have to adopt the viewpoint of designers when talking of laws, because laws are crafted with goals in mind, and their assessment (and consideration) should always be against these goals (which in this context are called the spirit of the law). judges are not allowed to make up their own interpretation of the law, it’s always against the intention (goals) of the framers of the law.
the constitution already spells out our system design. lawmakers are like maintenance engineers trying to make it run better in the current environment.
your viewpoint as an observer is useful only if you enjoy watching “consequences of perturbations” like a scientist, but i’m looking at it as an engineer trying to fix problems.
Jeg on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 6:43 pm
judges are not allowed to make up their own interpretation of the law…
But they do. The intentions of the framers are not always taken into consideration.
The whole problem with trying to apply the ’scientific method’ to society is that it’s based on the premise that people are rational and act in a rational way. They dont.
rego on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 6:44 pm
aww rego, you sad that CJ Puno didn’t toe the party line? boo-hoo for you..
====================================================
Pero tonio , pwede ring sabihing the 9 justice did not toe, CJ Puno’s line di ba which speaks more of his leadership.
Sa entry ni MLQ4 sa taas sinsabi nya na worried siguro si CJ Puno sa negative perception ng madala sa kanyang pamamahala sa CJ. Personal concentrate nya eto eh, so dapat hindi idamay ang madla. Yung pag dadadakdak nya sa media ay hindi makakatulong sa kanyang gustong managyari magandang imahe ng CS sa termino nya. Mas lalo lang nyang pinapangit ang imahe ng institutosyung eto.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 6:58 pm
Jeg, that’s the challenge, how to achieve goals using only laws as instruments.
exactly my criticism of jcv’s idea, just replace rational with ‘ethical’ or ‘moral’. the challenge here is how to make laws to force people to become rational, or ethical, or moral.
Jeg on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 7:12 pm
the challenge here is how to make laws to force people to become rational, or ethical, or moral.
That’s quite a challenge. But that’s not something for laws. That’s a challenge for society; a challenge for us. Laws forcing people are a tad too… fascist for me.
rego on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 7:13 pm
mag didigress lang ako sandali, may tanong lang ako tungkol sa CARP,
1. Paano po ba ang proceso ng pag kung gusto mong is surrender ang isang lupain sa DAR par ipailalim sa CARP.
2. Makakapamili po ba ang landlord kung ang ang parte na pwede ng i keep?
3. Ang Absentee landlord po ( yung matagal ng wala sa pIlipinas or OFW) ay ) ay may matititra pa rin sa kanya parte ng Lupa para kung sakaling mag retire sya eh sa Pinas. Ilang hectares nman ang pwedeng ititra sa kanya
4. Babayran ba ng Dar yung parte ng Lupa na kinuha nila? 5. Magkano po ang bayaran, yung tootong market value nba ng lupa ang basehan?
6 Paano nag babayad ang Gobyerno? One tiem payament or installment?
Maraming salamat po. At pasensya na lang po .
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 8:13 pm
mindanaoan, it’s not chaos theory. it’s systems theory. Read Niklas Luhman.
http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/Itaslit/best02a.pdf
A number of his ideas actually favor the ‘Wait for 2010′ camp.
yes, designing laws is part of the operations of the legal system. however, whether such laws or the legal system itself brings about a ‘goal’ such as ‘justice’ can only be determined by observers inside or outside the system. that’s why it is not an oxymoron to say that a given law or the legal system itself is ‘unjust’.
You just used the word ‘looking‘. Observation is a prerequisite to any attempt at a redesign. Besides, a Social System, unlike a machine, has no ‘outside’. It is easier to design a machine because the designer is a separate entity that has an existence separate from that of the machine. By contrast, we are all inside society so it is very hard to ‘design’ outcomes because observation
‘Ethical’ and ‘Moral’ codes do exist. For example, ‘Moderate the greed’ is a form of ethical code that Neri requested Jun Lozada to enforce as part of the government procurement system. The military has its own Soldiers Code of Conduct and Esperon’s violation of this code of conduct is the reason why a number of its best officers are willing to suffer in prison. Congressmen who accept bags of cash from Malacanang follow the ethical code of the House. Much of the conflict within society is because of the differences in codes between its subsystems as well as clashes with moral codes carried over from premodern society as embodied in religious beliefs.
The study of society is a science. We just shouldn’t confuse it with mechanical engineering. It’s not that simple.
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 8:23 pm
Sorry, the above should read …it is very hard to ‘design’ outcomes because observation and operation happen almost concurrently.
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 8:41 pm
chaos theory will say that a Canadian backpacker running in the streets of Lhasa, Tibet can cause ripples in Makati or Johannesburg.
———————
Eyewitnesses Recount Terrifying Day in Tibet
How a Protest Became a Rampage
By Jill Drew
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, March 27, 2008; A01
BEIJING, March 26 — In the moment, Canadian backpacker John Kenwood recalled, he was “young and stupid, and it was all adrenaline.” He was running, one in a mob of 200 or so, screaming, “Free Tibet!” and chasing riot police down a narrow street in downtown Lhasa in the early afternoon of March 14.
It was a heady feeling, being part of a howling pack that had forced police to turn tail and run, some dropping their shields as they fled a barrage of rocks. Then the Tibetans in the crowd slowed and began turning back, grinning and patting one another on the back. The ebullient mood did not last long. The pack broke into smaller groups, gathering rocks and pulling out knives, looking for the next target.
“There was no more crowd to be part of. It looked like they were turning on everybody,” said Kenwood, 19, describing the scene to reporters last week when he arrived in Kathmandu, Nepal, after 10 days in the Tibetan capital. “It wasn’t about Tibet freedom anymore.”
What he witnessed next was a violent rampage unlike any in decades in Lhasa, a city where Tibetan Buddhism’s most revered temples sit among office buildings and concrete markets built by Chinese bent on developing the remote Himalayan region. Hundreds of mostly young Tibetans broke up into roaming gangs and attacked Chinese passersby and vandalized shops, killing 19 people and injuring more than 600 over two days.
During the riots, looters set fire to a clothing store, burning to death five young employees who were huddled on the second floor. Most police officers kept their distance while the center of Lhasa descended into chaos.
Nearly two weeks later, there are still more questions than answers about what sparked the violence. But several witness accounts suggest that what began as a small protest by Buddhist monks on the morning of Friday, March 14, turned quickly into ethnically charged rioting, possibly fueled by rumors that monks had been roughed up by police. Some outside experts cite another factor behind the uprising: Tibetans’ awareness that the world is following news of their cause more closely as China prepares to host the Olympic Games in August.
mang_kiko on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:15 pm
Ang dapat na Trabaho nang Korte Suprema ay magdecide kong ang “Law” na nasa Harapan nila ay sang-ayon o libag sa Constitution..Sa kaso ni Mang Neri ano Batas ba ang pinag-usapan dito? yong power nang Senate mag cite nang Contempt? Anong provision nang Constitution and naviolate nito? Siguro Unusual and Cruel Punishment sa Sobrang Pilit Kay mang Neri na sagutin yong manga Tanong na halos lahat ay Alam naman kong Ano ang Pinag-usapan nila ni Aling GMA..liban lamang sa manga lubos na naniwala kay GMA at marami din sila…
The Ca t on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:21 pm
Many months ago, when I presented a chess analogy, MLQ3 curtly replied that he does not play chess.
Now I believe him.
Because the chess analogy that he linked is not a chess analogy at all. If you are really playing chess, you will see why.
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:26 pm
Q3 and others have suggested the role of personal economics re the recent Supreme Court decision. So why not do further broadbrushing and accept the possibility that CJ Puno’s blitz is from fees he gets from certain media outlets?
Action: raise the salaries of supreme court judges, then make formal the expectation of “no post-decision commentaries” during the first 10 calendar days after each court decision. Better it’s the taxpayer who pay these Supreme Court judges than special-interest-groups.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:26 pm
i hope that’s clearer.
cvj, you have to include your feedback-control mechanism (which measures and adjusts how far you are from your goals) in your design or your will have an unstable system. in the government, feedback-control is performed by the courts. they tell you if an action is consistent with our goals (constitutions and laws) and can also compel you to be so.
study is science. design is engineering. and systems are systems, whether it’s your payroll system or insurance system or electoral system or the government. they differ only in complexity. it’s not that simple, but it’s actually the simplest way of looking at it.
The Equalizer on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:28 pm
GMA VISION:
“Our merged party (Lakas/Kampi) will be a colossus that calls to mind Mahathir of Malaysia, whose decades-old dominant political machinery, supported by key business groups, provided the underpinning for Malaysia’s development,†GMA
Gloria’s idol, Mahathir, ruled Malaysia with an iron hand for 22 year, always took a tough stand against political opponents and had a scant regard for human rights.
From all indications, Gloria is acting like a very political president in spite of the fact that she is barred from running in the 2010 Presidential polls.
The reason is very simple: she has no intentions at all of giving up power peacefully by 2010!If she has her way,with the support of Lakas/Kampi super party,she wants to replicate Mahathir’s authoritarian rule of more than two decades!
It will just be a matter of time when she reveals her real intentions to aggressively push for charter change to remove any legal obstacle to her staying in power beyond 2010.
In other words, Gloria WILL DEFINITELY NOT ALLOW THE HOLDING OF THE 2010PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS (under the current constitutional framework) .
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:29 pm
If one is tainted by X, why not the other is tainted by Y?
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:32 pm
Equalizer: GMA needs charter-change for parliamentary to be new law of the land. The current constitution bars her from staying in Malacanang after 2010. The current constution remains operative even during martial law.
grd on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:42 pm
rego,
check chanroblesdotcom law library. they have the complete file for the: COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657.
based on a cousin’s experience:
1. DAR initiates acquisition of the land and will give notice to the owner either by personal delivery or registered mail.
2. yes, makakapamili ka ng parte ng lupang gusto mo.
3. ang alam ko pag wala ang land owner at hindi nakareply sa sulat ng DAR, they will initiate transfer of the title to the beneficiary that’s what happened to my cousin but she was able to contest the action of the DAR and retained the minimum entitlement due to land owners (I think 3 or 5 hec).
4. yes babayaran.
5. yung value ay base sa tax declarations ngproperty, and the assessment made by government assessors. ang sa kaso ng cousin ko ay napakababa ata ng payment (hindi yung amrket value)
6. DAR will pay through LBP either partly by cash or LBP preferred shares of stocks.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:43 pm
actually, it was a pun. i wanted to add ‘it will result in chaos!‘
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:58 pm
mindanaoan, it’s DJB who subscribes to chaos theory view of society, not me.
i agree that the courts function as a ‘feedback control mechanism’ just as ‘impeachment’ and other such processes within the institutions of government. i also agree that leaving such mechanisms alone (i.e. benign0’s prescription for political apathy) tends to promote ’stability’ (in the sense of predictability) because the system’s operation is not disturbed from the outside. However, are ’stability’ and ‘predictability’ the highest values in the present context? Do these systems exist for their own sake?
As you implied above, the Constitution was designed and ratified by the people to promote certain ends (or goals). It happens that just as people form the environment of the political and legal system, the political and legal system are also part of the environment that we the people have to live in.
Unfortunately, as i keep saying, absent an internal code of ethics, there is nothing inherent in the system that can keep it from being subverted. There is nothing in the justice system that can guarantee that it promotes justice. Judges can be bribed. There is nothing in our democratic system that can guarantee that it does promote democracy. Politicians can sell their allegiances. The ‘goals’ of a system (as determined by its observers) can and have been subverted. There is a point when the system is unable to fix itself and starts to harm its environment i.e. the Filipino people.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:59 pm
The Ca t, i play chess and i can see an analogy. can you tell me your point?
aurum on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:03 pm
A 120-page dissenting opinion? Wow! Maybe Chief Justice Puno had the numbers right after the oral argument, assigned himself as ponente, and wrote an exhaustive draft majority opinion. But then Brion came along and at least two other justices changed sides so Puno’s majority vanished and Justice de Castro’s much shorter dissenting opinion gathered nine votes. So the Chief Justice had to do some quick editing and change the title of what had been initially a majority opinion into a dissenting opinion. Maybe that explains why Puno’s dissenting opinion is that thick. Just maybe. But then it gives us a sense of judicial drama, right?
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:06 pm
exactly, cvj. it’s the system we need to fix.
mindanaoan on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 10:19 pm
cvj, it’s the how where we disagree. we want to use system tools, you just want to whack it.
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:42 pm
can an “internal code of ethics” become codified, or is wishing to find “it” an act for Diogenes the dog man with lamp searching for an honest man?
cvj on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:45 pm
An ‘internal code of ethics’ may or may not be codified, but that is secondary. What matters is its practice.
bw on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:45 pm
THe tought of Noli de Castro taking over in event of Gloria resigning gives me the frigging shivers. It’s bad now but if Noli takes over it will be chaos for sure
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:49 pm
Abe Margallo may like Diogenes… who when captured by pirates and sold away, Diogenes lived in Corinth (away from his motherland) and the rest of his life he devoted entirely to preaching the doctrines of virtuous self-control.
UP n student on Thu, 27th Mar 2008 11:53 pm
@bw: there will be no chaos; the transitioning will be exciting but matter-of-fact and the country will be none the worse if Noli de Castro were to become President before 2010 if GMA leaves via impeachment.
The issue is the one who holds the 6-year presidency after GMA.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:14 am
an “internal code of ethics†has to be codified to matter. as the supreme court said, you have to publish the rules. otherwise, anyone can claim there is such and such ‘code of ethics’ and we will all be debating till kingdom come.
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:22 am
@bw: Of course, there is risk that Noli de Castro’s internal code of ethics is closer to Erap’s, not Fidel Ramos.
or matches BongBong Marcos, not Among Ed.
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:29 am
mindanaoan, it’s not the publication but the practice that matters. For example, ‘Moderate the greed’ which is the code of ethics advocated by Neri and enforced by Jun Lozada, was not written but is nevertheless practiced within the government procurement system.
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:29 am
Actually… I have no mental image (other than by association) of what bongbong’s code of ethics is. Now what I sense is that Imelda Marcos does believe that her internal code of ethics is not only judicially defensible but that her code of ethics is why her constituencies keep re-electing her.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:44 am
cvj, ‘Moderate the greed’ is not a code of ethics but a strategy to conceal their work. btw, if lozada was neri’s enforcer, was neri already on the take? then why still offer 200M?
vic on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:53 am
I still suggest that there will be a complete Accountability Law that will define in details, conflict of Interest during the tenure and for how long after leaving the office.
Clearly define the relatives, degree by blood and by marriage and common law (minimum cohabitation)and the nature of dealing that will be considered Conflict…
Also somewhere in the Act the provision that will Protect Whistle blowers and rewards for the results of their whistles…
That would also cover in details the Accountability of Candidates under the Electoral Law…The Penalty and Enforcement..But also remind the Congress that these and all shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Charter, otherwise they will be thrown out by the courts (assuming time will come that the courts will be impartial)at the first challenge.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:01 am
Amazing!
Without realizing, the Supreme Court had made a self-inflicted wound in the 9-6 decision. In short, by its decision it institutionalizes BRIBERY (the focal point in the Senate Blue Ribbon investigation) in presidential discussion is covered within executive privilege.
In opposite direction of US Supreme Court in Nixon’s Watergate Scandal, the Philippine Supreme Court held executive privilege to conceal wrongdoing (bribery).
Pathetic!
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:07 am
Mindanaoan, to us on the outside, ‘Moderate the greed’ does not look like a code of ethics. Perhaps that is because we possess a sense of morality that is alien to the code of behavior practiced within government procurement system.
Niklas Luhman has warned against moral codes that originate from outside the system.
In a system that cannot operate corruption free, Neri understood that ‘Moderate the greed’ was the only way for government projects to push through, for the system to remain workable. He appreciated Luhmann’s advice:
Neri also anticipated that Abalos’ immoderate greed is a violation of that code which would risk inviting the attention of alien morality (i.e. the anti-corruption advocates) that would threaten the operations of the system.
maginoo on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:21 am
In summary, we Filipinos just screwed up (big time!) in nation building. The state is hostaged by a few. There’s massive corruption. The institutions are not at synch.
Its not all the government’s fault. Our collective history and belief system brought us this.
Whether its damaged culture, unclear social contract between the rulers and the governed, unpreparedness of the bureacracy and the institutions, greed gone berserk, etc.
Indeed, the OFWs are our lifeline. As Romy Neri has said, our safety valve. But they are both our national pride and shame.
We won’t be a failed state. But the Philippine ship will be drifting in the sea of global development as well as uncertainty. It is almost a systems failure.
Continuing from CVJ and Mindanaoan, what do you when the system hangs? Reset. Hard boot. Or reformat the whole thing.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:39 am
“Moderate Greed” is an admission that Philippine political system and infrastructure is running under greed culture -PATONG or COMMISSION. From simple permits to big projects, there is always the mark of greed in PATONG.
And the Filipino taxpayers ultimately paid the price. Marcos had his Bataan Nuclear plant $1.06 billion loan fully paid in 2007. Estrada had his commission on GSIS/SSS purchase of Belle Corp in plunder case. According to New York Times dated 8/16/2006, China granted $2 billion loans to Philippines each year in return for various projects. Since then from North Rail to ZTE projects the “patongs” had been in the front pages.
The Supreme Court earned the distinction of recognizing executive privilege to cover “patongs” in presidential discussion or communications.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:40 am
ahhh, so that’s our disconnect! i was talking of laws and government and you were talking about social systems. indeed, society is a complex adaptive system composed of men, but it’s not man-made. it’s not designed. that’s why i asked earlier if your were talking about a natural system like an ecosystem (which is like a social system). natural systems don’t have goals. man-made systems need to have goals from the very start. nobody builds anything without having an idea what it’s for.
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:45 am
mindanaoan, i see. sorry i missed that question.
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:51 am
In Luhmann’s view, there are no people within Society or within a social system. Instead, people form the environment in which Society operates. The basic building blocks of society according to him is Communication which is defined as the indivisible unity of information, transmission and comprehension.
Conversely, society is the environment in which people operate.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:00 am
maginoo, reset, hard boot, reformat are for lamers. if you’re a sysadmin worth your salt, when you suspect an exploit, you follow vulnerability management policy. find a fix, apply the patch. no reset in a 85-million-user system.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:04 am
cvj, ok. im going to read luhmann.
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:08 am
Neither do we just ‘wait for 2010′. Our system may just consists of viruses by then.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:16 am
Maginoo on, “Its not all the government’s fault.”
That is how Filipinos are brought up – “not government faults”. Evidently, the wealthly family political clans had been running the government (local to national) like their fiefdoms and milk the country like a cow (if you get the analogy). Government pay, tenure and power are among its incentives. Padrino system can easily get you into one. But the best part is the share of largesse from pork barrel to “patongs” which is the main staple of high government officials and paid by future generations of Filipinos through loans.
System failure? Hardly the case, “Patongs” and “Patronage” ensured continuous government projects regardless the benefit to the public, say the historic $1.06 billion Bataan nuclear plant. The greed “Patongs” and “Patronage” is not to serve the public but support the clannish families and friends to continue running the government throughout its history. While the majority voting public is always available for sale or entertainment during election time.
Unfortunately, those who can’t compete with the clannish families just went abroad and get satisfaction of earning a decent way of earning a living.
maginoo on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:17 am
Jeeez, cvj! Why do you have to beat me on the virus thing?
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:30 am
cvj, if you have a scheduled backup-restore tomorrow, why risk corrupting files with a reset today?
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:30 am
cvj on, “Our system may just consists of viruses by then”
Actually, we have been in virulent system eversince. Ages ago, Dr Jose Rizal predicted the Philippines in a cancer state (the only irony, a cancer without dying). We had the chance of a cure in 1986 when Marcos was removed. But the clannish families were quick to grab congress and government positions. A housewife (Cory) survived by a dead husband was no match against countless military coups financed by clannish families ensured we are back to the cancer state.
Pedestrian Observer GB on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:31 am
There is no doubt that the despicable SC decision is a blow to check and balance & public disclosure which encourages people in high places and those well connected a license to commit fraud conspiracies…. so what can we as bloggers do to effectively voice out our concern and disgust over this wanton disregard of the rule of law?
I suggest a concerted organized approach such as setting a date where everyone can protest the perversion to show these maniacs we have enough of the charade.
Check out the evil trio unleashed image at POGB for everyone to grab and post in their blog.
maginoo on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:35 am
@ d0d0ng:
My point. Like the Catholic Church is a big part of the problem. With its stand on population control. Of course, you’re aware that with more agressive population control, a large part of poverty in the Philippines could be alleviated.
Like the long lasting conflicts perpetuated by the NPA/CPP and the rebels in the south. Of course you realize that these are legacy problems/issues for any Philippine government.
In conclusion, I was trying to point out that there are many unfinished business/problems that we could just not allocate the responsibility on. As I said, our collective history and culture brought us to this situation.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:38 am
The problem with reset button is that:
1. We do not know the tipping point like 1986.
2. Very infrequent similar to one in a generation.
3. If it happened, the reset is short in desired results and viruses are quick to repopulate the hard drive.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:41 am
to remove a virus, use an anti-virus. don’t whack the cpu.
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:42 am
mindanaoan, because there’s the possibility that the virus will corrupt the backups as well. in my work, i’ve encountered a situation where i discovered a file that was corrupted. i tried to retrieve the last good backup but found that it has long been corrupted. there were no good copies anymore.
in any case, i don’t favor a ‘reset’ if by that you mean violence.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:53 am
cvj, a backup-restore immediately detects bad backups. why, you do just backup and backup and no restores to check if it’s good? fire your system designer!
no violence, good. no violence.
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:55 am
It was only a year after that i found out the file was ‘talking to Garci’ so to speak. My bad.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:58 am
Maginoo – in short, there is no getting out of cancer state.
But let me tell you of Catholic church. We had the real chance in Cardinal Sin. The progressive late Cardinal Sin who was behind 1986 was less known about his position in birth control. In fact, he voted in 1978 for a progressive Pope John Paul I (Albino Luciano), the shortest pope to reign in 33 days who was murdered (unofficially since no country has jurisdiction over Vatican) by the conservatives over Albino’s investigation of Vatican Bank and his radical change of catholic papacy choosing to start from Vatican Council 2 (progressive) than to continue the conservative direction under Vatican Council 1.
Under John Paul I, the catholic church would have pragmatic solution for the third world languishing in overpopulation.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:06 am
mindanaoan on, “to remove a virus, use an anti-virus. don’t whack the cpu.”
Anti-virus program is designed to get rid of current nuisance in the system. It is as good as the designer. Arroyo and her clans were once anti-virus to Estrada. Now, she and her families and friends are the viruses.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:22 am
maginoo on, “Like the long lasting conflicts perpetuated by the NPA/CPP and the rebels in the south.”
The Berlin Wall and communist Germany is gone and yet Communism in Philippines is still around. Why is that?
Reason: In 1986 with removal of dictator Marcos, the clannish families with military support secured the government and the legislature that created the laws. The clannish families are big landowners and passed the CARP law ensuring its traditional hold of the big family landholdings via corp loopholes. In addition, clannish families through local government have choice in military commander assignment. Feudalism barely changed except for the makeup.
In the south, separate government is anathema to clannish families controlling national government who will be deprived of revenues and foreign loans.
hawaiianguy on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:29 am
dodong, cvj, mindanaon,
A defective or infected CPU can be likened to a social system up to a certain point, using an organic analogy of the sheme of things. If the viral infection is in such a state that known anti-virus software is no longer effective, I find it useful to reformat the hard disk as the best option.
Unfortunately, one can’t do that to a social system when it becomes dysfunctional. Except for a few such systems in history (Maya, Inca, Egypt’s age of pharaohs, etc.), most don’t reach that stage of complete dysfunction. Rizal’s pinas as a cancerous society might still be benign, not enough for society to snap out. The revolution of 1890s, repeated somewhat in 1986 (it’s not exactly a revolution in the sense of being violent and transformative), suggests corrective solutions to an ailing society that was and is still functioning.
From a functionalist perspective, the system can still continue (and will likely to do so until a sharp break happens along the line) so long as those parts that make the system are fixed, replaced or modified. Hence, pinas can still survive without the need for a revolutionary change if those dysfunctional institutions can be repaired. One quick way is to replace the leaders behind it. Then, repair the system as soon as the right people are in place.
An analogy that comes to mind is the Comelec. It’s hard to install an honest-free elections if those notorious guys are still there. Commissioner Melo may not be able to do anything much by himself by acting like a crusader, if the system is not weeded out of those scrupulous people.
For the political system, the remedy is this: replace Gloria by ouster, impeachment or some other legally approved means on or before 2010. She is at the center of a system that is still cancerous or sick.
maginoo on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:31 am
@d0d0ng:
I hear you. But as I said, you cannot assign the blame to any one particular Philippine government, neither from Aguinaldo nor to Arroyo. But to ‘clannish families’ Oligarchs?
Determinist history at fault? Maybe particular events were crucial. I’m not sure.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:38 am
Maginoo on, “I was trying to point out that there are many unfinished business/problems that we could just not allocate the responsibility on. As I said, our collective history and culture brought us to this situation.”
There is no unfinished business, it is the design of greed “patongs” and “patronage”. The clannish families will NOT give up landholdings and private ownerships. Likewise, they will NOT give up control (separate government) to lose national revenue and foreign loans. Their selfish family history and elitist culture (entertainment for the people) continue to dominate the majority poor and disenfranchised Filipinos.
maginoo on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:43 am
So d0d0ng? Are you for a RESET? HARD BOOT? Or REFORMAT? At least we know what ColdKing wants.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:47 am
hawaianguy on, “One quick way is to replace the leaders behind it. Then, repair the system as soon as the right people are in place.”
That is doable. But the clannish families are way ahead than educated Filipinos. They practiced what they believed. They sit as lawmakers to ensure that the next president will execute their laws and the supreme court will interpret the law according to their versions. In fact, they can always insist that we are governed by rules – their laws on us.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:56 am
Maginoo on, “Are you for a RESET? HARD BOOT? Or REFORMAT? At least we know what ColdKing wants.”
This question is very appropriate for a person dying of cancer. “Whatever it takes” is always the 1st answer. But once you go with radiation treatment, most will simply accept their fate -”whatever it is.” In battle of attrition, the most resources wins.
hawaiianguy on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:56 am
dodong,
I know what you’re saying. Those powerful clans are there to rule, even if you do something. But better do something than do nothing, else we leave society to its own pitfalls – sink to the abyss as the “iron law of oligarchy” takes its toll (Robert Michels). Improving polity and bureacracy is the only way to avert this law from becoming.
I will start by voting out those corrupted ruling families from politics. Isabela’s lady governor (Padaca) has demonstrated its possibility, as do other neophytes in Philippine politics. Let’s campaign in 2010 to do the same.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:08 am
I like your courage, Hawaiianguy.
We urge Filipinos to take the government one at a time. Start regaining the government from clannish families. Be like Father Ed Panlilio. We need more governor Panlilios so Philippines can start a different direction away from greed of “patongs” and “patronage”.
Nobody can bought Ed Panlilio. He received the “tongs” and spent it on the people. If more Filipinos like Panlilios, the Philippines has a real chance against cancer battle.
hawaiianguy on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 5:01 am
We certainly need more Padacas, Panlilios and other honest newcomers to cleanse a corrupted, cancerous political system. Meanwhile, there’s a more pressing need to start from the top. That’s the nerve center responsible for the other system parts to go awry.
Bencard on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 5:03 am
mindanaon, cvj, let me weigh in on your running debate about morality and code of ethics, “social systems” and “viruses”.
i think any discussions on morality and ethics must never lose sight of the fact that these two norms spring, not from man, but from a higher(est) authority outside of him. they are not “man-made” but, in the exercise of free will, man may choose to, or not to, abide by them (of course with consequences, good or bad).
having said that, i agree with you, mindanaoan, that social systems are not supposed to be man made nor designed. the idea is so diametrically opposed to freedom and the exercise of free will. social engineering is only possible in a totalitarian state ruled by force rather than reason. a society of free men adopts just and reasonable rules or codes of conduct based on standards handed down by the ultimate Lawqgiver.
cvj, i don’t agree with your theorem (apparently from miklas luhmann, a social scientist rather than religious or legal scholar) that “there are no people within Society or social system”; or that “morality that originates from outside the social system” is dangerous. in the same way that the mafia’s “code of honor” is not derived from true morality or ethics, “moderation of greed” is not a moral or ethical standard – greed is greed, moderated or not.
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 5:52 am
according to a former US SC member – we (the SC) are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what we say it is
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 6:11 am
to maginoo, dodong, and all others using the ‘PC metaphor’:
you’re missing one important player – the PC user!
whatever happens to the PC is because of the user. to borrow words from a famous phrase – a PC user gets the PC he deserves (context is the user is assigned a brand new PC all to and for himself)
Bencard on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 6:18 am
anthony, yes, and in fact, anybody, including you and i, can interpret the constitution subject to somebody else’s counter-interpretation. the final arbiter is the s.c, whose word is the last word binding to all within its jurisdiction.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 6:25 am
Bencard on, “reasonable rules or codes of conduct based on standards handed down by the ultimate Lawqgiver.”
The clever doctorate president Arroyo knew about reasonable rules and how it can be used to her advantage. Facing new impeachment and people vigil at Congress, she went directly to Pope Benedict XVI in June 2006 to plead her case from notorious interferences from the powerful Bishops (which tip the balance of power in 1986) by presenting her personal gift of abolition of death penalty.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 6:32 am
Bencard on, “the final arbiter is the s.c, whose word is the last word binding to all within its jurisdiction.”
Hence, Philippine SC the final arbiter in 9-6 decision institutionalized bribery under presidential discussion as protected by executive privilege.
mlq3 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 7:02 am
you do realize the poor voted against among ed and that his core of support came from the old families and the middle class of pampanga?
tonio on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 7:10 am
isn’t it mainly the poor who are the targets of the Pinedas “envelopmental campaigning” anyway? it comes as no surprise.
tonio on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 7:18 am
I think we’re all mostly agreed that CJ Puno’s “sore loser whiney whiney” was definitely in bad taste. And yes, he way have very well undermined the credibility of the Supreme Court by engaging in such pedestrian behaviour with an all-too-eager mass media.
But Puno should’ve realized that in the way his current Court is composed, there was really not much choice for them but to back the Palace. The currents of utang na loob run too deep. (i for one totally detest this reprehensible mode of behaviour. this utang na loob bullshit is what this entire kleptocracy is built on anyway.)
and Rego, an MLQ4 doesn’t seem to be part of MLQ3’s plans at the moment, i reckon. hee hee hee
inodoro ni emilie on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 7:40 am
this is not about strengthening democratic processes, this is about survival of the fattest. guess who.
vic on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:10 am
Man’s conduct is governed by law and how that law is enforced. It is not the culturea per se or attitudes but the enforcement of the Laws that are fair and striking down of laws that are not fair…but if the SC keep upholding laws that violates the Charter (first interpret the charter to conform the law, instead of the other way around)then the books will be full of laws that eventually guide the conduct of man the wrong way… it’s habitual…
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:33 am
history will be judge: if among ed’s years as governor result in good stuff, the conclusion is that the burgis saved Pampanga. If by 2013 or 2014 Pampanga has worsened, then among ed is another exhibit of the middle class betraying the poor.
background: q3’s reminder : you do realize the poor voted against among ed and that his core of support came from the old families and the middle class of pampanga?
BrianB on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:34 am
This is what’s wrong with our leaders.
Big belly may lead to dementia:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080328-126900/Big-belly-in-middle-age-triples-risk-of-dementia
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 9:03 am
dodong,
now now, my fried. don’t be too hasty, don’t be paranoid, don’t be OA
what institutionalized bribery are you talking about?
do you really need Neri’s further testimony? no!
in case you have forgotten, gloria cancelled the NBN project when the scandal reached the Senate last year.
implication – gloria gave the go signal to the project despite Neri’s warning of a bribery attempt
the sole issue in the Neri SC case – can executive privilege block a Senate inquiry?
as if bribery can be stopped from being institutionalized if executive privilege is removed and Neri must answer the Senate inquiry on what was gloria’s response to his bribery warning!
saka as if naman bribery isn’t institutionalized already!
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 9:05 am
dodong,
‘my fried’ should be ‘my friend’
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 9:25 am
anthony,
that’s a limitation of our system. that’s why we have 15 justices. that’s why they invented the JBC to improve the judicial selection process. that’s why SC justices can be impeached.
that’s the nature of technology. unless you have a better idea, you have to live with it.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 9:29 am
bencard, to systems people, systems engineering is about building systems, but social engineering is not about building society. it’s about stealing passwords!
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 9:40 am
Bencard, the Mafia’s Code of Honor is their internal Code of Ethics. It does not look ethical (or moral) to us because it is incompatible with our own code. However, from within their system [of organized crime], that code is what enables their system to operate which is why the Mafia strictly enforces it and harshly punishes those who violate it.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 9:44 am
anthony, on the other hand, aren’t justices paid to do just that? to tell us their own interpretation of the law?
Eileen on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:06 am
Senate happenings are all a matter of politicking….
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:06 am
mindanaoan,
“anthony, on the other hand, aren’t justices paid to do just that? to tell us their own interpretation of the law?”
yes
Jeg on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:33 am
Im enjoying all the geek-speak. It’s interesting and highly educational (and yes it makes me want to read Luhman too).
But again, science (or engineering for that matter) needs an outside observer. Since we are part of the system, we cannot be that ‘observer’. We therefore need a code of ethics from the ‘outside’ of human society. Therefore Im with Bencard when he said:
Even if one doesnt subscribe to the existence of this authority from outside of man and society, one cannot deny the practicality of having this authority. Richard Dawkins, who is a staunch atheist, believes nevertheless in universal eternal morals as reported by this blogger.
(http://adventuresofhiggins.blogspot.com/2008/03/chasing-immortality-starring-richard.html)
We need someone or something from the outside.
rego on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:34 am
GRD,
Maraming maraming salamat sa reply dun sa mag tanong about CARP. Makakatulog na ng maayos ang pinsan. Halos isang linggo na rin akong binbulabog kung ano ang gaagawin nya doon sa 40 hectare na naiwan ng Nanay nya.
inodoro ni emilie on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:48 am
jeg, who is to objectively know that that “outside force” will still exist without man. what bencard raises is an issue on the level of theological. universal human law can still exist even for atheist (not that am one–far from it). that force is only meaningful then if it makes sense to man: call them inherited cultural memes–people before the 10 commandments were written on the tablet already have a sense of morality because that sense subsides from BE-ing human (pagka-tao natin). it’s basically anthropoligical.
Jeg on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:05 pm
universal human law can still exist even for atheist (not that am one–far from it).
Yes of course. But I believe what Bencard raises is ‘quo warranto’. By what right?
By what right, for example does any man propose a universal set of eternal morals? For example, Professor Dawkins proposes universal morals, but why should we believe him? I can propose universal rights that say ‘Survival of the fittest in all things’ which makes the practice of Eugenics legal, and I would have as much right as Prof. Dawkins (assuming of course that Im as smart as he is). The practicality of the existence of someone from the outside who has warrant to propose universal rights is what made our civilization possible.
(Just in case, Id like to point out that this isnt an argument for the existence of God of a higher power; that is a personal thing. It is instead an argument for the utility of believing in higher power who has the right to codify a set of universal eternal morals.)
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:11 pm
Jeg, i agree that it may be practical to have such an ‘outside Observer’. In pre-modern society, religion did provide people that comfort. I suppose that’s the blessing for those who believe in their God as they do not have to grapple with the matter of intellectual honesty. However, absent such an outside Observer (either in real or practical terms), then we are faced with the fact that all of us observers exist inside the Social system. Luhmann’s body of work explores and deals with this implications of self-reference i.e. from the point of view of Society as whole, there is no ‘outside’. I’m interested in what he has to say in part because he provides a possible way around post-modernist relativism or nihilist dead-ends in a Society that has lost belief in an absolute reference.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:36 pm
Jeg, we are already outside government. we are part of society, which is the government’s environment. we can therefore play design-reviewers.
and we don’t need the “practicality of having this (outside) authority”. the government and it’s legal subsystem was built for the goal of “the common good”. and that’s what all actions of should be measured against.
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:40 pm
should be ‘all actions of it’s parts should be measured against’
Joselito Basilio on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 6:03 pm
“you do realize the poor voted against among ed and that his core of support came from the old families and the middle class of pampanga?”
I was there in action and saw it. A substantial number of poor voted against Among Ed because of poberty (they were paid 1 thousand each). An equallly considerable number of poor voted for him out of idealism and because of the influences of the churches and the rich who supported Among Ed.
The Ca t on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 6:16 pm
Then you should know that the endgame has not yet commenced with all those chess pieces he mentioned still in on the chess board.
mwehehehe
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 7:14 pm
The Ca t, white is winning, and black intends to play perpetual check (let’s grant that he can). so if they don’t call it a draw, we’ll have to leave them. there’s nothing more to see. i don’t know about mandated draw though. it’s not in the rule book.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:57 pm
mlq3 on, “you do realize the poor voted against among ed and that his core of support came from the old families and the middle class of pampanga?”
Manolo – there is slightest hope if the trend can go nationwide however weak against the massive votes of the poor for popularity and entertainment.
d0d0ng on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:20 pm
scalia on, “saka as if naman bribery isn’t institutionalized already!”
Not in a Supreme Court decision. In this case, the Supreme Court has seriously damage its image approaching that of rubber stamp Supreme Court of Enrique Fernando during Marcos years. One of its enduring images is that of the chief justice holding the umbrella for the flamboyant Imelda Marcos through crowd of admirers.
anthony scalia on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:13 am
dodong,
are you sure on what you are saying?
remember the SC decisions on Sigaw, the controversial EOs and PPs?
what ‘rubber stamp’ are you talking about?
Bencard on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 1:17 am
jeg, i believe any code of human conduct, be it law, ethics, morals or ecclesiastical, has to have sanctions to have force and be of any meaning or utility. ethics, morals and ecclesiastical norms derives it’s obligatory force from spiritual sanctions, i.e., intangibles such as dishonor, guilty conscience, eternal damnation; whereas law derives force from both spiritual and physical sanctions, i.e., tangibles such as corporal punishment (since outlawed), incarceration, banishment.
a law or code that is only obligatory solely because of physical sanction, and devoid of any spiritual suasion, is, more often than not, an unjust law. it is, in essence, an instrument of coercion as a loaded gun is. the mafia code is a good example of it.
UP n student on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 3:16 am
The lawmakers, in the meanwhile, should go back to wordsmithing-201 classes and figure out how to ask questions which, even with “…executive privilege/no comment”, still moves the truth-seeking
forward.
That, and do the Trojan-horse thing. Invite XYZ to the Senate to answer questions A, B and D, then throw them into custody (by senate sgt-at-arms) if the invitee keeps saying “executive-privilege” to evade questions X, Y and Z.
The Executive Department can not violate the inner sanctum of the Congress, can it? Hah…. our senators and/or congressmen can be having a sex-orgy and no one can go inside Congress’ inner sanctum. Thank goodness our congressmen have an internal code of ethics.
Bencard on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 3:33 am
upn, but the executive (the pres. is commander-in-chief) has the military, the guns, the tanks, etc. which i don’t the senate sgt. at arms can match (just kidding…lol).
Neil on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 3:19 pm
The Cat says: “Then you should know that the endgame has not yet commenced with all those chess pieces he mentioned still in on the chess board.
mwehehehe”
Who said that the endgame has commenced? The analogy was talking about the “essential pieces for the endgame” and situations “towards the endgame”.
mindanaoan is correct: “The Ca t, white is winning, and black intends to play perpetual check (let’s grant that he can). so if they don’t call it a draw, we’ll have to leave them. there’s nothing more to see…”
But: “i don’t know about mandated draw though. it’s not in the rule book.”
The rule book says: if the same position with the same player to move is repeated three times in the game (in this case, perpetual checking) the rule mandates that the player to move can claim a draw.
Neil on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 3:32 pm
The Cat says: “Many months ago, when I presented a chess analogy, MLQ3 curtly replied that he does not play chess.
Now I believe him.
Because the chess analogy that he linked is not a chess analogy at all. If you are really playing chess, you will see why.”
Oh, I’m sorry to hear that MLQ3 did not take on your own “chess analogy”. Mwehehehe…
The Ca t on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:16 am
with the gueen, the bishops and the rook flanking the King, how could the black make a perpetual check?
Baka di pa sila makarating sa paroroonan nila, kain na sila.
Tssk tssk
pilit na analogy
The Ca t on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:28 am
How can the situation given by the commenter lead to perpetual checking eh marami pang move ang white at ang defense ay di pa nila mapenetrate what with the queen and the bishops still on the chess board.
Sa pawns ? hahaha you make ma laugh. nakabasa ka lang ng rule, pinaste mo na rito.
Applying that to the politics, as he was saying, Lozada,is
represented by a pawn. Agree. But this “pawn” will never have the chance to be promoted as Queen (queening. The support of the bishops is gone. Even the queen got sick. And another knight died. I am sorry to hear those bad news. sooner or later Lozada will be gobbled up may be by another pawn or by the rook or by the queen.
Maglaro ka na lang checker o sungka. mwehehe
Bencard on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 3:14 am
dOdong, your premise that there was “bribery” that was institutionalized is a classic example of “begging the question” a fallacious premise that results in a fallacious conclusion. you have to prove first that there was bribery before you can say that it was institutionalized.
inodoro ni emilie on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 7:46 am
not so, bencard, not so. i suggest keeping an open mind and read michael shermer’s science of good and evil. your concept of obligatory force only demotes the meaning of free will, i.e., from a theological perspective. but if you have to argume from a theological standpoint, my take on this is simple: as creatures in the image and likeness of God, that sense of morality resides within and does not need an objective outsider.
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 10:09 am
The Ca t, that’s why there’s a parenthetical “let’s grant that they can”. and it’s not hard to imagine that the anti-gma camp can come up with all kinds of ‘checks’. i therefore vote to allow the analogy under the long established tradition of ‘poetic license’.
Neil on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:24 pm
The Ca t, you forgot that the black pieces have been checking the white king, long before the white pieces got better positions on the board.
You should have known that the white pieces made a series of bad moves before, and that the white rooks did not flank the white king, until much later in the game. Before that, the black pieces were “almost unhindered” in their advance.
As a chess luminary, you should know that things could happen in chess, especially when chess masters like you play against chess morons like me.
C’mon, not everyone is as brilliant as you are in chess.
Still, black is checking, albeit white is in advantage now.
I guess you have to live with that.
d0d0ng on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 1:47 am
Bencard on, “you have to prove first that there was bribery.”
Lifted from
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio.htm
“Petitioner’s discussions with the President dealt not on simple bribery, but on scandalous bribery involving high Government officials of the Philippines”
“Petitioner admits, and there can be no dispute about this admission, that his discussions with the President dwelt on a bribery scandal involving high Government officials of the Philippines.”
Bencard – clever enough the defense rested entirely on the suppression of proof protected under executive privilege. Same strategy invoked during investigation of military in the 2004 cheated elections.