Supremes’ Folly
March 28, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
Let’s begin with a quote from the Vice-President, not usually considered an authority on anything, but who knows his public pulse. In the news article Inquiries barred by SC ruling?, which focuses on the Palace’s emerging effort to limit public criticism by bringing up the possibility of the Supreme Court citing people by contempt (a dangerous road, considering even lawyers are incensed: can you imagine hundreds or even thousands all being jailed for contempt of court?), the Veep was quoted as saying:
Vice President Noli de Castro urged those who disagree with the Supreme Court to respect and accept the ruling.
“Kapag hindi pa natin ginalang ang decision ng Supreme Court, sino ang igagalang ninyo after the Supreme Court?” he said in an ambush interview at the Philippine National Police Academy graduation rites in Silang, Cavite.
And really, this is the crux of the problem. Because, indeed, if the Supremes have disgraced themselves then the unthinkable has to be confronted, and that is, going back to the drawing board. But that point hasn’t been reached, at least, not just yet: at the very least it would have to wait until the Supremes have received a motion for reconsideration and then denied it with finality; or possibly, even further down the line when the 9-6 majority continues to hold even in cases, say, like another People’s Initiative scheme. Then the country would no longer be able to ignore the reality of a Puppet Court.
Unless of course, without waiting for a Puppet Court to hand down one decision after another, the justices in the minority, led by their chief, decide to simply resign if the court upholds Neri v. Senate. That would be unprecedented; but would it be wise? It would only give the President a free hand to appoint not just six, but seven Justices in one fell swoop. But then again it would have been an act of self-preservation for the resigned Justices.
Would we then be faced with a situation more similar to the Japanese Occupation than even, say, Martial Law? Though at the heart of the New Society were ideas first explored during the Japanese Occupation.
Even when the Supreme Court disgraced itself (while saving the jobs of its members) by adorning the New Society with “a color of constitutionality,” the critics of Marcos still went to the Supremes to argue their cases, even though they weren’t particularly confident of a fair hearing. It was just that court remained one of the few venues where people could exercise a semblance of free speech. There was still a residual respect for the high court, but I have to wonder if it was an institutional respect or respect for its membership; just as during the Japanese Occupation the Supreme Court tried to do as little work as possible, knowing it was viewed as just another illegitimate institution of a government viewed as illegitimate by the people.
But then the public didn’t scoff at Jose Yulo, who assumed the position of Chief Justice after the legitimate Chief Justice, Jose Abad Santos, was executed by the Japanese, the way the public scoffed Chief Justice Enrique Fernando during the Marcos years. But in the end when the entire Marcosian apparatus came crashing down the Supreme Court he’d appointed went with him. The Japanese Occupation and Martial Law still remain national traumas within living memory: and with continuing ill-effects as Alfonso Aluit once pointed out.
But then, what do you do, Puppet Court or no? For example, De Venecia son seeks SC help over wiretapping. And while Manuel Buencamino, in his column Play them loud, can properly distinguish between the Garci tapes and those Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile has in his pocket -and which has led JDV3 to run to the Supremes with a Habeas Data petition- the long and short of it is that the reason people have to run to the Supremes is they’re the court of last resort -but what happens when resorting to that court can only hasten not justice, but the closing of a government trap?
Which brings us back to the Vice-President. Who -or what- would be left to respect, once respect for the high court is gone? Which explains why disappointment in certain quarters -and I am specifically referring not to critics of the President, but those who believed that the President’s sins of omission or commission, as alleged by her critics, could be amply attended to by institutional means, whether Congress or the courts- is running so deep, and why the response, as invoked by Fr. Bernas (see link below) is basically this: storm the high court at Padre Faura with prayers, of the legal and spiritual kind.
And why great pains are being taken to dissect the high court’s ruling, to point out the Supremes’ folly, and to remind them that once respect for them is lost -what, indeed, will be left?
Let’s move on to a portion of the decision, before tackling what some lawyers told me yesterday. Here is the portion from the main decision as written by the ponente, Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro:
The above cases, especially, Nixon, In Re Sealed Case and Judicial Watch, somehow provide the elements of presidential communications privilege, to wit:
1) The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.â€
2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and received†by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity†with the President.
3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought “likely contains important evidence†and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
In the case at bar, Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive privilege on the ground that the communications elicited by the three (3) questions “fall under conversation and correspondence between the President and public officials†necessary in “her executive and policy decision-making process†and, that “the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China.†Simply put, the bases are presidential communications privilege and executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or foreign relations.
Using the above elements, we are convinced that, indeed, the communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. First, the communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable power†of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. Second, the communications are “received†by a close advisor of the President. Under the “operational proximity†test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo’s cabinet. And third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
The third element deserves a lengthy discussion.
United States. v. Nixon held that a claim of executive privilege is subject to balancing against other interest. In other words, confidentiality in executive privilege is not absolutely protected by the Constitution. The U.S. Court held:
[N]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.
The foregoing is consistent with the earlier case of Nixon vs. Sirica, where it was held that presidential communications privilege are presumptively privileged and that the presumption can be overcome only by mere showing of public need by the branch seeking access to conversations. The courts are enjoined to resolve the competing interests of the political branches of the government “in the manner that preserves the essential functions of each Branch.†Here, the record is bereft of any categorical explanation from respondent Committees to show a compelling or citical need for the answers to the three (3) questions in the enactment of a law. Instead, the questions veer more towards the exercise of the legislative oversight function under Section 22 of Article VI rather than Section 21 of the same Article. Senate v. Ermita ruled that the “the oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.†It is conceded that it is difficult to draw the line between an inquiry in aid of legislation and an inquiry in the exercise of oversight function of Congress. In this regard, much will depend on the content of the questions and the manner the inquiry is conducted.
Respondent Committees argue that a claim of executive privilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of a crime or wrongdoing. We see no dispute on this. It is settled in United States v. Nixon[48] that “demonstrated, specific need for evidence in pending criminal trial†outweighs the President’s “generalized interest in confidentiality.†However, the present case’s distinction with the Nixon case is very evident. In Nixon, there is a pending criminal proceeding where the information is requested and it is the demands of due process of law and the fair administration of criminal justice that the information be disclosed. This is the reason why the U.S. Court was quick to “limit the scope of its decision.†It stressed that it is “not concerned here with the balance between the President’s generalized interest in confidentiality x x x and congressional demands for information.†Unlike in Nixon, the information here is elicited, not in a criminal proceeding, but in a legislative inquiry. In this regard, Senate v. Ermita stressed that the validity of the claim of executive privilege depends not only on the ground invoked but, also, the procedural setting or the context in which the claim is made. Furthermore, in Nixon, the President did not interpose any claim of need to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets. In the present case, Executive Secretary Ermita categorically claims executive privilege on the grounds of presidential communications privilege in relation to her executive and policy decision-making process and diplomatic secrets.
At yesterday’s Mass for Cory Aquino at the Ateneo Rockwell, I asked lawyer Carlos Medina (who was part of the Senate’s legal team and was part of One Voice’s legal team) his views and to the best of my understanding, he believed the portion above was the most objectionable part of the entire decision.
In the past, executive privilege applied to the President and individuals consulted by the President. When invoking executive privilege, the burden of proof was on the one invoking the privilege, and not on those making inquiries resulting in the invoking of privilege; the decision reverses things and now puts the burden of proof on those making inquiries, therefore turning what was once something that could only be rarely invoked and with difficulty, at that, into a shroud of secrecy almost impossible to pierce.
Before the decision, it would have been, “I invoke executive privilege, because what you want me to tell you, deserves to be superdupertopsecret because of reason A, B, C…” with reasons A, B, and C subject to strict limits on their appropriateness.
After the decision, it becomes “Tell me why I should answer you when everything is presumed to be covered by executive privilege so tell me your reasons A, B, and C and I’ll see if I think your reasons justify my giving you an answer.”
It turns the assumptions that executive privilege is exactly that, a privilege, and one that’s strictly circumscribed, on its head.
Besides that, the privilege once applied to two people: the President and whoever talked directly to the President, about confidential matters; the decision expands coverage to include those with “proximity” to the President -including when those enjoying that proximity consult each other, in turn, on matters involving the President.
Before the decision, it would have been, “I invoke executive privilege, because what the President and I talked about on the phone is superdupertopsecret.” After the decision, it becomes, “I invoke executive privilege because what Sec. A and myself, Sec. B, talked about had something to do with the President, although neither of us were talking to the President at the time, nonetheless, since it was about her, it’s superdupertopsecret.”
smoke, in her blog, noticed this, too:
All this conclusion does is bolster the fact that Neri can claim privilege. But that was never at issue. The issue is whether the claim is justified. Again, the justifiability of the claim seems to have been taken for granted.
The third conclusion is the linchpin, and it is based on the fact that
“The case of Senate v. Ermita only requires that an allegation be made “whether the information demanded involves military or diplomatic secrets, closed-door Cabinet meetings, etc.†The particular ground must only be specified. The enumeration is not even intended to be comprehensive.â€
In other words, the claim actually need not be justified. In cases where the Senate thinks the claim is unjustified, it can take the case to the SC. But that remedy is, in fact, illusory since, when it receives the case, all the SC will look for is whether the allegation was properly made – it won’t even look into the reasonableness of the claim. For instance, Midas Marquez – the Court’s spokesman – is now emphasizing that the reason the Court ruled for Neri is actually because the Senate was unable to show any compelling need for the information. This line of reasoning implies that if a need was shown, the privilege would have been denied. BUT that implication is contradictory to what the Court itself said when it declared that a mere allegation of privilege, properly made, is all that is needed. How can any enumeration of “compelling need†be validated without measuring those claims against the justifications for keeping the privilege intact? How can you say that the justifications for disclosure are more ‘compelling’ than the justifications for secrecy when the secrecy need not even be justified?
That all looks kinda circular to me.
A perfect trap!
The decision also closes off executive agreements from public scrutiny, because they become essentially immune to legislative inquiry.
And the decision essentially defines the ability of Congress to inquire so narrowly as to make oversight over the executive impossible; and that includes finding probable cause for prosecuting executive officials (or even the President) in the courts. For the Supreme Court says that while indeed, a limit on executive privilege is that it can’t be invoked to cover up a crime, it says the the only place that invocation won’t work is before the courts -which ignores how things can even get to court, if nothing fishy can be uncovered in the first place.
The whole thing makes a news story like this, otherwise heartening, disheartening: House body OKs bill facilitating access to state information.
Yesterday and today’s Inquirer editorials focus on the Supreme Court and its decision in Neri v. Senate Committee. Yesterday’s editorial, Divided court, began by pointing out,
We join the many who find the majority decision to be gravely disappointing. In striking a balance between the competing interests of two coordinate branches of government, the high court in Neri v Senate Committee et al seems to have decided to enable an Executive department with an inglorious record of evading accountability. That record includes the remains of Executive Order 464, the “ashes” of which, Justice Conchita Carpio Morales wryly noted in her dissenting opinion, “have since fertilized the legal landscape on presidential secrecy.”
The editorial went on to focus, first, on the dissenting opinions and what they argued were not at stake:
In his exhaustive and magisterial dissent, Chief Justice Reynato Puno devoted several pages to prove that the three questions are pertinent to the legislative inquiry the three Senate committees are conducting and to actual bills pending in the Senate. “The three assailed questions seek information on how and why the NBN-ZTE contract–an international agreement embodying a foreign loan for the undertaking of the NBN Project–was consummated,” he reasoned. Declaring the three questions as covered by executive privilege, therefore, is to effectively undermine the work of legislation.
Justice Antonio Carpio, in his separate opinion, also makes short work of the three questions: These, “if answered by petitioner, will not disclose confidential Presidential communications. Neither will answering the questions disclose diplomatic secrets. Counsel for petitioner admitted this during the oral arguments …”
We find it of no small import that, in a landmark case (a case of first impression, as Puno noted) where alleged diplomatic reasons are used to justify the exercise of the so-called presidential communications privilege, Neri signally failed to support his argument that the fate of our diplomatic relations with China was in fact at stake.
The editorial was referring to Bautista the Hutt’s inability to explain any diplomatic wrinkles that might arise from pursing the line of questioning intended by the Senate. The editorial then proceeded to focus on the main decision and its flaws (referring to the passage from the decision I reproduced above, in the context of another lawyer’s views on the decision):
Strip the ponencia written by Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro down to its basics, and we find that it can be used to justify wrongdoing.
The three Senate committees, the majority decision notes, “argue that a claim of executive privilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of a crime or wrongdoing. We see no dispute on this.” But the decision then draws what seems to us to be an unnecessary but most consequential contrast between the Neri petition and the landmark US v Nixon case. “Unlike in Nixon, the information here is elicited, not in a criminal proceeding, but in a legislative inquiry.”
What do our honorable justices mean? That when information about an alleged crime is elicited in a legislative inquiry, the claim of executive privilege can be used to make the information irrelevant? This strikes us as absurd. What are our lawmakers to do, if evidence of criminal activity surfaces during an inquiry in aid of legislation? Look the other way? Unfairly as it may seem, the ruling in Neri v Senate Committee et al will be summed up by many of our most law-abiding citizens as suggesting exactly that.
The majority decision makes much of the assertion that the “petitioner is not an unwilling witness.” That seems to us to privilege Neri’s one day of testimony, as against the numerous other instances when he failed to honor the Senate’s invitation. Again, context tells us that this did not occur by happenstance; the Arroyo administration, by the admission of its own officials, has helped potential witnesses to avoid the Senate hearings on the NBN deal.
And yet today’s editorial, Not absolute, says hope springs eternal and while slim, there’s always a chance the Supreme Court, upon a motion for reconsideration, may indeed reconsider (as Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. pointed out). On what basis? The editorial says,
Allow us to hazard a guess. In his lengthy dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Reynato Puno summed up the doctrine of executive privilege as the “tension between disclosure and secrecy in a democracy.” If we accept this phrasing of the problem, then our prayer is that enough justices in the majority may be moved, on reconsideration, to favor disclosure over secrecy.
That, it seems to us, is what this landmark case on the limits of executive privilege amounts to: A decision, by the justices of the high court, about which is more important, which is more in keeping with the public interest, at this particular juncture in our history.
There is no question that the Executive enjoys what is called the presidential communications privilege. In her dissent, Justice Conchita Carpio Morales disposed of the matter succinctly. “Underlying the presidential communications privilege is the public interest in enhancing the quality of presidential decision-making. As the Court held in the same case of Senate vs Ermita, ‘A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.’” (It bears noting that Carpio Morales wrote the 14-0 ruling in Senate vs Ermita.)
This privilege, however, is not absolute.
There is also no question that the Executive enjoys what is called the diplomatic, military or state secrets privilege. In his dissent, Puno noted that these content-based categories of executive privilege are subject to judicial determination, “without forcing a disclosure [he quotes from the jurisprudence] of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.” But again, this privilege is not absolute.
(It bears noting that Romulo Neri’s inclusion of “impairment of economic relations” was dismissed by Justice Antonio Carpio, in his separate opinion, as “not even a recognized ground” for the claim of executive privilege, and that Neri’s inclusion of “military matters” was derided by Carpio Morales as a mere afterthought, and therefore “need not be seriously entertained.”)
The editorial then tackles the proposal made by the Chief Justice at the time of the oral arguments on the case, and says that while it tried to head off a constitutional crisis, the decision, unless reconsidered, makes one inevitable:
The proposed compromise made a virtue of necessity.
Unfortunately, the majority position that ended up deciding the case may have only rendered the very constitutional crisis the justices sought to avert inevitable. Why? In favoring the Executive’s claim of secrecy, the Supreme Court pushed the Senate into an untenable position. Essentially, the ruling in Neri vs Senate Committee asks the Senate not to probe evidence of criminal activity that surfaces in a legislative inquiry if the Executive may be implicated. How can the Senate possibly acquiesce?
In the end, the majority decision in Neri vs Senate Committee strikes us as being based on a fundamental mistake: It takes the Executive at its word… Today, when the choice is between disclosure and secrecy, can we still afford to give this Executive the benefit of the doubt?
See the Malaya editorial, Promoting concealment of wrongdoing, too.
Lawyer Jose C. Sison, in his Philippine Star column “External and internal justice” (useless linking to it, because the paper’s site doesn’t have permanent links), helpfully put in bold the important parts of his column and that’s what I’m reproducing below:
In other words Neri won because the justices perceived that his position is the lesser of two evils…
…But at least some facts have already been established by the SC in this case that brought us nearer the truth.
Thus the SC found that on April 21, 2007, the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) entered into a contract with Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of equipment and services for the National Broadband Network (NBN) Project in the amount of US $329,481,290 (approximately P16 billion) to be financed by the People’s Republic of China; that on September 26, 2007, Neri testified for 11 hours and disclosed: that then COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 million in exchange for his approval of the NBN project; that he informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe; that originally the project was under a Build Operate Transfer (BOT) or any similar scheme, but when the contract was signed it was already by means of a loan from China although he was not privy to the changes anymore; that he had further discussions with the President regarding the bribery scandal involving high Government officials but could not divulge them anymore on the ground that they are covered by executive privilege.
If these facts are woven into the publicly known and openly admitted events… then the conclusion is quite clear and indubitable that some “katiwalian†amounting to a crime or violation of the Anti-Graft Law has been committed by the named officials and other brokers still to be positively identified.
And this is the vulnerable aspect of the decision… It still recognizes executive privilege when the Congress has already acquired substantial evidence that the information requested concerns criminal wrongdoing by public officials and other influential persons…
…“Law†here refers to “man-made rules and methods by which society compels or restrains actions of its members; the general rule of external human action enforced by a sovereign political authorityâ€. Conformity of our actions to this law serves the ends of what we call external justice only.
…a broader all embracing law that treats of what is right and wrong or distinguishes between good and evil. If our will and actions conform to this law we have what is known as internal justice.
…internal justice is the object of morality while external justice is the object of jurisprudence or the science of giving a wise interpretation to man made laws and making a just application of them in all cases as they arise. Obviously internal justice is more important in the search for truth because our duty here is dictated by conscience unlike external justice where the duty is dictated by imperfect human laws. A combination of both internal and external justice is of course the best…
Another lawyer, Florin T. Hilbay, 1999 Bar Topnotcher and a professor of law, in When law is politics says:
…the Supreme Court’s decision in Neri v Senate… I believe is deeply flawed for a host of reasons: by default, President Macapagal-Arroyo (or her alter ego) has minimal proprietary rights over information generated in the exercise of her public functions; the questions the Senate asked can barely be said to have an impact on the President as a private person and on national security or foreign affairs; and the need of the public to elicit concrete information on allegations of office-related crimes involving high public officials surely trumps any speculative defense.
The 1987 Constitution may be insanely verbose, but its effusiveness is narrowly focused on the need to have a vibrant speech environment and on preventing misuse of public office. By now we ought to realize that behind claims to privileged information, done in the name of the public, is usually a crook who wouldn’t show his (or her) dirty hands. Citizens have the right to raise their eyebrows at every invocation of “national interest” or “official privilege” because rights claimed in the name of the public have almost always been exercised at its expense.
The Neri v Senate decision is all the more unfortunate considering that it effectively suppresses information crucial to opinion-formation essential to citizen feedback, at a time when it is most needed. What the Court has done is to discount from the public sphere knowledge that may be used by citizens in deciding whether they should use the force of public opinion to force Romulo Neri and/or GMA to resign, or to impeach her, or to prosecute Benjamin Abalos and Jose Miguel Arroyo; or in concluding that Jun Lozada is a fraud and his statements are hogwash. The wisdom of the masses doesn’t come cheap; it is a social capital available only when the marketplace of ideas is free. Today the Court engages in reverse expropriation, taking what is otherwise public property and preventing citizens from treading a path that might lead to enlightened public opinion.
Among bloggers, blog@AWBHoldings.com says lawyers should weigh in but laymen should, too; a lawyer, Red’s Herring, does weigh in, pointing out the Supremes have already neutered impeachment:
In an earlier entry, I have submitted that the Supreme Court in Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives has practically crippled the impeachment process by adopting the Bernasian reading of “initiate†under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution in lieu of the interpretation of the House of Representatives, and taking up what it supposed as its “activist†role, declared such interpretation of a coordinate branch, contained in the House Impeachment Rules, unconstitutional. Under the impeachment gun then was Hilario Davide, Jr. and so the robed gang huddled together and quite expectedly hailed their Chief – at the expense of the Constitution. Francisco, I concluded, is therefore the father of Lozano and Pulido.
Now, Senate v. Ermita can also say, “Here, have a cigar, we have sired a son … in Neri v. Senate Committee.â€
Because the father had misspoken, the son lost its way, and unabashedly acknowledged being befuddled.
…Very clearly, executive privilege can only be invoked by way of exception. So when the executive officials fail to show that the privilege is “of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest,†as Senate v. Ermita ruling describes it, in the disclosure of the supposedly privileged information, congressional oversight, as a general rule, will trump an appeal to the supposed privilege. In that event, contumacious defiance and refusal to disclose the information sought or needed by Congress for legislative purposes renders the withholding official liable to its contempt process and the attendant punitive measures. Indeed, Congress, acting through its committees, need not rely upon the all-too-measured judicial pace to exercise the ultimate power of oversight and thereupon employ the necessary enforcement tools.
Non-lawyers Strawberry Fields Forever and Scarlet Sky and Ricelander’s Blog are aghast. The Marocharim Experiment calls for resistance. Dean Jorge Bocobo over at Philippine Commentary is very excited over the fact that Justice Corona (of the spouse who signed that manifesto in support of the President fame) is still taking his doctorate in law while already serving on the bench.
Speaking of Cory Aquino, a beautiful passage in Scriptorium:
With her persevering courage, born of prayer and piety, she helped lead us of the Marcos kleptocracy amid coups and crises and the infighting within her coalition; and considering that Aquino for a time (1986-1987) had revolutionary powers exceeding even those of Marcos himself and yet did not abuse them, her example of self-control and liceity makes her a steadfast pillar of Philippine reformism.
Admittedly, the Aquino administration had its share of serious problems, but her achievements are too strongly buttressed by the facts of history to collapse from administrative or other imperfections. Even if she erred in Edsa Dos–as I think she did not (for there is nothing illicit in removing a corrupt leader who abused the Constitution, and the evil of the next one can be blamed on herself alone)–it was through sincere desire for reform and no other. This is indeed well-known to the Autocracy, hence its illegal effort to block Aquino from joining the protest of the ill-fated marines in Fort Bonifacio; for nothing else would have stopped her.
Therefore the news of her illness comes as a terrible shock. Corazon Aquino is a woman of faith and valor, a Philippine ashet chayil in the line of Deborah, Matilda and Dorothy Day who even now leads the cause of reform; she has earned not only our gratitude but our enduring love; and so the nation owes her all the prayer and support we can muster.
My column yesterday was Testimonial of a matriarch.
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
BrianB on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:04 am
Can anyone explain?
Didn’t the justices vote on a specific issue and not on the principle?
benign0 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:04 am
Just like most things dished out by the Philippine media, stuff featured on the “Lifestyle” pages of newspapers are usually outcomes of deals made between the publisher and the publicist of any of a number of businessmen who are marketing their “lifestyle” products or services.
Nothing wrong with that of course. It’s all business.
Tough luck to those who are on the wrong side of the economic equation, is what I say.
mlq3 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:09 am
how they voted on the issue established a principle for dealing with related issues henceforth.
benign0 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:14 am
Maybe you should broaden that question and direct it to people who focus on trivial posturings of PEOPLE and fleeting EVENTS rather than identifying the underlying simplicity of a handful of unifying PRINCIPLES.
BrianB on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:41 am
Manolo, what I mean is if the senate goes to the supreme court again challenging an executive privilege cclaim, would they necessarily have to respect this ruling, which seems a little specific to the case.
mlq3 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:43 am
b:
i understand they will file a motion for reconsideration. if that is denied, then i suppose what remains is to pursue their investigations and then see if the president’s people will invoke executive privilege even to absurd lengths; or at least to an extent that makes the choice for the senate a stark one: to pursue investigations in defiance of the both the executive and the supreme court. for example, summoning slithery nery and then citing him in contempt and detaining him, forcing the supremes to do something -such as asking the executive to send troops into the premises of the senate to “liberate” the captive slithery nery. there are times when a constitutional crisis is not only justified, but necessary.
BrianB on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:51 am
AT which point–just to simplify–can the supreme court say that executive privilege is UNjustified. After this ruling I mean. I take it from your writing it means, at no point at all.
Jeg on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:09 pm
Question for lawyers: Does this ruling cut the balls off any impeachment trial for the president too? Witnesses can invoke executive privilege on anything? Im aware that in a proper criminal trial against the president, you can’t do this since a criminal trial is, well, criminal. But an impeachment trial is different.
mlq3 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:17 pm
b: in the context of a legislative inquiry, always justified because almost impossible to justify a challenge to the privilege.
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:18 pm
Is this the beginning of a perpetual-motion machine?
Bernas says (if the blogspot poster can be believed)…. Bernas says “loser” asks for re-consideration. So… what is to prevent Bernas (or a Bernas-clone but for “other side”) to say to the loser of the re-consideration to ask for reconsideration? And what is to prevent the loser of the reconsideration of the reconsideration to ask for a reconsideration?
Is there any such entry in the Constitution? Double-jeopardy, maybe?
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:18 pm
I wonder at what point will enough people realize naglolokohan lang tayo and when that point is reached , will people really care?
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:19 pm
Will the reconsideration of the reconsideration of the reconsideration be defensible, or will be sneered at in Plaza Miranda?
mlq3 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:21 pm
upn, i believe the rules are: the loser in a case can appeal a ruling. in the case of the sc, you can only make the appeal once, and after that the ruling is final.
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:32 pm
Side-topic: Fitna the movie is available on liveleak.com
mang_isko on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:39 pm
hindi sana nagkakaganyan kung ang mga senador na iba ay hindi mga arogante at stick lang sa isyu. ang kaso eh, pati pag-utot mo noong 2006 kakalkalin. isasabuy kung ano ang kasarian mo.
….hay naku.
yan ang napala.
kaya hinay-hinay lang!
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 12:44 pm
mang isko, malakas kasi ang utot ng amo mo.
Joselito Basilio on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:21 pm
Article 8 of the Civil Code that “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.â€
In other words, such judicial decisions assume authority as the laws enacted by the Congress. The product of their interpretation is a law. Hence Neri vs. Senate is now a law unless reversed by the Supreme Court through MR. In effect the Supreme Court is legislating while interpreting the laws.
Note that the power of “judicial legislation†is derived from the Civil Code, a law enacted by Congress. The basis of the power is therefore statutory, not constitutional. It is as if delegated by Congress to the Supreme Court. Since Congress can make and unmake laws, will the repeal of the above Article 8 by Congress unclothe the Supreme Court of its power to “legislate� Just asking.
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:36 pm
“I wonder at what point will enough people realize naglolokohan lang tayo and when that point is reached , will people really care?” — cvj
Right on target. The only real question is that when will “enough” people realize that naglolokahan lang naman tayo dito. The track record of this government speaks for itself. Such is our naivety that we hope against hope that the system will correct itself. Damn, moi included. I half expected that the esteemed judges would decide on what is so obvious under our Constitution, that no privilege, nay not even so called executive privilege is above the right of the people to know the truth, especially if it concerns an alleged public crime. The Supreme Court decision has just dealt a deadly blow to democracy in our country. It’s a Marcos redux, a Constitutional authoritarianism.
Right now, it so is very obvious that the “rule of law” has mightily diverged from what is morally and intellectually right.
I think the situation is sliding into extremism, slowly but surely. And the polarity is not the kind that we saw circa 1986 and 2001. No Catholic Church or democratic insitution is there to provide the fulcrum or balance. All institutions have lost their moral leverage. Except for the Senate. Even so, the Upper House is rightly suffering from the correct perception that most personalities there are out to extract media mileage in furtherance of their presidential ambitions.
How will this end? A bang or a whimper? The whimper scenario is a continuing one with embassies churning out visas for middle-class Filipinos eager to leave this seemingly God-forsaken third world hell-hole.
benign0 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:48 pm
Back in the days when pretty much every place in the world was a war- or poverty- ravaged hellhole, it made sense to stick it out in one’s own country and “fight” (whatever that battle may be) to the death (i.e. that over-used cliche of “asking not what one’s country can do for one…”).
Now, however, there is a vast world of options for young, mobile, and employable Pinoys. There are societies out there who treat the least of its citizens (not to mention naturalised aliens) with far more dignity, respect, and fairness than Pinoy society can ever hope to achieve over the next 50 years (at least).
So why waste one’s precious time on a a society whose track record of delivering mediocre results has been more than obvious for DECADES.
Life’s too short to be pissed off. You may as well channel the energies generated by being pissed off towards endeavours that yield tangible outcomes for one’s personal well-being (which therefore counts out participating in moronic no-results street ‘revolutions’).
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 1:56 pm
Oh, Benigno, you are so predictable mate. I commend you for your consistency.
benign0 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:02 pm
Madonna, consistency is what it’s all about.
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:05 pm
Love (for one’s country including) is greater than justice it has been said, or something that effect. That is a basic Christian precept.
benign0 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:20 pm
Madonna, what “country” are you talking about? Do Filipinos really know what a “Filipino” is?
Unless we are with some measure of conviction able to define what a “Filipino” is beyond being born in a bunch of islands collectively named after some obscure Spanish king, I don’t think we will be able to take the next step and actually proclaim this “love” that we encourage one another to harbour.
And while we are on the topic what is “love” of country anyway?
See what I’m driving at?
It’s easy as pie to be dishing out and throwing around the flowery jargon. but once you look underneath the covers and find a void where substance should have been, then you stop wondering why “it never ends”.
-
benign0 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:22 pm
Interesting too that you’d consider “love” of “country” as a “basic Christian precept”.
Where exactly did Jesus Christ mention that?
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:35 pm
Whoat? Flowery jargon? Saan ang jargon? I hate jargon mate. But you’ve got to use the exact word for a concept.
Love of country, is one of those things like belief in God. So there. It’s not subject to debate (for me), only expression. It’s either you have it or you don’t. And no need to be defensive. For some, the notion of God or having a nationality is irrelevant and that is allright.
Claro?
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:38 pm
cvj,
the people have realized that the whole Senate investigation on the NBN deal is a circus, to say the least.
dyan talaga ang ‘naglolokohan lang tayo’. meron ba namang magagawang batas dyan? wala ngang nagawang batas sa Jose Pidal hearings noon.
kung gagawa naman ng batas, as if naman kailangan pa yung further testimony ni Neri! asus!
lalong lumalabas ang katotohanang hindi batas ang layunin ng Senate circus on the NBN ZTE deal
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:43 pm
Love, in a general way, not love of country, Benigno is a basic Christian precept. Opps, you have to read the through the New Testament. I hate to offer soundbites or mere Biblical. Hate to sound like Brother Ely or Pastor C. Quiboloy hehe.
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 2:45 pm
I hate to offer soundbites or mere Biblical –> “I hate to offer soundbites or Biblical lines.”
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:03 pm
Madonna,
did you know that Quiboloy claims to be the new Son of God!
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:05 pm
Benigno,
Let me clarify or explain further when I mentioned love being greater than justice in the context of Filipinos leaving the country, in order to be in an environment where justice is more or less a given — where fairness and equality are accorded to anyone, no matter their origin or background.
This is a fact, for generations of Filipinos, we seek justice outside the country, not in the country where we are born. Now if we can, collectively be a greater people, meaning we let love of country encompass us, then justice will be ours if we seek it right here where we are.
That is what I meant that love is greater than justice.
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:13 pm
Anthony,
Re: Quiboloy. Oo, there is no shortage of messiahs (feeling) in our midst!
DJB Rizalist on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:23 pm
The Principle of Executive Privilege is an element of the Separation of Powers. Of course it is JUSTIFIED, for we could not have Separation of powers without all its elements.
The statement of the Principle as a general matter, is Senate v. Ermita, where the categories of information it covers is laid out, how it is properly asserted, etc. That was a unanimous decision. Just as the Bill of Rights are limitations on government powers, so too Executive Privilege is a limit on Congress’ Power or Inquiry, representing exceptions to the general rule of full disclosure to the Congress.
Now it is clear from Senate v. Ermita that among those exceptions is NOT included the power to prevent the disclosure of criminal wrongdoing by the Executive.
Neri v. Senate is a first application of the general principle to a specific case, indeed to a specific set of three questions.
What nine Justices in the Court say is that these three questions are real-world examples from the categories of information covered by the Privilege.
Six of them disagree.
And they have only decided this for those three specific questions.
The Senate however, has a duty to make and remake the laws they enumerated in the resolutions and privileged speeches that initiated the inquiry in aid of.
It is entirely in their discretion whether or not they have enough information to do so. Whatever the Court has said of these three questions cannot, must not deter them from doing their duty.
They have a right to ALL the information they need to wisely do their duty even if some of that information has now been denied them, nothing in the ruling forbids them to keep on asking questions in earnest, finish their investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
The Supreme Court and the President are only as strong as they are weak or irresolute in doing their duty.
The Court did NOT strike down their powers, resolutions, rights and privileges.
If they honestly disagree with the Court, they have many principled ways of fulfilling their oaths.
The pleas of those around here telling them to acquiesce because the Supreme Court has ruled, are unavailing to the hearts and minds of the Just, for the larger issue is the availability of the Senate as a pillar of Public Accountability.
All citizens should be concerned about the demolition of the Senate, the suppression of its rights and powers in this small and specific case. For we should care about the BALANCE among the institutions.
My take is that the Senate was destroyed first by Davide in 2001. What is happening now is the Senate uprising to regain its rightful place.
That cannot be stopped, any more than Newton’s Laws can be prevented from producing an equal and opposite reaction for every action.
Just you wait all you naysayers and taunters!
Justice is Physics.
DJB Rizalist on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:26 pm
Not etiquette!
grd on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:26 pm
maybe 1 very good example for this is Al Gore. he lost by the skin of his teeth, in Florida where the governor was the President George Bush’s brother, Jed Bush. When Al Gore was asked why he didn’t bring his case all the way to the Supreme Court and make a big fuss, his response was very simple: ‘Why didn’t I do it? It’s because there’s something greater than me, and that’s my country.’
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:38 pm
grd,
thats the same reason why I, and maybe you, and some other bloggers here, are not wasting our time on moronic people power attempts, patalsikin na now na etc., as we all know that the country has more pressing needs than gloria’s removal
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:43 pm
The Senate must be abolished!
Lets push for a Unicameral Legislature, whose members are elected by district
jakcast on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:50 pm
‘Why didn’t I do it? It’s because there’s something greater than me, and that’s my country.’ – Al Gore
A true patriot, indeed.
Is Romy Neri a patriot, or just a coward?
mindanaoan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 3:54 pm
cj puno believed that the Senate’s function of crafting specific legislation based on facts and not speculation will be seriously impaired if neri does not answer the 3 questions. now, look at how he interprets the 3 questions:
1.“Whether the President followed up the (NBN) project†– refers to the importance of the project to the President herself.
2. “Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?†– seeks information on the factors considered by the President herself in opting for NBN-ZTE, which involved a foreign loan
3. “Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe?†– same reasons discussed on both the first and second questions.
let’s see if it’s possible to get facts from there:
1. only the president herself can say how important the project is to her. even neri’s opinion on that matter can only be speculation.
2. again, only the president can answer that. neri may or may not know a factor or two, but how can anybody be sure he knows all the factors or not?
3. same observations discussed on both the first and second questions.
if “based on facts” is a sine qua non, then the senate’s function of crafting specific legislation is already impaired, neri or not.
Joselito Basilio on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:01 pm
“The Senate must be abolished!”
What? The Senate is the only remaining bulwark of democracy after the disgraceful fall of the Supreme Court. I am beginning to think you are a paid Cha-Cha advocate.
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:19 pm
Joselito Basilio,
The Senate, the remaining bulwark of democracy?????
****throws up****
The SC, fell from grace after Neri vs. Senate?????
****throws up****
“I am beginning to think you are a paid Cha-Cha advocate.”
are you a law student? di bagay sa abogado yang ganyang attitude! not a lawyerly trait!
oh yes im a cha cha advocate, but not paid. i advocate a unicameral parliamentary form of government (like UK or Japan or Thailand), and the relaxation of limits in the economic provisions of the constitution – ito lang at wala nang iba
este iho, panahon pa ni Tita Cory, there have been efforts to amend the Constitution, to change the legislature from bicameral to unicameral.
baka di mo alam – during the 1986 Con Com, the bicameral form of legislature won out over a unicameral form by a vote of…….. 1-0!!!!!!!!
the 1986 constitution is basically just a reaction to everything Marcos. too bad the Con Com did not evaluate the Marcos ‘diskartes’ on their own merits and just discarded anything Marcos
grd on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:32 pm
anthony,
couldn’t agree more. for someone who lives in a place like davao, who’s people and local govt main concern is upholding the rule of law and maintaining peace & order. a far cry from what’s happening in imperial manila with a noisy minority (civil society), calling themselves patriots who’s main obsession is to bring down an inept president through people power.
grd on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:45 pm
and you think that’s it? once neri talks, gloria is gone? through people power? i don’t think so. have you forgotten hello garci?
why don’t you question the patriotism of your/our congressmen? that’s where you should be focusing instead of neri. you need only 1/3 of the congressmen’s votes (as pointed out repeatedly by anthony scalia here) to take out gloria.
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:47 pm
Is Romy Neri a patriot, or just a coward? — jackast
He’s confused. He wants to be a patriot but cannot summon the courage to be so. Very much like the majority of the Pinoys.
Pinoys have been cowardly for so long. Just like Neri.
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:49 pm
One thing is clear, the shit has hit the halls of Padre Faura, just as in the House of Representatives.
DJB Rizalist on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:54 pm
Chacha would be an interesting dead horse to beat. But there’s tastier fish to fry in the Barrel of Fun the Supreme Court has decided to play in. It’s full of the oil of their graven words.
We shall serve them a rich repast of their own cold, cold eviscerae, their fallacies and learned sounding inanities on display to the vast audience of History.
Besides, they have many secrets of their own these Justices, judging by the billions of pesos they’ve awarded to one side or another in the hundreds of cases that have come before them.
Judging by the brazen obstruction of justice in Neri v. Senate, what are the chances they’ve upheld it faithfully in the cases that don’t get front page attention?
Taking a page out of the American book, I hope the Young Turks in the Senate start paying closer attention to the Budget Hearings as tools of oversight and inquiry and not leave the field open to people who live by the motto that “young whippersnappers got nothing on sneaky ole bastards.”
cvj on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 4:55 pm
With a compliant Supreme Court, that goal is within reach.
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 5:13 pm
cvj,
the ‘walang katapusang’ NBN ZTE hearings are added proof that the Senate must be abolished
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 5:24 pm
Madonna,
the shit was and is and will continue to be all over the once-august-halls of the Senate
justice league on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 5:33 pm
I wonder why the SC had to go by the OSG’s contention that the duly published clause refers to every Congress. THe SC changes in composition also and they don’t exactly promulgate new rules of court with each new SC.
benign0 on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 5:44 pm
Jeez.
If that’s the best explanation one can come up with, then it’s no wonder why so much effort to get Pinoys to “love” their “country” has so far yielded ZILCH results.
Results. Are you familiar with that term?
-
grd on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 6:21 pm
etong si pimentel talaga mahilig sa tsismis. sabi ko nga mas maganda sa kanya magshowbiz na lang at bagay sa kanya kaysa maging senador. ulyanin na rin kasi eh.
DJB Rizalist on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 6:38 pm
It is a very serious thing for the Supreme Court to issue a a decision that is proven “wrong” by subsequent events. I am sure the core of those nine justices will circle the wagons knowing that if some thing breaks in the case and they are exposed as co-conspirators in a hideous crime of obstruction of justice, for example if the Chinese Communist Party decides they can sacrifice Yu Yong for the sake of a genuinely respectful and fruitful long term relationship with the Philippines, God help them and even their dogs and cats at home.
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:02 pm
Benigno,
Don’t worry. I am not looking for disciples. Unlike you mate.
Madonna on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:13 pm
Benigno,
Cheers to your results! Getrealphilippines.com (plug).
The view from nowhere on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:17 pm
Decisions can always be questioned no matter what, since there will always be parties who are disadvantaged by any ruling. But under the rudiments of a constitutional democracy, such can only be done or initiated within the parameters of the legal framework established constitutionally (public reasonability). Thus, the MBC, some senators, etc., if they believe they have a valid point, must question rulings which they find disadvantageous to the public under the ambit of the court, not outside. Outside, that would be anarchy. Outside, that would be utopian. Democracy is bad, but we have to respect our institutions. The alternatives to constitutional and legal frameworks are unacceptable and supremely irrational. We have to believe in our legal system, however suspicious. Otherwise, some thirsty and power hungry beasts will ruin our just institutions. For now, it matters to us that we can say things for and against the system – that’s what democracy is about, and only that. Just as there is a limit to the power of any government, there’s also a limit to our own reasons, however brilliant.
Our Site: http://philippine-democracy.blogspot.com
Jon Mariano on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:29 pm
I am convinced though that it’s the house that needs to be abolished not the senate regardless of Neri.
john marzan on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:42 pm
OJT?
J. Cruz on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:49 pm
Motion For Reconsideration = Oversized brown envelopes, plain & simple.
Bert on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:55 pm
“The Senate must be abolished!
Lets push for a Unicameral Legislature, whose members are elected by district”
3, three idols, HA HA HA HA HA!^^^SOUND OF THUNDER^^^^
…from being the defender of the person to advocacy of the objective of the person!
CHACHACHA…..and then…GLORIA FOREVER
Hu-hu-hu-hu-hu, hikbi.
you unmask yourself, anthony s., you forced me to change my opinion of you again, now you confirmed my suspicion!
Hallelujah! at last, I’ve seen the light!
watchful eye on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 8:58 pm
We have to believe in our legal system, however suspicious. Otherwise, some thirsty and power hungry beasts will ruin our just institutions. For now, it matters to us that we can say things for and against the system – that’s what democracy is about, and only that. – The view from nowhere
What happens when in another case the Supremes again say: This time you can’t say things for or against the system. We will tell you how to say it or when to say it.
Can you still respect the institution wherefrom the edict comes?
Bert on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 9:13 pm
“oh yes im a cha cha advocate, but not paid.”
not sure if you’re not paid, anthony s., but if you are a gov’t. person you are paid by the taxes paid by the people, not from the pocket of gloria.
you have no obligation to defend her to death then work for her to rule the people forever!
watchful eye on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 9:23 pm
Same question to VP Noli: If in another case the SC decides that media, TV, movie and similar personalities (anchormen, newscasters, actors, etc) should be disqualified from running for public office for the reason that their position provides undue advantage over those who are not so fortunate, a situation that violates the equal protection clause, igagalang mo pa ba ang decision na yan ng Supreme Court?
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 9:50 pm
The recent supreme court decision, because it has been made by the supreme court, is ruled constitutional. If “you” don’t like it, then ask for reconsideration, and if that fails, then ask –fill-in-the-blanks-here— to create another constitution.
Then there is always the option of civil disobedience.
There is also benign0’s suggestion — migrate.
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:00 pm
This thing sounds similar to pornography. Even when everyone knows pornography when they see pornography</i”, the situation remains that the US Congress is unable to wordsmith a law that does not conflict with other rights protected by the US Constitution.
The Equalizer on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:00 pm
Message To The Filipino People:
Mga Kababayan:
On April 5 2008, I will be celebrating my 61st Birthday.My birthday wish is for national unity, prosperity and investments for the future of our young people .
As I said in my last birthday when I officially joined the ranks of “senior citizens” ,we have to invest in the future and in the young people; it’s really time to turn over the country to them or to prepare the country for them.
It is on this new personal milestone in my life that I announce the following seven (7) initiatives dedicated to the future of the young people of this country:
1) We will continue to foster excellent relations with Church.I know the CBCP is not divided at all .There are only five bishops who are against the Arroyo administration. But five against the other 100-plus members of the CBCP is not a division.
We will honor the “Separation of the Church and State” but we will also continue to pursue “critical collaboration” with CBCP by supporting the bishops in their “social amelioration programs for the poor” with PAGCOR/PCSO funds.(applause)
2) We will continue to strengthen the Judiciary. We vow to abide with the Supreme Court decision on executive privilege legal issue and pledge to heed the calls for government’s commitment to the truth and transparency.(applause)
We will continue to appoint men and women of probity to the Supreme Court to support the gallant nine justices who supported the majority view on the executive issue.
Like my recent appointment of Associate Justice Arturo Brion ,I will continue the practice of appointing legal experts from my Cabinet and personal staff with a strong reputation for independence to the Supreme Court in the coming months. (applause)
3) We will continue to uphold civilian supremacy over the military.For the remainder of my term until I step down in 2010, the best thing we can do is encourage the military to stay focused on providing peace, order and stability.We will encourage retired military men to take out the uniforms upon their mandated retirement.I consider my four cabinet members …Secretaries Ermita, Mendoza, Ebdane and Reyes as the classic examples of ex -military men who honor civilian authority even after their retirement from the military.I will follow this great tradition with General Espaldon upon his retirement in May.(applause)
4) We will reach out to the opposition and to the independent Senate. Being a former Senator myself,I know fully well that there are “23 independent republics”in the Senate,each with its own personal agenda.
As a key process in the national reconciliation process ,I promise to reach out to the 23 senators.(applause) For example:
-I am appointing Cristina Ponce-Enrile as our Ambassador to Vatican.
-I am fully supporting the quest of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago as a member of the International Court of Justice.
-I am fully supporting the President of the Public Safety College,President Tingting Cojuangco in initiating much needed reforms for the College.
-I will ensure that Senator Miguel Zubiri will have a prominent leadership role in the new super party (Lakas-Kampi).
-I will listen to the party on the possibility of welcoming back Senator Legarda to the folds of Lakas-Kampi
-I will be open to the possibility of of supporting the vice presidential ambitions of Senator Bong Revilla, a very popular senator from Cavite.
-Being a senior citizen myself ,I will vigorously support Senator Ed Angara in all his “senior citizen” programs. I will also continue to support his program to strengthen relations with Spain,our former mother country.
-I will support Senate President Manny Villar in his “Sipag Tiyaga” programs particularly in the road building programs in his ” Las Pinas/Alabang/Cavite triangle” of development.
-I am openly supporting the “Palengkenomics”program and the “Cheaper Medicines” Bill of Senator Mar Roxas, my former Trade and Industry Secretary.
5) We will support the leadership of Speaker Nograles. With the upcoming merger of the Lakas and Kampi parties,we expect stronger support of the House of Representatives in pushing for the quick passage of vital national legislative programs for the poor,the national budget and the much needed constitutional reforms.(applause)
6) We will support the computerization programs of the Comelec to definitely avoid a repeat of the electoral frauds that reportedly happened in the last Presidential election.(applause)
7) We will avert a possible rice crisis in the coming months. I have instructed Secretary Arthur Yap to have better “public visibility” of all roving NFA rice trucks to assure our people that there is ample supply of rice.
Once more ,thank you very much for all your expected birthday wishes!
I look forward to many more years of dedicated and honest public service for the good of our young people.
Help me remain a “Force for Good”!(applause)
Mabuhay!
Gloria P.
nash on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:08 pm
Ang galing ni F. Hilbay. That paragraph of his, excellent!
When I grow up, I want to be like him.
nash on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:14 pm
@anthony scalia
” i advocate a unicameral parliamentary form of government (like UK or Japan or Thailand)”
Sigurado ka bang kaya ng sikmura ng mga present batch of politicians ang open debate that is common in such a form of government?
Baka magsuntukan lang sila.
Last week, harap-harapang nag-insulto sina PM Brown and Opposition Cameron. I must say it was fun to watch!
If only for this reason, I support our shift to parliamentary, para harap-harapan sila lahat at hindi nagtatago sa executive privilege.
cheers
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:23 pm
And on civil disobedience…. Note the government of Holland was thwarting a Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, a member of the Netherlands’ far-right Party for Freedom from releasing a movie. Freedom-of-expression versus public order or “good manners”.
Now the movie — FITNA — is for the world to view on YouTube after government and religious officials spent weeks trying to prevent its release. The 15-minute film splices verses from the Koran with videos of mutilated bombing victims, the World Trade Center attack, the beheading of a man by masked gunmen and an Afghan woman draped in a pleated blue burqa being shot in the head.
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:27 pm
nash: Taiwan, too, often has riots on the parliamentary floor. And see how prosperous Taiwan is!!!!
nash on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:31 pm
@UP n
while I support free speech, FITNA is just another hate movie, no different from what the extreme islamists post. you watch it and come out not learning anything new…
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:33 pm
hey… Equalizer…sounds like GMA likes Mar Roxas, but can’t tell for sure… so hasn’t GMA identified anyone yet to be next-in-Malacanang after her term expires? Or is she being statesman-like?
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:39 pm
@nash: On FITNA… I expected “… the internet…” to indeed come to the rescue so it gets broadcasted where I can see it. I never saw any Atocha “clips”, not that I wanted to. Now I’m curious if there are any christian-generated hate-clips which advocates bloodletting.
But I know some Americans…. on the few instances I say the world has changed and how obsolete the old slogan is, I kind of sense their quiet is about “…. don’t be too sure about that.”
The slogan is “… the only good communist is a dead communist”.
DuckVader on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:46 pm
Benigno:
“Now, however, there is a vast world of options for young, mobile, and employable Pinoys. There are societies out there who treat the least of its citizens (not to mention naturalised aliens) with far more dignity, respect, and fairness than Pinoy society can ever hope to achieve over the next 50 years (at least).
So why waste one’s precious time on a a society whose track record of delivering mediocre results has been more than obvious for DECADES.”
Masama talaga loob mo sa Pilipinas. Hindi ka ba pinapansin ng mga kapitbahay mo noong bata ka?
Just kidding, Benign0. Why waste time? It’s all relative. Why restore an old car, when you can buy a new one? Why buy a fixer-upper when you can buy a new house? The thing with the Philippines, like Cambodia, like Vietnam a couple of decades ago, like Indonesia today is that even a small gain in efficiency and productivity will help improve the lives of many people. It’s the more difficult things that are more rewarding. It’s not always the easy way out.
nash on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 10:59 pm
@UP n
But this film cherry picks the idiotic imams who do not represent the majority of muslims.
Personally, I think that is a big flaw with modern day islam, sino-sino nalang pwedeng maging imam like the illiterate Abu Hamza.
What it boils down to is psychopaths using religion as an excuse.
Hay naku, marami sa web, those bible belt nutters in the usa also post equally idiotic views. Remember pat robertson asking the govt to assasinate chavez?
And I can just as easily quote from the Old Testament about how you can rape and pillage your opponent…and what to do with your brother’s wife…etc..
FITNA is just a badly made pseudo-documentary.
cheers
vic on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:08 pm
Nash, one beautiful feature of the Parliamentary system is its Daily Question Period, where the Government is tasked by the Oppositions’ members or even by its own backbenchers in a Frank and sometimes heated Questionings and Arguments and only the Speaker to Moderate their Manners (sometimes the teenage pages can get on the way)..It is the only Venue where the Politicians have the so-called immunity, out of the House of Common doors, they are just like anyone..
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:16 pm
Bert,
sticks and stones may break my bones, but names don’t even make me itch
tsk tsk tsk. obviously you’ve run out of arguments, you resort to the “tried and tested” ad hominem ‘gloria/government hack’ etc. eh pang ellentordesillasdotcom lang yang ganyang argumento. napaka amateurish!
mahiya ka naman kay manolo.
ang ganda ganda ng takbo ng diskusyonan dito, hahaluan mo nang ganyan. asus!
ay oo nga pala. freedom of expression under the bill of rights. sige, tuloy mo lang
halatang bagito ka pa pagdating sa constitutional amendments. panahon pa ni tita cory, meron nang efforts to amend the constitution, gawing unicameral ang legislature, among others.
sa madaling sabi, yang cha cha ay looooong overdue na. late 1980s pa yan.
halatang nagpapadala ka lang sa mga emosyon ng mga bobo at engot na opposition.
naprapraning sa gloria beyond 2010? asus!
noy, magpa-lecture ka kay joselito basilio on how the constitution is amended. eh etong si joselito basilio, mukhang freshman pa sa law school, fresh na fresh pa ang constitutional law sa kanya, kaya eksperto sya dyan
ikaw din noy, mukhang tao ka rin ng Genuine Opportunists
ako lang ata ang ‘government person’ na nagaabiso kung paano iimpeach si gloria. (so much for ‘defending her to death’)
eh ang hirap sa inyo, pinipilit pa rin ang people power eh suntok sa araw yan!
ayaw kasing maniwala na mas malakas pa ang chance ng impeachment kaysa people power
wag kang padala sa mga bobo at mga engot na opposition
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:23 pm
vic,
no matter how you explain the beauty of the parliamentary system, no one will listen.
since nasubukan na ni Marcos ang parliamentary system, di na dapat subukan uli. yang ang takbo ng utak ng karamihan
im really surprised at the justification of having two chambers of Congress- check and balance!
look at what this ‘check and balance’ has done to the country for over 20 years.
Bert on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:29 pm
asus, anthony, halata ka na, impeachment ka pa riyan, noy, eh ito na nga isinusulong mo ang chacha. noong isang araw lang ang kanta mo eh malabo ang chacha, o, ano ngayon…ngayon nagsasayaw ka na ng chacha, heheh.
pang-ellentordesillas nga, pero mali ba?
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:33 pm
The Court is the last resort for the peaceful settlement of disputes. When the Court defaults then it pushes the public to reach for their guns. We might see bullets replacing rosary beads in the next people power.
UP n student on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:40 pm
manuelB: Mahal ang baril. The hakot-crowd do not have guns.
If you see a lot of folks carrying guns at the next people-march, siguradong may financier sa background. Be ready to say “…. We’ve been had!!!” three months later.
The Equalizer on Fri, 28th Mar 2008 11:45 pm
up n student:my guess is GMA will endorse Loren(IF there will be elections in 2010.)So different in appearance;so similar in character traits.
Bencard on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:16 am
watchful eye, your question re the “supremes” prohibiting speech for or against the system, or the broadcasters like de castro may not run for president because of unfair advantage, remind me of a question in my freshman philosophy class: can God create an object so heavy that He cannot carry it? the answer of course is yes, but the whole idea is so absurd and repugnant to the very essence of a perfect God that there’s just no point contemplating on it.
i’m not suggesting a God-like perfection of the supremes. on the contrary, i hold that, as a creature of the law and constitution, the court can only act within their boundaries as right reason dictates. an unreasonable law, order or court decision, are void and without legal effect.
in the recent neri decision, the supreme court as a collegial body has articulated, as required, its reasons for its ruling. i don’t see anything in it that would “disgrace” it as an institution, as mlq3 and his friends speculate. what should disgrace it would be the inflammatory words and actions of critics whose designs were thwarted (including some of the dissenting members) and who attribute (pinoy style) all sorts of ill-motives which, to my mind, invite disobedience, disrespect of, and contempt for our judicial system.
again, i say WINNERS MUST WIN, LOSERS MUST ACCEPT THEIR FATE IN PEACE.
anthony scalia on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:21 am
Bert,
“noong isang araw lang ang kanta mo eh malabo ang chacha, o, ano ngayon…ngayon nagsasayaw ka na ng chacha, heheh.”
heheh. yan ang napapala sa nadadala ng emosyon.
ang sinasabi kong malabo ang cha cha eh kung ang proposed amendment ay extension ni gloria.
eh sino ba ang naprapraning sa gloria beyond 2010? tapos ikakalat nyo pa yang paranoia na yan.
malabong ma-extend si gloria via amendment
heto ang sabi ko earlier
seems like you forgot the last phrase ‘ito lang at wala nang iba’ tagalog na nga yan di mo pa maintindihan – ang gusto kong amendments ay unicameral congress at i-lift ang restrictions on economic provisions, yun lang! wala akong sinasabing extend si gloria
ano? sasabihin mong pwedeng tumakbo si gloria para maging PM? malabong ma-amend ang constitution before 2010. kung sino man ang mananalo sa 2010, entitled na magsilbi up to 2016.
tsk tsk tsk. halatang di mo binabasa ng mabuti ang mga comments ko
“pang-ellentordesillas nga, pero mali ba?”
nakupo tinanong pa! noy, maling mali!
mahiya ka naman kay manolo!
bago ka pa sumulpot dito, advocacy ko na yang impeachment. di yan afterthought
advocacy ko rin ang anti people power. napaka moronic naman talaga ng people power, patalsikin na now na etc
dun ka na lang sana kay ellentordesillasdotcom at wag ka nang umalis dun
ay oo nga pala, freedom of expression.
sige, tuloy mo lang dito
maginoo on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:35 am
There’s also folly in the actions of the Chief Justice; of expressing in public his disappointment in the majority decision.
As its head, why is he fueling a fire that could burn down his institution. Is he a candidate for an elective position in 2010, or what?
Good decision on the title, MLQ3! Folly on all sides. Reset?
nash on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:38 am
@vic
Yes, at wednesdays, i try to catch as much of PMQ’s as possible. nakaka-aliw kasi dahil harap-harapan ang tanong…like this exchange
PM Brown: “I will not listen to someone who does not know simple arithmetic”
bwelo naman ni Babalu, este Cameron: “I know that 1 PM + 1 chancellor (refering to Brown and Darling) equals economic incompetence…”
I think the best mang-insulto so far in my short stay here is Tony Blair, now he can really throw it down.
Sayang, were we parliamentary it would be nice to see GMA’s immediate reaction to straightforward questions. You can’t do that now because of the Supremes.
nash on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:42 am
@Duckvader
Baka kasi hindi pa siya Citizen sa Oz.
grd on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:46 am
anthony,
mukhang paranoid nga etong si bert at ang iba pa diyan sa pag-iinsist na si gloria ay hindi aalis beyond 2010.
mukhang may mga bolang kristal ang mga eto. while sinasabi nating aalis pinipilit namang hindi. lumalabas parang sila ang ayaw talagang umalis ni gloria. kamukat-mukat mo baka nga hindi na talaga umalis dahil sa kasusulsol ng mga eto.
>>>>>>>
DAY 29
Bert on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 1:12 am
“ikaw din noy, mukhang tao ka rin ng Genuine Opportunists”
“ang ganda ganda ng takbo ng diskusyonan dito, hahaluan mo nang ganyan.”–anthony s.
hindi po ako Genuine Opportunist (ano ba iyon, tao ba ni gloria iyon?), at hindi po ako naghahalo ng ganyan, kasi wala naman po akong ibinibintang sa’yo, nagsu-suspetsa lang na baka taong-gobierno ka kasi nakakaduda ang iyong mga komentaryos.
if you are denying being a supporter of gloria tanggap ko iyon, if not then that is your prerogative…your right.
So you think I’ve run out of argument. About what…the charter change issue? You bet! It’s not my cake, it’s yours. You think it’s good, who am I to argue with that. There are advantages and there are disadvantages in all forms of governments, but that’s not my point in my opposing this chacha.
Ang angal ko diyan sa chacha ay ito. Ayokong habang-buhay na maghahari sa atin si Gloria sa mga kadahilanang kung bakit ang malaking bahagi ng taongbayan ay nagbibigay sa kanya ng maliit na popularity rating at maliit na approval rating, hindi lang maliit kundi negative pa! Naniniwala ako na may basehan sila, at lalabas ang totoo kung hindi susupilin ng mga nasa puwesto sa taas ng gobierno ang true democratic process na dapat umiiral sa ating bansa.
kung ganoon ka-ayaw ng taongbayan si gloria, tama ba naman iyon na isasaksak siya sa ating mga lalamunan ng sapilitan sa pamamagitan ng CHACHA?
kung hindi pwede ang ‘talsik now’ ok lang sa akin, payag na nga ako sa ‘wait-for-2010′, subali’t, CHACHA? Asus, anthony!
pero gusto mo iyon, sige. abangan!
Bert on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 1:30 am
“heto ang sabi ko earlier:
“oh yes im a cha cha advocate, but not paid. i advocate a unicameral parliamentary form of government (like UK or Japan or Thailand), and the relaxation of limits in the economic provisions of the constitution – ito lang at wala nang iba”–anthony s.
iyan ang sabi mo, anthony, pero iyan din ba ang sabi ng mga alipores ni gloria, baka hindi.
tandaan mo anthony na alam nila kung paano ang ‘do-or-die’, makaka-angal pa ba tayo kung do-or-die chacha ang gagawin nila?
kaya ako paranoid. yes, grd?
grd on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 2:20 am
bert,
do or die ba kamo? naaalala mo pa ba kung ano ang nagyari last time na ipilit nila ang chacha? nandoon na sana sila jdv di ba? ba’t biglang kumambyo?
i’m sorry but i think you’re too negative. you’ve been ranting about this gloria staying beyond 2010 all over the threads here and it’s so annoying. i say, don’t be paranoid and don’t worry too much. the people will act when the right time comes. pero hindi na uubra yang gusto nyong “talsik, now na”.
Pedestrian Observer GB on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 3:16 am
DJB,
That will be good if the 9 jokers are exposed as part of the mafiosi errr malacanang conspiracy to cover their tracks unfortunately it’s a long shot but not necessarily impossible since no one is talking as if they were Nerified too, lol.
I am sure the “comrades” of Gloria in the CCP puwitburo errr politburo are paying attention on what is going on? What with the soft loans they gave “comrade” Gloria that is open to fraud and judging from what we know now if proven accurate will not only expose corruption in Gloria’s administratong but also her “comrades.” The possibility of an escape goat for propaganda purposes is not a remote possibility since China’s leadership are too concerned with how they are perceived by the western world.
Abe N. Margallo on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 3:58 am
in the recent neri decision, the supreme court as a collegial body has articulated, as required, its reasons for its ruling. i don’t see anything in it that would “disgrace†it as an institution, as mlq3 and his friends speculate. – Bencard
The reality is the SC cannot put to rest major controversies of profound consequences over its decisions unless a free people approve them. A good example is the Javellana decision. The SC ruling in Javellana might not be outrageously “disgraceful†as in fact it had a “color of constitutionality†as pointed out by Manolo.
Javellana had prolonged Marcos dictatorship but the Filipino people by the exercise of People Power eventually ended the reign of Marcos by throwing him out together with his constitution that Javellana validated. Fortunately for the Filipinos, Marcos was forced to accept his loss in peace; on the other hand, the integrity of the majority in Javellana was dented for keeps. In the end, the people triumphed.
If Arroyo has great Marcosian instinct and hutzpah that allow her to cling to power for now so do the Filipinos have their overriding Pinoy impulsion. Shouldn’t we know this already?
hawaiianguy on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 4:23 am
Abe, Bencard,
Ordinary folks without legal background would examine and form their own view of the 9-6 SC ruling. No matter how someone justifies it in the legalese, the people are inclined to see it in any or all of these possibilities:
(1) condoning/abetting corruption,
(2) stressing the right of one person (Gloria) for executive privilege but depriving millions of Filipinos their right for information,
(3) selective justice that penalizes so-called whistleblowers but rewards corrupt officials,
(4) a cover-up of wrongdoing (bribery)
As Bishop Cruz lamented, the wrongdoings in this “morally bankrupt” govt are already evident, what evidence does one still need to make the point?
inodoro ni emilie on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 8:14 am
is this the reason why you hied off in the u.s. during martial law? just asking.
Dirk Pitt on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 9:12 am
in previous decisions (PP 1017, EO 464,CPR, Garci Tapes) the supreme court as a collegial body has articulated, as required, its reasons for its ruling. i don’t see anything in them that would “disgrace†it as an institution, as Sec. Gonzalez and GMA lovers speculate. what should disgrace it would be the inflammatory words and actions of critics whose designs were thwarted (including some of the dissenting members) and who attribute (pinoy style) all sorts of ill-motives which, to my mind, invite disobedience, disrespect of, and contempt of our judicial system.
mindanaoan on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 11:08 am
had the supreme court always been a rubber stamp, or has it suddenly became one when neri v. senate turned up? is ‘rubber stamp’ an attribute, or a description?
aurum on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 11:31 am
anthony scalia :
…
oh yes im a cha cha advocate, but not paid. i advocate a unicameral parliamentary form of government (like UK or Japan or Thailand), and the relaxation of limits in the economic provisions of the constitution – ito lang at wala nang iba …
anthony, UK, Japan, and Thailand all have a BICAMERAL parliamentary form of government
Mike on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 11:33 am
Anthony S.:
The reason this decision makes us praning is that if Con Ass is revived, for sure the question of whether the two houses of Congress vote separately or jointly to ratify will come before the SC. And a 9-6 decision for voting jointly will effectively make Chacha a done deal. The new Constitution will surely be a parliamentary system, and as I posted in a previous topic, parliamentary systems generally do not have term limits. Do I need to spell out the rest of the scenario?
Now I do not know if that will be enough for the likes of you, Bencard, The Ca t, Rego, etc. (forget Benign0–he couldn’t care less) to change your mind about People Power, but by then it’s probably too late anyway. The entire government will have been taken over legally, so most likely we will all have to bow our heads and kiss GMA’s ass just like Bencard did after she pardoned Erap.
Now, I don’t like the taste of shit, so if by protesting, I can help prevent that scenario from coming to pass, I will. If that’s being praning, better praning then sorry.
nash on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 11:41 am
“MANILA, Philippines – After bringing his case to the media, a Benguet farmer who complained that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo did not pay for the strawberries she gathered from his farm a week ago finally got his payment Friday night.” – GMA 7
GMA, you have not helped the farmers at all and now you want to steal their produce too.
UP n student on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 11:59 am
Is Pinas as close to failure as Zimbabwe is? If so, a point to ponder:
What the history of Zimbabwe shows us is that the voice of the people is not necessarily as important as the part played by the elites,” says Chris Maroleng, a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in Tshwane, South Africa. “If any change is to occur, it will not be a regime change, it will be a regime reconstitution, with the ruling elite from the ZANU-PF giving consent for Mugabe to be replaced. We may be seeing this occur.”
Joselito Basilio on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:09 pm
Scalia wrote :
“are you a law student? di bagay sa abogado yang ganyang attitude! not a lawyerly trait!
oh yes im a cha cha advocate, but not paid. i advocate a unicameral parliamentary form of government (like UK or Japan or Thailand), and the relaxation of limits in the economic provisions of the constitution – ito lang at wala nang iba
este iho, panahon pa ni Tita Cory, there have been efforts to amend the Constitution, to change the legislature from bicameral to unicameral.
baka di mo alam – during the 1986 Con Com, the bicameral form of legislature won out over a unicameral form by a vote of…….. 1-0!!!!!!!!
the 1986 constitution is basically just a reaction to everything Marcos. too bad the Con Com did not evaluate the Marcos ‘diskartes’ on their own merits and just discarded anything Marcos”
My Riposte :
When you superciliously viewed my previous opinions with biting comments I didn’t react. But when I have criticized your motive you are pontificating on the propriety of a lawyer’s behavior. Respect is earned. If you want to be treated with respect, respect my opinion with modesty. And don’t call me ‘iho’ because I might be much older than you. Don’t imply that I don’t know the historical background of the proposed unicameralism in the 1986 Concom. The problem is you are insulting the intelligence of others. I know what you are talking about. The prevailing mood then among framers of the 1987 Constitution was a preference for a unicameral legislative body as evidenced by the fact the draft at hand provided for unicameralism. However, on July 21, 1986, after extensive debate, the framers, by a very close vote of 23-22, decided to go bicameral. I am for bicameralism because it allows the Upper House to have a veto on policy. More generally, an explicit role of bicameral system is the protection of minority who is overrepresented in the Upper Chamber as in our present Senate. It allows mutual correction, that is to say, since the Senators are elected at large they could stand up to the President or take a stand against him even if he belongs to their own party.
grd on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:34 pm
the difference of course is that marcos clung to power and overstayed for 21 yrs. while gloria is still w/in the limit of her (1st) term. so you think the people will act now and do the “talsik, now na!†when 2010 is still 2 years away? unless we do away with all the systems and do everything by people power.
The Equalizer on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 12:40 pm
An Open Letter to Senator Mar Roxas
Dear Mar:
I have always considered you as the most decent and honest of the current line-up of 2010 Presidential hopefuls.
While you have not open declared your candidacy,you have not been honestly shy about your presidential ambitions as evidenced by your website’s content.
I would actively prefer that you declare now your candidacy for two strategic reasons:
1)We must put people in the proper mindset about the fact that the 2010 Presidential Elections WILL definitely happen .We must not allow the forces of evil to pursue their evil designs to sneak in a Charter Change (Cha-Cha) for the extended stay of Gloria Arroyo in the palace beyond June 2010.
2)By declaring yourself a candidate for the 2010 elections, you will need to adopt a strong leadership posture to defend the 1987 constitution against hasty /ill-conceived changes.Don’t allow Erap to pre-empt you in this critical leadership position.
Mar,your current strategy of attracting public attention via regular “press releases” and “Tide” tv ads is not enough.
Hindi bagay sa iyo ang paminsan pasulput sulpot sa national stage! The nation needs a rallying point!
Mar,can you rise up to this challenge NOW?
Or do you prefer your usual “safe” stance?
The people are waiting for you President Mar Roxas!
Oras na!
God bless you.
The Equalizer
benign0 on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 1:28 pm
Sitting around blaming the government is usually the easy way out, dude.
DuckVader on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 2:09 pm
Benigno says:
—————
Sitting around blaming the government is usually the easy way out, dude.
—————
I totally agree, dude. Pero maari bang malinawan, o great guru? Sabi mo it is “usually” the easy way out. Therefore may exception. When is it NOT the “easy way out” to blame the government? Paki-enlighten ako. Salamat, dude.
The Equalizer on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 2:28 pm
The SC (9-6)sustained former Socio-economic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri’s defense that the Senate cannot force him to answer questions covered by executive privilege.
These conversations were summarized into three questions:
1) whether the President followed up the NBN-ZTE project with Neri;
2) whether Neri was dictated by the President to prioritize the NBN-ZTE project;
3) whether he was told by the President to go ahead with the project after being told of the alleged bribe offer.
What do you think are the REAL answers to these three questions since Neri is SO AFRAID to answer them?
mindanaoan on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 2:37 pm
Benigno says:
because it’s our society!
benign0 on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 3:46 pm
The non-easy-way-out, dude is to take PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY for your own fortunes.
Whether this is something you practice while living in the islands or living in some place better is IRRELEVANT.
mindanaoan on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 4:14 pm
The Equalizer,
1. yes
2. no
3. no
mlq3 on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 6:11 pm
since when were the uk, japan, or thailand unicameral?
nash on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 8:11 pm
Why the standard of Law in the Philippines is in the gutter and why we have crap lawyers.
Standards people, Standards! Hindi Pwede ang Pwede na! Supereme court lowers its standards!
“The 22.91-percent passing rate for the 2007 bar would have been much lower, perhaps an all-time low of 5 percent, had the passing rate not been adjusted from the traditional 75 percent to 70 percent.
“Due to unusually strict corrections, it was decided to lower the passing grade to 70 percent,” Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna said in a press conference.
Azcuna, chairman of the 2007 Bar Committee, said the committee had to adjust the passing grade from 75 to 70 percent on three subjects — Civil Law, Criminal Law, and Social Legislation — otherwise only five percent of 5,626 examinees will have made it.
He added that the committee also decided to lower the disqualification rate on Labor and Civil Law from 50 to 45 percent.” – Inq7
mindanaoan on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 8:31 pm
Bencard, i thought the answer to “can God create an object so heavy that He cannot carry it? ” is : invalid (or nonsense) question, inconsistent premises?
jaxcast on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 8:32 pm
@ nash
With tons of documents/affidavits required in our bureaucratic system, both in public and private spheres, there’s always be a market for notaries public.
Why can’t we just have paralegals and reserve the attorney-at-law title to the best and the brightest?
Puwede pa?
nash on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 9:07 pm
@mlq3
good point.
while the uk is bicameral, the upper house of lords, composed of appointees (and some hereditary peers that are about to die out) is generally powerless and ornamental. I don’t know why they still keep it after many efforts to have it abolished…it is unlikely the house of lords will overturn anything passed by the house of commons (well, mabye the foxhunting or other aristcratic ek-ek)
nash on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 9:11 pm
@jaxcast
it could also be the other way around, we have too much paperwork and red tape because we have too many lawyers. they are creating the demand and hence the bottlenecks.
dios mio, lahat nalang kelangan ipa-notario (kahit xerox copy, transcript of records etc…)
vic on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 9:19 pm
since when were the uk, japan, or thailand unicameral? MLQ asked:
Don’t know about Thailand, but certainly UK is not only Bicameral but Tricameral, the same as most commonwealth countries..the Components of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Systems are: the Sovereign, the Queen, represented by the Governor General, the Senate or the Upper House, members of which are Appointed in Proportion to Provinces and Terretories by the Governor General or the the Queen upon Reccomendation by the PM, and the House of Commons, the Elected Members responsible for the Government..
DuckVader on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 9:28 pm
Benigno says:
———–
The non-easy-way-out, dude is to take PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY for your own fortunes.
Whether this is something you practice while living in the islands or living in some place better is IRRELEVANT.
————-
Totoo naman, we are all personally responsible for our own fortunes. As far as I know, nakatira ka sa Australia di ba? In your new country, as far as I read on one site, based on official government statistcs, an “indigenous Australian 3x likely to be unemployed (20.0% unemployment) than a non-Indigenous Australian (7.6%). The average household income for Indigenous Australian populations is 60% of the non-Indigenous average. Indigenous Australians are 6-fold more likely to be homeless, 15-fold more likely to be living in improvised dwellings, and 25-fold more likely to be living with 10 or more people.”
So based on your conclusion, the indigenous Australians are culturally defective compared to the non-indigenous ones. And it’s totally their fault right?
What’s your answer to this issue in your backyard?
Joselito Basilio on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 10:21 pm
Scalia wrote :
“i advocate a unicameral parliamentary form of government (like UK or Japan or Thailand)â€
MQ3 wrote :
“since when were the uk, japan, or thailand unicameral?â€
Thank you for this illuminating observation, MQ3.
Abe N. Margallo on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 11:12 pm
the difference of course is that marcos clung to power and overstayed for 21 yrs. while gloria is still w/in the limit of her (1st) term. so you think the people will act now and do the “talsik, now na!†when 2010 is still 2 years away? unless we do away with all the systems and do everything by people power. – grd
grd, if we brush up a bit on our recent history (perhaps Manolo can help us here), it won’t be that hard to find out that Marcos, a great legal mind, a constitutionalist himself consumed with the façade of legitimacy, never really overstayed if we go by the “paper†rules of law.
All other things being equal, Marcos beat Macapagal (first term) and Osmeña (second term) fair and square. And by virtue of the 1973 Constitution (which Javellana allowed to be “in force and effectâ€) and the amendments thereto, Marcos was able to extend his term “constitutionally†beyond the limit set by the 1935 Constitution.
During the 1981 presidential election, in accordance “with all the systems†in place, Marcos won over Alejo Santos and Bartome Cabangbang with an overwhelming 88% of the votes.
By contrast, Arroyo, then vice-president, was prematurely catapulted to power via “constructive resignation†by Estrada, the incumbent president. Her “fresh mandate†for a full term was marred by a canvassing considered to be credible by only 26.95% of the respondents (versus 53.18 who believed otherwise) according to survey conducted by Ibon foundation in July 2004. To top it all, “her (1st) term†has been bedeviled by the “Hello Garci†tapes until today.
maginoo on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 11:34 pm
Marcos was able to extend his term “constitutionally†beyond the limit set by the 1935 Constitution. – Abe Margallo
Yes, Marcos had the constitutional (‘paper’) legitimacy back then. But a crucial event took place in 1984. Ninoy Aquino was assasinated. FM had to re-legitimize his authority and called for snap elections in 1986.
Whether it was pressure from the Filipinos, from the U.S., from the RAM, etc. the stage was set for EDSA I.
GMA should learn from the past given that she may not even have “paper’ legitimacy. A crucial event might intervene. Who knows what’s gonna happen until 2010?
nash on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 11:43 pm
@duckvader
excellent point. I eagerly await the reply from our man in Oz.
justice league on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 12:56 am
Benigno,
For someone who professes “Its simple really” (or words to that effect); you seem to have complicated your situation.
The first time I saw the question of “When is it NOT the “easy way out†to blame the government?” (with the issue of “Sitting around” having been set aside); I really thought YOU could have ended it right then and there.
You could have simply said; that it is not the “easy way out” to blame government when you bring that government to court.
Instead, you didn’t answer the question head on and now you have further issues to contend to.
The Ca t on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:00 am
YOu are still in that stage? It is almost endgame of the chess as anlayzed by someone, you’re going to square one.
tssk tssk
maginoo on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:10 am
@ The Ca t:
Was reacting to Abe margallo’s comment.
What end game? For many, the game has not even started yet! It depends on which board you’re playing.
The Ca t on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:12 am
I have no problem with people power. You can have people power anytime you want. It is the people who who are promoting their own political agenda by using people power that I hate.
And also those people whose enthusiasm to join people power is only lip service e.g. those who do not attend after all the “yaya” and the push , they just excuse themselves for not being able to make it.–after calling those who express their non attendance and non-participation, coward and apathetic.
Chekmate na ba. Malayo pa.
UP n student on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:33 am
So some can only do one and not both, but a whole lot many others are able to dance and chew gum at the same time, too. To dance — personal accountability. Chew gum — observe/want better from/criticize government. Others can even do a third. “Third” may be to feel outraged, or encouraged by “God Damn This-My-Country” ala Pastor Wright, get stirred by the “free Tibet Now!!!” Lhasa riots and deaths or feel “Yes-Way!!” or “No-Way!!” by the Kobe and the Lakers’ push for the Western, then the NBA championship.
maginoo on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:47 am
To Ca t:
My version of the game theory at play:
While the strategies of some players (opposition senators, Catholic Church, military and security agencies, the Left, etc.) are clear or evolving as expected, the positions of other political actors are not clear: local governments, business (BIG and small), Muslim separatists, etc.
That’s why it depends on which board one is playing.
Bencard on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 2:47 am
abe margallo, if your figures are correct, the 26.95% is about the percentage of the electorate that voted for gma. the balance of 73.5% was divided between the 6 or so ‘also-rans’, including fpj. i believe that your “ibon” numbers are just indication that the losers never changed their mind about gma, and continued “hating” her for the same reasons they didn’t vote for her in 2004.
mindanaoan, you’re right, the trick question was invalid. that’s why i said it was repugnant, and so absurd even to contemplate.
equalizer, maybe you can also ask roxas whatever happened to his project of putting the nbn-zte “witnesses” to a lie detector test. lozada and his retinue are still on the rampage, claiming heightened danger to his life in the wake of the neri decision. strange, since after he has “spilled the beans”, no right-thinking member of the administration would benefit from his demise. if anything, if he was suborned to perjure himself, the culprit (instigator) would have a stronger motive to silence him.
watchful eye on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 3:07 am
Bencard: i’m not suggesting a God-like perfection of the supremes. on the contrary, i hold that, as a creature of the law and constitution, the court can only act within their boundaries as right reason dictates. an unreasonable law, order or court decision, are void and without legal effect.
But what do you do when the Supreme Court acts outside of its boundaries “as right reason dictates� Or, when do you say the Court’s decisions do not form part of the law of the land because they are “unreasonable,†or “void and without legal effect�
Bencard on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 3:26 am
watchful eye, short answer: as to your first question, impeachment of the erring justices. as to your second question, you and anyone else aggrieved, can say it when the “unreasonable” decision is applied against you and the others.
watchful eye on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 4:04 am
So, Bencard, do you hold as I do that the Senate is the sole judge of all impeachment cases whose decision shall not be subject to judicial review?
On your answer to the second question, would that mean that you also agree to the proposition that decisions of the Supreme Court may not be final after all or not form part of the law of the land if “unreasonable”?
Abe N. Margallo on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 4:08 am
Bencard, the relative comparison may not be perfect but the summary of the final official congressional canvass of presidential election results indicated that Arroyo won 39.99 % of the votes. The credibility of the same canvass according to the Ibon survey is only 26. 95 % of the respondents.
But then, weren’t there more important points in my comments that you left out?
UP n student on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 7:02 am
Side-topic:
For a picture of the job-market in Los Angeles, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia and New York City, click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2uErWWwQTo
DJB Rizalist on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 8:01 am
There is nothing final about any Supreme Court decision because any future Court can reverse any decision of a past Court, no matter how many and no matter “final” they are claimed to be.
Just ask the Negroes manumitted and the women suffragettes.
Regarding lawyers: they are like car mechanics for the most part. But you don’t have to be an auto mechanic to understand internal combustion. In fact it helps NOT to be an automobile mechanic to understand such principles.
I pay my lawyers to do the work of auto mechanics. Not to do my thinking or understanding of the law for me.
If they can’t explain it and hide behind “institutions” and “formalities” and “what lawyers learn at school”, I begin to suspect they’re fiddling with the carburetor.
Institutional pietism has to be based on the “physics of the law” not the Rules of the Shop.
benign0 on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 8:05 am
That’s right, dude.
You’re spot on for once.
benign0 on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 8:10 am
It by “culturally defective”, it depends on what your definition of success is.
If being successful means being able to afford indoor plumbing, enjoy clean running water, understand modern science, and apply critical thinking, then, yes, we are a culturally dysfunctional people.
But if your definition of success is being in “harmony” with nature, taking only what is necessary from the land using bows and arrows, spears, or rocks, and living to a ripe old age of 45 so as not to over-burden the land with non-productive elderlies, like most tribal hunter-gatherers, then we could argue that Pinoys are above-than-average in terms of achievement.
It’s all relative, dude. And, yes, is all simple, really.
Abe N. Margallo on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 10:09 am
DJB,
I wish to share the following portion of an old blog of mine by way of a reaction to your comments above about court decisions, law and lawyers.
_________
The Philippine legal system is a mixture of the civil law and the common law. Generally speaking, the common-law tradition is prevalent in the development of Philippine constitutional law since the country’s constitution and constitutional jurisprudence are basically of American origin and influence; whereas, the civil-law tradition predominates in criminal law, and in the laws of persons, family relations and property. Appreciating the difference between the common-law tradition and the civil-law tradition would help in the understanding of certain approaches taken by the justices of the Supreme Court in rendering their opinions in recent high-profile constitutional law cases.
In the civil-law tradition, recourse must be made to the language of the legislative code (or the written constitution) as the sole source of the decision, the relevant provision of the code being the major premise in the deductive reasoning.
The keystone of civil law is “the Code†or the written constitution as enacted or posited (or as in earlier times inscribed into stones). One reason for positing the law (the positive law as opposed to the case law or the judge-made law) is to give the citizenry an open access and the means to view and learn for himself, without consulting a lawyer, the applicable legal standards of the day contained in some handbook, much like a family bible. The other reason for positive law is to restrain judicial abuses. The objective of having an all-encompassing code underpins the civil law philosophy, that is, that the law is supposed to come from the enacted code, and not from the decisions of the judiciary. Hence, the authority of the legislature to make laws has been zealously guarded (by the French revolutionaries who were influenced by Montesquieu and others) against incursion by “royal†judges who historically were beholden to the powers that be (the monarchy or the aristocracy). Closely limiting the power of judges merely to law-application function is paramount to this legal philosophy.
The foundation of the common-law tradition, on the other hand, is the concept of stare decisis. Precedents or stare decisis demands adherence to the most recent higher court decision, whether the original legal precept stems from an enacted law or case law, such decision being thereby given the force of law. This tradition also requires lower courts to follow decisions of higher courts.
Common law systems pay tribute to the role of the judge and his law-giving functions within government, in competition and sometimes in derogation of the lawmaking function of the legislature (or of the framers and drafters in the case of written constitutions).
While the common law system is considered as a process built up by the gradual accretion of specific instances, where stare decisis is developed inductively as the judges reconcile a series of narrow rules emanating from precedents, civil law is all at once all-encompassing as the codifiers are supposed to have striven to make the Code complete and free of conflicting provisions, comprehensive and clear to prevent the judge from choosing between, filling the gaps or engaging in “lawmaking†in the guise of law interpreting.
The English declaratory theory of law championed by Sir William Blackstone, which holds that judges in common law jurisdictions only declare the law and have no discretion to make it, was as close as it could get to the civil law ideal. This was the theory obtaining in the United States at the time of the adoption of the U.S. constitution up until the late 19th century when common law activist rebelled against it.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was among the first to demystify the Blackstonian principle but it was dean of Harvard School of Law Roscoe Pound, the founder of “sociological jurisprudence,†who was at the forefront of encouraging judges to mold the law like “social engineers†to conform to the needs of society. Legal realists in America, more radical than Pound, went as far as prodding judges to manipulate both the law and the facts when deciding cases.
Civil law judges are not completely immune from the temptation to commit the same judicial machinations given that the professed completeness, comprehensiveness and lucidity of the code are far from being punctilious; nonetheless, when fine-tuning the law, civil law judges are deemed to do it with conscious reverence for the code, and with due recognition of their secondary place relative to the code provisions and the legislature. In the process, the purpose of the code as the sole source of positive law is not defeated by such act of judicial refinement.
For the rest of the discussion if you are interested you may check –
http://redsherring.blogspot.com/2006/10/uncommonly-civil.html
rego on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 11:07 am
“Now I do not know if that will be enough for the likes of you, Bencard, The Ca t, Rego, etc. (forget Benign0–he couldn’t care less) to change your mind about People Power”
Come on! if want to go on with people power its really fine. All Im saying is that after joining the first wo peopel power, I dont believe its an effectiev way of reforming our the government. I can can not and will never join Poeple Power again.
Id be simplistic like Benigno. All the people need to do is follow teh existing laws and rule. If the laws and rule is defective then fix it by creating new ones.
I was just talking to my cousin in law over dinner. He came this yesterday afternoon with this 120 pages of Cheif Justice Puno dissenting Opinion. and he wants me to read it. I relented. I read documents and he followed it up over dinner.
My take on it. Im very impressed over the arguments presented. Most opinion I find brilliant and very true. But I told him, still the bottomline is that it is a dissenting opinion and it can only serve as reference for Law students like him ( He is UP law student).
The rule is who wins the majority vote is the law. So I will still go with the 9 jusices over the so many pages of CJ Punos brilliant dissenting opinion. Now if the rule is change and teh dissenting opinion becomes the law. Surely I will go with CJ Puno.
On Brion, I told hiem as far as I know he did not violate any existing rule or law. so Im fine with it.
On the perception that the 9 justice favored Aroyo, Prerogative nila yun kung gusto nilang maging idepensa si Gloria.
Simple lang naman talaga eh. Ewan ko ba kung bakit ang OOA ng mag tao at pinapacomplicate ang lahat.
justice league on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 11:12 am
Benigno,
If indeed the indigenous Australians defect is totally their fault; why is PM Rudd promising to devote his government’s priorities to improve the indigenous Australians lives with calls for closing the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Autralians in terms of life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity?
Why is Rudd even trying to lay claim to “A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and MUTUAL responsibility.”?
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 11:29 am
DJB,Abe,
in my ’systems’ paradigm, the supreme court is our ultimate compass which points us to our goal of ‘common good’. your discussion of the internal mechanism and processes of this compass is beneficial because it can give us ideas on how to improve it. but some criticize it because they don’t like it’s reading, mindless of the possibility that their slapping might whack it out of alignment. especially those with heavy hands like former cj panganiban, who hinted to label it ‘arroyo spreme court’. what would happen if, from a few officers who suspect it veers from true north, we spread the word to all deck hands that our compass is now totally defective?
i think we should guard against those who would rather we sink than see us sail to port with the present captain.
cvj on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 12:05 pm
mindanaoan, but what if the ‘compass’ is truly defective? Is pretending that it is not really the safe choice?
The Equalizer on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 12:08 pm
Gloria has cleverly bought her political salvation from the C.B.C.P. (aka Catholic Bishops & Cardinals for the Pidals) through PCSO/PAGCOR “donations” to the bishops’ “pro-poor” programs.
UP n student on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 12:13 pm
“Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill-informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our serversâ€
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=067_1206777752
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 12:16 pm
cvj, the compass decided against gma in a number of previous cases. had it also decided against gma in neri v. senate, that is what should alarm us of a consistent bias.
rego on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 12:32 pm
Sakto Mindanaon!
What I dont understand is that why people expected the supreme court to always decide against Gloria. And defien the present SC with the result of Neri case.
vic on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 12:57 pm
Be at if may, the sc desision pertains only to a specific points of law and simply telling the legislature that that piece of law is not in line with the constitution or that as far is the limit of the sc decisiom making..
I don’t believe the EP is a Constitutional Power, but a Statute giving the President the Privilege to conduct business of the Government in some given situation in complete Privy and to protect the state’s security.. The Charter spells out the Rights, not Privileges..
Also, it is understood that Privileges are just Privileges, You abuse them, you forfeit them…
cvj on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:05 pm
Mindanaoan, isn’t the Supreme Court supposed to decide on the basis of the merits of the case before them? Now you’re saying that they also have to take into account their previous voting records such that if they voted ‘anti-GMA’ previously, they have to let the ‘pro-GMA’ win today to restore the balance. If the Supreme Court keeps score in that way, then the ‘compass’ is even more defective than i thought.
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:25 pm
cvj, it’s not the supreme court. it’s in our suspicions. the basis of your suspicion of defective bias is the neri decision. but if there is really a defective bias, it should manifest that bias in all of it’s decisions. that doesn’t seem to be true, given that its previous decisions went the other way. so your suspicion is unreasonable.
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:48 pm
vic, all justices are agreed on the validity of ‘executive privilege’(EP),(settled in ermita), the only contention is its strength against legislative inquiry (LI). the majority decision thinks EP is stronger here because the LI used in this case is sec. 22 and not sec. 21 of art. VI. that’s why some criticism centered on there making a distinction between LI powers. cj puno on the other hand, grants that there is a presumptive privilege on EP but it can be overcome by a “demonstration of a specific needâ€, and “function impairment test”. on an earlier post, i gave my observation on puno’s criteria.
that’s my humble reading.
cvj on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 1:54 pm
Mindanaoan, what leads you to believe that determining the presence (or absence) of bias on the part of the Supreme Court by keeping score of its past decisions is the ‘reasonable’ one to take? Granted that the Supreme Court was unbiased yesterday, is that any guarantee that it would remain unbiased today?
Going by the ship’s compass analogy, i don’t think it is a wise navigator who believes that his compass is still working today because it worked well yesterday. Instead, a navigator would cross check his compass against other visual cues such as the stars or, if available, other landmarks. That would give a better indication on whether or not the compass has stopped working since the last time he looked.
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 2:21 pm
cvj, it happens that that’s the easiest way to detect bias, if it always veers off in one direction. to determine defect with only one reading, you need to have a calibration or a diagnostic device. or dismantle the compass itself and check it’s inner workings, something only a technician can do. but the manufacturer’s manual of this particular compass says the only diagnostic device, the only technician that can check it, is this same compass itself! so there, we’re stuck with it.
how nice to have landmarks, and not other sailors with vested interests pointing to a different direction.
Silent Waters on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 2:43 pm
CVJ
The problem is, you yourself have your own bias. That’s why if the ruling goes against GMA, you will be happy. If the ruling is FOR GMA, you won’t be happy. Asus. Nag iinarte ka pa. No bias my ass.
cvj on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 2:49 pm
mindanaoan, your discussion on troubleshooting, i.e. the use of calibration and diagnostic devices, is relevant as next steps to be performed after the bias has already been detected. These do not preclude the necessity of checking the compass’ readings against other markers that are not dependent on that device.
If you have led yourself to believe that the only ‘technician’ who can check the compass is the compass itself, then i see why you got yourself stuck in that loop.
BTW, i was once a pro-Arroyo ’sailor’ myself but i realized sometime back in 2005 that our ship has taken a wrong turn so any arguments regarding ‘bias’ that you direct against the pro-Erap (or pro-Lacson) Opposition does not apply to me.
cvj on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 2:55 pm
Silent Waters, there you go again changing the subject from the subject to the people talking about the subject. The anti-anti’s are fond of that rhetorical technique.
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 3:10 pm
cvj, by design, the sc is the most sophisticated navigation system we have, it’s not just an ordinary compass. to check it’s reading against your boy scout compass, or needles on water, or mosses on trees, just because you don’t like one reading, and declare it defective is not really reasonable.
and who else to correct the supreme court, if not only the supreme court itself? people power, again?
mang_kiko on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 3:28 pm
Debate nang debate tayo ukol sa manga desisyones nang korte suprema, pero dahil sa kasalukoyan mayron planong Cha-cha, sa isang pilik mata, pagpinalitan ang Charter di maging “redundant” din ang manga desisyones na ito, di ba?? dahil di pa natin alam kong ano ano na naman ang proviciones nang cha-cha na ipapalit at iyon ay kayang-kayang gagawin ni Aling GMA, pa-ano kong sang-ayon na naman ang SC??ano ang Laban nang tao? di wala, debate lang naman…
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 6:27 pm
i’m sorry, i missed something. only the supreme court can correct it’s own reading, but i forgot that the compass has a technician. congress can perform parts replacement through a process called impeachment.
DuckVader on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 7:11 pm
Benigno says:
“It by “culturally defectiveâ€, it depends on what your definition of success is.
If being successful means being able to afford indoor plumbing, enjoy clean running water, understand modern science, and apply critical thinking, then, yes, we are a culturally dysfunctional people.
But if your definition of success is being in “harmony†with nature, taking only what is necessary from the land using bows and arrows, spears, or rocks, and living to a ripe old age of 45 so as not to over-burden the land with non-productive elderlies, like most tribal hunter-gatherers, then we could argue that Pinoys are above-than-average in terms of achievement.
It’s all relative, dude. And, yes, is all simple, really.”
—————-
Thank you, for finally clarifying your world view. I will leave it to the people on this board to make their own conclusions on the color of your beliefs.
s one final favor, can I ask you a question, as a favor? I grew up in QC, graduated from UP, and am now working in Manhattan providing risk advice to portfolio and FD investors. What’s your one sentence profile?
Live long and prosper.
nash on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 8:13 pm
@DJB
“Regarding lawyers: they are like car mechanics for the most part. But you don’t have to be an auto mechanic to understand internal combustion. In fact it helps NOT to be an automobile mechanic to understand such principles.
I pay my lawyers to do the work of auto mechanics. Not to do my thinking or understanding of the law for me.
If they can’t explain it and hide behind “institutions†and “formalities†and “what lawyers learn at schoolâ€, I begin to suspect they’re fiddling with the carburetor.”
AMEN to this!
UP n student on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 9:11 pm
@DJB: Regarding lawyers: they are like car mechanics for the most part. . . .
I pay my lawyers to do the work of auto mechanics. Not to do my thinking or understanding of the law for me.
If they can’t explain it ..
But don’t forget to pay!! If they can’t explain it, you better still pay. Then you continue to look for lawyers who will lawyerly opine agreement with the conclusions you want others to believe.
UP n student on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 9:16 pm
DuckV and benign0 seem like bloodbrothers — (1) that both have left the Philippines for better financials; (2) that both find that some other Filipinos are naive and/or culturally defective.
cvj on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 9:22 pm
mindanaoan, i’ve worked with ’sophisticated’ systems and i think you have as well. If so, i guess you’ll appreciate the saying that “To err is human but to really screw things up requires a computer“. Well, to really screw up the legal system requires the Supreme Court.
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 9:31 pm
yes, cvj. but we still rely on the computer, don’t we?
UP n student on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 9:39 pm
Abe M. and bencard seem like bloodbrothers — (1) that both have left the Philippines to obtain better; (2) that both find that some other Filipinos are naive, culturally defective and/or lacking in analytical skills or content.
Disagreement // differences-in-opinion among Filipinos is no news. As my grandfather may have told me once….. the wishy-washy gets washed away so do NOT let any iota of doubt shake you from believing that you are definitively right. But don’t ever think everyone agrees with you, either.
cvj on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 10:22 pm
Yes Mindanaoan, but more often than not, we don’t rely on a computer system to fix itself.
cvj on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 10:24 pm
…autonomic computing notwithstanding.
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 10:51 pm
cvj, of course, not. you have to shout puppet! puppet! puppet! till it corrects itself and decide your way
maginoo on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 10:51 pm
About one in two Filipinos disapproved of the performance of President Arroyo in February-March 2008, according to a Pulse Asia survey released Monday. – from ABS-CBN website
If this is the case, Bunye, Golez, Fajardo, et al, are not connecting. In other countries, these spokespeople will be replaced en seguida.
Or is it because in this country, nobody seriously takes these public opinion surveys.
Are these surveys credible or they are just part of the business models of P.R. firms?
cvj on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 11:05 pm
mindanaoan, i think you’re beginning to get the idea.
mindanaoan on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 11:25 pm
cvj, yeah, i got the idea. you can’t show it’s biased but you want to call it puppet anyway.
anthony scalia on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 11:31 pm
aurum,
thanks i stand corrected
Bert on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 11:36 pm
“cvj, of course, not. you have to shout puppet! puppet! puppet! till it corrects itself and decide your way”
“mindanaoan, i think you’re beginning to get the idea.”
hehehehe
anthony scalia on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 11:38 pm
Mike,
“The reason this decision makes us praning is that if Con Ass is revived, for sure the question of whether the two houses of Congress vote separately or jointly to ratify will come before the SC. And a 9-6 decision for voting jointly will effectively make Chacha a done deal. The new Constitution will surely be a parliamentary system, and as I posted in a previous topic, parliamentary systems generally do not have term limits. Do I need to spell out the rest of the scenario?”
sorry, but wait for the proposed amendments.
besides, the SC does not approve the amendments. its the people, by referendum.
“Now I do not know if that will be enough for the likes of you, Bencard, The Ca t, Rego, etc. (forget Benign0–he couldn’t care less) to change your mind about People Power, but by then it’s probably too late anyway. The entire government will have been taken over legally, so most likely we will all have to bow our heads and kiss GMA’s ass just like Bencard did after she pardoned Erap.”
Andy Grove said ‘only the paraoid survuve’
“Now, I don’t like the taste of shit, so if by protesting, I can help prevent that scenario from coming to pass, I will. If that’s being praning, better praning then sorry.”
wait, do you really believe that by protesting you can help that scenario from coming to pass? sincerely? (i know its your constitutional right to expression)
justice league on Sun, 30th Mar 2008 11:45 pm
UPN,
I don’t think DuckVader abides on item #2 (or at least not in such a large scale as implied).
anthony scalia on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:03 am
Joselito Basilio,
“When you superciliously viewed my previous opinions with biting comments I didn’t react.”
what biting comments? are you serious?
“But when I have criticized your motive you are pontificating on the propriety of a lawyer’s behavior.”
?????????????
“Respect is earned. If you want to be treated with respect, respect my opinion with modesty.”
eherm. who was it who said “The problem with some self-confessed constitutionalists who have inordinate opinion of their own superiority is they do not fully understand what constitutionalism is all about. There is no such thing as judicial supremacy. What I learned in Constitutional Law is the supremacy of the Constitution, not judicial supremacy.”
who was it who said “I am beginning to think you are a paid Cha-Cha advocate” at March 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm?
If you have read Angara vs. Electoral Commission, you will know that it uses the phrase ‘judicial supremacy’!
“And don’t call me ‘iho’ because I might be much older than you.”
eh di call me iho also, if you think you are much older than me.
“Don’t imply that I don’t know the historical background of the proposed unicameralism in the 1986 Concom.”
i don’t need to imply that. you don’t
“The problem is you are insulting the intelligence of others.”
alam mo ba, even lawyers are not expected to now all of the law. teka, legal ethics yan, dapat nakuha mo na, 2nd sem yan right?
i didnt use any adjective. i just wrote “baka di mo nalalaman…”
“I know what you are talking about. The prevailing mood then among framers of the 1987 Constitution was a preference for a unicameral legislative body as evidenced by the fact the draft at hand provided for unicameralism. However, on July 21, 1986, after extensive debate, the framers, by a very close vote of 23-22, decided to go bicameral. I am for bicameralism because it allows the Upper House to have a veto on policy. More generally, an explicit role of bicameral system is the protection of minority who is overrepresented in the Upper Chamber as in our present Senate. It allows mutual correction, that is to say, since the Senators are elected at large they could stand up to the President or take a stand against him even if he belongs to their own party.
Right. You can easily research that after i wrote my comment. Which is why it took you so long to post your ‘riposte’
Pero ill presume regularity, sige, ill take your word for it na you knew about that even before i wrote that comment
Saka some comments on your bicameralism choice:
1. one house does not veto the other house. if there is no parallel bill at the other house, thats not a ‘veto’
2. protection of minority as overrepresented in the Senate? don’t you realize that that ‘minority’ as overrepresented in the Senate is deemed an equal by the evenly represented lower House? hindi na equality yan! thats the tyranny of the minority! kaya di maipasa ang ilang importanteng batas dahil ang mga matatalinong Senador ay nagwawaldas ng resources sa walang hanggang at walang silbing NBN ZTE hearings!
3. it allows mutual correction? so they can stand to the president? the effect of that is there’s always a stand-off the government cannot push forward!
mlq3 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:04 am
the key to understanding the decisions prior to neri v. senate, and why the present decision is causing concern, is the composition of the supreme court. the previous decisions were the result of the composition of the membership at the time, a membership that’s changed and will change even more radically by next year.
anthony scalia on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:10 am
mlq3,
its unfair to define the SC by Neri vs. Senate.
my goodness, the senate investigation was ‘in aid of legislation’ di ba? para que do the bright senators need Neri’s further testimony? eh obvious naman na gloria gave the go signal despite Neri’s bribery warning! so our bright senators can craft the ‘legislation’ they want to enact via this circus called the NBN ZTE hearings
maginoo on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:12 am
@ mlq3:
I heard Senator Pimentel say that 5 or 6 of the six who dissented were appointed by GMA.
So what’s the real score?
Silent Waters on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:15 am
CVJ
Your obvious bias is what turns me off kasi. If you were fair in assessing the situation, then I will keep at peace and even agree with some of your points. Pero, hindi eh, anything to prove the present dispensation is wrong. If something is good, you still find something wrong. Di ba biased yun. Bakit ako maniniwala sa ideya mo then?
Silent Waters on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:19 am
CVJ
I refer to your own words below:
“how nice to have landmarks, and not other sailors with vested interests pointing to a different direction.”
Don;t you think that’s the problem, the other sailors are the oppositionists also who also have their own agenda?
If you come home and run, I will vote for you. At least alam ko wala kang vested interest.
That’s really my problem, wala akong pinagkakatiwalaang politiko right now kasi lahat may vested interest, whether pro or anti GMA.
nash on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:28 am
@UP n
“But don’t forget to pay!! If they can’t explain it, you better still pay”
side comment, on this one sentence of yours only…
I don’t think you should. The role of lawyers is to be redundant. If they present you with a crap document only they can understand with the hope of getting repeat business, you should fire them and refuse to pay for services not rendered.
I don’t want to have to pay a lawyer to explain to me what my insurance policy says just because some other lawyer who bills by the word count used superfluous language in writing the policy.
anthony scalia on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:31 am
Silent Waters,
“…wala akong pinagkakatiwalaang politiko right now kasi lahat may vested interest, whether pro or anti GMA.”
those still romanticized by people power still sincerely believe that those politicians wanting to kick out gloria only have the best interests of the country at heart (!)
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:45 am
@justice league : on my comments about benign0 and duckV. My escape-hatch for item-number-2 is the “or”. I put in some effort to make my sentence mean what the reader wants to put into it. When I wrote it, I hoped that “naive” would mean “… haven’t seen enough which explains why the other disagrees with my position”.
But anyway… in no way shape or form did I hope that my sentence will stop one or the other from expressing their opinions. This is like my thoughts about any future people-march. What is allowed and at times necessary — for people to demonstrably make visible their opinions — should then happen. And if XY who is not in the march calls silly ABC who participates in the march, such is dissent, too.
But an agitated group of people marching to the gates of Padre Faura or the gates of Malacanang or the gates of Congress — allowed. Just caveat emptor! Be brave with your opinion with allowance to likelihood that another may be piggybacking on your opinion and energies to further their goals.
Also allow the possibility that the Filipino policeman protecting the gates of your target-persona is acting to maintain order and protect THE OFFICE of who resides behind the gates, not putting a jackboot on the throats of the oppressed.
anthony scalia on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:49 am
Bert,
ang kulit mo talaga!
simplehan na nga natin para ma-gets mo –
1. para magkatutoo yang paranoia mo na gloria beyond 2010, kelangang ma-amend ang constitution at ma-approve ng taongbayan via referendum. malabong mangyari yan by 2010.
2. kung sinoman ang mananalo sa 2010, entitled umupo as chief executive until 2016.
3. hintayin mo muna kung ano ano ang proposed amendments bago mo pairalin yang paranoia mo. may principle sa constitutional law na any amendment shall not favor the incumbent. in other words, a sitting congressman cannot extend his term via constitutional amendment; the next elected congressman will enjoy the benefit of the term extension. ganyan din kay glora – kahit transitory provision lang, di na sya pwerde kahit PM by 2010
paalala ko lang sa yo – yung attempt nina JDV to railroad cha cha noon ay para maging constituent assembly na ang buong congreso; wala pang proposed amendments at that time. may legal issues din dyan, foremost of which is can the lower house do that without senate concurrence?
sa madaling sabi – walang basehan yang paranoia mo!
saka wag mong isiping ang cha cha ay para ma-extend si gloria. ang daming dapat i-amend sa constitution – legislature and economic provisions, among others
cvj on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:57 am
Silent Waters (at 12:19am), those were Mindanaoan’s words. Anyway, as i explained above, i did not start out being anti-Arroyo. I only became one when it was clear that she betrayed the ideals of EDSA Dos and subverted the people’s will in the process. What i don’t think is correct is to stay ‘neutral’ when our democratic institutions are being corrupted.
That i have found myself on the same side as the pro-Erap or pro-Lacson camp is incidental. The politicos ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ will always have their respective agendas to get as much power for themselves. That’s their game. If the people remain inert, then all the more can they play that game with impunity. That’s why i am trying to hold Gloria Arroyo, whom i voted for, accountable for her misdeeds so that i don’t lose the moral right to hold the other politicians on the other camp accountable for theirs if and when their turn to hold the reins of power comes.
justice league on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 1:10 am
UPN,
I understand your escape hatch.
I had my own “or” in that post.
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 1:16 am
so nash: so if a lawyer sues
you for breach-of-contract, be sure not to hire that same lawyer to protect you in the lawsuit. 
Abe N. Margallo on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 1:17 am
It by “culturally defectiveâ€, it depends on what your definition of success is.
If being successful means being able to afford indoor plumbing, enjoy clean running water, understand modern science, and apply critical thinking, then, yes, we are a culturally dysfunctional people.
But if your definition of success is being in “harmony†with nature, taking only what is necessary from the land using bows and arrows, spears, or rocks, and living to a ripe old age of 45 so as not to over-burden the land with non-productive elderlies, like most tribal hunter-gatherers, then we could argue that Pinoys are above-than-average in terms of achievement.
It’s all relative, dude. And, yes, is all simple, really. – Benigno
Hey, dude, have you heard about The Story of the Mexican Fisherman?
Here it goes . . .
An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.
The Mexican replied, “only a little while.”
The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish?
The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs.
The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”
The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.”
The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”
The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”
To which the American replied, “15 – 20 years.”
“But what then?” Asked the Mexican.
The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!”
“Millions – then what?”
The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”
Long live and prosper, DuckVader!
DuckVader on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 1:23 am
UP n Student writes;
DuckV and benign0 seem like bloodbrothers — (1) that both have left the Philippines for better financials; (2) that both find that some other Filipinos are naive and/or culturally defective.
——————
UPn: If you had followed some of my earlier posts here, you would have find that I do not subscribe to number (2). Far from it, I believe that any person, regardless of race, ethnic background or citizenship is inherently productive and will aspire, given the right conditions, to do the right things. The problem is that the system created by our government and the elites who govern it frustrate our people. I see the kids who walk kilometers every day in the punishing heat to get to school; there is determination, skill, and intelligence in our people — in all peoples for that matter. It is the conditions and the systems of government that differ among countries. That is why China, which was backward 3 decades ago, is now prospering. They went from a system of government that suppressed individual development, to one that allowed it. The same is happening in Vietnam. It is not happening in Papua and in many parts of Africa. I have met these people. And they are not all that different; it is the individual country systems that matter.
And most of the time, it is the system that fails the individual. Our systems have been controlled by oligarchs who favor their own interests, at the expense of our people. Benigno believes otherwise; that we are flawed individuals and people. I have a word for that, but I do not tag people.
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 1:31 am
Abe:
But here is the “…but” to that joke.
A reason to create wealth is for the cushion against the next storm. Benign0 will understand this: a reason to work harder — to earn more than enough — is for the betterment of more.
Hey… you may need to help pay the medical bills of a man now retired who worked only-for-enough.
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 1:49 am
DuckV: what I meant was … that DuckV finds benign0 either naive or culturally defective, and vice-versa.
benign0 sees you and cvj having left the Philippines to do better elsewhere and benign0 says — yes, that’s the way — personal accountability that included parents or others of previous generation who helped pave the way for your educational credentials.
With a fourth-generation Sumilao farmer still mired in poverty, you see the benumbing poverty-trap and cost of corruption. Benign0 sees personal accountability — “why did he stay in the environment for that long?”
benign0 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 3:23 am
One sentence just for you:
Kind of similar, specially the first half of your profile.
benign0 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 3:25 am
I’m also a former student of the esteemed Howie Severino.
nash on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 4:01 am
@UP n
“so nash: so if a lawyer sues you for breach of contract…”
Yes, just make sure you do not sign a contract not written in plain language or that you cannot understand in the first place…this is where they earn their living, insertion of provisions detrimental to you….
Tingnan mo Inquirer, editorial na naman about Bar Exams, why should lawyers be elevated to such media mileage?…
nash on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 4:09 am
@duckvader
“That is why China, which was backward 3 decades ago, is now prospering.”
If your basis for saying this is their phenomenal growth rate, huge reserves, trade surplus, the yes they are probably prospering.
However, China has a massive wealth disparity hence the cheap labour, an atrocious environmental record (and elite runners are not joining the Olympics, due to health concerns), support the repressive governments of Sudan/Burma/Zimbabwe (and corrupt dealings with susceptible African governments in exchange for resources) , and let us not forget their impeccable human rights record.
They are hardly different from us really.
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 6:42 am
Is China’s human rights record acceptable under the mantra of sacrificing a few for the greater good?
But Bencard…. despite the suffering and all, I have not read nor hear any Chinese say “… god damn China!!!”.
benign0 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 6:50 am
Abe, I’ve heard of that story. It’s brilliant.
Mr. Duck Vader, you said:
Careful, careful.
I didn’t say flawed individuals and certainly not flawed people.
What I do say (as I have been for the last eight years of my Web presence) is flawed collectively and flawed AS a people.
If my reading of how switched on you are doesn’t fail me, I believe you won’t have trouble understanding the subtle difference.
benign0 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 7:05 am
UP n student, nice summation across everyone’s points.
To be fair (and this may even be an argument against my hardline Pinoys-are-culturally-dysfunctional tagline) Pinoys are like the proverbial frog being slowly boiled alive — comfy and peachy ’til the very end.
A small number of us get the benefit of being thrown, kicking and screaming, into an already-boiling hellhole and somehow jump out of the seething brew and live to preach over the Web.
Essentially the same frog but coming from different circumstances.
But that doesn’t change the reality that the earlier frog needs to have its arse kicked.
Kinda makes you think about why we still listen to all these old farts who were already sitting around pontificating when this proverbial pot was still cool, doesn’t it?
cvj on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 9:01 am
Sabi ko na nga ba, Atenista si Benign0.
benign0 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 9:06 am
Ang galing naman ni cvj!
-
cvj on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 9:14 am
Thanks Benign0, i just googled Howie Severino’s profile to see what school he taught.
Pochero on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 9:27 am
Dear Mr. Quezon,
In adapting this article to your column in Inquirer today (March 31) you left out a portion. The 7th paragraph of your Inquirer column refers to “the portion above as the most objectionable part of the entire decision.” However, the “objectionable part”, which appears in this blog, is absent from the column.
The Equalizer on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 10:57 am
“There are those who believe that those who use the names of bishops and the church in vain should be excommunicated for the serious damage that they have caused.”Serge Remonde
BrianB on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 11:48 am
anti gucci gang petition.
I think the petition makes sense and I have signed it (with my real name and email address).
http://delfindjmontano.blogspot.com/2008/03/petition-httpwwwpetitiononlinecomnogucc.html
hvrds on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 11:54 am
In the Philippines judicial tradition it continues to be the strains of the old Spanish Civil code versus Common Law.
The issue of empirical history applied to laws. Judges can interpret the law as they see fit. Will Justice De Castro’s ruling stand the test of time? Not likely.
The laws evolve to accommodate changes in societal values.
Case in point the Watergate case:
The free press in the person of the Washington Post – they railed against the windmills during those years. Nixon was on top of his game. His paranoia notwithstanding. The Democrats fucked themselves up badly. (Bernstein and Woodward aided by an FBI man on the inside – Deep Throat)
The Whistle blower – John Dean
The existence of tape recordings – Alexander Butterfield
(All exposed during the hearings in the Senate.)
A Democratic controlled Senate – Sam Ervin Chairman of the
The Senate Select Committee to Investigate Campaign Practices –
An activist judge in the person of Judge John Sirica – who went beyond the persons he convicted and pushed the envelope to break open the cover up.
All three combined forced the Nixon presidency to appoint a special prosecutor under the Justice department to investigate the Nixon campaign practices in the 1972 election. His own Justice Secretary Mitchell was prosecuted.
In the end Nixon contended that his executive power of privilege were akin to Louis XIV (Absolute). The SC struck him down.
The beauty of common law tradition is that this SC resolution which might become the settled law at this time can later on be struck down by another court in another time.
In the end even the U.S. SC ruled that pornography would be best determined by community standards.
BrianB on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:01 pm
Abe, BenigO,
About the story of the Mexican fisherman. I share the same philosophy. The problem is the stock market. Seriously, without these brokers and fund managers, we’d all (and I mean all) be working 5 hours a day, playing with our kids for the same amount of time and spending the rest working with our hobbies. This is a more productive life than the life most of us lead today.
vic on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:09 pm
And there was the famous Oakes Test, the Measure of which the Limit to Rights and Freedom should be based..a Solomonic ruling if there is one. check it out..
hvrds on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:14 pm
Who is there in the Senate who will defend the the idea of co-equal branches of government that has been seriously undermined by the SC decision. A serious constitutional crisis is fast arising and no one noticed. Who will push the envelope?
The executive department is now declaring that all hearings in aid of legislation is suspect because of certain rules. They claim that all previous hearings are void. Does that include hearings in aid of budget legislation? Does it mean that they (Congress) cannot question the budgetary allocations for the payment of loans under ODA as this might infringe on the diplomatic and economic relations with the PRC?
The BSP a public utility has just declared that it lost Php 80+ billion in defending the dollar from devaluing versus the peso.
THE NFA is running a huge deficit of over Php 80 billion and the price of rice it imported has just doubled in price.
What a country?
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/LawCom.htm
cvj on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:22 pm
Vic, transplanted to the Philippine setting, the Oakes Test is liable to mutate into a tool for suppression of freedom given the present lack of internal ethics within our institutions that will be tasked to implement such a test, and the seeming ineffectiveness of outside morality to discipline these institutions.
vic on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:30 pm
cjv, the legal profession is the one responsible to make sure that the SC ruling and an accepted precedent, until somehow reverse in the future, should be adhered to, otherwise chaos will be the order of the day and the so-called rule of law is just nothing but lip service..
cvj on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 12:44 pm
vic, yeah unfortunately in the Philippines, the only thing going for ‘rule of law’ is the threat of chaos without it. Justice has long ago been taken out of the equation.
My point about the Oakes Test is that you cannot just transplant it from Canada to the Philippines and assume that it will work as well. I can see its potential as a tool for the government’s impunity. Let’s not give them more rope with which to hang us with.
mlq3 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 1:01 pm
scalia, i would agree it’s unfair to define the sc according to neri v. senate, only in that there still has to be a motion for reconsideration. after that, we will see the real numbers in the sc. and there will be those who will want to see how the sc votes in landmark cases to come.
but do not underestimate how a single case can make or break an institution. there is a reason the legal profession looks back at javellana v. exec. sec. and shudders, to this day.
mlq3 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 1:05 pm
maginoo, the judgment of the president when it came to her appointees would be different prior to 2005. the reason would be first of all, they were appointments made during more “normal” times, and the president’s constituency including the various constituencies she deemed it ok to consult or look into to get appointments, has changed. for example, justice azcuna was one of the aquino era veterans; justice carpio, identified with “the firm”: both dissented, and it’s logical that with cory and the firm being part of the president’s enemies’ list today, no future s.c. appointment would come from their ranks.
so it’s not just which president appointed a s.c. justice, but when; it would make for an interesting study to compare the caliber of the justices marcos appointed pre 1973 and post 1973, for example.
mlq3 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 1:06 pm
silent waters, then shoiuldnt it bea case of: who hides their vested interest,m and who is up front about it?
Madonna on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 2:21 pm
Sabi ko na nga ba, Atenista si Benign0. — cvj
Hahahahaha!
We had this certain officemate before who was from Ateneo and our running commentary on him then was that he was so dense. Couldn’t get the drift most of the time. And we’d always resort to kidding him, “hay, naku palibhasa di ka taga-UP.”
anthony scalia on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 2:29 pm
mlq3,
“but do not underestimate how a single case can make or break an institution. there is a reason the legal profession looks back at javellana v. exec. sec. and shudders, to this day.”
well i have to seriously disagree with you there. a single case can only act as the ‘final nail on the coffin’ but not the ‘iceberg that sank the titanic’
the javellana decision was the ‘final nail on the coffin’. prior to its rendition, the SC has decided landmark cases favoring Marcos
the lawyers who are ’shuddering’ are obviously the senate lawyers, anti gloria lawyers, whiners Cayetano and Escudero, and not disinterested lawyers.
paranoid on a ‘deja vu’ of the Javellana case? hold on the paranoia till a Con Con, Con Com, or Con Ass is constituted and assembled, and the proposed amendments are made public
as if we don’t know yet what the Senators wanted to know from Neri re: exchanges with gloria on NBN ZTE despite knowing Abalos’ bribery attempt: gloria gave the go signal! thats truth already! what else do our bright senators need?!
all these reactions against the Neri decision are really much ado about nothing
anthony scalia on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 2:39 pm
Madonna,
joke time. i got this from UP diehards
(to everyone – pagbigyan nyo na, centennial naman ng UP this year)
ano ang ibig sabihin ng mga sumusunod:
ADMU
DLSU
UST
sagot:
ADMU – Aplikanteng Di Makapasok sa UP
DLSU – Di Lumusot Sa UPCAT
UST – UP Sana Tayo
(joke joke joke joke)
benign0 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 4:09 pm
Hmmm. That makes people like moi quite a special package then, doesn’t it?
Kawawang masang Pinoy.
Most things great about the Philippines are reserved for UPeans (the Diliman variety) and Atenistas. Maybe that’s why they once attempted to move the capital to Quezon City.
-
Madonna on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 4:46 pm
Benigno,
Re-read again my comment. Special package? Naku, san mo nakuha yan dear? Fyi, that officemate of ours took no offense whatsoever, because he knew it was not as much as the fact that he was from Ateneo that we kid him with, but more because of his overall personal quirks. Actually his denseness was both annoying and endearing to us hehe.
You know what’s your problem? Basic thing like inductive and deductive reasoning. Go review the process for both. How did “kawawang masang Pinoy” got into it? LOL! To the the moving of the capital to Quezon City? I swear this is what you call positively gothic line of reasoning Ya, you’re a special package altogether.
benign0 on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 4:54 pm
Ms Madonna, obviously it is you who needs to work on digesting dry humour mixed with a bit of sarcasm and irony.
Then again, maybe I am expecting too much…
-
Madonna on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 5:17 pm
Benigno,
Nice try. Sumegway sa topic hehe. From reasoning to humor. Digesting humor eh? My stomach may be differently consituted from yours. But all right, I’ll take on your advice. Cheers!
BrianB,
What happened to Brian Gorrell’s blog? Naging for invited readers only.
nash on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 7:41 pm
“ADMU – Aplikanteng Di Makapasok sa UP
DLSU – Di Lumusot Sa UPCAT
UST – UP Sana Tayo”
Kawawa naman ang UP, for a state university, the salaries of their professors should be in line with regional levels. Kaya naman napag-iwanan sila ng Chulalongkorn.
the government should put lots of money to UP and make sure the entrance exams take only the best (hindi yung binababa ang passing rate tulad ng 2007 bar exams).
and up should start generating greater income from spin-off and i.p.
Walang pag-asa yang admu, dlsu, and ust to break into the regional top 50 dahil their operating needs are met by tuition fees..innovation and research are nil.
otherwise, these school jokes are not even funny. it’s Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand laughing at us.
jakcast on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 7:52 pm
Tens of thousands of UP graduates have migrated to the U.S., Canada, and Australia and are doing quite well. Surely, their academic background and skills have benefited their host countries.
I wonder how successful UP has been in tapping them for endowments, etc?
P.S. I’m also a UP grad
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 7:55 pm
And of course, gracing the list of great UP-Diliman graduates will be Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, PhD. To those who do not know her, Macapagal-Arroyo was born on April 5, 1947, in San Juan in the Philippine province of Rizal. Macapagal-Arroyo was raised in both San Juan and her mother’s hometown of Iligan, on the island of Mindanao, where she lived from the age of four to eleven with her maternal grandmother, Irinea de la Cruz Macaraeg.
She obtained a Master’s Degree in Economics from the Ateneo de Manila University (1978) and a Doctorate Degree in Economics from Diliman – University of the Philippines (1985). From 1977 to 1987, she held teaching positions in different schools, notably the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo de Manila University. She became chairperson of the Economics Department at Assumption College.
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 7:59 pm
benign0: Macapagal-Arroyo is an example of a Filipino who has progressed financially without needing to migrate to overseas.
nash on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 8:46 pm
@UP n
bakit wala diyan sa bio mo yung bukambibig ni Gloria na magkaklase sila ni Bill Clinton sa Georgetown at nagkaroon daw sila ng M.U?
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 8:48 pm
nash: mas matinik naman ang Diliman sa Georgetown, di ba?
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 8:59 pm
and nash: I agree . . . the government should put lots of money to UP
I’m less worried about a less-rigorous entrance exam. What I want is a rigorous educational standard.
The Princeton Univ model is okay —— hard to get in, easy to graduate once accepted. A state university, though, should be similar to the Virginia Tech model — easier to get in, darn hard to graduate.
BrianB on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 9:19 pm
Madonna, don’t think so. i can still get in.
BrianB on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 9:23 pm
I’ve always thought Ateneo grads are more successful working for multinationals abroad. I know one who has several arvard MBAs below him, and he’s just a BA holder.
Bert on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 9:32 pm
“Bert,
ang kulit mo talaga!”
“saka wag mong isiping ang cha cha ay para ma-extend si gloria. ang daming dapat i-amend sa constitution – legislature and economic provisions, among others”–anthony s.
anthony, saludo ako sa’yo, matiyaga kang magpaliwanag, maski mahirap, maski simple, naipaliliwanag mo para lang maintindihan. salamat. pero, ikinalulungkot kong sabihin na hindi pa rin tayo nagkakaintindihan.
kailangan ko rin yatang mangulit ulit, at ito ay lalong mababaw kaysa sa dati, baka ma-gets mo na.
ang aking tenga ay nakadikit ngayon sa lupa, inu-ulinigan ang ragasa ng mga kabayo at kilos ng mga alipores ni gloria na naka-ambang magsayaw ng chacha.
@grd
Sorry, grd, I have to annoy you one more time by ranting about this chacha issue again, but I have to respond to anthony. I have great regard for your opinions in this blog, it’s a pity that we have a differing views about the purpose of chacha in the present circumstances.
anthony, you can recite to me the whole constitutional book and it will not change a bit the point of my rant about this charter change move. I can see you are good at what you are espousing on any issue here, pero dioskoday naman, kailangan pa ba nating e-underestimate ang mga alipores ni gloria? alam na alam na natin ang mga capabilidad ng mga iyan, kaya nga negative approval at negative popularity ang presidente. hangga ngayon ba naman hindi pa natin alam kung ano ang dahilan kung bakit negative? ay sus! kaya po negative kasi hindi naman po tatanga-tanga ang taong-bayan kagaya ng pagkakaalam ni benigNo.
kaya, hwag mo ng ipaliwanag sa akin ang constitution, samahan mo na lang ako, kami, tayong boung taong-bayan. abangan natin kung paanong diskarte ang gagawin ng mga tauhan ni gloria sa charter change na darating.
btw, hindi ang mga lumalaban sa chacha ang magtutulak kay gloria para gawin ito (gaya ng sabi ni grd) kundi ang mga sumasangayon dito!
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 9:58 pm
The Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), the biggest trade group in the country, expressed support on the Supreme Court’s decision on executive privilege. PCCI underscored the importance of the “rule of law†and “faith in institutional process†in maintaining the democratic ideals of the country and its institutions.
“We have to abide with the processes that guide our Constitution and the institutions that operate within that framework. The Supreme Court’s role as the sole interpreter of our Constitution and government policies should not be undermined more so, its credibility and integrity should never be questioned,†PCCI said.
PCCI maintains that the preeminent role of the Supreme Court as a Constitutional body providing check and balance in government affairs must be upheld.
“PCCI as the voice of business supports all means of processes and procedures that are found within the ideals of the Constitution. PCCI’s existence and advocacy thrives in the upholding of government institutions and respect to their functions, operations, procedures and decisions,†PCCI said.
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 10:01 pm
Civil society groups are planning a multi-sectorial protest rally against the recent SC ruling, a senior Catholic bishop said.
Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz told CBCPNews, an on-line publication of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), that different civic groups that were participants in earlier Interfaith prayer rallies held against the NBN scam will hold protest rallies in different parts of the country soon.
Cruz did not specify the exact date for the upcoming rallies but preparations for the rallies are under way, Cruz, a staunch critic of Arroyo and former president of the CBCP, said.
The civic groups include political groups, student organizations, business associations and religious bodies, Cruz said.
TheColdKing on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 10:08 pm
HISTORY HAS TURNED ONCE AGAIN , YET ALL OF YOU STILL PRETEND AS IF NOTHING HAS HAPPENED, AND EVERYTHING IS AS IT WAS. FOOLS! I KNEW IT. I WAS RIGHT. I TOLD YOU SO. THERE IS NO WAY AT ALL THE OLIGARCHS IN POWER WILL EVER VOLUNTARILY RELINQUISH THEIR HOLD ON THE REPUBLIC. AFTER THIS ULTIMATE BETRAYAL, THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO HOLD BACK THE TIDE OF WHAT IS TO COME. IN THE END, THERE WILL AND CAN ONLY BE BLOOD. YES, THE BLOOD WILL COME FORTH, WAVES UPON WAVES, AND THIS SOCIETY WILL FREELY DROWN IN THE FLOOD OF IT BEFORE IT IS OVER. SCOFF IF YOU LIKE, IGNORE IT IF YOU PREFER, BUT IN THE END, THE RESULT STILL REMAINS THE SAME: REVOLUTION OF THE VIOLENT VARIETY. TODAY, OR TOMORROW, OR NEXT MONTH, OR NEXT YEAR, IT SHALL COME AND THE ACCUMULATED VENGEANCE OF JUSTICE DELAYED AND DENIED SHALL BE FINALLY BE DELIVERED AT LONG LAST. THE SIGNS ARE ALREADY HERE, IF YOU JUST HAVE THE DESIRE TO REALIZE THEM WHEN THE RICE IS GONE FOR GOOD, WHEN THE HUNGER BECOMES TOO MUCH TO BE ENDURED, THEN ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN BLIND AND DEAF AND NUMB, EITHER THROUGH CHOICE OR CHANCE, TO THE TRUTH OF THIS COUNTRY WILL THEN KNOW WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN ALL ALONG : THIS NATION IS DOOMED TO DESTRUCTION BECAUSE DEATH IS THE DESTINY OF A DAMAGED CULTURE.
UP n student on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 10:12 pm
to TheColdKing: your “death is the destiny of a damaged culture” is the closest yet that I saw a Filipino say
DuckVader on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 10:15 pm
ColdKing. Way too much coffee.
maginoo on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 10:19 pm
@ ColdKing,
As Manolo has said, bakit kailangan all caps pa?
The Equalizer on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 11:00 pm
Gloria has cleverly bought her (political) salvation from the C.B.C.P. (a.k.a. Catholic Bishops & Cardinals for the Pidals) through PCSO/PAGCOR “donations” to the bishops’ “pro-poor” programs.
The Equalizer on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 11:07 pm
Ask Your Ate Glue
Dear Ate Glue
When God talks to you, does He call on the phone, appear in person or is it more like a voice in your head?
—Anonymous,Makati
Mr. Anonymous from Makati,
I’m glad you asked that question.
When I say God talks to me, I mean it metaphorically. In actual fact, God doesn’t talk. He simply drops messages in my brain like instant messaging. Every once in a while, I pick up these messages from God and keep the ones I like and delete those that don’t fit with administration policies.
When in doubt I ask Cardinal Pidal,the personal cardinal of the Pidals or Brother Mike or Cardinal Rosales,via Meldy,his niece.
I’ve got to admit my brain’s trash bin is getting kind of full from God’s deleted messages.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to ask,I mean to order your Kuya Jose Pidal to figure out where the Empty Trash button is in my brain.I’m getting old!
I’m also worried I might erase the PINs for our secret Swiss accounts.
By the way,I’m celebrating my 61st birthday on April5.Expect a deluge of newspaper ads greeting me!
ate glue
Madonna on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 11:10 pm
BrianB,
Apparently just a temp. glitch (he changed his blog format).
ColdKing,
Brrrrrr. French Revolution plus James Fallows. Easy on the combination. Maybe we need the outside help. There’s Brian Gorrell singing for us.
TheColdKing on Mon, 31st Mar 2008 11:15 pm
SIRA ANG PC KO…
The Ca t on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 12:44 am
Pinakaba mo ako madonna. Am suffering from withdrawal syndrome. Arghhhhhhhh mwhehehe
grd on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 1:59 am
not that i got scared of coldking’s prophecy but i think the SC will reverse it’s earlier decision.
>>>>>>
DAY 32
hawaiianguy on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 3:34 am
Don’t underestimate ColdKing’s and Devilsadvocate’s thesis: revolution may end this crisis now gripping the nation, if…….
No, Fallow’s “damaged culture” is not necessary a condition that will precipitate a revolutionary change. Like religion, that kind of culture is, in fact, its suppressor – society’s opiate. It’s the way democracy and its institutions are being destroyed by Gloria and her mindless wrecking crews that pushes the country to the edge of such dreadful change. It is what frustrates the people, and infuriates them to put action into their own hands.
Many people do believe the country has been pushed too far with their own lives going with it, leaving very little choice except a radical transformation that may be bloody this time. That’s because most remedies are either being shut up, ignored or dampened, allowing pent-up frustrations to accumulate and increasing the heat to a boiling point.
Two important bastions of whatever democracy is left give a sense of the fragile hope on which hangs the country’s political future: Congress (specifically the Senate), and the judiciary (SC in particular). But as the SC becomes more complicit to the demands of the executive, civil society may be radicalized to take drastic action into its own hands.
Only a critical mass, or tipping point is lacking now. A highly provoked masses may soon decide, without waiting for 2010 to make a transition.
UP n student on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 3:50 am
Should the SC reverse its decision, some people (identities
can’t be revealed — executive privilege) have plans for an interfaith rally, then to surge 
the Padre Faura gates to have the judges join them for ensaymada and tea.
Bencard on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 5:22 am
“i pay my lawyers to do the work of auto mechanics. not to do my thinking or understanding of the law for me.” djb rizalist.
with that kind of attitude, i’m afraid you’d have to go without a counsel of record forever. no lawyer worth his salt would allow himself to be second-guessed by a client in matters of law. in fact, in case of disagreement between a lawyer and his client in such matters, the lawyer is ETHICALLY bound to withdraw or decline representation. since you obviously think you are capable of handling your own case, you don’t need a lawyer anyway. i, for one, don’t need a client who “knows” the law better than i, and i don’t have to work as an “auto mechanic” for all the money that he can afford to pay.
mindanaoan on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 5:43 am
hawaiianguy, coldking, to people who want to force gma out come hell or high water, be careful on what you wish for. you might get it soon enough. but i don’t understand why you wish for waves on waves of blood, when after all this demolition you devoutly wish, you don’t have a better system to install? all for hatred’s sake?
if you enjoy revolutions like a fiesta, go ahead. but be ready for a civil war in the menu, in case they serve something sizzling.
hawaiianguy on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 6:37 am
mindanaon,
It’s not for me to decide, let alone enjoy, a revolutionary change. I wish it wouldn’t happen, but who am I to prevent it if the Filipinos who desperately want change want it? Neither you nor anyone can stop it from happening, if it does happen at all at the right moment.
Blame it on this corrupt-rich govt of Gloria.
anthony scalia on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 7:19 am
Bert,
sorry i have to seriously disagree with you na di tayo nagkakaintindihan
alam mo okay lang na magdiskusyunan tayo sa merits ng cha cha eh.
ang isyu ko lang sa iyo naman eh bakit mo ako tatawaging taong gobyerno. ang ganda ganda ng diskusyonan natin, hahaluan mo ng ganyan? kaya nga sabi ko ang ganyang pag-argumento di bagay dito sa blog ni manolo, sa ellentordesillasdotcom lang yan bagay.
ano? pareho kami ng sinasabi ng mga alipores ni gloria? wala akong sinasabing dapat i-extend si gloria at kung sinomang elected official
alam mo lumilihis ka sa usapan natin -
you are 101% correct IF ang proposed amendments ng cha cha ay i-extend si gloria, or maging parliamentary na ang gobyerno, implying na pwede pang maging PM si gloria.
malabo yan
- in the first place, malabong mag ConCon, Con Com, Con-Ass, magreferendum and for sure magdecide ang Supreme Court all before May 2010!
not to mention na BAWAL ang any term extensions that will benefit the incumbent, kahit na interim PM pa ang uri ng extension. president to prime minister – pareho lang chief executive yan. alam mo, di ka pa nagrereact sa argumentong ito. dahil alam mong tama ako
- any change in government, at the earliest, will come 2013, kasi kelangang i-honor ang mga term ng presidente at mga Senador na mananalo sa 2010 – magiging interim PM, ang nanalong presidente sa 2010 hanggang 2016, yung mga Senador na nanalo sa 2010 hahayaang maging sitting MP up to 2016
to feed your paranoia – pwede lang maging PM si gloria sa 2016
sabi mo
susmaryosep! matagal ko nang sinasabi yan sa iyo! hintayin mo muna kung ano ang magiging proposed amendments bago pairalin ang paranoia!
one thing is sure – napakalabong ma-extend si gloria beyond 2010.
saka di pwedeng isulong ang cha cha ng walang pahintulot ng senado! yung mga alipores ni gloria ay lahat nasa House lamang!
pakiusap ko lang wag mo lang kalilimutan – isang referendum ang mag-aaprove ng amendments, hindi ang Con Con, hindi ang Con Com, hindi ang Con Ass
anthony scalia on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 7:27 am
UP n,
“Macapagal-Arroyo is an example of a Filipino who has progressed financially without needing to migrate to
overseas”
Joey Gurango can be a fine example also.
Though he used to be based in the US, where he founded a software company that was bought by another company which in turn was bought by Microsoft, now at present he formed, maintains and operates Gurango Software here.
Gurango Software is about to launch an IPO here.
When asked why have an IPO here and not in NASDAQ or the NYSE, his short answer was – because Gurango Software is a Filipino company
UP n student on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 8:34 am
Anthony: It was tongue-in-cheek when I wrote that GMA is an example of a Filipino who has progressed financially without needing to migrate to overseas.” There are lots of such names — from technocrats like Manny Pangilinan or ex-Governor Cuisia to politicians like Erap, FVR, Imelda.
nash on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 10:12 am
“no lawyer worth his salt would allow himself to be second-guessed by a client in matters of law.”
Kitam! ang mga lawyers talaga, hinging on repeat business. Create the demand!
nash on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 10:19 am
and this is the best part of it all
“i, for one, don’t need a client who “knows†the law better than…”
it’s so funny!
why should a common man (ie non-lawyer) not be able to know the law? granted that a well trained lawyer knows the appropriate laws for each case, once he presents these to the client, the client should be able to read and understand it…hay naku, lawyers talaga, pinapahirapan ang madla.
mindanaoan on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 10:41 am
to use the word ‘people’, or ‘filipinos’ when you mean those who wish to hang arroyo is presumptuous. it’s also confusing. use ‘anti-gma groups’. or something shorter.
lethed on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 11:19 am
wait…
i would like to correct what someone here said, that al gore simply accepted bush as president, and didn’t go to the Supreme Court. he did, and the justices, most of whom were bush sr.’s appointees, decided that bush jr. should be president. what’s to gore’s credit is that, instead of asking the US SC to reconsider their ruling, and possibly involve a nation’s fate in a protracted legal battle, which he could have done, he simply accepted the decision. that’s what is admirable about gore. so that, if he later won the Nobel Prize, and is a respected statesman, no one is really surprised. no one can say anything critical of gore. but then, gore came from a very cultured and civilized family.
inodoro ni emilie on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 12:57 pm
benigs,
anong batch kay howie?
anthony scalia on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 4:25 pm
UP n,
“It was tongue-in-cheek when I wrote that GMA is an example of a Filipino who has progressed financially without needing to migrate to overseas.â€
i know. the icon you used revealed that
i just couldn’t resist citing a Pinoy success right here in the islands (to use a favorite expression of our faborite Fil-Aussie).
the default notion kasi of Pinoys in choosing to migrate is choosing survival over starvation.
Pinoys can really succeed here.
If Pinoys would just take personal accountability (wow, another of our favorite Fil-Aussie’s terms) for their financial independence….
UP n student on Wed, 2nd Apr 2008 12:11 am
I agree …
maginoo on Wed, 2nd Apr 2008 1:20 am
the default notion kasi of Pinoys in choosing to migrate is choosing survival over starvation. – a. scalia
Not necessarily, Anthony. Many highly educated and skilled professionals (from the best colleges) who are already doing quite well in the country migrate to other countries not only to have better financial opportunities but to pursue careers which will maximize their academic backgrounds. In search of excellence, so to speak, not just for survival.
Maybe you are referring to some less-skilled OFWs.
anthony scalia on Wed, 2nd Apr 2008 1:38 am
maginoo,
“Not necessarily…”
well, yes and no
i agree that opportunities exist abroad that are not around here. the best example is the new Pinoy lead singer of the rock group Journey, Arnel Pineda. He was personally picked by some Journey members, after seeing him in a YouTube clip! Arnel had to leave his band here. If i were him, I’d do the same too, and if i were his bandmate/s dito, i wont begrudge him for his decision
UP n student on Wed, 2nd Apr 2008 2:05 am
The topic of migrating brings back a quote :
Or this more morose version:
—Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ, ca. A.D. 1440
anthony scalia on Wed, 2nd Apr 2008 4:33 am
maginoo,
i know (admittedly few, in comparison to the total OFWs) people already occupying positions that are director-level and up, who live in rich gated villages like ayala alabang, who can afford to send their children to private schools from grade school to medical or law school, who can afford to be confined at Asian Hospital – who left everything behind to migrate in Canada and Australia, presently holding rank and file jobs
but i also know (few also) other people who went abroad because they were promoted to a job at the head office or to lead a regional office.
You said “In search of excellence, so to speak, not just for survival.”
i think its also the default notion of Pinoys that they can only ‘be all they can be and more’ abroad, not here
benign0 on Wed, 2nd Apr 2008 7:34 am
The only reason migration is such a sore topic is because our minds are imprisoned by the utterly UNSTABLE concept of the Filipino.
We have at some point to accept that this concept only exists on paper.
Once we dispose of that unnecessary baggage and and focus more on what ahcieving personal fulfilment through ethical means, the world will become a crystal clear and sensible to each one of us.
Achievement of personal fulfilment through ethical means.
It’s simple, really.
grd on Wed, 2nd Apr 2008 5:22 pm
from abs-cbnnewdotcom
Mar Roxas or Manny Villar for president.
anthony scalia on Wed, 2nd Apr 2008 5:22 pm
benignO,
did you just give your reasons for becoming an aussie?
may i know whats your view of Pinoys who chose to pursue personal fulfillment through ethical means here?
grd on Thu, 3rd Apr 2008 2:28 am
I just watched the replay of Howie Severino’s I-Witness Anniversary episode but only the last part featuring the stranded filipino painter Lex Cachapero who sleeps in New York’s Subway. I missed the part featuring the homeless Teddy Sison. Of course, there are more untold stories in the land of milk and honey.
gmapinoytvdotigmadottv/sidetrip/blog/index.php?/categories/4-i-Witness