«

»

Nov 12

Intervention for the Prosecution: Why the BJE-MOA is an impeachable offense

Well, it’s in the news: please see MILF MOA added to impeach raps vs Arroyo: Intervention filed at House Earlier today and Groups want MOA-AD in Arroyo impeach raps and Bloggers comprise secod batch of complainants in new GMA raps. There’s also Impeachment and the MOA-AD in Filipino Voices. Also, Arroyo foes try for ‘online revolution’ (visit Oust the Imp).

The official (legislator’s) response came pretty fast for some: Intervention a new complaint -solon:

Representative Matias Defensor, chairman of the committee on justice that will hear the complaint, announced that deliberations to determine form and in substance would begin on November 18.

“Since the MOA-AD is a new issue, it should be treated as a new complaint against the President,” Defensor said in a phone interview when asked about the fate of the petition.

“We cannot accept it as an additional charge to the original complaint, otherwise, anybody can just file any motion and add a new charge to the complaint,” he added.

However, Defensor said the motion filed would have no effect on the original complaint.

A line echoed in this snipped from the Philippine Star report linked to above:

But the latest impeachment complaint didn’t sit well among members of the 28-man House minority bloc, particularly Bayan Muna Reps. Satur Ocampo and Teddy Casino, who both endorsed the De Venecia impeachment complaint.

“We who endorsed the first complaint respect the right of the proponents to include the MOA-AD, but we refrain from endorsing it lest it prejudices the complaint we endorsed,” said Ocampo, former spokesman of the communist wing National Democratic Front.

“This is because any addition or amendment to the original complaint will most likely be treated by the (House) justice committee as a separate complaint, as was done in prior cases,” he pointed out.

In the past I’ve written in my column about my belief that the BJE-MOA should have been included in the impeachment complaint. Together with some bloggers and other individuals, we decided to do something about it.

So this is what we filed this morning:

Final Complaint in Intervention MOA

Get your own at Scribd or explore others: Law Opinions

Please read this document. We have signed it. We stand by it. We submitted it, today, to the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives so that it may fortify the impeachment case against the President of the Philippines. I cannot express the reasons why we had to do this, better than The Marocharim Experiment did, in his blog entry for today:

Clenched fists mean a lot of things, not the least of which is fighting.  The clenched fist is a symbol of resistance.  To clench your fist means to stand up for what’s right because you believe in it, not because you feel like it…

…I think that when you blog about political issues and social issues, you cannot treat citizenship, political participation, and social obligation from your blogging.  When we say something or write about something, we should be able to act on it when the situation calls for it.  Our words shouldn’t be empty; we should be able to stand by our principles.  It’s not a matter of winning or losing, revolution or insurrection, cost or benefit…

…I was just doing what any free-thinking Filipino will do.  I was just doing things out of principle.  I signed that document because of my convictions, not for money, not for ambition.  I’m just a twenty-something who makes an honest living.

I signed that document because I believe that it is right, and I believe that it is time. Revolution?  To some, yes, but to me, it was a simple matter of doing the right thing.

It’s not easy to stand up for what you believe in. Sure, it’s easy to blog about your political beliefs, but it’s not easy to stand by them when the time calls for it.  After all, people will just accuse you of being “used by power-grabbers.”  People will call you names, people will look down on your convictions, perhaps even spit on it.— Or mock it.  Or tell you to shut up, because you can’t do anything about it…

…The question is not who we will replace the President with, but to find the President guilty or not guilty of the charges pressed against her.  Not the least of which is the charge that she deceived the public – and compromised the integrity and sovereignty of the Philippines – through the BJE MOA-AD.  If she is, I believe that she should face the fair and just consequences of her actions.  I believe that justice is not about personalities, but about doing the right thing.

Those are the things I believe/  I believe in doing the right thing.  I may not do it all the time, but when I signed that document – even with painful hands – I knew I did the right thing.  If I didn’t, what would be my excuse? It’s not because I’m a hero or because I’m a martyr, but because I am a Filipino…

…Had you been there, you would have felt the same thing, perhaps even made up an excuse to chicken out and forsake your responsibility to this nation.  I know: I was that close to doing it.  What motivated me was not a sense of blow-hard patriotism, but a sense of obligation.  People lived and died that this country remain whole, united, strong, and be held under one flag.  What, I ask, prevents me from doing the same thing?What’s my excuse?  What makes me think for one second that only heroes and patriots, or politicians with official ambitions, have the right to speak out against the injustices and excesses of the regime?

Now, I think it’s time for our honorable Members of the House to do the right thing.  It is not right to wait for the President to finish her term; what is right is whether she has two years left or two days left, she should be held accountable.  The Members of the House should know that justice is not about numbers or pluralities, but about morals and sensibilities.  It is about fairness, justice, and freedom: words and perspectives that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo no longer represents, at least in my eyes.

IMG_0109.JPG

Let me tell you about what transpired after the brief press conference concluded. We went to the Secretary-General’s office, but once there, a problem came up. She was, at first, reluctant to receive our document. Closed-door consultations took place, phone calls were made, at times, our legal counsel were asked to wait outside.

Everyone tried to keep themselves entertained.

IMG_0110.JPGIMG_0112.JPG

The elder intervenors texted or chatted.

IMG_0111.JPG

The media and I exchanged notes on House procedures, and I decided to have a bit of a look-see.

IMG_0116.JPG

So much for the separation of Church and State!

But what I found most interesting were the items posted on the Secretary-General’s cork board.

IMG_0118.JPGIMG_0114.JPG

IMG_0113.JPG

Various official notices, and a page of statistics on the current composition of the House; and most intriguing of all:

IMG_0117.JPG

This editorial cartoon on the BJE-MOA!

IMG_0115.JPG

As media people hovered outside the Secretary-General’s door, the wrangling continued.

From what I gathered, the Secretary-General first asked for time to “read the document,” then a legal wrangle ensued over whether she had “jurisdiction” over the intervention. Now the Secretary-General is in charge of the secretariat of the House, and her job is to oversee the expeditious reception, filing, transmission and filing of documents. She is not supposed to make judgement calls about the documents themselves.

In the end, after close to 45 minutes of bringing our lawyers in, sending them out, consulting upstairs and sideways in the House hierarchy, the Secretary-General announced she would receive the document, as the intervention was “unprecedented,” and leave the fate of the document to the relevant committees of the House.

IMG_0119.JPGIMG_0120.JPGIMG_0121.JPG

And so she received them, and everyone got to go home.

A word on the role bloggers played in putting this document forward for the consideration of the House.

Among those who signed this document are the following bloggers, who have decided to take their personal stands not just in the blogosphere but in the institutions of our nation.

Marck Ronald Rimorin, The Marocharim Experiment
Arbet W. Bernardo, [email protected],
Richard Rivera, New Philippine Revolution,
Jeremy Gatdula, Blurry Brain,
Manuel L. Quezon III, The Daily Dose,
Maria Jose (in Davao City), Alleba Politics,
Here is the statement I read a the press conference on behalf of the bloggers who signed:

PANAWAGAN

Unang-una sa lahat, ang mga naniniwala na ang impeachment ay isang “numbers game,” ay may mentalidad ng isang tuta na sunud-sunuran at hindi ginagamit ang pag-iisip bilang isang tao.

Ang Kongreso ay may dalawang bahagi – ang Kamara de Representates, at ng Senado.

Kapag ang isang Presidente ay may hinaharap na sakdal tungkol sa kanyang mga gawain bilang punong ehekutibo, ang Kamara ay ang tumatanggap ng mga akusasyon laban sa Pangulo, at gumagampan ng pag-aaral ng ebidensya upang makilatis kung ito ay masusustansya at kung ito ay dapat ipursigi at litisin sa Senado.

Bilang mga pangkaraniwang mamamayan, bilang mga blogger, beterano, sibilyan, Kristiyano, at Muslim, kami ay naniniwala na obligasyon namin na patibayin ng husto ang mga paratang laban sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas.

Sa aming pananaw ay dapat bigyan atensiyon ng Kamara ang isyu ng BJE-MOA sa pagitan ng Pangulo at ng MILF, ukol sa Mindanao. Ang usapang ito ay nabuo na may pahintulot ng Pangulo; ang sinasaad nito ay idineklara ng Korte Suprema na labag sa Saligang Batas. Kung hindi pumasok sa usapin ang Korte Suprema, marahil ay nagkapirmahan na sana sa Kuala Lumpur, sapagkat bukod sa inaprobahan ang kasunduang ito ng Pangulo, ay ipinahintulutan pa niya ang kanyang mga kinatawan na mangumbida ng mga representante ng iba’t ibang bansa sa Kuala Lumpur.

Tinutulan ang BJE-MOA na ito ng maraming residente ng Mindanao – lalong-lalo na ang mga Kristiyano at ang kanilang mga opisyales; ang iba naman, tulad ng ating mga Kapatid na Muslim, ay umasa na may kongkretong usapan sila ng Pangulo ngunit sila ay basta na lamang tinalikuran. Maaaring wala talaga siyang intensyon na ipatupad ang kanilang usapan, at sinadya niyang itago ang kasunduang ito sa mamamayan upang masabi niya na hindi naman nya ito maitutuloy sa dahilang hindi pa hinog ang panahon.

May panindigan o pananaw man o wala ang ordinaryong mamamayan sa usapang ito, ang naidulot lamang nito ay perwisyo at sakuna: sa buhay, ari-arian, kapayapaan at ekonomiya hindi lang ng Mindanao, kundi ng buong Pilipinas.

Ang ibig sabihin nito ay ginawang laruan ng Pangulong Arroyo ang buong Mindanao dahil lamang sa paghahanap ng malulusutan upang isulong ang pag-amyenda sa Saligang Batas o ang Cha-Cha.

Ang ibig sabihin nito ay inilagay sa peligro ng Pangulong Arroyo ang lahat ng naninirahan sa Mindanao dahil lamang sa kanyang mga ambisyon.

Kung kaya’t dahil sa mga ikinilos at ginawa niya; sa paglabag niya sa Saligang Batas; sa pagtalikod nya sa kanyang sinumpaang obligasyon na protektahan at depensahan ang Saligang Batas; sa paglihim niya sa mamamayang Pilipino ng mga patungkol sa mga probisyon na nais niyang isulong sa kasunduan; sa malinaw na panloloko niya sa mga kapatid nating Muslim; sa maraming nasawi or nabawian ng buhay na sibilyan at militar; at dahil sa kaguluhang idinulot nya sa Mindanao; ay pinaninindigan namin na dapat maisama sa impeachment complaint ang usapin na ito.

Ayun kay Atty. Neri Colmenares, kailangan lang namin ma-isumite ang interbensyon na ito, upang maaksyunan ng Kamara. Hindi na daw kailangan i-endorse ito ng sinumang diputado o kinatawan. Kami ay naniniwala kay Atty. Colmenares at sa mga kinatawan ng oposisyon sa Kamara.

Ngunit nananawagan pa din kami na kung maaari, sa darating na Lunes, ika-17 ng Nobyembre, ay i-endorse pa rin ng mga kinatawan ng oposisyon ang aming inihahain na dokumento na siyang pinagaralan namin at nilagdaan bilang pagpapatunay na ito ay ang aming panindigan. Kung kaya’t umaasa kami na sana ito rin ang maging panindigan ng mga kongresista sa oposisyon at ng mga kinatawan na miyembro ng mayoriya, na tumutol sa kasunduang BJE-MOA.

Sa paraan na ito, ay mawawakasan na ang bangayan sa ating lipunan, mabibgyan ng pagkakataon ang Pangulo na sagutin ang mga paratang sa kanya, at makakasiguro ang Kongreso at ang taong-bayan na hindi nagtatago ang Pangulo sa likod ng kanyang mga patakbuhin.

Ang impeachment ay hindi nasasakluban ng executive privilege. Walang executive privilege ang impeachment. Kung tatalakayin ng tapat at ng walang kinikilingan ang mga paratang na nasasaloob sa impeachment complaint, kung pakikinggan ng wasto ang mga testigo, at kung pag-aaralang mabuti ang mga ebidensyang inihain ng mga complainant sa Kamara, ay makasisiguro tayo na magwawakas rin ang alitan ng administrasyon at oposisyon at ang pagkakahati ng ating mamamayan.

Nananawagan po kami sa sambayanang Pilipino na sana ay suportahan ang aming interbensyon.

Nais po naming magpasalamat sa lahat ng mga tumulong sa amin, sila Joey de Venecia, ang mga bloggers na lumagada, ang mga kapatid naming Muslim na siya ring lumagda, ang mga taga iba’t ibang hanay ng oposisyon na tumulong upang maging masustansya at matibay ang interbensyon na ito.

Pagkatapos naming isumite itong intervention na ito ay padadalhan namin ang bawat miyembro ng oposisyon ng kopya ng dokumento.

Kami ay nananampalataya na sa Lunes ay i-endorse na rin nila, kahit hindi kinakailangan, bilang pagpapatunay na buo ang loob at sentimyento nila na panagutin ang Pangulong Arroyo sa kanyang paglabag sa ating Saligang Batas at sa mga katiwalian niyang ginawa at patuloy na ginagawa.

Maraming Salamat po. Mabuhay po Kayo.

And here is the cover letter attached to CD-ROMs containing this document, which will be provided members of the House minority bloc. The bloggers have asked the House minority to reply, by Monday, stating whether they will fight for this intervention or not; and inviting them to formally endorse it as a stand they will take. Some fellow columnists and I have also asked them to answer two questions.

November ___, 2008

Hon. _________

Representative, ____ District, ________

House of Representatives

Quezon City Dear

Rep. ________:

Today, together with ____ other intervenors, I have filed an intervention to add the Memorandum of Agreement concerning the proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity to the impeachment charges being considered by the House. Our intervention is based on the following premises:

1. That the House of Representatives, in deliberating upon the charges against the President of the Philippines, should strive to put together as strongand comprehensive a case as possible, in order to properly and thoroughly address all the issues that demand accountability from the chief executive.

2. That the citizenry is obligated to do its part to help fortify the case against the President of the Philippines.

We are of the opinion, and submit for your consideration and endorsement, that:

1. The President of the Philippines must be held accountable for violating her oath of office in authorizing and supporting an agreement that has been proven to be contrary to the Constitution. Any President is duty-bound to operate within the parameters established by the Constitution, and when a President deliberately disregards our Constitution’s provisions, there must be an accounting made to the citizenry.

2. The President must therefore be held accountable for what the Supreme Court has ruled to be an agreement that violated our Constitution.

3. That furthermore, the President must be held accountable for setting back the peace process; and for placing ordinary citizens, Muslim and Christian alike, in Mindanao, in peril because of the recklessness and faithlessness, with which she conducted the negotiations for the agreement. She has done grevious harm to the prosperity and tranquility of Mindanao and the entire country and her doing so is a violation of public trust and her Constitutional responsibilities.

She betrayed the public, and all the parties that participated in the peace process in good faith and with a historic resolution of ancient grievances in mind. We believe that we have made a strong case for including the BJE-MOA among the charges against the President.

We believe that this is a matter of such seriousness as to require the House of Representatives providing the President with an opportunity to explain herself to you, our representatives, and through you, to an alarmed and outraged public.

We further believe that the President will find it impossible to satisfactorily explain herself and that as a consequence, the House will find it necessary to include our intervention among the impeachment charges.

May I respectfully invite you, then, to endorse our intervention, so that ample opportunity may be provided for the President of the Philippines to air her side, and for the public to be informed, through you, once and for all, about the circumstances surrounding the agreement.

I am confident that you will respond to the overwhelming clamor of the citizenry, throughout the country but particularly in Mindanao, for public policy to be conducted in good faith, without recklessness and imprudence, and with the true interests of the nation at heart and not just partisan political convenience for the administration.

May I also invite you, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Jarius Bondoc and William Esposo of the Philippine Star, Ellen Tordesillas of Malaya, and Manuel Buencamino of The Business Mirror, to state, for the record, your response to these two questions:

1. How do you intend to vote on the impeachment complaint already filed before the House? Will you be present at the committee level and plenary voting on these charges?

2. Are you in favor of including the BJE-MOA among the impeachment charges, and why or why not.

We trust you will give your answer to us by Wednesday so we can publish them.

And we further trust that you will find our intervention meritorious and worthy of your endorsement.

Respectfully yours,

Manuel L. Quezon III

333 comments

11 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. Geo

    Yes. Yes, we do. Must be because I was being temporarily cynical. 🙂 Juuust joking. I think we’re just looking at, as you said, a case of pragmatic politics.

    See? You were saying I’m single minded. I’m not. My own view of myself is that I can analyze without all the emotional baggage. I may be wrong about that…but I diligently try to be that way.

    That’s why my knee-jerk reaction to the fury and frothing mob during the Garci days was — “Stop it! Get a strong case together and do this right! Meanwhile, we better see the original tapes or this thing isn’t going to be easy.”

    In the ensuing weeks and months, it became obvious that rule of law was inconvenient to those leading the charge and that there was a clear decision(s) to whip up the frenzy and shortcut the system.

    After the huge mistake in the methodology of ousting Erap (I think it was unconstitutional, even though I was anti-Erap), I thought doing it again to Gloria would be national suicide.

    By then, you were probably already on the other side of the fence. As were many others. But my side was anti anti-GMA, not pro-GMA (though, admittedly, that was my choice in 2004…like many who post here).

    I believe the anti-GMA positions taken then, by (justifiably) angry people, have unfortunately hardened and have remained set in concrete since then. Everything is seen through that one prism. Facts are still secondary to the emotional anger initiated by the Garci Tapes.

    That’s why it’s notable that many still shout the “illegitimacy/cheating” slogans. They either have no idea about PET, refuse to believe it, or purposefully sweep the whole reality under the rug.

    As each of these “scandals” have come up, I’ve tried to look at all the evidence first. But the anti-GMAs just come in swinging from their heels…facts be damned.

    THAT’S my problem with the anti-GMAs — They made up their minds (based on faulty info) 4 years ago and fanatically stick to those views no matter what comes up. It’s frustrating. It scares me. It threatens my income and thus my family. Aaargh.

    Refreshingly, though, YOUR take is a new one to me.

    Is it: “OK, maybe she didn’t cheat, but her cover-up of her not cheating is reason enough”???

    Huh? Can you clarify, please?

  2. hvrds

    “EVAT was a method to reduce debt. Debt was not just due to any 2001~2003 policies.”

    Clearly ignorant pundit…

    Big Mike and GMA have added more debt to the country than Marcos in all his years.

    The national debt which is a part of the public sector debt
    is larger than what Marcos had left the country saddled with. GMA has the dubious distinction also of incurring more debt (national government) than her three predecessors combined.

    It was the research paper done and released by the U.P. School of economics pointing out that the country was already at the point of having no more tax revenues to cover debt payments. (Primary surplus) Please note we have two yearly appropriations act – Automatic and the general Approriations Act..

    The financial markets took notice and that would mean a severe credit rating downgrade necessitating even higher interest rates.

    She was lucky that at that period in the world’s financial markets the Federal Reserve and other central banks were lowering interest rates to battle recession.

    That together with lax regulatory oversight of investment banks and mortgage banks have brought the world to this present financial crisis.

    For an emerging economy strategically dependent on debt finance the coming years will prove to be most interesting. Already GMA is lobbying our Asian neighbors for a quick response emergency funding scheme to help out without conditionalities.

    It does not take a genius to figure out why. A COUNTRY THAT HAS SIMPLY RELABELED DEBTS IN A PRIVATIZATION SCHEME will be hard pressed to fund projects that will be necessary to maintain sustainable growth that will have an effect on wide broad sectors of the economy instead of a very narrow and shallow front.

    She has been a disaster on the economic front. The economy is even more deeper in debt than at any time in its entire history.

    The G-20 meetings ongoing in Washington are groups of countries that the G-8 have labeled systemically important in the world today. Only one S.E. Asian country was invited, Indonesia. Even Singapore was not included for obvious reasons.

  3. Geo

    “Clearly ignorant pundit…”

    Clearly pompous and rude poster,

    Thanks for restating my point — there was a huge debt long before GMA…and EVAT was the solution.

    Thanks for also adding the part about how EVAT did that, in part, by demonstrating to global creditors the government’s resolve to take the actions (and getting the results) which they believed to be crucial…and beneficial.

    In turn, the country’s credit rating went up, the borrowing rates went down and more debt was paid down.

    Meanwhile, you are wrong — the Fed’s interest rates were going up rapidly by the time EVAT came around.

    You’re also way off base about lax bank regulations.

    The local banks, in fact, have been forced to clean up their books here. And have done quite well at doing so. It’s one of the reasons the present financial crisis hasn’t overwhelmed the country.

    The status of American investment banks vis-a-vis any lax regulations there, meanwhile, had zero impact on the Philippines, debts, ratings, or whatever.

    Sorry, hrvds, you ramble a lot and throw out sometimes-incorrect and usually-discombobulated bits and pieces of statements and predictions. I don’t much read your posts anymore.

    But, you know, just call me ignorant…..

  4. mlq3

    Geo, let me try to review the points I’ve raised since 2005 (you can review this blog if you wish, particularly in the first months of the 2005 crisis). the crisis basically began when talk began to circulate that there was a pretty embarassing tape somewhere concerning the 2004 elections. what brought the rumor front and center was when the president’s own press guy presented two cd’s to the media, saying one was genuine, the other fake. the opposition, at the time pretty much moribund because it had lost (and its candidate was dead) came back to life and for the part of supporters of the president and others in neither camp, the question then became, if there’s smoke, is there fire?

    the palace presenting the tapes undercut its standing before the law, since it could not then say it was an aggrieved party under the anti-wiretapping law; applying the law without fear or favor would have scooped up admin and opposition figures alike; so instead, threats were used which only galvanized the public. for the pre-2004 opposition, the tapes were proof the 2004 election had been stolen. as for myself, i operated from the assumption the president had won, though now it was a question of whether she’d won by a slim margin or by a million votes as originally claimed.

    my main concern in those rollercoaster days and weeks was how the president could go about maintaining the confidence of those who’d campaigned and worked for her, and voted for her, in good faith. i felt that she had to react strongly, unequivocably asserting her innocence, and using the moral authority of her office to immediately resolve the issue, trusting in the public and her supporters to see how she’d been framed. instead, i felt that her reaction was shilly-shallying and worse, that what was obviously unfolding was a conspiracy to keep her from being exposed. she was trying to weasel her way out of it and i remarked on how her coming out fighting, after she learned her cabinet was divided and many of her most prominent backers had decided she should go, was what should have been her original and proper response, but it wasn’t the one she made -her “i am sorry” was, in fact, what made so many, including me, decide she should quit.

    the simplest solution, her quitting, having been taken off the table by a combination of factors, mistrust of the veep, FVR not having been consulted so sensing how he and JDV could save the President’s ass while extracting a commitment to essentially neutering her and instituting parliamentary (or essentially, Lakas) government in her stead, the gutlessness of the archbishop of Manila, the overconfidence of the Edsa Dos veterans who wanted the President out, the innate conservatism of the military, etc. meant she lived to fight another day and the round 2 of impeachment began.

    in the case of the first impeachment effort, i also pointed out i agreed with teddy boy locsin who sneered at the opposition for what he said was more of an obsession with “manufacturing a people power moment,” with the estrada impeachment in mind. according to him the opposition in the house was so overconfident, that they approved house rules that gave the majority a chance to reject the charges not on the basis of their merits, but on technicalities. this fatally hampered the effort and as the president gained breathing room, she marshaled her forces and stemmed the tide of desertions. she also had no compunctions utilizing the armed forces and when the armed forces looked like it was having second thoughts, using the police which made the armed forces and everyone else blanche at the thought of armed confrontation. add to that the division of the old edsa forces, who were split on the question of the veep, the pre 2004 opposition, and its identification with the relicts of the marcos era and you had the making of what we have had since: a war of attrition.

    but my main point, was that you do not have to look to 2004 specifically, to determine whether the president should remain in office. the whole handling of the crisis pointed to conspiracy, obstruction of justice, violations of human rights, and a whole slew of survival-related actions that were laying a bad precedent for accountabiluty of all future presidents, and so badly eroding the bureaucracy and out institutions that if we are to salvage anything she has to go.

    when the president tried to go back on the offensive after once more having her back to the wall in 06 (including the late 2005 visit of negroponte to tell the president washington wouldnt tolerate a martial law scenario), and when a state of emergency led to a public tug of war between one camp that wanted her to wield de facto martiallaw powers anyway and another that publicly thwarted that option, not to mention public opposition to her, the president’s counteroffensive included buying into the fr. intengan-and gonzalez scheme of liquidating civilians they considered part of the communist network of agitators, sympathizers, and fund raisers, etc. opposition in europe, the us and the un stopped it.

    at the same time in terms of evidence i felt the critics of the president were being held to too high a standard of evidence since impeachment etc are political processes and that what is required isn’t a standard of evidence required in courts of law where life, liberty, and property are at stake. all that was at stake is political office.

    for the determination of that fitness and whether the president had engaged in acts that made her unfit for office, i felt the evidence was ample, but only later, in late 06 and to 07, did i come to the conclusion, too, that a strong case for electoral fraud could be made regarding 2004, to made too.

    meanwhile the public and myself, too, had to mull why the war of attrition was taking place, why after the battleines were formed, they haven’t really budged. i’ve explored that often, ranging from the opposition having 50% give or take, but hopelessly divided among themselves, to the presdident having a failr solid 25% wityh only two divisions (the hard core loyalists and the conditional, only till 2010 or cha cha is achieved supporters, to another 25% mainly the middle class i think, who are paralyzed by the trauma of the urban insurrection of may 2001, to a fear of the unexpected and a lack of a qualified successor, and who thus essentially support the president by not casting their lot with the opposition, because you have a 50-50 parity in society.

    and there are many reasons for this, part of it laziness and double-dealing, a lack of imagination on the part of many oppositionists, to the economic climate allowing us to coast along, to demographic changes that simply made it irrelvant to many filipinos oriented abroad, already abroad, or living off the hard work of relatives abroad, to care one way or another. there are times the logjam has come close to being broke -in 06 by the military, the zte thing, cha-cha round 1- but from a combination of these factors and the president learning from experience how to home her defense and divide her critics, the great division remains.

    i added further that there might be wisdom in the public essentially sending the message that they wanted a peaceful resolution, an institutional arena, and for the opposition to get its act together even as they made no bones about most of them being appaled and disgusted by the president’s behavior and that of her people. and my personal belief that the logjam can’t be broken by giving up or letting things alone because if she, at a minimum, steps down on june 30 2010, the damage will be permanent to our institutions and the political culture. it would be a very clear underlining of the fundamental lessons from martial law: that nice guys finish last, it’s not how you play the game but winning that only matters, etc. while her leaving office prior to 2010 will at least provide the opportunity for a gradual though long term pushing back against the degenerate political system already degenerating before her, but whose degeneracy has accelerated because of her fight for survival and the advantage her supporters have taken from her weakness.

  5. Geo

    Actually, mlq3, I’m well aware of your views since the 2005 days. You’ve done a nice job in summarizing them in that last post…which meshes facts, astute observations and what I think are falsehoods and misinterpretations.

    I think I can’t post again for many hours, so let me ask you the same thing I asked you (and Ricky) back in 2005 — if you are wrong about the tapes being authentic and adequate…can you imagine how much damage will be done going forward?

    Take your story, mlq3 and now retell it from the perspective that GMA never cheated and that she and her entourage felt the attempts to oust her from power were unfair, illegal and connived. GMA and crew knew that the country was split 50-50, but that their own 50% contained many who could switch allegiances in a flash. They knew emotions were being stirred up to help get the job done…to get her booted.

    If that was the case, re-read history from that perspective. I have read yours (and similar ones) for months and years…please try to spend a long time with an open mind and go through the events. I wonder if you can appreciate the different perspective if you start with the premise that Garci was a doctored weapon meant to do exactly what it did.

  6. Geo

    sorry…that should have been “…authentic and *accurate*…”

  7. mlq3

    Oh, I always try to consider things from the perspective of the President and also, what if she is the victim of a left-right conspiracy. Not least because I know genuinely good or sincere people who believe she has finally wielded strong executive authority as it ought to be wielded, that despite being misunderstood and blocked, she has exercised formidable political will and an astounding political dexterity, and that she has accomplished a lot more in her time of office than perhaps all her post-marcos predecessors combined. hence not every person supportive of the president does so because they were paid, or are a stooge, or are cynical or criminal.

    but the inability of anyone to persuasively make this case is as much due to the sheer impossibiliity of doing so, as it is to the central dictum of propaganda that at the heart of every lie lies a grain of truth. there is simply too much in the way of weaving a tale along the lines you desire. what i think is more logical and more possible is that she has had a shrewd appreciation of the powers, both legal and moral, both formal and informal, of her office, a keener grasp of detail, much more luck, than all those who thought they had her, the institutions at play, and the population, figured out.

    from a purely amoral perspective she is truly remarkable and accomplished. but even if i were to play devil’s advocate, the situation that unfolded was more a case of luck -and in history this is the true unponderable in the destinies of leaders and nations- than any rightness in her cause. you see, the tape, adopting the most generous interpretation, was selectively edited to leave out the culpability of the opposition and to retain only the things that would cast the president in the worst possible light. yet she failed, for whatever reason, to produce the full tape: either because it was in the hands of forces she could not influence (say, the united states), or because while indicting the opposition, it would still indict her.

    the best she could ever argue was that it was her voice but not her speaking; and that even though she introduced it into the public arena everyone would henceforth be forbidden from accessing it or introducing it into the political equation. there were so few cards in her hands that she was prepared to flee the country but the intervention of fvr and jdv is what saved her. then the bishops, who blanched at the idea of being responsible for a new government they didn’t want.

    there is no way this story can be told other than from the most basic level of a president who has lost the benefit of the doubt in a significant portion of the ruling class, of the institutional mandarins, and the population but who at least had more spine and gumption than an ailing marcos or a befuddled and in the end, timid estrada. but that’s it, in the end that was the position they were in in being discredited, fairly or not, in the eyes of the public; except she eventually refused to cut and cut cleanly, and summoned more spiritual, financial, and legal reserves than those two men.

    i’d love to see you lay the case for the president as persecuted, misunderstood, and utterly innocent of all the accusations, though, at your convenience and leisure. it’s beyond my imagination, however much i try.

  8. anthony scalia

    justice league :

    “What the heck!”

    yeah what the heck

    “So they not only have to be opposition by heart or simply opposition but card/placard carrying members of the opposition as well?”

    i don’t know. i only look at who’s doing some good.

    “If so, where does the distinction of “the job-creating opposition or the just-noisy opposition” come in?”

    who’s doing the country some good – those who create the jobs and business (for suppliers which also create jobs) or those who strongly believe shouting ‘patalsikin na now na’ is the only patriotic thing to do?

    “How about when the MBC shouldered a sizable part of the expenses on the interfaith rally in Makati sometime in March because of NBN ZTE deal?”

    i don’t know. still MBC is not Ayala. it would be different if one of the Ayala brothers was there speaking at the interfaith rally

    ” “noted. your point?”- What the heck again!”

    to a big fan of the Distinguished Competition – i could not see the point why you wrote “Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight” especially when you began your post with references to the Ayalas and the Lopezes

    “You can stop your preccupation on who produces jobs for this and that because this government has shown that it can whiff it OUT OF THIN AIR!”

    oh really? are you satisfied with that? im not. because as you stated, only hundreds of thousand of jobs are created by the whiffing. the country needs at least 10 million jobs.

    the government can only whiff out so much

    “Being a collector of comics back in the last century, I firmly believe that Superman would beat Thor even if the mighty Thor had his Mjolnir hammer.”

    but Thor can use enchantment, which is Superman’s biggest weakness

    “DC would have won the war for the Universe if underdog Storm had not surprisingly beaten Wonder Woman.”

    i thought that was not surprising. i expected DC will win 3-2. i never expected the mutants to lose due to their popularity (i can’t take Lobo losing to Wolverine). i correctly predicted that Superman and Batman will win. for me, the turning point was Spiderman’s win over Superboy

    btw try visiting

    http://www.comicboards.com/comicbattles

  9. anthony scalia

    oh no that walang kamatayang ‘Hello Garci’ pa rin!

    there are soooo many reasons why ‘Hello Garci ‘ did not snowball into gloria’s removal

    1.premature disclosure – eager beaver Allan Paguia wanted a place in the history books like Chavit Singson so he went public with his adulterated version of the tapes

    erap’s lawyer coming out with a supposedly smoking gun vs gloria which is not even the tape as given to him! – who would believe that!

    sayang. Kit Tatad must be fuming mad at Paguia

    2. they’re “incredible” – those gung ho to remove gloria using “Hello Garci” are well-known to be “its-our-turn” politicians. a big huge turn-off to the people.

    back in 2001, the anti-erap forces are not perceived to be “kami naman!” politicians hence the public’s support for them

    the messenger is the message. what a terrifying message (of the “Hello Garci” proponents)

    that “pekeng presidente” was always uttered by people linked to erap and other “kami naman! pols really did not help the “Hello Garci” cause

    3. “Hello Garci” isnt enough. all it shows is that gloria talked to a COMELEC official. for dagdag-bawas evidence, actual proof of cheating that actually changed the outcome is essential.

    if you add up all the supposed documented instances of cheating and counted the votes in favor of FPJ, the result is still the same – GMA won, bolstering the view that all cheating is on the winning margin.

    one can say that gloria cheated. but its wrong to say that FPJ was cheated out of a win (votes for him changed into gloria votes). it wasn’t like Enrile’s win over Pimentel in the 1995 Senate elections.

    4. the ‘united’ opposition is still romanticized by people power it thought that its disclosure of “Hello Garci” will naturally result in people power.

    how presumptuous.

    maybe people power could have resulted if the neutral third party Kit Tatad had in mind did the disclosure of “Hello Garci”

    5. the ‘united’ opposition was sooo eager to prove cheating it forgot that mere talking to a COMELEC official is already an impeachable offense. even gloria admitted that! no need for “Hello Garci” to show that she talked to a COMELEC guy.

    6. the unity of the ‘united’ opposition ends with its name

    7. FPJ’s death. his protest died with him

  10. anthony scalia

    “i’d love to see you lay the case for the president as persecuted, misunderstood, and utterly innocent of all the accusations, though, at your convenience and leisure. it’s beyond my imagination, however much i try.”

    hey me too I’d love to see the anti gloria school finally getting their case in the proper forum. you know, the one that can result in actually removing gloria

    but knowing how bright the boys of the ‘united” opposition are and how such brightness helped their kick-gloria-out operations for the past 8 years, i don’t see that taking place. a PBA team getting an Olympic gold is easier to visualize

    the ‘united’ opposition is the living embodiment of the saying “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”

  11. anthony scalia

    Geo,

    “I think I can’t post again for many hours, so let me ask you the same thing I asked you (and Ricky) back in 2005 — if you are wrong about the tapes being authentic and adequate…can you imagine how much damage will be done going forward?”

    i suddenly remembered the saying “my mind is made up don’t confuse me with the facts” – a fitting description of the “Hello Garci” fans

  12. UP n grad

    and you should read Abe Margallo’s post in Filipino voice. Abe’s post is that the the Executive Department should have authority to negotiate in order to bring peace…. BUT…. but if this MOA-Ad can be used to kick out GMA, then he agrees with the intervenors.

  13. UP n grad

    Side-topic: Sri Lankan government forces dislodged Tamil Tiger separatists from Pooneryn, a large base that the separatists have held since 1993. Illustrates what a determined Executive Department can accomplish (and maybe the president-after-GMA can make it happen).

  14. mlq3

    scalia, you’re welcome to take a stab at working out an alternative universe history where your president is lily-white in her innocence, too and share it with us.

  15. justice league

    Anthony Scalia,

    “i don’t know. i only look at who’s doing some good.”

    “who’s doing the country some good – those who create the jobs and business (for suppliers which also create jobs) or those who strongly believe shouting ‘patalsikin na now na’ is the only patriotic thing to do?”

    Well at least we can safely say that you accept that there is actually at least some opposition that is doing some good.

    “i don’t know. still MBC is not Ayala. it would be different if one of the Ayala brothers was there speaking at the interfaith rally”

    Hey, if you have an interpretation of their non speaking in the interfaith rally then I can have mine on their non protest over MBCs (of which Jaime Augusto is Vice Chair) expenditure’s on the interfaith rally.

    “i could not see the point why you wrote “Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight” especially when you began your post with references to the Ayalas and the Lopezes”

    If we can’t agree on whether the Ayala’s and Lopezes are really opposition then its best to just limit ourselves on issues that you have already accepted.

    And that there is a “job-creating opposition” (your term way back in November 15, 7:56 AM) which unfortunately you do not respect since the only opposition group you truly respect is the group of Satur and Casino and I certainly don’t think you refer to them as the job creating ones.

    And so my point then is that the “job creating opposition” will never match what PGMA’s government can do in “creating jobs” because the government can come up with new “definitions” on what the National Statistical Coordination Board will use in the survey of who are employed and unemployed like what they did in 2004.

    “oh really? are you satisfied with that? im not. because as you stated, only hundreds of thousand of jobs are created by the whiffing. the country needs at least 10 million jobs.
    the government can only whiff out so much”

    Oh really yes, they actually did it. And no, I’m not satisfied with it and I don’t see how I can be possibly satisfied with it.

    They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!

    Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!

    I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.

    You can read that definition here //www.nscb.gov.ph/resolutions/2004/15.asp

    just add the http: part

    Off topic-

    “but Thor can use enchantment, which is Superman’s biggest weakness”

    I presume that both Kent and Blake have already transformed themselves respectively into Superman and Thor for the fight.

    So no more of that “This is a job for …..” or the striking of the cane.

    Even if Mjolnir is magical, what I know of Thor is that not only does he speak in old english but he also speaks dramatically.

    Which makes him speak slooooow and loooooong.

    And not only that, he times his hammer strike on the zenith of his dramatic speech.

    Like instead of saying “NO!” with accompanying hammer strike, he likes to say things like ” I SAY THEEEE NAAAAY!” and times his hammer strike on the NAY part.

    Against superspeed with superstrength, Thor is going down for the count whether he has enchantment and Mjolnir on his side.

    Regarding the DC vs Marvel, both Spiderman and Superboy were clones. But I was looking at it on the “iconic” side.

    The character of Spiderman (to me) was more iconic than Superboy because clone Superboy (with the original growing to be Superman) was a fairly new recreation of the character coming from the “reign of the supermen” series while the Spiderman clone was coming from a continuous character with practically 4 or 5 comic magazines in his name.

    Wonder Woman was created way back in the 1940’s. Storm only appeared in the X-men in the 1970’s. Wonder Woman had a regular comic magazine in her name. Storm had none. I picked Wonder Woman over Storm. But yes. Being DC had some effect on my choice too.

    Bert,

    Things get retconned so what is canonical now might not be canonical in the future.

    But the best explanation put forth is that Superman exudes an aura of his invulnerabilty a few millimeters above his skin and so protecting his costume even though his costume is made of earth cloth. That’s in the comics and is also stated in the TV series Adventures of Clark and Lois.

    BTW, he had a change of costume once when he had a change of his powers into an electrical form. He has since reverted back.

  16. Philippine SEO

    I really appreciate the act Mr. Manolo it gives both, faith in the search for good governance and integrity in the government.

    I just have a feeling that this will still be all in vain.

    🙁

  17. justice league

    Anthony Scalia,

    Ty for the comic site. I’ll browse it sometime later.

    Bert,

    Oooops.

    Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman pala.

  18. justice league

    Anthony Scalia,

    Oooopss. As well as spelling errors.

    “They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!”

    Should be stated as

    They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. Beyond a 6 month term, other discouraged workers are not considered unemployed!

  19. grd

    interesting…

    justice league vs justice scalia.

    but i think justice league will prevail…

    i’m referring to our favorite comic superheroes. 🙂

    cheers!

  20. baycas

    to this day, i still have in my aging N6230 a clip of bunye’s “original” tape containing the tapped voices of gloria purportedly speaking with a so-called gary, a palace-stooge, on election matters. somewhere in the end of their conversation at that particular time you will hear garci‘s voice. obviously, gary’s voice was recorded (copy-pasted?) on top of garci’s voice but they failed to completely overlap the latter’s voice.

    (it was the palace who introduced that manna of an evidence which landed on bunye’s lap.)

    well, i considered the sound bite 3G in my lowly N6230 (move over iPhone).

    —–

    the above was just one of the many of gloria’s cover-ups. to this day, she’s still perpetrating them.

    does the Philippine Nixon deserve to reign forever? certainly not.

  21. Geo

    mlq3,

    I promise to respond at length (write out the entire sequence of events), but I want to watch the UFC fights, Nonetheless, you didn’t do your assignment . 😉 You didn’t use your (obviously vivid) imagination to contemplate a “GMA didn’t cheat” scenario (which doesn’t require considering Gloria as being “lily-white” either).

    You have to start with the premise that the Garci tapes were concocted, were doctored. That was GMA’s voice, that was Garci’s voice and she has admitted that she called an election official.

    But…she didn’t ever commit electoral fraud. The tapes are fakes; the charges wrong.

    The events, the universally accepted facts (minus your extrapolations, assumptions and outright creations) fit and make sense in this plausible scenario (or “alternative world”, according to you). You just have never tried very hard…..

    Wanna try once more? Can you actually see things from that perspective?

  22. justice league

    Grd,

    Cheers.

    There is also an issue of whether magic or kryptonite is Supe’s biggest weakness but then it would also be between the kinds of kryptonite (green, red, white, …. ) also as well as distance from it.

    Bert,

    I just realized that I don’t know the explanation for the cape.

  23. Bert

    “Bert,

    I just realized that I don’t know the explanation for the cape.”

    justice,

    Maybe our current top government officials know, could be that their face skins are made of the same stuff considering they are of the same invulnerability.

  24. anthony scalia

    quezon the 3rd,

    “scalia, you’re welcome to take a stab at working out an alternative universe history where your president is lily-white in her innocence, too and share it with us.”

    appreciate the gesture.

    from your (and the rest of the anti gloria school) end – how about the case against gloria finally reaching the proper forum become a reality in our universe?

    it seems the case against gloria is still in the alternate universe that’s why it can’t get real in our universe!

    i have yet to create a reality in the alternate universe, the anti gloria school’s case against gloria is already there!

    and for all we know – “Hello Garci” is a reality from an alternate universe just trying to be real in our universe!

    and im really curious by your use of “your president.” talaga ha? (for one thing i did not vote for her; i voted for Bro. Eddie)

    (if not gloria, who could be mlq3’s president at the moment?)

  25. anthony scalia

    justice league :

    “Well at least we can safely say that you accept that there is actually at least some opposition that is doing some good.”

    yes. but not of the ‘united’ opposition kind

    “Hey, if you have an interpretation of their non speaking in the interfaith rally then I can have mine on their non protest over MBCs (of which Jaime Augusto is Vice Chair) expenditure’s on the interfaith rally.”

    silence means acquiescence? three things:

    1. the expenditure did not require the Board’s approval, the amount being at a level that can be disbursed by the Executive Director

    2. the expenditure requires Board approval. Jaime Augusto voted no, but the rest of the Board said yes

    3. the expenditure requires Board approval. Jaime Augusto voted yes

    to verify no. 2 or 3, we have to see the minutes.

    if you can cite minutes of the meeting (where the appropriation was approved) which states that Jaime Augusto voted yes, then i’ll agree with you

    but it seems all you can cite is “non-protest”

    again. Ayala is not MBC. Even if Augusto is the Vice-Chair, he can still be outvoted by the rest of the Board members

    “If we can’t agree on whether the Ayala’s and Lopezes are really opposition then its best to just limit ourselves on issues that you have already accepted.”

    ok. again, why did you cite that?

    “And that there is a “job-creating opposition” (your term way back in November 15, 7:56 AM) which unfortunately you do not respect since the only opposition group you truly respect is the group of Satur and Casino and I certainly don’t think you refer to them as the job creating ones.”

    oops my friend, you forgot one qualification why i respect Satur et al. – i am assured that they are acting only for the country”s interest. something which can’t be said with the ‘united’ opposition

    you can say that the capitalists like the Ayalas and Lopezes pursue self-interest ahead of national interests. but as they pursue their self-interest they create jobs and business opportunities for suppliers along the way

    “And so my point then is that the “job creating opposition” will never match what PGMA’s government can do in “creating jobs” because the government can come up with new “definitions” on what the National Statistical Coordination Board will use in the survey of who are employed and unemployed like what they did in 2004.”

    in one sense – yes the JCO will never match PGMA in that aspect. thats why the task of job creation falls on everybody. so what if the JCO creates only say 5% of the jobs needed to be made. it means 5% had been reached already, 95% to go

    “Oh really yes, they actually did it. And no, I’m not satisfied with it and I don’t see how I can be possibly satisfied with it.”

    noted. so you’ll agree that the next move is, the actual creation of jobs?

    “They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!”

    “Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!”

    “I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.”

    well lets wait for it muna my friend.

    “You can read that definition here //www.nscb.gov.ph/resolutions/2004/15.asp”

    its seems you misread it my friend! here’s its definition of unemployed:

    —————————————————————————–
    —————————————————————————-

    The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as:

    1. without work , i.e., had no job or business during the basic survey reference period; AND
    2. currently available for work , i.e., were available and willing to take up work in paid employment or self employment during the basic survey reference period, and/or would be available and willing to take up work in paid employment or self employment within two weeks after the interview date; AND
    3. seeking work, i.e., had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period; OR not seeking workdue to the following reasons: (a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date; (b) awaiting results of previous job application; (c) temporary illness/disability; (d) bad weather; and (e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

    ——————————————————————————
    ——————————————————————————

    nowhere is it saying ” After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!” because those who have been unemployed by more than 6 months will fall under
    ” 1. without work , i.e., had no job or business during the basic survey reference period” or “2. currently available for work ,”

    besides, the government is seeking concrete data in how many of the unemployed are seeking work or not seeking work. The NSCB IS NOT saying that if the person is still unemployed for more than 6 months he is deemed employed already. The NSCB just defined, for purposes of statistics gathering, who should be deemed the “unemployed not seeking work because he is tired or believe there is no work available” – they are the ones who actively sought work within 6 months prior to the date of the interview

    “The character of Spiderman (to me) was more iconic than Superboy because clone Superboy (with the original growing to be Superman) was a fairly new recreation of the character coming from the “reign of the supermen” series while the Spiderman clone was coming from a continuous character with practically 4 or 5 comic magazines in his name.”

    yes i agree with your insights.

    but the Superboy clone is more powerful than Spiderman

  26. anthony scalia

    grd,

    Avengers Forever! 🙂

    try visiting

    http://www.comicboards.com/comicbattles

  27. justice league

    Anthony Scalia,

    Hmmmmm……..

    I believe that the two of us are reading the same thing differently.

    As far as I understand it; the criteria are supposed to be satisfied SIMULTANEOUSLY.

    So I’m reading it as AND …… AND……

    Are you sure about how you are reading it?

    Off topic.

    Yes. Superboy is more powerful. Like I said, I looked at it on the “iconic” side.

    Did you notice how anticlimactic it was?

    Marvel was already 2 up when the final fight between Cap and Bats took place. It was already no bearing.

    Bert,

    Cheers.

  28. anthony scalia

    justice league :

    “I believe that the two of us are reading the same thing differently.”

    yes.

    “As far as I understand it; the criteria are supposed to be satisfied SIMULTANEOUSLY.”

    yes.

    “So I’m reading it as AND …… AND……”

    “Are you sure about how you are reading it?”

    oh yes. im not so sure with you.

    you are already assuming that the necessary consequence of deeming a person “who looked for work within 6 months prior to interview as unemployed” is already employed after 6 months. thats not the intent of the NSCB.

    read it again please.

    the NSCB is trying to create data specifically on the “unemployed.” NOT DATA ON THE EMPLOYED.

    one thing for sure – the NSCB did not CATEGORICALLY DEFINE THE UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS as employed already!

    now if you can find an NSCB categorical definition of employed as including “those unemployed for more than 6 months” then I’ll agree with you

    in addition, it seems you missed “OR” in no. 3 and the subcategories of no. 3: (a) to (e). these subcategories are not cumulative; each one is enough reason. an unemployed cannot be said to be tired/believe no work is available if he is awaiting results of previous job application or waiting for rehire/job recall.

    by the way, can you cite an NSCB report which categorically states the number of employed Pinoys, and that part of this number is “those unemployed for > 6 months”?

    “Yes. Superboy is more powerful. Like I said, I looked at it on the “iconic” side.”

    noted

    “Did you notice how anticlimactic it was?”

    yes.

    “Marvel was already 2 up when the final fight between Cap and Bats took place. It was already no bearing”

    yes

  29. mlq3

    geo, there’s a reason i became a columnist and not a novelist. i will leave the novel-writing to you, it’s beyond my ken.

  30. justice league

    Anthony Scalia,

    “…………..
    to verify no. 2 or 3, we have to see the minutes.

    if you can cite minutes of the meeting (where the appropriation was approved) which states that Jaime Augusto voted yes, then i’ll agree with you

    but it seems all you can cite is “non-protest” ”

    No I cannot cite the minutes.

    But in the same way that your criteria in one of the Ayalas to be speaking in the interfaith rally is in “PUBLIC” it is also the same way that I am expecting the Ayalas to show their protest against the interfaith rally to be in “PUBLIC”.

    And as far as I gather, they have not.

    ………………………….. “ok. again, why did you cite that?”

    I think that part is already irrelevant since convincing either one of us of whether the Ayalas and/or the Lopezes are opposition or not would be too much of a bother for either of us.

    Besides I’m content with your term “job-creating opposition”

    “oops my friend, you forgot one qualification why i respect Satur et al. – i am assured that they are acting only for the country’’s interest. something which can’t be said with the ‘united’ opposition”

    It doesn’t negate the issue that you DON’T respect the “job-creating opposition” so belaboring on why you respect Satur and Casino means nothing as far as respecting JCO are concerned.

    “noted. so you’ll agree that the next move is, the actual creation of jobs?”

    If “ACTUAL CREATION” is the operative phrase; of course; I’m for it.

    “well lets wait for it muna my friend.”

    Hmmmmm…. I’m trying to think of my choices on that one.

    “oh yes. im not so sure with you.”

    So its definite that we are reading it differently.

    I’ll try to summarize the whole criteria.

    So here it goes-

    The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as without work AND currently available for work AND seeking work.

    So I will apply the “or” now and here it goes-

    The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as without work AND currently available for work AND “NOT” seeking work due to the following reasons

    (a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date;

    “by the way, can you cite an NSCB report which categorically states the number of employed Pinoys, and that part of this number is “those unemployed for > 6 months”?”

    I don’t think the people of NSCB are that dumb.

    But if you want to read the impact of that classification; its in a PCIJ blog.

  31. anthony scalia

    justice league :

    “But in the same way that your criteria in one of the Ayalas to be speaking in the interfaith rally is in “PUBLIC” it is also the same way that I am expecting the Ayalas to show their protest against the interfaith rally to be in “PUBLIC”.

    “And as far as I gather, they have not.”

    yes they have not been public with their “politics” (whether anti or anti anti or pro)

    “I think that part is already irrelevant since convincing either one of us of whether the Ayalas and/or the Lopezes are opposition or not would be too much of a bother for either of us.”

    noted

    “Besides I’m content with your term “job-creating opposition””

    hey thanks

    “It doesn’t negate the issue that you DON’T respect the “job-creating opposition” so belaboring on why you respect Satur and Casino means nothing as far as respecting JCO are concerned.”

    but having the nation’s interests IS MY REASON why I respect Satur et al. can you say the same thing with the ‘united’ opposition?

    as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?

    but nice try in trying to patch isolated sentences/ideas and try to come up with a whole. that works, sometimes

    “If “ACTUAL CREATION” is the operative phrase; of course; I’m for it.”

    yes! people can shout “patalsikin na now na” ad nauseam AS LONG AS THEY ACTUALLY CREATE JOBS. which is something that can’t be said of the ‘united’ opposition

    “Hmmmmm…. I’m trying to think of my choices on that one.”

    bring them on my friend

    “So its definite that we are reading it differently.”

    oh yes

    “So here it goes-

    The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as without work AND currently available for work AND seeking work.

    So I will apply the “or” now and here it goes-

    The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as without work AND currently available for work AND “NOT” seeking work due to the following reasons

    (a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date;”

    ***clears throat***

    you forgot the opening phrase of no. 3: – seeking work, i.e., had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period…

    and

    you forgot letters (b) to (e):

    (b) awaiting results of previous job application; (c) temporary illness/disability; (d) bad weather; and (e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

    if you will notice, letters (a) to (e) are not simultaneous

    “I don’t think the people of NSCB are that dumb.”

    yes. that’s why there is no such report (unemployed > 6 months as employed). and they are not saying that (unemployed > 6 months as employed).

    by insisting that unemployed > 6 months as employed you are making the NSCB guys dumb!

    “But if you want to read the impact of that classification; its in a PCIJ blog.”

    now i know where you’re coming from – you read that PCIJ blog entry first before you read that NSCB resolution. you are already reading into the that resolution the PCIJ’s incomplete reading of the same resolution

    hope you can cite something more credible than a PCIJ blog!

    without a categorical statement from NSCB that unemployed >6 months is employed, you cannot say the NSCB intended that definition

  32. Bert

    grd,

    this is a fight to the death, justice scalia giving justice league a hard time, are you sure you are still betting on justice league?

  33. justice league

    Anthony Scalia,

    “hey thanks”- You’re welcome.

    “but having the nation’s interests IS MY REASON why I respect Satur et al. can you say the same thing with the ‘united’ opposition?”

    I can’t answer that because I don’t know their entire roster.

    “as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?
    but nice try in trying to patch isolated sentences/ideas and try to come up with a whole. that works, sometimes”

    Awhile back you stated the following-

    “now who is the opposition – those who call themselves the ‘united opposition.’ those good-for-nothing-beyond-anti-gloria, its-our-turn, worse-than-gloria, self-righteous, pompous, no-better-than-Mike-Arroyo politicians
    look no further than the UNO’s president – Jojo Binay – to see what kind of people they are
    there’s ONLY ONE opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests
    ever wonder why no one from the likes of Satur and Casiño gets to be president of UNO or at least are influential in the oust gloria movement?
    The Ayalas and the Lopezes may be opposition at heart, but their main pre-occupation is still business.
    who do you think is doing the country more good? the job-creating opposition or the just-noisy opposition (UNO)?”

    So if the ONLY ONE opposition group you truly respect are the likes of Satur and Casiño; what does that make for the JCO?

    Or are we going to be nitpicking on the word “TRULY”?

    “***clears throat***”

    I think we are going to need to clear minds as well. I think the best way now is to have a case example.

    Let’s say Andres is a 16 year old who hasn’t worked before and who SEVEN MONTHS AGO was seeking work but failed to land a job and now is discouraged to find work because he is tired/believes no work is available so he is NOT seeking work.

    He is NOT awaiting results of previous job applications. He has been turned down by all of them.

    He is NOT temporary ill/disabled.

    The weather is NOT bad.

    And he is NOT waiting for rehire/job recall. Because he hasn’t worked before.

    So he is a 16 year old without work AND currently available for work AND “NOT” seeking work.

    So based on the said classification, is Andres UNEMPLOYED?

    And I hope you DON’T repeat this kind of answer-”because those who have been unemployed by more than 6 months will fall under 1. without work , i.e., had no job or business during the basic survey reference period” or “2. currently available for work ,”

    Please remember that you you have 3 “simultaneous” issues to settle to consider whether he is unemployed or not.

    If you answer that he is not unemployed; what the heck is his job?

    “by insisting that unemployed > 6 months as employed you are making the NSCB guys dumb!”

    I guess it will depend on your answer for the above.

    “hope you can cite something more credible than a PCIJ blog!”

    I may be wrong but I have a feeling that I’ll be able to cite your answer for the above.

    Bert,

    GRD doesn’t need to bet anymore.

    Because the comic superhero issue is over.

  34. leytenian

    MOA-AD speaks for itself. Let’s move on

  35. justice league

    Bert,

    BTW, you are invited to answer the questions on the case above also.

  36. saxnviolins

    “nowhere is it saying ” After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!” because those who have been unemployed by more than 6 months will fall under
    ” 1. without work , i.e., had no job or business during the basic survey reference period” or “2. currently available for work ,” Scalia

    You forgot the AND between item 2 and 3 Scalia. In fact, even between item 1 and 2, the word is AND not your OR. The unemployed are those who are (1) without work, AND (2) currently available for work, AND (3) seeking work.

    Those who have been discouraged do not seek work, so they are no longer included as “unemployed. So by excluding the discouraged, the government reduces the workforce. That bumps up the employment rates because the base has been reduced.

    That is not unique to the Philippines; many countries employ this statistical sleight of hand. Deceit is not the monopoly of the Filipino.

  37. Bert

    justice,

    just in time, saxnviolins save the day for me, that’s suppose to be my answer but he beats me to the draw, heheh.

  38. mlq3

    scalia, when people stop looking for work, they are removed from the unemployed statistics, you can refer to the following:

    Inquirer Briefing by Cielito Habito

    Economic briefing by Cielito Habito

    Economic briefing by Dr. Michael Alba

  39. mlq3

    Incidentally, I understand that the Aboitizes are poised to get one step closer to obtaining their TRANSCO franchise from Congress, with the following provisions in the proposed franchise. Here is a list of what some legislators consider objectionable features of the franchise:

    • Through the provision on related businesses, TRANSCO will be given the right to perform telecommunications businesses even without securing a congressional franchise.

    • There are provisions in the TRANSCO bill that are not contained in the EPIRA law, such as the provision on cross-ownership. Thus, the bill effectively amends the EPIRA law.

    • Through the provision on cross-ownership, TRANSCO is no longer independent from the businesses of generation and distribution. Note that TRANSCO’s business concerns the transmission of electricity.

    • The grant of the franchise for the transmission of power was not done pursuant to the applicable law on public bidding (i.e., BOT Law). Neither is there a framework law for the bidding of said franchise. Thus, through the concessionaire agreement, the franchise may be awarded notwithstanding the lack of public bidding therefor.
    • Being a natural monopoly, the business of transmission of power should remain with the government.
    • There is no provision as to how much transmission charge will be imposed by the government. Neither is there a ceiling as to the transmission rates that can be charged. Thus, application for higher transmission rates may be done anytime and can be approved anytime by the Energy Regulatory Commission.
    • Franchise granted for 50 years but the concession agreement was only for 20 years but may be extended. Thus, the government cannot grant the franchise to anyone else for 50 years.

  40. anthony scalia

    justice league :

    “I can’t answer that because I don’t know their entire roster.”

    oh really? you have to know their entire roster first? but since thats your answer, ill leave it at that

    Awhile back you stated the following-

    “now who is the opposition – those who call themselves the ‘united opposition.’ those good-for-nothing-beyond-anti-gloria, its-our-turn, worse-than-gloria, self-righteous, pompous, no-better-than-Mike-Arroyo politicians
    look no further than the UNO’s president – Jojo Binay – to see what kind of people they are
    there’s ONLY ONE opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests
    ever wonder why no one from the likes of Satur and Casiño gets to be president of UNO or at least are influential in the oust gloria movement?
    The Ayalas and the Lopezes may be opposition at heart, but their main pre-occupation is still business.
    who do you think is doing the country more good? the job-creating opposition or the just-noisy opposition (UNO)?”

    So if the ONLY ONE opposition group you truly respect are the likes of Satur and Casiño; what does that make for the JCO?

    “Or are we going to be nitpicking on the word “TRULY”?

    just proves my point on the patchworking.

    if you will notice, i placed a qualification on the JCO “may be opposition at heart”

    “Let’s say Andres is a 16 year old who hasn’t worked before and who SEVEN MONTHS AGO was seeking work but failed to land a job and now is discouraged to find work because he is tired/believes no work is available so he is NOT seeking work.”

    look my friend. our issue is –

    DOES THAT NSCB RESOLUTION REALLY CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED ALREADY?

    just limit it to that my friend.

    “Please remember that you you have 3 “simultaneous” issues to settle to consider whether he is unemployed or not.:

    my friend, you forgot how no. 3 is phrased:

    3. seeking work, i.e., had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period; OR not seeking workdue to the following reasons: (a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date; (b) awaiting results of previous job application; (c) temporary illness/disability; (d) bad weather; and (e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

    let me break it down for you:

    3. seeking work, i.e.,

    had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period;

    OR

    not seeking workdue to the following reasons:

    (a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date;
    (b) awaiting results of previous job application;
    (c) temporary illness/disability;
    (d) bad weather; and
    (e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

    the 6 month period only refers to letter (a)

    seems like you never visited the link you gave me!

    “I guess it will depend on your answer for the above.”

    oops. no categorical answer.

    “I may be wrong…”

    oh yes you are.

    im still waiting for that categorical NSCB definition that unemployed> 6 months = employed

  41. anthony scalia

    justice league,

    if i may quote our dear blog owner – when people stop looking for work they are removed from unemployment statistics.

    so if the unemployed is still as such > 6 months they’re no longer included in unemployment stats.

    thats a whole lot different from “unemployed > 6 months = employed”

    employment is not implied.

  42. anthony scalia

    Bert and saxnviolins :

    just hold it right there my friends. don’t pull out the victory drinks yet. don’t light the cigars.

    okay i generously interpreted no. 3

    but my issue with JLA is this:

    DOES THAT NSCB RESOLUTION CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED?

    I have been asking JLA for AN NSCB RESOLUTION WHICH CATEGORICALLY DEFINES UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED but im still waiting for it now.

    implied? only for journalists always on the lookout to say something and thus fill his quota of report for the day

    maybe you can help JLA out. in looking for AN NSCB RESOLUTION WHICH CATEGORICALLY DEFINES UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

    wait, let me quote no. 3, broken down:

    3. seeking work, i.e.,

    had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period;

    OR (hey you forgot to see this word saxnviolins!)

    not seeking work due to the following reasons:

    (a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date;
    (b) awaiting results of previous job application;
    (c) temporary illness/disability;
    (d) bad weather; and
    (e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

    kindly visit the following site to see how no. 3 is worded:

    http://www.nscb.gov.ph/resolutions/2004/15.asp

    your (saxnviolins) statement):

    Those who have been discouraged do not seek work, so they are no longer included as “unemployed. So by excluding the discouraged, the government reduces the workforce. That bumps up the employment rates because the base has been reduced.

    again. please cite a specific NSCB or any govt stat that includes unemployed > 6 months = employed. for sure in any stats on the employed, there’s a definition of who is considered employed. see if unemployed > 6 months = employed is included.

    let me set aside my modesty for a few seconds – Im flattered its 3 against one in such a topic!

    who else wants to join JLA, Bert and saxnviolins against me on this discussion!?

  43. anthony scalia

    thanks quezon III. but i was hoping someone can cite that an official NSCB/NSO definition of “employed” and see if “unemployed > 6 months = employed” because that’s the only way my discussion with justice league can be resolved

  44. Bert

    i’m not against you, anthony, just happen to agree with sax because his arguments seem plausible enough.

    no need for me to join the fracas since, it seems, justice league looks capable enough.

    tsaka, baka ako matilamsikan pa ng dugo, mahirap na.

  45. anthony scalia

    Bert,

    “i’m not against you, anthony…”

    of course i know that, my friend. merry christmas

    “… just happen to agree with sax because his arguments seem plausible enough.”

    noted

    “no need for me to join the fracas since, it seems, justice league looks capable enough.”

    true

    “tsaka, baka ako matilamsikan pa ng dugo, mahirap na.”

    noted. sayang nga naman yung mga Armani mo.

    yung mga Armani ko, galing Divisoria

  46. justice league

    Anthony Scalia,

    I’ll be addressing your other concerns tonight.

    “thats a whole lot different from “unemployed > 6 months = employed”

    Maybe you’d like to re-read my post on Nov. 16 2:47 AM.

    “the 6 month period only refers to letter (a)”

    Absolutely! So I think its best that you re-read the case scenario again and answer it this time.

    So what are you going to reason out should government claim a lower unemployment rate and a higher employment rate based on the NSCB classification?

  47. anthony scalia

    justice league :

    “I’ll be addressing your other concerns tonight.”

    im waiting

    “Maybe you’d like to re-read my post on Nov. 16 2:47 AM.”:

    look my friend. that NSCB resolution is your basis in saying that the government has whiffed out hundreds of thousands of jobs by just ‘redefining’ unemployment.

    that was your basis in saying

    UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

    thats my issue with you. particularly, my issue with you is – does that NSCB resolution expressly declare:

    UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

    “Absolutely!”

    are you sure with that answer? because if the ‘6 months’ only applies to (a) then the unemployed > 6 months can fall in (b) or (c) or (d) or (e)

    look again – my issue with you is your insistence that:

    UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

    “So I think its best that you re-read the case scenario again and answer it this time”

    sorry but your case scenario is speculative. it wont help resolve our issue

    UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

    “So what are you going to reason out should government claim a lower unemployment rate and a higher employment rate based on the NSCB classification?”

    i don’t know, there’s no such claim yet. lets wait for it first my friend.

    and when stats on employment come out, lets look if your UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED is included in the definition for employment.

    again – im waiting for your reply to my request for an NSCB resolution on employment which counts the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS as employed. if you can produce that, i concede

    as you reply, please start with our main issue:

    DOES THAT NSCB RESOLUTION EXPRESSLY STATE THAT THE UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED?

  48. saxnviolins

    again. please cite a specific NSCB or any govt stat that includes unemployed > 6 months = employed. for sure in any stats on the employed, there’s a definition of who is considered employed. see if unemployed > 6 months = employed is included.
    **********************
    Scalia:

    I said those who are discouraged are taken out of the workforce. I did not say that they are considered employed. They are treated like the kindergartners; they do not belong to the workforce at all.

    See the definition states that one must be looking for work. A rich playboy living on a trust account, a six year old, and a 77 year old are not part of the workforce.

    So if the population is 10,000, and the discouraged are 1,000, then the workforce is only 9,000. If the employed are 1,000, then the “employed” percentage is improved, because 1/9 is a greater percentage than 1/10.

Fetch more comments

  1. Bloggers File Complaint-in-Intervention on Arroyo Impeachment | The Manila Blog Times

    […] bloggers led by Manuel Quezon III on Wednesday asked the House of Representatives to include the scrapped Bangsamoro Juridical Entity […]

  2. Alleba Politics » Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Mindanao Congressmen

    […] appeal to you to support, sign, and endorse the Impeachment Intervention. I challenge the congressmen who have called for the re-negotiation of the MOA to stand up and be […]

Leave a Reply