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

    • Bert on November 17, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    “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?”-anthony scalia

    Let me offer one guess with regards Satur, anthony. This is purely my personal view but perhaps the opposition has an inkling he is of doubtful loyalty. Latest proof: Satur was caught red-handed “sleeping with the enemy” while on a plane flight to Malaysia during the height of the BJE-MOA controversy.

    • justice league on November 18, 2008 at 2:35 am

    Anthony Scalia,

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

    AND WHERE DID YOU GET THE IDEA OF “UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED in the first place?”

    DID YOU GET THAT FROM ME?

    You are the one insisting on that issue when my actual claim is that –

    “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.”

    (If I knew better, I’d say it was a strawman tactic on your part!)

    When did I ever equate UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED other than when I already asked you in the case scenario? (Which was long after you insisted on that issue already)

    My other claim is that this government can whiff jobs out of thin air.

    Are you wondering about those hundreds of thousand of jobs generated overnight by the redefinition of unemployment?

    Did you expect a job coming from thin air to be made of concrete? OF COURSE IT’S MADE OF THIN AIR!

    So how many times did you note that I equate having a job = being employed in this discussion.

    You stated that we need at least 10 million jobs; and I stated that a redefinition can magically lop of millions of those jobs.

    If a “redefinition” of unemployment pegs the unemployed at 6 million; are you still going to be saying we need 10 million jobs?

    So for that 4 million jobs lopped off from the 10 million; would you care to guess what those jobs are going to be made of?

    “just proves my point on the patchworking.
    if you will notice, i placed a qualification on the JCO “may be opposition at heart””

    Do you think that argument will hold water against the likes of Ramon del Rosario Jr,, Jose L. Cuisia Jr., etc…

    They are capitalists. They are not Satur. They are not Casino. They create jobs and they are very vocal on being opposition.

    Do you respect members of the opposition like them?

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

    I was surprised when I found out that NSCB made a tabulation of the unemployed and rate based on the old and the new classification.

    Its here-//www.nscb.gov.ph/announce/ForTheRecord/06June2006_unemployment.asp

    Just add the http: again.

    And government actually took/takes pride in the “lower” unemployment rate based on the new classification.

    So can we have your answer now?

    Or are you going to be waiting for an employment stat to look for a “phrase” that you made on your own?

    So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.

    Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

    Total unemployed persons by the new definition was
    2,840,000.

    The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.

    • justice league on November 18, 2008 at 3:04 am

    What the heck.

    Why do we need 10 million jobs when the unemployed persons in January 2006 was only 2,840,000?

    • hawaiianguy on November 18, 2008 at 3:14 am

    This debate on defining “unemployed/employed” is really interesting.

    …government actually took/takes pride in the “lower” unemployment rate based on the new classification.

    Not only on unemployment but also other statistics. We have seen that this govt (and also to some extent the past ones) ride on the more salubrious side of statistical presentations: a meteoric rise in the 2007 GDP, declining poverty, improving peace and order… and oh, the most important, “increasing prosperity.” (Sa NAIA pa lang, sasalubungin ka ng higanteng piktyur ni Gloria na nagsasabi: “Damdam na damdam ang ginhawa!” or, something to that effect.)

    Yet, if other quarters give them a bleak image of what’s going on, they quickly retort: “that’s just perception,” “it’s bad statistics based on a tiny sample,” blah blah!”

    • grd on November 18, 2008 at 3:24 am

    bert, I was talking about our favorite cartoon superheroes. they are invincible. 🙂

    for the serious argument, in Dr. Habito’s Economic Perspective of The State of the Nation as posted by Mlq3, both employment and unemployment statistics for the 1st quarter of 2007 were given.

    Profile of the Unemployed
    • 2.7 million are unemployed under new definition; about 4 million based on old
    definition, i.e.+ frustrated jobseekers

    based on the above, indeed one of the reasons for the lower Unemployment rate was due to the “new definition” used by NSBC for the Unemployed.

    but as for the increase in the Employment rate, nowhere did Dr. Habito criticize the govt data as incorrect or was manipulated due to the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED. as I understand it, he was only critical of the growth in the Job Sector where the fastest growers are the low-job sectors.

    so, while justice league made a credible assertion that the new definition for the “Unemployed” particularly 3a) was indeed a factor why we have a lower Unemployment rate, it’s inconclusive to say that the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS was counted as employed.

    although justice scalia is more likely incorrect in concluding that those UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS were counted in item 1) “without work”, he has a valid point in contesting justice league‘s assertion about UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED without a confirmation from NSCB that it was indeed the formula they used.

    the right thing to do of course for our govt people is to include the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS to item 1. but why in the first place create this new definition if not for the purpose of manipulating the figure and bringing the unemployment rate down.

    • justice league on November 18, 2008 at 3:29 am

    Grd,

    “he has a valid point in contesting justice league‘s assertion about UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED without a confirmation from NSCB that it was indeed the formula they used.”

    Oh bummer, is that for real?

    • grd on November 18, 2008 at 3:30 am

    sorry, my mistake. it should have been:

    bert, I was talking about our favorite cartoon superheroes. they are invincible. 🙂
    f
    or the serious argument, in Dr. Habito’s Economic Perspective of The State of the Nation as posted by Mlq3, both employment and unemployment statistics for the 1st quarter of 2007 were given.

    Profile of the Unemployed
    • 2.7 million are unemployed under new definition; about 4 million based on old
    definition, i.e.+ frustrated jobseekers

    based on the above, indeed one of the reasons for the lower Unemployment rate was due to the “new definition” used by NSBC for the Unemployed.

    as for the increase in the Employment rate, nowhere did Dr. Habito criticize the govt data as incorrect or was manipulated due to the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED. as I understand it, he was only critical of the growth in the Job Sector where the fastest growers are the low-job sectors.

    so, while justice league made a credible assertion that the new definition for the “Unemployed” particularly 3a) was indeed a factor why we have a lower Unemployment rate, it’s inconclusive to say that the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS was counted as employed.

    although justice scalia is more likely incorrect in concluding that those UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS were counted in item 1) “without work”, he has a valid point in contesting justice league‘s assertion about UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED without a confirmation from NSCB that it was indeed the formula they used.

    the right thing to do of course for our govt people is to include the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS to item 1. but why in the first place create this new definition if not for the purpose of manipulating the figure and bringing the unemployment rate down.

    • grd on November 18, 2008 at 3:32 am

    justice,

    sorry. my apology. you clarified it was not your idea about the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

    • anthony scalia on November 18, 2008 at 6:04 am

    justice league :

    “Why do we need 10 million jobs when the unemployed persons in January 2006 was only 2,840,000?”

    according to the smart can’t-be-wrong guys at IBON and MIGRANTE, all 8M OFWs are considered unemployed, since they all had to leave the country for lack of employment opportunities here.

    hence the need for 10M jobs

    • anthony scalia on November 18, 2008 at 6:18 am

    saxnviolins :

    “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.”

    so you are not aware of my discussion with JLA. im disputing his assertion that the concerned NSCB resolution says

    UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

    that’s our discussion!

    earlier he asserted that government was able to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, citing that NSCB resolution. but when i read it, all it says is a re-definition of “unemployed” for survey purposes.

    so i took issue with him, noting that by itself, that NSCB resolution does not say UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

    thats why i was asking for an NSCB info on employment figures which include UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS as part of the employed because that would be more conclusive than the earlier NSCB resolution.

    up to now, JLA can’t produce that.

    “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.”

    same reply.

    “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.”

    well we don’t see that in that concerned NSCB resolution. meaning, lets wait first for actual data to come in, and lets wait for an official govt pronouncement that “employed percentage is improved”.

    anyway results of surveys (figures) are not manipulated. the spin is always on the interpretation. anybody can dig deeper into actual figures from NSCB to dispute the spin

    it seems that govt has no monopoly on putting a spin on figures

    • anthony scalia on November 18, 2008 at 6:24 am

    grd,

    “although justice scalia is more likely incorrect in concluding that those UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS were counted in item 1) “without work”, …”

    yes initially i thought (1) (2) and (3) were not cumulative

    • anthony scalia on November 18, 2008 at 6:41 am

    justice league,

    “DID YOU GET THAT FROM ME?”

    YES FROM YOU

    “You are the one insisting on that issue when my actual claim is that –

    “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.” ”

    my goodness. let me remind you of the history of our discussion –

    you claimed that govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs. your basis? that NSCB resolution, which turns out to be just a redefinition of “unemployed” for survey purposes

    (you even cited PCIJ to support your assertion!)

    then i took issue with that, saying that you cannot use that NSCB resolution in supporting a view of increase in employment due to a redefinition of unemployed.

    thats why i was asking for another NSCB info on employment which includes UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED because if there is such that would be conclusive (and supportive of your assertion) because again, you can’t use that earlier NSCB resolution to claim something on job creation!

    to simplify –

    you are wrong in saying govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs by mere redefinition of unemployed using as proof that NSCB resolution

    you said

    “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.
    November 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm “

    • justice league on November 18, 2008 at 7:43 am

    Anthony Scalia,

    “my goodness. let me remind you of the history of our discussion –

    you claimed that govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs. your basis? that NSCB resolution, which turns out to be just a redefinition of “unemployed” for survey purposes”

    Yes and all of those jobs were MADE OF THIN AIR! Since I was doing that based on memory; I even tried to be conservative!

    EVERYONE OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS GENERATED OVERNIGHT WERE MADE OF THIN AIR!

    You really expected those jobs to be concrete?

    “(you even cited PCIJ to support your assertion!)”

    I told you about its IMPACT as based on PCIJ.

    And that is now supported by the matrix I got from NSCB.

    “then i took issue with that, saying that you cannot use that NSCB resolution in supporting a view of increase in employment due to a redefinition of unemployed.”

    Why don’t you do your own math then and see if the employment RATE doesn’t go up with that redefinition as the workforce gets trimmed?

    “thats why i was asking for another NSCB info on employment which includes UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED because if there is such that would be conclusive (and supportive of your assertion) because again, you can’t use that earlier NSCB resolution to claim something on job creation!”

    Be it though even that I have only produced a redefinition of unemployment; your “patchworking” is worse than you can possibly accuse me of as what you really got so far is UNEMPLOYED > 6 months = NOT CONSIDERED EMPLOYED which still standby to and not your UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

    “you are wrong in saying govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs by mere redefinition of unemployed using as proof that NSCB resolution”

    See above!

    • justice league on November 18, 2008 at 7:48 am

    Oooopppsss.

    It should be

    Be it though even that I have only produced a redefinition of unemployment; your “patchworking” is worse than you can possibly accuse me of as what you really got so far is UNEMPLOYED > 6 months = NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED which I still standby to and not your UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

    • anthony scalia on November 18, 2008 at 10:05 am

    justice league,

    may i remind you that to back up your earlier assertion:

    “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.
    November 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm “

    you cited that NSCB resolution. thats where you discovered the ‘Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs’ that were ‘generated overnight.’ in a mere redefinition of ‘unemployed’

    turns out that the NSCB resolution is just a mere redefinition, without actual figures on the new ‘unemployed’

    lets go back to your earlier assertion my friend:

    “in 2004…. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.”

    and your latest

    “EVERYONE OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS GENERATED OVERNIGHT WERE MADE OF THIN AIR!”

    where did you get those? from that NSCB resolution? i don’t see figures there my friend

    can you give the exact figure? okay rounded off to the nearest hundred. and where did you get that figure? what study, what survey, what year etc.

    “And that is now supported by the matrix I got from NSCB.”

    are you referring to that NSCB resolution on the mere redefinition of unemployed? is that a matrix already to you? again, i don’t see the numbers there my friend

    “Why don’t you do your own math then and see if the employment RATE doesn’t go up with that redefinition as the workforce gets trimmed?”

    whoa hold it right there mi amigo. YOU ARE THE ONE ASSERTING THAT.

    so are you saying that you’re just assuming the employment rate went up because the number of unemployed was reduced because of a redefinition of unemployment? that that was the result of the WHIFFING OUT OF THIN AIR?

    im already helping you out to rebut me successfully:

    1. cite an NSCB figure on the employed
    2. dig deeper and check if the numbers on the employed include “those left out in the latest survey on the redefined ‘unemployed’ ”

    and/or

    1. cite the latest NSCB survey on the unemployed using the new definition of unemployed
    2. get the figure on the unemployed
    3. cite any govt spin on a “trimmed” unemployed population

    • anthony scalia on November 18, 2008 at 10:24 am

    justice league,

    sorry i forgot the latest NSCB link you cited, that could be the matrix you are referring to.

    anyway, on this matrix:

    it only says that 1.024M jobless people were excluded from the number of unemployed.

    but it does not categorically say that these 1.024M can now be regarded as employed!

    it does not support your claim:

    “I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.”
    November 18th, 2008 at 2:35 am

    did the NSCB ever say “its safe to say that those left out of unemployment stats can be deemed employed already”?

    • mindanaoan on November 18, 2008 at 10:32 am

    justice league, are you being stubborn, or are you just dense? your statements really implied that the government made it appear that jobs have been created. it was not the case.

    • anthony scalia on November 18, 2008 at 10:39 am

    grd,

    justice league cited a new NSCB link:

    http://www.nscb.gov.ph/announce/ForTheRecord/06June2006_unemployment.asp

    which states that 1.024M were excluded from the number of unemployed Pinoys.

    thats all it says – how many were excluded fromt he number of unemployed pinoys

    it does not say that these 1.024M can now be deemed employed

    thats the trouble with JLA’s approach. he quickly assumed that since 1.024M were excluded from the unemployed, 1.024M jobs were created!

    he said

    “I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.”
    November 18th, 2008 at 2:35 am

    actually you may not have to apologize to JLA. because if you will read that latest NSCB link, the excluded 1.024M actually came from those unemployed > 6 months. the NSCB had to explain why the 1.024M were excluded

    • istambay_sakalye on November 18, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    “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.”

    — with garci tapes, gma herself apologized for calling a comelec official during the election period…” i am sorry”…sorry din but she violated a law and should have been at least disqualified and the rightful winner sitting in malacanang be it fernando poe or the vice president winner!

    • istambay_sakalye on November 18, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    “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”

    –maybe when the USA sends a team composed of the relatives of gma, hence mga unano, then RP will win an olympic gold, and because the rest of other basketball teams drank or ate something made from china!

    • anthony scalia on November 18, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    “–maybe when the USA sends a team composed of the relatives of gma, hence mga unano, then RP will win an olympic gold, and because the rest of other basketball teams drank or ate something made from china!”

    talo pa rin ang RP 5 sa Yao Ming-led China. he and his teammates already drank and ate something from China all their lives!

    • Geo on November 18, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Istambay,

    You wrote: “– with garci tapes, gma herself apologized for calling a comelec official during the election period…” i am sorry”…sorry din but she violated a law and should have been at least disqualified and the rightful winner sitting in malacanang be it fernando poe or the vice president winner!”

    For once, I agree with you. The Garci tapes never did (and never could) prove cheating. (Menawhile, the PET recount demonstrated that massive, systematic cheating did not occur).

    That’s the part that mlq3 and many others have trouble coming to grips with — GMA did not cheat in the elections. Despite the evidence, mlq3 et al have created mass-fantasies that many enjoy revelling in.

    The reality is that the opposition — if they truly wanted to do things right and not just manufacture a “people power” — should have pursued that angle. GMA’s admission about talking with an election official is a clear offense.

    • Geo on November 18, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    I think the reason many govs remove some unemployed from their lists is because they wish to differentiate between those looking for work and those who aren’t. Why?

    I think it’s because of the existence of “unemployed” like criminals, lazy hangers-on, those raising/tending children (including men), those who don’t want to work (for whatever reason)), etc.

    Isn’t all of this also tied-in with some countries’ welfare programs? You need to prove you are looking for work in order to get benefits, no?

    • Geo on November 18, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    mlq3,

    You wrote: “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.”

    Sir, you are a columnist…but only in the sense that you have a column, a blog and a tv show in which you can say anything you want and peddle it as truth.

    The fact is that you have used your considerable knowlwdge of history and an excellent command of the english language and have become a propagandist.

    How can I call this a “fact”? A) Your rejection of known facts — which contradict your story line, B) Your insistence on your interpretations — even though there is scant evidence to support such claims, and B) Your ever-expanding lists of “facts” which are use to prove new “facts”.

    I’m just glad that you are now openly political and partisan (the impeachment MOA insertion thingy), rather than pretending to be intellectually driven and “open” (“The Explainer” or you allowing various points of view in your blog).

    No sir, you are a very good novelist. You have helped spin a hug fantastical tale which many still believe.

    I request you take a look at today’s Sassy Lawyer column, http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=connieVeneracion_nov18_2008.

    “The currently acceptable paradigm of political belief” is what I read in here, in this blog.

    • Geo on November 18, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    oops…

    In my last post, towards the end, that should have been:

    “C) Your ever-expanding lists of UNPROVEN “facts” which are use to prove new CONCOCTED “facts”.”

    • grd on November 18, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    actually you may not have to apologize to JLA. because if you will read that latest NSCB link, the excluded 1.024M actually came from those unemployed > 6 months. the NSCB had to explain why the 1.024M were excluded… anthony scalia

    anthony, the new matrix cited by justice league is similar with the old one I cited from Dr. Habito. that was what I’m saying also about those UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS, excluded from the Unemployed but not necessarily added to the Employed.

    Re UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED – going through all the posts again, I agree with you. Justice league indeed made that assertion (indirectly) on his/her earlier comments like the one below:

    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.”
    justice league November 16th, 2008 at 2:24 am

    ==============================

    yes initially i thought (1) (2) and (3) were not cumulative… anthony scalia

    i take it that you’re agreeable now to justice league and saxnviolins’ interpretation of the new definition of HSBC (November 17th, 2008 at 2:38 am) which I also find to be correct.

    • mlq3 on November 18, 2008 at 10:52 pm
      Author

    geo, you can go back to my writing since 1994, i have never said a columnist ought not to be partisan, in fact opinion is precisely what it is, opinion. and furthermore, a columnist is required to take sides. “objectivity” while in itself something admirable, when a fetish is the refuge of scoundrels.

    it’s interesting to me that partisanship to you is recourse to our institution and their systems and not the call i made in 2005 for the president to resign, or our going to the supreme court in 2006 over charter change. or that your definition of selectivity is to insist everything i assert is a fabrication or wrong while not considering for yourself, what you demand of me: you insist i consider the president is pure as driven snow, that this is all a misunderstanding, while refusing to consider what you demand of me: well, what if i’m right?

    you see it leaves us where i’ve always said we were: on opposite sides of the fence.

    • istambay_sakalye on November 18, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    here both sides of the fence are claiming they have the facts, hence the truth. however, it cannot be denied that the legal avenues of presenting the truth are not always considered facts as they can be twisted and discarded due to technicalities.

    it is up to us common tao to use our common sense ( and not emotions) to sort out the web of lies our politicians spun.

    in these times i cannot believe just take the word of any politician as the truth but use my God given common sense. if we are searching or looking for the truth/fact as required by the legal sense then the way politics in the philippines is going we will never find it.

    • justice league on November 19, 2008 at 3:30 am

    mindanaoan :

    “justice league, are you being stubborn, or are you just dense?”

    Neither as of yet. More like unbelievably tolerant.

    Anthony Scalia,

    “it only says that 1.024M jobless people were excluded from the number of unemployed.
    but it does not categorically say that these 1.024M can now be regarded as employed!”

    But I never regarded them as EMPLOYED.

    What I meant to say was that there were 1.024M FICTITIOUS jobs. And I don’t regard people with such fictitious jobs as employed.

    My statement of “Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.” was later clarified by the “whiff it OUT OF THIN AIR.”

    If you looked up what “out of thin air” means, you should have realized that those jobs were FICTITIOUS.

    And the fictitious nature of those jobs was backed up when you asked me “so you’ll agree that the next move is, the actual creation of jobs?” and I answered “If “ACTUAL CREATION” is the operative phrase; of course; I’m for it.”

    “did the NSCB ever say “its safe to say that those left out of unemployment stats can be deemed employed already”

    No, but then I didn’t deem them employed either.

    Do you actually have a categorical statement from me that I claim that those people are employed or are you just relying from “patchworking”?

    As early as Nov. 16, 2:24 AM, I related my interpretation of the NSCB criteria followed by a clarification at 2:47 AM with the clarification stating that “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!”

    Removing the discouraged tag, what can be inferred from that is “UNEMPLOYED > 6 months = NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED”.

    Yet instead of exhorting me to prove that claim (which I can); you came up some TWENTY HOURS LATER with YOUR OWN DISTORTED interpretation/counter-interpretation of the NSCB criteria and you are trying to pass it on to me as if it is my interpretation.

    The first sign of something like “if the person is still unemployed for more than 6 months he is deemed employed already” CAME FROM YOUR POST on Nov. 16, 9:52 PM with the actual sentence being “The NSCB IS NOT saying that if the person is still unemployed for more than 6 months he is deemed employed already.”

    You then refined it into “UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED” and tried to PASS IT OFF as my interpretation of the NSCB criteria and then insisted on me to prove it.

    After I tried to correct your reading of the NSCB criteria on Nov 16, 10:07 PM, you started to insist on me to prove YOUR interpretation/counter-interpretation at 10:59 PM.

    And your attempt to PASS THAT OFF was OVERKILL on Nov. 17, 6:20 PM when you stated in your post statements like

    “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”,

    “look again – my issue with you is your insistence that: UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED”,

    “sorry but your case scenario is speculative. it wont help resolve our issue UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED”

    ETC…………………….

    (It looks like a strawman tactic on your part more and more)

    Now regarding that HIGHER EMPLOYMENT RATE based on the NEW definition of unemployment; you can see the impact of the new definition in the PHILIPPINE LABOR FORCE SURVEY January 2006
    //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2006/lf0601tx.html

    In that survey, they utilized the new definition pegging the unemployment at 2,840,000 with the rate at 8.1%.

    The employment rate thus was 91.9%.

    However at the bottom before the technical notes; they posted the unemployment based on the old criteria and the unemployment rate was 10.7%.

    So if the OLD criteria was used, the employment rate would only be 89.3% instead of the higher 91.9%.

    And that is categorical proof that the new criteria leads to a higher employment rate!

    Now regarding that respect for JCOs; I have a categorical statement from you that you stated “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”.

    And then you asked me “as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?”

    So for the likes of Ramon del Rosario Jr,, Jose L. Cuisia Jr., etc… who are capitalists. Who are not Satur and Casino but create jobs and are very vocal on being opposition.

    Do you respect members of the opposition like them?

    Since you asked me last time to begin my reply with a particular issue, CAN YOU RETURN THE FAVOR AND START YOUR REPLY with the issue regarding your respect for the JCOs?

    Grd,
    “Re UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED – going through all the posts again, I agree with you. Justice league indeed made that assertion (indirectly) on his/her earlier comments like the one below:”

    Can you please clarify how I asserted that and please use also any pertinent parts from the 2:47 AM clarification?

    • anthony scalia on November 19, 2008 at 8:42 am

    grd,

    yes i agree to the comment of saxnviolins on November 17th, 2008 at 2:38 am

    (1) (2) and (3) are cumulative.

    • anthony scalia on November 19, 2008 at 9:36 am

    justice league,

    “More like unbelievably tolerant.”

    just like me! lets drink to that my friend!

    pero you skipped mindanaoan’s other comment – “your statements really implied that the government made it appear that jobs have been created. it was not the case.”

    “Now regarding that respect for JCOs; I have a categorical statement from you that you stated “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”.

    And then you asked me “as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?”

    So for the likes of Ramon del Rosario Jr,, Jose L. Cuisia Jr., etc… who are capitalists. Who are not Satur and Casino but create jobs and are very vocal on being opposition.

    Do you respect members of the opposition like them?”

    ahem. TO BEGIN WITH, when did Ramon Del Rosario, Jose Cuisia etc. and the other capitalists ever become vocal parrots of “patalsikin na now na”?

    businessmen being known critics of the sitting president is nothing new. but openly calling for a sitting president’s resignation or removal? i haven’t heard such coming out from the lips of the capitalists. not even Oscar Lopez of Meralco said that in the open

    just because of their membership in the MBC? just because MBC funded that interfaith rally? just because they did not oppose that interfaith rally?

    IIRC, that interfaith rally is more for “the truth to come out” supporting the ZTE hearings. no “patalsikin na now na.” and I remember clearly that according to my friends who attended that rally, all those present there felt betrayed when suddenly Adel Tamano and other members of that bumbling stupid group called ‘united opposition’ appeared and started talking on stage! that interfaith rally was supposed to be nonpartisan!

    so even assuming the MBC endorsed that rally, it did so with the understanding that it would be nonpartisan!

    you are forgetting how i defined the opposition I completely loathe (to say it mildly):

    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
    (November 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am)

    by the way, all descriptions are cumulative

    Satur et al never considered themselves members of the UNO. nor are they of the “kami naman” mindset

    The capitalists are not members of the UNO. all the more they do not have the “kami naman” mindset

    my introduction of the use of JCO is more of an accommodation to you, using your line of argument, your own terms. since you are insisting that the capitalists are also opposition.

    my statement:

    “The Ayalas and the Lopezes may be opposition at heart, but their main pre-occupation is still business.” (November 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am)

    is not an agreement to your insistence that they are opposition!

    because their main pre-occupation is still business, they are hardly of the “kami naman” variety.

    please don’t forget my correct description of the opposition.

    so name one or some ‘JCO’ who openly said “patalsikin na now na” and not some vague motherhood statements like “we need a change in leadership” or something to that effect, then i’ll answer your query if i respect them also like Satur et al.

    “Since you asked me last time to begin my reply with a particular issue, CAN YOU RETURN THE FAVOR AND START YOUR REPLY with the issue regarding your respect for the JCOs?”

    see above.

    • anthony scalia on November 19, 2008 at 10:37 am

    justice league :

    “Now regarding that HIGHER EMPLOYMENT RATE based on the NEW definition of unemployment; you can see the impact of the new definition in the PHILIPPINE LABOR FORCE SURVEY January 2006
    //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2006/lf0601tx.html

    In that survey, they utilized the new definition pegging the unemployment at 2,840,000 with the rate at 8.1%.

    The employment rate thus was 91.9%.

    However at the bottom before the technical notes; they posted the unemployment based on the old criteria and the unemployment rate was 10.7%.

    So if the OLD criteria was used, the employment rate would only be 89.3% instead of the higher 91.9%.

    And that is categorical proof that the new criteria leads to a higher employment rate!”

    ——————————————————————————

    you should have cited than census link from the onset

    you will agree, that latest link is more definitive than the two NSCB links you first cited

    but don’t hold your breath:

    1. that same study acknowledged a different figure if the old definition is used. said differently, the presence of that disclaimer puts to rest allegations of manipulation by that study

    2. that study came up with employment figures by actual count of employed people, not simply by deducting the 8.1 from 100. that study was able to account for the 91.9 employed by industry and by job category

    thanks for the census link. appreciate the effort

    would you have the latest study by the census dept on the same matter?

    • Geo on November 19, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    mlq3,

    Fine, you are an opinionated columnist. To be honest, my pet peeve with you has more to do with how you have previously presented yourself and certain topics on The Explainer. In those instances, it seemed you were acting neutrally analytical, while careful attention could discern the partisan spin. Much like Ricky, Pinky and Pia on ANC. Or like many “straight” reported articles in PDI which are definitely NOT supposed to be partisan.

    Wow, it seems you have a mistrust of “objectivity”! But non-partisan analysts and historians do (or attempt to do) just that. That’s their “fetish”, but I don’t think they are scoundrels.

    Yes, I think that the institutions and systems are purposefully non-partisan. It’s the players within the poliitcal arena who are partisan. So yes — your call for resignation and your opposition to Cha-Cha are partisan (and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that), while I consider my call for respecting the systems and institutions to be non-partisan (remember, I also don’t approve of the Erap ouster…despite my partisan dislike of him).

    No, I don’t think everything you assert must be false. Nor have I ever asked you to consider GMA to be as pure as the driven snow. I don’t see her as anything but human…which means she has the capacity for good and for evil.

    The situation here, though, is that she is also the President. She is a critical part of the system; not just a stand-alone human. This makes rendering any judgements about her more sensitive than usual. One needs to remain as objective as possible, as the institution of her office is a pillar of this country’s democratic system.

    So I asked you to go back to the beginning and to look at the charges of electoral fraud…to look at that with a clean slate. That doesn’t mean I want you to accept any point of view (yet), but just to step back for a minute. You can do that, can’t you? After all, this is the first step during an intellectual analysis, isn’t it — to discern the known from the unknown?

    What we know is that edited copies surfaced with bits and pieces of recorded conversations. The original tapes have never surfaced, rendering the copied ones as legally immaterial. But that means that there’s no proof one way or the other.

    Of more import is the polls taken repeatedly before the voting and during exit from the voting stations. It was pretty much all the same — a ~1m vote victory for GMA. But again, this is not hard proof. It’s possible that they were all wrong.

    The best way to evaluate the validity is, then, to actually open up ballot boxes. And that’s what the Supreme Court did. And they found no evidence of massive, systematic cheating.

    The likely, scientifically-valid, factually-supported conclusion is: GMA didn’t cheat. That’s what the hard evidence says.

    By saying that, I don’t automatically become a blind GMA lover; I do not automatically fall on the “other” side of those who are anti-GMA (i.e. the pro-GMA side)…I AM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THOSE WHO CLAIM GMA CHEATED (i.e. the go-by-the-evidence-especially-in-such-a-sensitive-case side).

    This is a hard thing for some screechers (bert, dodong, istampay, for ex) to understand. My guess is because they stopped listening, thinking and analysing a long time ago…it’s all emotional fury. But that’s OK, they admittedly reject facts and evidence and have formed their opinions based on some inherent grasp of the Truth which they possess.

    I would expect you to be better than that, mlq3. Moreso that you can have an effect on the general population, who is looking towards the media for getting an accurate presentation of the issues and facts.

    Alas, you are only a spinmeister. So I can now only hope that you keep first telling the public that you are very partisan before you say anything.

    (BTW, I often try to walk through a new “controversy” by first taking one extreme position and then repeating the process from the other extreme’s viewpoint. I then actually look at the concrete evidence. So, yes — I have often put myself in your shoes and have wondered “what if they are right?”)

    • Geo on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    I think the story is that the RP gov changed its methodologies for a variety of economic metrics. This was done, I understand, as part of a movement towards global standardizations in accounting, both private and public.

    When releasing new data — using new methodologies — they have often still reported what the figures would be if using the old measurements and/or comparing them with previous figures, modified via the new methodologies. This isn’t unique to (un)employment figures.

    • Bert on November 19, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    “This is a hard thing for some screechers (bert, dodong, istampay, for ex) to understand. My guess is because they stopped listening, thinking and analysing a long time ago…it’s all emotional fury. But that’s OK, they admittedly reject facts and evidence and have formed their opinions based on some inherent grasp of the Truth which they possess.”-Geo

    Oh really now, Geo, you are the great thinker and analyzer then? You are not selective in your objective to analyze, are you?

    GMA won the election fair and square, you said. Try figuring out why election results in some parts of Mindanao showed Chavit the top vote-getter with some opposition senators doing fairly well then after a few days the final results counted by Abalos’ comelec showed all GMA senators winning, opposition zero, and Chavit nowhere in sight? Do you mean they did it for the senators but not for GMA?

    You don’t beleive that? If yes, then you are a believer in magic so how now can I argue with you?

    Do you remember who is/was Dimasidsing? He is/was a human being. Now not anymore. You want some facts, go get his birth certificate…or better yet his death certificate. But no, you don’t want that kind of fact, you only chose what you want, of course. Yes?

    • Bert on November 19, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Geo,

    Dimasidsing, as you know, was the election officer who was trying to hold on to his copy of the true election results.

    • Geo on November 19, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    Bert,

    You just proved my point.

    Regarding the national Presidential elections, your analysis is based on hearsay, unrelated events and inanity.

    Look, the fact is that the PET actually opened the ballot boxes and looked at the VP (and Prez) votes in the areas where Loren Legarda said there was cheating. The court ruled that there were no meaningful anomalies.

    On the one hand, the hard evidence demonstrates no cheating.

    On the other hand, the edited copies of adulterated snippets of conversations, the accusing fingers of trapos with much to gain and the imaginations of opinionated media “reporters”, all demonstrate cheating.

    This isn’t magic, bert. You figure out which position is based on opinion and which is based on facts…..

    • anthony scalia on November 19, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Bert,

    “GMA won the election fair and square, you said. Try figuring out why election results in some parts of Mindanao showed Chavit the top vote-getter with some opposition senators doing fairly well then after a few days the final results counted by Abalos’ comelec showed all GMA senators winning, opposition zero, and Chavit nowhere in sight? Do you mean they did it for the senators but not for GMA?”

    did chavit run in 2004?

    the mere fact of cheating is not enough. you must show that the cheating changed the outcome.

    even if Dimasidsing came out with the “true election results” it wont change the outcome

    teka wait. by the way, how did you know in the first place that the one Dimasidsing holds is the true one, not false one?

    bro. eddie may scream that he was cheated, and there could be some basis for that, but it won’t change the outcome in his favor.

    like it or not, our old election laws provide that no protest will be entertained if the protest won’t change the result

    the protests of Loren and FPJ are puro pa-pogi, pa-awa effect, wishing a new people power would be ignited.

    pero wala rin people power. turns out if the votes Loren disputes are counted in her favor, talo pa rin sya.

    and FPJ (bless his soul) died pa.

    mga ungas kasi ang mga nagunguna sa remove-gloria movement, ang ‘united’ opposition. akala nila the majority would support them with another people power.

    kaya they got the shock of their lives! inuna pa kasi ang people power kaysa paghandaan mabuti ang impeachment

    • mlq3 on November 19, 2008 at 3:01 pm
      Author

    geo, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but again, the explainer is my view, and my interpretation. again the studious non-partisanship you demand is suitable for a reporter, which i have never been; but all my pieces are opinion pieces and my commentaries are commentaries under my byline, with my affiliations and advocacies certainly well known to the public viewing and reading them.

    in history my personal belief and this is not unique, is that there is no objective history, there are differences in interpretation, the process of looking back is by its nature subjective since not everything by way of facts and events can be comprehended.

    we have gone down the road of the 2004 elections before. but the permanent fork in the road for us is that from the start my belief the president must go was based on what she did -and didn’t do- in 2005. after that you and i are just going around in circles with each other.

    • Geo on November 19, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    Bert,

    Yes, I’m aware of some of the shenanigans which go on. I am not arguing that there was no cheating at all, nor was I talking about anything but the Prez/VP elections. I realize there is still some dirty business out there.

    I am not trying to defend Abalos, Comelec, Chavit or even Gloria. I am saying that we should be very careful about what we consider to be “The Truth”.

    Opinions and groupthink do not formulate facts; they formulate perceptions. These perceptions can sometimes be unsupportable by the hard facts on hand. Mistaken perceptions can lead to unhelpful actions.

    In any event, the constitution, laws and institutions are made to ignore and overide the various opinions and perceptions that exist. The Truth is a non-entity; the facts and the laws (yes, including their technicalities) are what count.

    Not because I say so, but because that’s how modern democracies work…..

    • Geo on November 19, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    mlq3,

    You certainly have a right to do all those things. And there is certainly nothing wrong with you airing your opinions.

    That said, the term “Explainer” indicates a tutorial role, no? And you often write the introductions (and whatever else) for some ANC shows which are supposed to be “reporting” pieces, not op eds, right?

    Many readers/viewers are also not necessarily aware of your extremely partisan views, so I’m not so sure your audiences understand that you are conveying opinions…never mind them knowing that some of those opinions are based on previous opinions (which, when repeated enough, sound like facts).

    But you have a problem with proven facts and evidence. Many in the anti-GMA camp do, apparently. Laws are considered to be “technicalities”, courts are corrupt (except when rulings are favorable) and evidence is manufactured. Meanwhile, the LACK of facts to support a position doesn’t render that position doubtful.

    Yes, historical analyses get harder as more time passes by and/or because various participants record the events according to their desired image.

    But the results of the PET (and the weakness of the Garci Tapes) are clear. There’s no need for much objectivity with that; these are objective, hard facts.

    Which is why, I guess, you have now agreed that there was no massive cheating by Gloria.

    So let’s move on with the story. You say that the next problem was that she said she was sorry for talking with an official, denied cheating, but never got her hands on the tapes or found any way to prove her innocence. Is that right?

    Therefore, she lost the people’s confidence and should have resigned right then and there, correct? And because she didn’t, that’s why you were therefore against her. Is that right so far?

    • grd on November 19, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    “did chavit run in 2004?” anthony scalia

    hehe. I think bert already got confused. he’s mixing 2004 & 2008 election already. 🙂

    • grd on November 19, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    I meant the 2004 & 2007 elections.

    Dimasidsing was allegedly killed due to the 2007 mid-term election and not the 2004 pres election.

    wrong argument for bert.

    • justice league on November 20, 2008 at 1:49 am

    Anthony Scalia

    “lets drink to that”

    Wish I could but I rarely do.

    Your arguments are getting shallower and your hole is getting deeper. You should consider ending this.

    “ahem.”

    You should see a doctor already.

    I don’t want to dignify that “vocal parrot” thing but you do ask a lot of questions you don’t seem to know the answers to.

    And you’re asking about Ramon Del Rosario, Jose Cuisia, etc.!

    BAD MOVE!

    Maybe you’d like to read this //www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2186

    Oh yes its from PCIJ.

    And if you doubt how Ramon Del Rosario Jr. interprets that Manifesto; you might want to read this

    “Hyatt 10 resurfaces, asks Cabinet to quit”
    //www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_feb18_2008

    And don’t think that the story ends with just the cabinet.

    “pero you skipped mindanaoan’s other comment – “your statements really implied that the government made it appear that jobs have been created. it was not the case.””

    I gave Mindanaoan enough credit to have the mental skills to realize what was implied by my statements if he/she re-reads all the posts.

    You obviously don’t think he/she deserves the same credit.

    But if Mindanaoan wants to receive any of what you got and getting; he/she can always ask for it him/herself.

    “you should have cited than census link from the onset”

    Oh so all of a sudden it’s my fault. You should have done your own homework.

    “1. that same study acknowledged a different figure if the old definition is used. said differently, the presence of that disclaimer puts to rest allegations of manipulation by that study”

    So what now if I claim that the “manipulation” was done when the NSCB criteria was changed in the first place?

    “2. that study came up with employment figures by actual count of employed people, not simply by deducting the 8.1 from 100. that study was able to account for the 91.9 employed by industry and by job category”

    I believe that is irrelevant. I’m sure members of the opposition who create and even maintain jobs did their own share to account for the actual count of employed people.

    “thanks for the census link. appreciate the effort.’

    You’re welcome.

    “would you have the latest study by the census dept on the same matter?”

    Don’t know exactly what you want but you might want to read this //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/lf0701tx.html

    But I think they did away with the old criteria altogether for that. And the bottom table might interest you. Seems data is derived from old census.

    • grd on November 20, 2008 at 2:46 am

    “ So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.
    Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

    Total unemployed persons by the new definition was 2,840,000.

    The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.” Justice league

    justice, what exactly do you mean with your above statement? you have claimed that the 1.024m was fictitious jobs. that’s not correct. you have to take note that either you use the new or the old definitions of unemployment, you will still come up with approx. 32.384million jobs as per the link you’ve provided. so where are the fictitious jobs of 1.024m?

    what was achieved (or manipulated) w/ the new definition of unemployment was the the rate of employment (increased) / unemployment (decreased) because the total labor force was reduced by 1.024m (that is from 36.248m to 35.224m).

    that’s why i am saying that saxnviolins was correct in both of his interpretations about the new definition. the govt simply reduced the labor force but no jobs out of thin air were generated.

    to prove my point:

    under the new definition:
    labor force = 35.224m
    emploment = 32.384m (91.9%)
    unemployment = 2.840m (8.1%)

    under the old definition:
    labor force = 36.248m
    emploment = 32.384m (89.3%)
    unemployment = 3.864m (10.7%)

    • justice league on November 20, 2008 at 8:00 am

    Grd,

    “so where are the fictitious jobs of 1.024m?”

    They are nowhere. Those jobs are fictitious after all.

    Basically, those fictitious jobs are “NOTHING” and this “NOTHING” was practically powerful enough to be used as a justification for the removal of several people from being considered as “UNEMPLOYED”.

    I don’t know if it is applicable to all the instances wherein I referred to “such jobs” but you can try to replace that term with the “NOTHING” term.

    I’ll try to do it to your ENTIRE last post.

    So here it goes-

    ““ So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.
    Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

    Total unemployed persons by the new definition was 2,840,000.

    The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with NOTHING.” Justice league

    justice, what exactly do you mean with your above statement? you have claimed that the 1.024m was NOTHING. that’s not correct. you have to take note that either you use the new or the old definitions of unemployment, you will still come up with approx. 32.384million jobs as per the link you’ve provided. so where are NOTHING?

    what was achieved (or manipulated) w/ the new definition of unemployment was the the rate of employment (increased) / unemployment (decreased) because the total labor force was reduced by 1.024m (that is from 36.248m to 35.224m).

    that’s why i am saying that saxnviolins was correct in both of his interpretations about the new definition. the govt simply reduced the labor force but NOTHING generated.”

    If you answered my case scenario, you would likely have ended up with a 16 year old who was NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED and whose job is NOTHING.

    “Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally NOTHING was generated overnight.”

    • anthony scalia on November 20, 2008 at 8:37 am

    justice league :

    “Wish I could but I rarely do.”

    okay fresh distilled drinking water na lang

    “Your arguments are getting shallower and your hole is getting deeper. You should consider ending this.”

    it takes one to know one my friend

    sorry but i don’t know what a shallow argument is.

    “You should see a doctor already.”

    i just did. healthy enough to finish a triathlon

    “I don’t want to dignify that “vocal parrot” thing but you do ask a lot of questions you don’t seem to know the answers to.”

    okay, that’s your decision.

    ——————————————————————————-
    “And you’re asking about Ramon Del Rosario, Jose Cuisia, etc.!
    BAD MOVE!”
    Maybe you’d like to read this //www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2186
    Oh yes its from PCIJ.
    And if you doubt how Ramon Del Rosario Jr. interprets that Manifesto; you might want to read this
    “Hyatt 10 resurfaces, asks Cabinet to quit”
    //www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_feb18_2008
    And don’t think that the story ends with just the cabinet.
    —————————————————————————–

    my friend, don’t you realize that you were only able to show that the capitalists you mentioned openly wanted gloria to go WHICH WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR FROM YOU?

    on November 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am I asked you:

    so name one or some ‘JCO’ who openly said “patalsikin na now na” and not some vague motherhood statements like “we need a change in leadership” or something to that effect, then i’ll answer your query if i respect them also like Satur et al.

    NOW THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN (FINALLY) THAT THOSE CAPITALISTS HAVE OPENLY CALLED FOR GLORIA’S REMOVAL, THEN I CAN ALREADY RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION –

    DO I RESPECT THESE CAPITALISTS WHO OPENLY DEMAND GLORIA’S REMOVAL? – yes

    sorry if i doused cold water in your celebration

    “I gave Mindanaoan enough credit to have the mental skills to realize what was implied by my statements if he/she re-reads all the posts.”

    oh yes he had read them already. thats why he wrote that.

    “You obviously don’t think he/she deserves the same
    credit.”

    “But if Mindanaoan wants to receive any of what you got and getting; he/she can always ask for it him/herself.”

    ???????????

    “Oh so all of a sudden it’s my fault.”

    oh yes it is!

    “You should have done your own homework”

    my friend, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE ASSERTION.
    turns out you have been insisting on something without basis

    “So what now if I claim that the “manipulation” was done when the NSCB criteria was changed in the first place?”

    a look at that same NSCB info does not show an intent to get the reader to believe something else

    “I believe that is irrelevant. I’m sure members of the opposition who create and even maintain jobs did their own share to account for the actual count of employed people.”

    my friend, employment data are not arrived at by simply deducting the number of unemployed Pinoys from the total workforce

    “Don’t know exactly what you want but you might want to read this //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/lf0701tx.html”

    thank you

    “But I think they did away with the old criteria altogether for that. And the bottom table might interest you. Seems data is derived from old census.”

    noted

    • anthony scalia on November 20, 2008 at 8:39 am

    justice league,

    should be “turns out initially you have been insisting on something without basis”

    • mindanaoan on November 20, 2008 at 11:37 am

    justice league, you should show why the old method is better than the new one to make a valid claim that the government just made it appear it had generated jobs. if your only problem with the new method is that it gives a better figure for the government, then your argument is bunk.

    • Bert on November 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    ““did chavit run in 2004?” anthony scalia

    “hehe. I think bert already got confused. he’s mixing 2004 & 2008 election already.”-grd

    hehehe, guys, now I got you, nahilong-talilong ko kayo, heheh.

    the operative statement is: “Do you mean they can do it for the senators but not for GMA?”

    hehehehehe.

Load more

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.