Update, 4:52 pm. (first reported by Inquirer.net) Arroyo revokes EO 464:
“Effectively immediately, I am revoking EO 464. Executive officials may no longer invoke EO 464 to excuse non-attendance from legislative inquiries,” President Arroyo said.
I have questions for the lawyers:
1. If the President’s formally revoked E.O. 464, what happens, does it mean what the S.C. allowed the President and her officials to invoke, can no longer be invoked? Or can you still invoke the provisions of an executive issuance that has been formally revoked? Specially since Memorandum Circular 108 is still in force?
2. The main arguments in the provisions that were still valid, up to the time of revocation, having been ratified by the court, does a new executive issuance have to be signed, to continue invoking them?
In other words, does revoking E.O. 464 while asserting the right to invoke executive privilege, at this point, and with the particular issues at hand, actually mean anything?
***
Playing for time paid off. The President, I understand, is due to go to Hong Kong at the end of the month, and it seems by the time she does so (to kowotow?), the forces of reform would have been held at bay. This statement says it all: Palace to presume regularity in ZTE deal until violations are proven. Contradicting, of course, what the President herself said, earlier. But then her cabinet already contradicted her: and she didn’t object.
In the face of mounting calls for her to relent in terms of E.O. 464 (see Assumption classmates ask Arroyo to dump EO 464, including the President’s half-sister, Cielo Macapagal-Salgado) The Palace held the line, while focusing its energies on the Supreme Court.
Iinitial reports had it that it would be a Close call on Neri case, the oral arguments at the Supreme Court didn’t go well for the administration:See and SC justice not satisfied with Neri’s state secret argument. and Supreme Court justices find loopholes in Neri defense. Yet in the end, Supreme Court offers compromise on Neri: Senate has 24 hours to agree:
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has arrived at a compromise arrangement with the Senate. In the case of national security adviser Norberto Gonzales, the Senate lifted its arrest order provided Gonzales went on leave.
Pacifico Agabin, counsel for the Senate, said that the discussions between the senators and justices are “more freewheeling” if they’re done in chambers.
Some observers are uncomfortable about the senators and justices meeting in chambers to arrive at a compromise. But a lawyer familiar with the Supreme Court said that, in the US, courts encourage Congress and the Executive to compromise or negotiate whenever executive privilege is raised.
“In this case, there is even no compromise because the Supreme Court will still rule on the first three questions, together with other disputed questions still to be asked, all in one decision,” the lawyer said. “This gives the public a better idea of the nature of executive privilege and avoids multiple suits.”
The three questions are: 1) whether the President followed up the NBN-ZTE project with Neri; 2) whether Neri was dictated by the President to prioritize the NBN-ZTE project; and 3) whether he was told by the President to go ahead with the project after being told of the alleged bribe offer .
So as it stands, 12 senators agree to SC compromise on Neri testimony–Lacson. The result, if the numbers hold up, is that Neri to attend Senate NBN deal hearing: the questions of the Justices makes for interesting reading:
This initial agreement was reached Tuesday evening after about nine hours of oral arguments on Neri’s petition to stop the Senate from arresting him after he refused to heed summons to testify at the inquiry into the scrapped $329-million national broadband network (NBN) contract with China’s ZTE Corp., Supreme Court Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said.
Neri’s lawyer, Antonio Bautista, said the chairman of the Commission on Higher Education would appear before the Senate on Friday.
Marquez said that while Neri could invoke executive privilege to refuse to answer questions from the senators, he could be cited in contempt. The Senate, however, could not arrest Neri because of his pending petition before the high tribunal, he added….
Any contentious invocation of executive privilege would be brought to the Supreme Court, Marquez said.
Senate Majority Floor leader Francis Pangilinan meanwhile said that his colleagues have to be consulted first and they would notify the high tribunal on what they agreed upon within 24 hours.
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, chair of the Senate blue ribbon committee, said that he did not want the powers of the Senate to conduct legislative inquiries diminished. “There is already this resistance on the part of the executive department officials to appear in the Senate’s hearings either by invoking legalities or other means,” he said.
He said that under normal circumstances, the Senate may reject an invocation of executive privilege and order the official’s detention until he responded to the questions.
The justices, several senators and Neri’s lawyers met behind closed doors after the hearing where justices earlier said Neri could not invoke the privilege to cover up a crime.
Earlier, the high court, through Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, proposed that the Senate drop three questions they planned to ask Neri on a conversation he had with Arroyo on the NBN contract so the CHED chairman would appear at the inquiry…
…Carpio also said that the executive privilege could not be invoked to cover up a crime.
“Can executive privilege be invoked to hide a crime?” Carpio asked Bautista.
“No,” Bautista acknowledged.
Bautista denied that Neri was covering up a crime, pointing out that Neri had disclosed the bribery attempt allegedly made by Abalos.
What his client did not want to reveal was his “freewheeling” and unstructured conversations with the President about whether to continue with the deal or to modify or scrap the project, and about Chinese lending practices, Bautista said.
“If Neri would be called to disclose these, we will be letting the President rule in a fishbowl,’ he said.
Carpio pointed out that it was Bautista himself who “said, ‘Dwell on the impact of bribery scandals.’ This is not even a question but a fact.”
“Bribery is a crime under the Revised Penal Code,” Carpio reminded the lawyer.
“The moment you refer to a crime, it cannot be privileged,” Carpio said.
But Bautista pointed out that Neri and Ms Arroyo only discussed the scandal, not the bribery.
He said the alleged bribery attempt might embroil Chinese officials, which was why forcing Neri to disclose his conversations with the President could affect foreign relations.
“What’s the problem there, even if it cuts through members of the judiciary?” asked Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.
Bautista replied that conversations might endanger diplomatic relations and shame the country.
“Supposing there is bribery involving officials of China, it will embarrass us,” he said.
Carpio pointed out that if indeed there was bribery involved, then the payoff money would be shouldered by Filipino taxpayers since the project would be funded by a loan.
He then asked how the government should balance its interests when it comes to disclosing information about the deal.
“Should we protect diplomatic relations over interests of Filipino taxpayers? In weighing interests, what should the court do, protect Filipino taxpayers or the Chinese officials?” he asked.
Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago also asked which was more important — keeping the President’s communication confidential or uncovering anomalies.
Bautista said keeping the President’s communications confidential should take precedence because there were other sources of information to disclose the alleged anomalies, such as witnesses Rodolfo Lozada Jr. and Dante Madriaga.
Puno also asked whether the cancellation of the project had led to any diplomatic row.
When Bautista replied that there were reports of “ruffled feathers” in China, Puno said this was different from a diplomatic row.
Bautista said that if China would not lend the Philippine government money in the future, that would be a form of a “diplomatic reaction.”
The justices also asked Bautista how Neri’s attendance at the Senate inquiry would affect Arroyo’s performance of her duties.
Puno asked Bautista to “please tell the Court how the Office of the President will be hampered in the performance of its duties if Secretary Neri will attend the Senate hearing?”
The lawyer said there would be a “chilling effect” because the President might no longer talk in confidence to her subordinates if they are compelled to tell the Senate what she tells them.
But Puno said the claim of chilling effect was a conclusion, and the lawyers would have to explain the particular impact on Arroyo.
Puno and Carpio went through each of the three questions the Senate was interested in.
Puno said the first question whether the President followed up on the NBN project, if answered in the affirmative, would only show that she had an interest in the project, but not necessarily “undue” interest as Bautista argued.
Bautista said that if his client answered the question, it would affect the President negatively because of the prevailing “accusatory” atmosphere.
Carpio also wondered whether there was anything “morally or legally wrong” if Arroyo followed up the project with the NEDA.
On the question whether Neri was ordered to prioritize the NBN deal, Bautista said that if Neri answered this, the country could be subjected to criticism from other governments interested in the deal and from the public and lobbyists.
“But the project benefits the people … If she orders its priority, should heaven fall on the President?” Puno replied.
Carpio also said Neri could have answered that it was not the NEDA which prioritized contracts.
On the question whether the President told Neri to approve the NBN deal with China after being told of the alleged bribe, Carpio said Neri could have answered that he was not the approving party.
Bautista said that if the question was answered with a yes, it could show that the President had undue interest in the project, but Puno said undue interest was just the lawyer’s personal opinion.
Puno also asked Bautista how asking Neri whether Arroyo ordered him to prioritize ZTE would “affect the powers and privileges of the Office of the President.”
Bautista said it would leave the President open to condemnation.
Tingog.com is furious. What is the point of a hearing if the crucial questions are off the table? He isn’t alone in feeling that way.
But a prudent view, as one lawyer explained it to me, might be this: the Supreme Court avoided having to rule on a tough issue, right now, while enhancing judicial supremacy in such matters. How? By having virtual control over the Senate proceedings yet avoiding setting the bounds of executive privilege in broad points at an emotional point in our history. Now the Supreme Court can rule over specific questions. The lawyer calls it a “deft” move: deciding the issue in broad terms might unwittingly emasculate the presidency as an institution. Ruling on specific questions, however, limits the issues. It allows for an incisive ruling limited to a particular case. So, from the lawyer’s point of view, a sober and masterful play of checks and balances.
Other lawyers also counsel prudence. Marichu Lambino paints a grim reason for the high court’s “solomonic decision”:
[M]aybe…the Supreme Court is trying to tell the parties they should behave like statesmen and diplomatically resolve their differences without asking the Supreme Court to use its own coercive powers.
If the Supreme Court were to use its own coercive powers and deny Romy Neri’s petition, paving the way for Romy Neri’s arrest to attend the Senate hearing, and then it is disobeyed, and disobeyed effectively by the executive branch, there would be a final breakdown in the last “democratic institution” that people rely upon, the Supreme Court. The Macapagal-Arroyo government would have held the record for that: destroying all the institutions of checks and balances in government including the final institution that people resort to for redress of grievances.
Where do we turn to when that happens?
Malacañang if it defies the Supreme Court, would have destroyed the last vestige of civilized order in our society.
Maybe the Supreme Court is not deferring a final resolution, it is deferring a final destruction.
No one knows, and no one will say, what the real thinking of the Justices was; but it initially reminded me of Ferdinand Marcos’ diary entries concerning his dealings with the Supreme Court after the imposition of martial law (see his Sep. 24, 1972 and Jan. 27, Jan. 29, Apr 2, 1973 entries). But the prudence counseled by the lawyer I talked to and Lambino’s analysis of the high-stakes the Palace is playing for, suggests that we should let the process unfold, further. Additional insights are in The Daily PCIJ report on the high court hearing.
But it’s also enough for the Palace to crow in press releases, regardless of the way the government case was hammered in oral arguments: DOJ claims 1st round victory in SC talks on exec privilege. For a glimpse into goings-on at the Palace, see Jove Francisco’s account of the Veep’s meet-and-greet with the President:
Kabayan then went inside the Rizal Hall.
Only to go back to the reception area because he was told he needed to escort the president when she enters the hall. Which is, well, not unusual but okay, special (?) because we know (and based on past media coverage) that the president doesn’t mind making an entrance alone. Well, as they say, these are not ordinary days.
It wasn’t 10am yet, so the president wasn’t technically late for her entrance. But since Kabayan came in early, he had to wait for PGMA. He chit chatted with fellow officials but after some small talk, he went over to the reception table where the Malacanang guest book’s nestled. He sat on the area’s chair while waiting for Mrs. Arroyo.
So we can actually say, that this morning, the man who is considered by some quarters as the “president in waiting”, literally waited for President Arroyo.
And when the chief executive came out of the room and saw her vice president, they exchanged pleasantries like there were no issues between them (especially about the possibility that Kabayan may replace her if the political crisis worsens).
The two of them, together with Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, even displayed a mini version of the now staple (and much criticized on the blogosphere) UNITY WALK, before joining their guests inside the Rizal hall.
They were civil to each other during the signing of the Civil Aviation Authority Act… sharing a laugh or two.
But they were evidently quite cozy during the merienda break, with De Castro breaking the ice by quoting the president’s oft repeated line during times of political crisis. They were talking to a congresswoman from Bulacan about a housing issue, when De Castro used the phrase “rule of law and due process”… sabay tapik kay PGMA like asking her for permission to use the line. PGMA laughed. (natawa din ako… earlier kasi, during her speech, she read a variation of this phrase din kasi. Sabi nga nila, hindi naman cut and paste speech, reiteration lang. hehehe)
Scenes like these only make some quarters reiterate their demand for the vice president to make a stand… if he will remain supportive of the president or not.
A fellow reporter following Kabayan asked him about the latest call made by the Hyatt 10, “Aysus!” was his initial reaction and he paired that remark with a smile, but he also didn’t hide his irritation (evidently not on the reporters but on the former cab secs) while he continued walking. When he stopped, he faced the cameras and with somewhat angry hand gestures, he declared: “Nobody! Nobody, can dictate kung ano ang sasabihin ko!”
Minutes later, some of the TV teams who were not able to catch the above mentioned ambush interview tried to get the VP again. So he repeated the “nobody can dictate me” phrase. Thing is, some other TV team failed to get it on cam, so they chased him in another part of the hall. The in demand VP obliged and repeated the phrase again. A lot of us listened to him in all three ambush interviews and we noticed, “parang pare pareho ang intensity ang pagiging emphatic ni Kabayan sa pagbitaw ng quotable quote na iyun ah?”
Interestingly, the president that some quarters want to replace with Kabayan reiterated her desire to stay in power until 2010, earlier in the event.
New Philippine Revolution thinks that the administration will now embark on efforts to consolidate its ranks:
In the next few days, I believe that Gloria will, definitely do the following things:
1. She will announce the lifting of EO 464 to prevent the CBCP from further joining the growing protest movement. That will give her administration a few more days to survive.
2. She will announce the suspension of controversial government officials involved in the ZTE scandal. That would contradict what the Palace announced today and yesterday, but, nonetheless, that would give her enough breathing space to prevent herself from totally being besieged.
3. She will announce new appointments in the Comelec, foremost of which, members of civil society, or one belonging to the Muslim sector.
I think the environment is being prepared for these pronouncements. Palace operators have allowed the people to hinge the search for truth with Neri, which is a tactical way of solving this issue. By concentrating all attention at Neri’s probable testimony, the palace is effectively leading the public’s attention away from Lozada and concentrate on Neri. I bet my bottom dollar that Neri’s testimony will not amount to anything since it has been months since the controversy first began. I am sure that palace operators have already cleaned every filth there is about this deal.
This is a variation on what Uniffors predicts: Romulo Neri is The Real Trojan Horse. i am not convinced: not that I think it’s impossible that Neri will lie, but rather, I think it’s much more difficult to cover up the paper and money trails; the problem is, not enough work has been done to uncover documentary and other non-testimonial evidence. The testimony, thus far, has been formidable and quite damaging; but it will not all come together until the paperwork and money trail are exposed.
Village Idiot Savant suggests fruitful lines of questioning:
First, the good senators should not impinge on any discussion about Neri’s dealings with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. At the merest hint of that, Neri will take cover under Executive Privilege and shut up tighter than a clam. Certain senators, unfortunately, have a manic compulsion to indict Arroyo in the most blatant and most dramatic fashion possible. That is not the way. Implication must be implicit: Neri must be coaxed; it is up to the senators (and the public) to connect the dots.
Second, make use of Jun Lozada. I believe there is still a strong personal connection between these two men (and not the sort that Jamby Madrigal wishes to imply). Lozada knows how Neri’s mind works; Lozada knows what questions to ask. The senators must exercise some humility and allow Lozada to guide them on the subject and manner of inquiry.
Third, there is so much out in the open already that it’s foolish to shake down Neri for more. Instead, they should use Neri to corroborate available testimonies and evidence, in particular, those made by Lozada and Dante Madriaga (bearing in mind anything that will directly implicate Arroyo.) Strengthen existing links instead of creating new and weak ones.
Fourth, have Neri explain his web-of-corruption charts. These charts have already been made public, and while Neri may claim forgetfulness in public statements, I do believe he will comply under oath.
Senators must exercise patience, cunning, and courtesy in order to get what they want out of Neri. With the right questions, he will not disappoint. There is no need to attack Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo directly; take out the men around her, and the house of lies will crumble soon enough.
The views of Kris at Kalasag on “moral thresholds” bears reading. It is something all the bureaucrats implicated but so far, not exposed, in all these official wrongdoings, should bear in mind.
Meanwhile, crowd control remains the order of the day: Amando Doronila explains why. Local government leaders, as Mount Balatacan Monitor points out, are beginning to feel the heat. As is the AFP. The Inquirer editorial advises the AFP to Clean up the barracks. And my Arab News column for this week is Let the Veep Succeed in Philippines: may not sit will with some people, but it’s my personal view of what should happen.
And here’s a statement from Team RP, that serves as a timely warning of where the sentiments of young people are. reytrillana’s Weblog also discusses the importance of engaging young people in political action. My So Called Life shares her thoughts on what’s going on.
The Annotated Chronicles points out that a government that takes for granted the right to withhold information, is a government predisposed to corruption.
And for those who haven’t read it yet, G.R. No. 169777 Senate v. Ermita. In particular, Valid Provisions of EO 464.
Mark Twain   ÂÂ
From his essay: ÂÂ
“On the Decay of the Art of Lying”
—–
executive privilege = lie of omission
The Biggest Lie About Lies:
http://www.choice101.com/19-lies.html
It is hard to catch “… if they speak no lie, they lie not at all.” All the more reason to vet the candidates thoroughly, not just for what they say in the past months, but for what they have said in the past decade. Beware the elect-me-exaggeration with a wink-wink “just kidding”. Witness Barack Obama NAFTA-gate — an exagerrated opposition to the ’93 NAFTA trade agreement with Canada and Mexico while in a behind-closed-door meeting assuaging the Canadian government that some of the protectionist Obama ads in Ohio had more to do with “political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans.”
cvj,
What ruling? All the lawyers I talk to are INSULTED by the Court’s brazen attempt to get out of the catbird seat when it tried to get the Senate to agree to have Neri but without asking those three questions. Now I hail the Senate for REJECTING that unprincipled and cowardly attempt.
They will force the Court to rule once and for all the way they should.
Who in the hell is this Midas Marquez to be speaking for the Court. No act of the court has any meaning unless it is properly put in a written decision.
yes, i disagree with the decision to HUMILIATE the Senate by saying that Neri can still invoke executive privilege and then the Supreme Court gets to decide if it is valid?
If I were younger and more foolish, I would call for burning down Padre Faura right now and putting these Jerks in Black Robes in jail
We must exact the highest price on the Judiciary by likewise opening up their operationsl.
I assert that all the skeletons to prosecute and convict the biggest criminals in this country is all their in their hidden closets.
I say the Judiciary’s Privileges also now ought to be called into question and opened up to Congressional inquiries.
Heck, the Congress can abolish all those Courts, except the Supreme Court, yet here these unelected fascists dares to tell the Congress of the People that THEY get to decide all questions not on general principles but the expediencies of the moment.
This is not a Court of Justice, but a Court of Casuistry.
MLQ3,
The President just abolished EO464. So what. She’s got Senate v. Ermita, which is more powerful, damaging and dastardly.
Abolishing EO464 doesn’t abolish Executive Privilege, especially in the distilled and refined form that the Supreme Court produced from the flawed and vulnerable EO464.
Executive Dept officials now can invoke Senate v. Ermita!
CVJ – or the Left (and Right) use the Supreme Court compromise to shout that no grievances or just causes could be addressed in the present state of affairs, even by the Supreme Court. The armed rebels call for an escalation of attacks. The military respond by heightening security alerts to the highest level. GMA trumps the senators with a state of emergency declaration.
Oh, and who set up the Judicial Fascists in their comfy lil hoood where the Senate is but a footstool and the Presidency its main client? Right. People Power Fascists in 2001. Now the Senate is fighting back and trying to regain its place in the Machine. If they have any shred of respect for the Law, for the Constitution, it is now their unremitting duty to do all things necessary to restore the proper Separation of Powers in a tripartite govt.
To me the Supreme Court is the locus of Evil in this society, because they were the last resort of the law, yet it was they who destroyed it.
Their crime is intellectual, which to me is the worst and most destructive kind.
I must confess to having little respect for the Philippine Supreme Court. Some of the historic decisions they have rendered are immoral and illogical (like Estrada v. Arroyo), and some even contain the kind of laughable textbook errors that the Media has been regaling the public with using Antonio Callipje Go. But Go never found anything more ludicrous than Reynato Puno’s ponencia on Indigenous Peoples. In that amazing decision, he is oblivious of the fact that the decision makes all Christian tribes NON-INDIGENOUS, like the Tagalogs, Pampangos, Ilocanos, Cebuano’s etc.
I’ve seen their CLAY FEET. It’s not a pretty sight. But the amazing supinehood of the intelligentsia towards the Court, blind, idolatrous, ever bending backwards, is even worse.
Why should they be exempt from the same weapons of public accountability like Congress investigations and investigative journalism. We have fifteen more reasons for examining them than even the Presidency.
gudlak! di yata cunning meron ang mga senators kundi kuning. di patience kundi impatience. and cmon! senators wouldn’t be able to spring a trap question even if it stared them in the face.
re djb’s opinion abt the judiciary, i have to agree. every, and i mean EVERY landmark case questioning some of the acts of this present admin have been ruled upon by the SC in, shall i say: indefinite way.
if those were resolutions, pigs would fly. it threw more questions than it resolved some. it gave the people some candy to suck on while upholding the most grievous of the palace’s pronouncements.
activist court? at times of greatest pressure, the SC has always preferred to run away from full resolution and always opting for compromising decisions.
and i think marichu lambino hit the right spot when she wrote:
the SC stared down the executive’s barrel of a gun and found themselves powerless in the end. having discovered their own inutility, the SC chose the cowardly path. for if the SC would force the issue, there will be no constitutional crisis. there would just be the executive blatantly disobeying the SC. and after that, every SC decisions would be meaningless. they’d be a kangaroo court pretending to wield powers they know they no longer possess.
let’s face it. the SC has NO POLICE POWERS. and hence, no real way to enforce orders than to rely on everyone to recognize its authority as legal arbiter.
so instead of facing down the barrel of a gun, the SC chose to blink and live another day.
disappointing. the SC does not believe the people will rally to its cause and uphold its authority over the executive. police power or not, the state’s power lasts only as long as people are willing to recognize it. can the SC not see this? authority is conferred upon by the majority, not by arms.
righteous men have been shamed for less.
of course that barrel of a gun showed the justices only one thing: civil war.
Thanks DJB, i’m beginning to see that you don’t like the Supreme Court.
in later years, future justices would steer clear on making decisions like Hilario Davide did that fateful day when he swore in GMA.
it will be called “Davide’s curse”
and all future justices would be admonished, “meditate, ponder, and asked God for wisdom or suffer Davide’s curse“
More like a supporter of Status Quo
dean JB:
being one of the country’s legal luminaries, from the Davide Court up to the present, is there any ruling of the HT on pivotal issues such as: Affirmation of Gloria’s presidency, EO464, 1017, writ of date, writ of amparo, Neri’s case etc. etc., which you consider laudable? What is your analysis of the behavior and the line of thinking of the crop of justices since the Davide Court up to Puno?
ramrod, the lawyers can answer, but i’d think not. because the articles of war and the military code of justice still stand.
Hindi ko masyado nasubaybayan ang manga desisyones nang Korte Suprema, pero sa manga kaunti na nasulyapan ko, parang nagbutohan ang 15 membro pareho sa manga Botante, depende kong sin-o ang kanilang Idolo na politiko. Kaya makita natin sa manga Close Decisions, Partisan ang Botohan, korte suprema ba yan???
for those interested in the economy, you may want to dissect this:
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=peterWallace_feb29_2008
Hi Manolo,
Thanks for the Peter Wallace, Manila Standard link. Now time for the Palace spin doctors to earn their keep.
What are the odds for removal of members of the Supreme Court via impeachment?
Article IX. Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter.
Latest news
Inquirer
GMA signed special authority on NBN-ZTE deal.
By Tony s Bergonia
President Macapagal-Arroyo was more than just a witness to the signing of the scanal-ridden NBN deal with chinese firm.
documents showed that when dotc sec leandro mendoza signed the deal on april 21, 2007, he did so on behalf of the president.
ms arroyo, on april 20,2007, signed a special authority allowing mendoza to sign the deal on her behalf.
ms arroyo issued special authority desite information relayed to her on irregularities that surrounded the project…..
cheers for GMA! kapal talaga
This is it MLQ. although how difficult to secure documents of the NBN-ZTE deal, somehow some of them still manage to dodge malcañang’s net-trap.
if you allow me to borrow the words in your column: the paper trail is so wide and so damning, that the Palace can’t muster the means to destroy it.
Manolo, as you pointed out six months ago, Peter Wallace first made that observation back then:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=83077
In the linked article, today, he is taking his suspicion a step further by using the word ‘skullduggery’:
As i mentioned in my previous blog entry on this topic, the opposite directions taken by per capita GDP and Average Family Income (as per the FIES) is odd.
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2008/01/tale-of-two-statistics-family-income.html
Peter Wallace has also picked up on this when he says:
I was arguing the above points with (mostly with Anthony Scalia) a few threads back. I’m hoping Peter Wallace would have a better chance convincing him, and all of those who readily swallow the high GDP growth narrative of the Admin to take a second look.
mlq3,
great article by Peter Wallace. great observation also in
in my own little modest way, i try to help create jobs. ‘patalsikin na now na’, rallies and people power won’t create those jobs
statistics can’t be eaten. as a layman, who can’t mesh well with statistics, i only have a simple test to see if the economy is really growing. in the past, the price of the petroleum product i used for cooking was P500 plus. Now its more than P700. God Almighty. if GMA’s propaganda is right, why is it the price is increasing.
“in my own little modest way, i try to help create jobs. ‘patalsikin na now na’, rallies and people power won’t create those jobs” – anthony scalia
Very commendable indeed(help create jobs),Anthony. But I also think that there are those who join the rallies that in their own little way are also contributing to the economy by way of helping create jobs. Of course, I could be wrong with my presumption.
re: GMA’s propaganda is right-GMA’s propaganda is true
this will be off-topic, but i had to raise it bec it is also my campaign.
an excerpt from michael tan’s column today (emphasis mine)
yes. you’ll hear them claim they support natural family planning but you don’t hear or see any of them actually doing information campaign on how to do this. its called lip service. they don’t want population control AT ALL. god knows why. you go and do the rounds in rural areas and poor barangays and you will hear conservatives advising couples with ten kids: sige lang po. biyaya yan ng dyos.
eh kung pinagsasampal ko kaya sila? sa simula’t sapul pa lang, groups campaigning for a more progressive population control have made their stand clear: we are NOT FOR ABORTION. so i don’t understand why this LIE is still being peddled by these people. prevention IS NOT ABORTION!!! how can you abort something not already formed?
and the old lie abt sex education, condoms increasing promiscuity is really, IDIOTIC.
promiscuity comes first and foremost from curiosity. what are they so afraid of about sex education? education sets people free from misconceptions and wrong information. sex education may even be the key in teaching kids to VALUE sex as a sacred act.
at por dyos por santo naman, pigil sila ng pigil na ituro ang TAMANG sex education sa schools samantalang yung mga bata tuloy sa kalye lang natutunan ang tungkol sa sex. kaya ayan tuloy, mali-mali, at di pinapahalagahan ang importansya ng sex. e kung naituro sana yan ng TAMA sa paaralan eh di, di na kelangan pang mag eksperimento ng mga kabataan para lang malaman kung ano meron dyan.
we are back to where we started. senate rejects SC compromise on EP. what a circus? i wonder who cant handle the truth?
Some further dissection of Peter Wallace’s column. He said…
Recall what Madriaga said in the Senate about a certain oligarch engaged in Oil Smuggling as well as the ‘TA’? (Oil)? as indicated in Neri’s Oligarchy (aka ‘Booty Capitalism’) diagram.
Any smuggled oil will not be reflected as imports so will not be deducted from GDP. Wallace’s observation gives us an indication of the scale of oil smuggling as well as the overstatement of GDP.
Recall what Madriaga said in the Senate about a certain oligarch engaged in Oil Smuggling as well as the ‘TA’? (Oil)? as indicated in Neri’s Oligarchy (aka ‘Booty Capitalism’) diagram. – cvj
If TA is involved in oil smuggling, are the smuggled stocks for immediate re-sale to the other oligarchs e.g. FAb (with their power plants)? I know TA’s family is involved primarily in agri-buisness.
cjv, do you, or is there anyone we know online, good at making matrices and charts?
Maginoo, i have no way of knowing. I did a quick google and they do have oil-fired power plants, but we cannot conclude anything from that.
Manolo, i can do Visio, Powerpoint and/or some basic excel charts. What do you have in mind?
cvj-
can jet fuel be smuggled as well? then LT will be benefited as well.
cjv –
if TA’s power plants are still under IPP incentives, triple whammy!
no-tax inputs, no output, but getting substantially paid.
that’s rent-seeking at its best!
Came somewhat late in this “deal or no deal” by mlq3. Just heard the news this morning that EO 464 was revoked. But Memo Circular 108 is still there, according to Sen. Biazon, which is “exactly the same” as EO 464.
Also, the executive can always invoke so-called “executive privilege†as if the issue never happened before “hello Garci†and the NBN mess did.
And how does a generally passive SC take the matter? Wait for another complaint on that circular which, in effect, is another gag order to conceal the “truth†(read: stink) of the executive?
Another colossal kalokohan!
CVJ I crnge looking at your bar chart comparing GDP per capita and average family income. para kang nagkumpara ng isang ulo sa limang ulo. per capita nga eh di per head.
Average family income include all members of the family.
and the famiy my not necessarily have the same number of members.
yong isa average, yong isa per capita, how can there be comparability.
sheesh.
with regards correlation of oil imports to GDP growth, is there a study which shows there is high correlation? then what is the correlation coefficient.
There may be correlation but it is not significant enough to follow the trend of the GDP.
sus.
“per capita nga eh di per head”
Made my day. Very funny.
It is better to shut up and be mistaken for a fool than to open your mouth and erase all doubt.
nash, you just did “erase all doubt” about you!
@bencard
at least I’m not as pompous an ass like you. I readily accept defeat and admit my mistakes.
why do you need a lesson in latin too to know what ‘per capita’ means?
how can anyone win against these people? after pestering the president into revoking eo464, they are still complaining after she did just that. of course, executive privilege remains intact, eo 464 or not. it is an essential component of separation of powers. shouldn’t their bright boys think of that beforehand? are they now asking for a constitutional amendment to ‘abolish’ the principle of separation of power and the doctrine of executive privilege?
aber, what do you understand by “per capita”, bright, non-pompous, one?
Bencard,
There is another principle that is important to your concern. It is the fact under our Constitution, the highest Court of Public Accountability is NOT the Supreme Court. I repeat NOT the Supreme Court but the Senate of the Philippines. It is Congress’ power of inquiry–the very essence of the Public’s Right to Know the Truth as determined in a Court of Law, which is precisely what the Senate is when it convenes as an impeachment Court. This refers to the 30 or 31 Constitutional officers…the highest officials of the land…in all cases of impeachment the sole and exclusive power belongs to Congress. The Supreme Court does not even have the power of judicial review in all cases of impeachment.
This is another fundamental tenet that is yet little appreciated.
The central problem of systemic dysfunction lies in this cuckolding of the Congress since 2001, the work of People Power fascists.
There was a portion in Bandila last night featuring how a bunch of HI SCHOOL students have supposedly “taken it upon themselves” to mount their own protest rally to pressure Arroyo to resign.
How LOW is the Media and all these architects of street antics willing to go?
It was a half hour news program with feature after feature of who’s whos’ statements and verdicts on the matter of the president’s culpability or legitimacy.
MEANWHILE a story about a typhoid outbreak in Calamba affecting hundreds of families languished at the 29th minute and lasted all of 15 seconds.
Ang galing talaga ng Pinoy! 😀
@bencard
I plead no contest. I’m still laughing so hard I can’t think at the moment about cat’s per capita comment.
worry not about me.
@bencard
I plead no contest. I’m still laughing so hard about cat’s “per capita nga eh hindi per head” comment that I can’t think at the moment.
worry not about me. i’m enjoying the endorphin rush. it’s very rare these days.
Pagpasensyahan niyo na si cvj.
He can certainly do the numbers, but when it comes to gleaning the right INSIGHT out of these, well… you do the numbers. 😀
Here’s another one:
I also saw in Bandila last night that ABS CBN have now stooped to getting “statements” from imprisoned mutineers.
How’s that for pathetic scraping the bottom of the barrel.
– 😀
Pinoy society is just a barrel of laughs!
djb rizalist, i think the sc still is the final arbiter on all controversies involving the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions on impeachment. an example would be whether an impeachment charge is properly brought before the senate, sitting as impeachment court, for the latter to exercise jurisdiction. however, i think you are right that the decisions of the senate, as an impeachment court, is not reviewable by the sc, except as to constitutional issues.
benignO, it’s really sad to see our kids being politicized by their elders in the wrong way, including disrespect and disregard of the rule of law and fairness, and prejudging others without due process. these young children are the future of our country. how can we expect them to be better citizens if we are teaching them virtual anarchy, cynicism, and defiance of authorities? civility and good discipline are among the vanishing ideals in our present society. how sad!
are yous still laughing?
is a Latin phrase meaning for each head. Per meaning ‘through’ and capita meaning ‘heads’ Which comes to the common use of for each head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
Siguro naman noong tinatapos ko ang aking Phd sa Eco alam ko na ang meaning ng per capita. kinakain ko yan sa almusal tanghalian at sa hapunan kasama ng mga coefficient correlation, GDP, GNP. what about you nash?
if you speak my language then you can present to me the computation of this coefficient and convince me of the high correlation.
as i can see it clown ka lang ba dito na tagatawa.
cjv, will email.