Noong nakaraang linggo, ang unyon ay pinutakte ng kaliwa't kanang tanong kung totoo daw na mayroong ibibigay na humigit-kumulang na P20,000 bawat isang kawani ng UP (kabilang ang PGH) bilang paunang bayad sa back COLA. Ang balitang ito ay mariin nating pinasinungalingan at anumang balita tungkol sa napipintong pagbibigay nito sa mga kawaning UP ay pawang walang batayan.
Ang totoo ay ang Unyon ay mayroon nang sulat noong nakaran pang dalawang linggo sa ating Vice President for Legal Affairs, Prof. Marvic Leonen kaugnay sa isyung ito pagkaraang ipinalabas ng Supreme Court ang bago nitong desisyon kaugnay sa back COLA (G.R. No. 160396, PPA Employees vs. COA, September 6, 2005). Pagkasagot ng ating sulat (na ating inaasahang paborable sa ating posisyon) ay magkakaron ulit tayo ng panibagong kampanya sa loob ng UP para sa ating COLA back pay. Ito ay habang wala pang desisyon ang Supreme Court kaugnay naman sa kasong isinampa ng OSG Employees noong 1992 laban sa DBM na siyang dapat babalikat sa pagbabayad ng back COLA at hindi lamang ang bawat ahensiya dahil sa ang DBM ang siyang nagkamali sa pagpapatupad ng RA 6758 (Salary Standardization Law) noong 1989.
Matatandaang ang All UP Workers Union din ang unang nangampanya nito pagkatapos ng CNA signing sa pagitan ng UP at ng AUPWU noong 2002, na ang kinalabasan ay ang pagsampa ng UP (at pagtanggap ng Supreme Court) ng Motion to Intervene sa kasong isinampa ng OSG Employees sa Supreme Court at ang pagtanggi ng Board of Regents ng kahit paunang bayad sa back pay kahit pa humantong ang ating kampanya sa panandaliang "pagkulong" natin sa mga kasapi ng BOR sa Board Room ng UP Diliman at UP Manila.
Kayat ang pakiusap natin sa mga kapwa kawani ng UP (kabilang ang PGH) ay huwag tayong padadala sa mga nagkukunyaring naglalakad daw ng ating back COLA sa UP. Ni HA ni HO ay wala nga tayong narinig sa kanila noong sila pa ang kinikilalang "sole and exclusive bargaining unit" (1994-2000) kung saan sila ang kausap ng UP noong 1998 ng lumabas ang kauna-unahang desisyong ng Supreme Court kaugnay sa pagbabayad ng back COLA, ngayon pa kayang hanggang panggugulo na lamang sa mga isyu ang kaya nilang gawin?
Palagi po tayong sumangguni sa bukod tanging unyon na nagdadala ng tunay na unyunismo sa UP (kasama ang PGH), ang All UP Workers Union. At inasahan sana namin na sumama ang mas malawak na bilang ng mga kawani sa ating panibagong kampanya para sa back pay ng COLA upang tuluyan nating makamit ang tagumpay
Mabuhay ang mga kawani ng UP at PGH!
Monday, September 26, 2005
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Rule of Law and 'The Godfather'
First posted 02:05am (Mla time) Sept 09, 2005
By Raul Pangalangan
Inquirer News Service
WHEN legal technicalities were employed to suppress critical evidence during the impeachment of President Joseph Estrada, people mocked it as "legal gobbledygook." When legal technicalities were employed to block the impeachment of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, full-page ads called it a victory for the rule of law. What's the difference?
When pro-impeachment lawyers walked out of the Estrada trial, they were hailed as heroes acting out their moral indignation. When pro-impeachment congressmen walked out of the Arroyo hearing to protest the railroading of the proceedings, they were branded as unparliamentary and uncouth. What gives?
Abroad, the newspapers report sightings of Elvis, the King from Graceland and beyond. Hereabouts, the papers report sightings of Garci, the conspiring Election Commissioner fleeing disgrace in the homeland. How low can we go?
The congressional choking of the Arroyo impeachment is not the triumph of the rule of law, but of Mafia-style politics. Erstwhile anti-Arroyo congressmen mysteriously did not vote to uphold the impeachment charges? Look no farther than "The Godfather" movie, in which a witness at a Senate hearing suddenly clammed up. Confused by the Catholic Church hierarchy's waffling on Ms Arroyo? The bishops were so big on the question of morality when it was Estrada's neck on the dock, but now they are suddenly reduced to quibbling that Ms Arroyo's culpability was just moral but not legal. Again recall how Don Michael Corleone so piously, so solemnly, received a papal citation.
The Inquirer's editorial last Wednesday noted the recent appointments by President Arroyo that rewarded her loyal congressmen and some offers dangled to entice anti-Arroyo legislators to switch sides. On the floor of the House of Representatives, some congressmen were candid enough to say that they blocked the Arroyo impeachment because the President had been so "generous" to their district, referring I suppose to their overflowing gratitude for the flow of pork-barrel money.
The biggest irony is that those full-page, paid ads supporting President Arroyo may be motivated less by love for the law and more by a loathing for Arroyo's legal successor, Vice President Noli de Castro. It bespeaks a class bias by the affluent, educated Filipino, looking down on a duly elected Vice President because he is not one of their own, and who consider it unthinkable to have him as their leader.
The pro-Arroyo middle forces go to great lengths, worthy of intellectual contortionists, to explain why President Arroyo must not go. Estrada was ousted on the issue of his moral fitness but Ms Arroyo must stay despite the moral cloud, they say, because we need to be united. They claim to venerate the Constitution but will do everything to thwart Ms Arroyo's constitutional successor.
Well, guys, if national unity is valued in itself, and the rule of law says that the Vice President is next in line, why couldn't you do all that "uniting" behind Noli? Why embrace the Constitution only when it can be twisted to support Arroyo, but not when it categorically benefits her duly-elected Vice President?
Today the rule of law is nothing but mere rhetorical cover for what are essentially Machiavellian aims. I wonder if even those who now speak of it so loftily hold it "truly, madly, deeply" in their hearts.
The ideal of "a government of laws and not of men" is supposed to be the antidote to feudal governance. It is the modern response to backward notions of power. It is institutional, rather than personal; rule-based, rather than discretionary; and it aims to be just rather than merely convenient. The rule of law is not an ideal that can be switched on and off, depending on what is politically expedient.
That precisely is the danger with deploying the rule of law as a rhetorical weapon. It is a weapon that is programmed to respect certain principles. Unlike guns that can be made to shoot any target chosen by the gun-wielder, the rule of law can command the wielder to shoot some but not others and only under certain conditions. That is why our Supreme Court had to provide juridically acceptable accounts of Cory Aquino's extra-constitutional People Power and Ms Arroyo's shortcut to Malacañang. Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, said that the trials aimed "to establish incredible events with credible evidence" and exalted the tribunal as "the highest tribute that force ever paid to reason."
Those who exalt the crushing of the impeachment as the triumph of the rule of law may have missed the Constitution's Preamble. It states that "We, the sovereign Filipino people" seek the "blessings of … democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth…." Instead they find the rule of law in the deliberate misreading of the Constitution. But that has been the hallmark of this crisis over the Garci tapes, when being legalistic was mistaken for being just.
When President Arroyo gave her "I am sorry" speech for her repeated improper phone calls to an election official, she no sooner finessed it a week after with a "But I never admitted anything" speech. When her spokesmen said that the truth must be ascertained in the courts and not in the streets, we naively believed that she would allow the people and their elected deputies to hear the evidence against her. But President Arroyo's minions in Congress killed the impeachment charges and never gave the Senate a chance to examine the evidence. Gloria got her day in court. The Filipino people did not.
Comments to: passionforreason@gmail.com
(c)2005 www.inq7.net all rights reserved
By Raul Pangalangan
Inquirer News Service
WHEN legal technicalities were employed to suppress critical evidence during the impeachment of President Joseph Estrada, people mocked it as "legal gobbledygook." When legal technicalities were employed to block the impeachment of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, full-page ads called it a victory for the rule of law. What's the difference?
When pro-impeachment lawyers walked out of the Estrada trial, they were hailed as heroes acting out their moral indignation. When pro-impeachment congressmen walked out of the Arroyo hearing to protest the railroading of the proceedings, they were branded as unparliamentary and uncouth. What gives?
Abroad, the newspapers report sightings of Elvis, the King from Graceland and beyond. Hereabouts, the papers report sightings of Garci, the conspiring Election Commissioner fleeing disgrace in the homeland. How low can we go?
The congressional choking of the Arroyo impeachment is not the triumph of the rule of law, but of Mafia-style politics. Erstwhile anti-Arroyo congressmen mysteriously did not vote to uphold the impeachment charges? Look no farther than "The Godfather" movie, in which a witness at a Senate hearing suddenly clammed up. Confused by the Catholic Church hierarchy's waffling on Ms Arroyo? The bishops were so big on the question of morality when it was Estrada's neck on the dock, but now they are suddenly reduced to quibbling that Ms Arroyo's culpability was just moral but not legal. Again recall how Don Michael Corleone so piously, so solemnly, received a papal citation.
The Inquirer's editorial last Wednesday noted the recent appointments by President Arroyo that rewarded her loyal congressmen and some offers dangled to entice anti-Arroyo legislators to switch sides. On the floor of the House of Representatives, some congressmen were candid enough to say that they blocked the Arroyo impeachment because the President had been so "generous" to their district, referring I suppose to their overflowing gratitude for the flow of pork-barrel money.
The biggest irony is that those full-page, paid ads supporting President Arroyo may be motivated less by love for the law and more by a loathing for Arroyo's legal successor, Vice President Noli de Castro. It bespeaks a class bias by the affluent, educated Filipino, looking down on a duly elected Vice President because he is not one of their own, and who consider it unthinkable to have him as their leader.
The pro-Arroyo middle forces go to great lengths, worthy of intellectual contortionists, to explain why President Arroyo must not go. Estrada was ousted on the issue of his moral fitness but Ms Arroyo must stay despite the moral cloud, they say, because we need to be united. They claim to venerate the Constitution but will do everything to thwart Ms Arroyo's constitutional successor.
Well, guys, if national unity is valued in itself, and the rule of law says that the Vice President is next in line, why couldn't you do all that "uniting" behind Noli? Why embrace the Constitution only when it can be twisted to support Arroyo, but not when it categorically benefits her duly-elected Vice President?
Today the rule of law is nothing but mere rhetorical cover for what are essentially Machiavellian aims. I wonder if even those who now speak of it so loftily hold it "truly, madly, deeply" in their hearts.
The ideal of "a government of laws and not of men" is supposed to be the antidote to feudal governance. It is the modern response to backward notions of power. It is institutional, rather than personal; rule-based, rather than discretionary; and it aims to be just rather than merely convenient. The rule of law is not an ideal that can be switched on and off, depending on what is politically expedient.
That precisely is the danger with deploying the rule of law as a rhetorical weapon. It is a weapon that is programmed to respect certain principles. Unlike guns that can be made to shoot any target chosen by the gun-wielder, the rule of law can command the wielder to shoot some but not others and only under certain conditions. That is why our Supreme Court had to provide juridically acceptable accounts of Cory Aquino's extra-constitutional People Power and Ms Arroyo's shortcut to Malacañang. Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, said that the trials aimed "to establish incredible events with credible evidence" and exalted the tribunal as "the highest tribute that force ever paid to reason."
Those who exalt the crushing of the impeachment as the triumph of the rule of law may have missed the Constitution's Preamble. It states that "We, the sovereign Filipino people" seek the "blessings of … democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth…." Instead they find the rule of law in the deliberate misreading of the Constitution. But that has been the hallmark of this crisis over the Garci tapes, when being legalistic was mistaken for being just.
When President Arroyo gave her "I am sorry" speech for her repeated improper phone calls to an election official, she no sooner finessed it a week after with a "But I never admitted anything" speech. When her spokesmen said that the truth must be ascertained in the courts and not in the streets, we naively believed that she would allow the people and their elected deputies to hear the evidence against her. But President Arroyo's minions in Congress killed the impeachment charges and never gave the Senate a chance to examine the evidence. Gloria got her day in court. The Filipino people did not.
Comments to: passionforreason@gmail.com
(c)2005 www.inq7.net all rights reserved
Friday, August 26, 2005
'Benjamins' of the House
A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY)
By Jose C. Sison
The Philippine Star 08/26/2005
The ongoing political drama (or comedy according to many others) happening in the House of Representatives impeachment proceedings somehow gives us a glimpse of our country's future – as clearly seen in the young, fresh faces who have been previously silent and preferred to stay in the background while the gristly veterans do their thing. Now they are starting to emerge from the shadow of their more experienced colleagues whose old brand of politics has given that Chamber a rather unwholesome reputation. It is indeed encouraging to see them speak up and make a firm and principled stand on the burning issues of the day.
The simplicity of their position and the purity oftheir intentions are easily noticeable. They are reassuring indications that the impeachment process will have a credible ending and that our country still has a bright and rosy future. I am sure there are still many of them in the lower house who will eventually speak out their still idealistic minds and make their presence felt.
These young legislators know that removal of a President is an extreme measure that should not be taken lightly as it has very grave political consequences on the nation and its government headed by an elected incumbent whose tenure has been precisely fixed by the Constitution for stability and permanence. Hence they acknowledge that it must be done in accordance with the "rule of law" or through the impeachment process. And for the "rule of law" to prevail, they realize that impeachment rules must be strictly enforced and carefully followed even if it takes time to do so.
Yet in their idealistic minds, they are also very much aware that upholding the "rule of law" means finding out or letting the truth come out of the impeachment process; that any proceeding resulting in a failure to determine the whole truth is never in accordance with the rule of law. Thus under the existing Constitutional scheme, they have correctly raised the point that the lower house's real function in the impeachment process is merely to determine whether or not to charge the President rather than to try and establish the truth or falsity of the charges which are the functions of the Senate; that when they impeach the president,they are not adjudging her as already guilty but precisely giving her the opportunity to prove her accusers wrong. For these reasons our young and idealistic legislators have started to speak out and voice their concerns on the apparent move of their more politically savvy colleagues to prevent process from reaching the Senate. They have seen through a scheme where their colleagues will use their superiority in numbers to cut short the impeachment proceedings through some hair-splitting technicalities. They believe that this move is not good for the President or beneficial to the country; that it will only plunge us deeper into a prolonged crisis and political bickering.
The veteran politicians in Congress should not ignore their young and idealistic colleagues. Pushing through with their scheme may even boomerang and alienate and drive these young and principled men and women away from their fold. Listening to these young people is listening to the voice of the nation's conscience. After all, they arethe hope of the motherland and also have a vital role in nation building.* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net
Copyright (c) 2005 philstar.com . All rights reserved.
By Jose C. Sison
The Philippine Star 08/26/2005
The ongoing political drama (or comedy according to many others) happening in the House of Representatives impeachment proceedings somehow gives us a glimpse of our country's future – as clearly seen in the young, fresh faces who have been previously silent and preferred to stay in the background while the gristly veterans do their thing. Now they are starting to emerge from the shadow of their more experienced colleagues whose old brand of politics has given that Chamber a rather unwholesome reputation. It is indeed encouraging to see them speak up and make a firm and principled stand on the burning issues of the day.
The simplicity of their position and the purity oftheir intentions are easily noticeable. They are reassuring indications that the impeachment process will have a credible ending and that our country still has a bright and rosy future. I am sure there are still many of them in the lower house who will eventually speak out their still idealistic minds and make their presence felt.
These young legislators know that removal of a President is an extreme measure that should not be taken lightly as it has very grave political consequences on the nation and its government headed by an elected incumbent whose tenure has been precisely fixed by the Constitution for stability and permanence. Hence they acknowledge that it must be done in accordance with the "rule of law" or through the impeachment process. And for the "rule of law" to prevail, they realize that impeachment rules must be strictly enforced and carefully followed even if it takes time to do so.
Yet in their idealistic minds, they are also very much aware that upholding the "rule of law" means finding out or letting the truth come out of the impeachment process; that any proceeding resulting in a failure to determine the whole truth is never in accordance with the rule of law. Thus under the existing Constitutional scheme, they have correctly raised the point that the lower house's real function in the impeachment process is merely to determine whether or not to charge the President rather than to try and establish the truth or falsity of the charges which are the functions of the Senate; that when they impeach the president,they are not adjudging her as already guilty but precisely giving her the opportunity to prove her accusers wrong. For these reasons our young and idealistic legislators have started to speak out and voice their concerns on the apparent move of their more politically savvy colleagues to prevent process from reaching the Senate. They have seen through a scheme where their colleagues will use their superiority in numbers to cut short the impeachment proceedings through some hair-splitting technicalities. They believe that this move is not good for the President or beneficial to the country; that it will only plunge us deeper into a prolonged crisis and political bickering.
The veteran politicians in Congress should not ignore their young and idealistic colleagues. Pushing through with their scheme may even boomerang and alienate and drive these young and principled men and women away from their fold. Listening to these young people is listening to the voice of the nation's conscience. After all, they arethe hope of the motherland and also have a vital role in nation building.* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net
Copyright (c) 2005 philstar.com . All rights reserved.
Juridical Guerrilla Warfare
By Raul Pangalangan
This story was taken from www.inq7.net
First posted 03:38am (Mla time) Aug 26, 2005
Inquirer News Service
THE BEST way to kill the impeachment complaint is to wear out the people. No need to show that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is innocent. Just tire the sovereign people, bore them, make them indifferent to whether or not she is guilty. Reduce Gloriagate from a debate about principles to a wager on technicalities bereft of moral content. That is the peril of the vote by the House ofRepresentatives' justice committee to focus first on "prejudicial questions." To paraphrase Sun Tzu, war is like fire. Rather than putting it out, let it burn itself out.
Three impeachment complaints have been filed against President Arroyo, the first, filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano, apparently the weakest. The next step, under the Constitution, is for the proper congressional committee to say whether the complaints are sufficient in form and substance.
However, the Constitution also says: "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year." Pro-Arroyo congressmen say that the committee must first settle the "prejudicial" issue of whether the Lozano complaint has triggered off the one-year bar and, if yes, whether it can be supplemented by the stronger complaint drafted by opposition lawyers. Their goal, obviously, is to lock in the vulnerable Lozano version and knock out the high-octane opposition draft.
The Supreme Court has laid down the controlling doctrine. In Francisco v. House of Representatives, the Court cited the one-year bar and threw out a second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The anti-Davide forces invoked Rules 16/17 of the impeachment procedure adopted by Congress, which says that "impeachment proceedings [are] deemed initiated" only after the justice committee has acted on the complaint; by that rule, the first complaint couldn't have activated the one-year rule. The Court thus struck down Rules16/17 as unconstitutional and pegged the triggering moment much earlier: when the complaint is filed and referred to the justice committee.
Citing one of the founding fathers of the 1987 Constitution, the Court said: "Father [Joaquin] Bernas further explains: The 'impeachment proceeding' is not initiated when the complaint is transmitted to the Senate for trial [nor] when the House deliberates on the resolution passed on to it by the Committee.... Rather, the proceeding is initiated or begins when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. This is the initiating step which triggers the series of steps that follow." Pro-Arroyo congressmen now claim that Lozano has tripped the constitutional switch.
But, as Rep. Francis Escudero said at a forum in the University of the Philippines, opposition legislators have anticipated this, and deftly packaged their complaint so that it can either "stand alone" as an independent complaint or merely supplement Lozano's.
There is no technical bar to a supplement. I have heard forced analogies to judicial process, both civil and criminal, all of them inapt to the "sui generis" ("class by itself") nature of impeachment proceedings. The current procedural rules on impeachment are silent on supplements. Therefore, to hinder the other complaints is an exercise of discretion. Our legislators must not wash their hands through technicalities, and be candid enough to confess that they are voting their true selves.
This gap ("lacuna") in the rules beckons us to turn to the "intent of the framers." Note the following exchange in the Constitutional Commission when they drafted the one-year bar.
Commissioner Villacorta: "Does this mean that even if evidence is discovered to support another charge ... a second ... proceeding cannot be initiated [within] one year? ... The intention may be to protect the public official from undue harassment. [But] is this not undue limitation on the accountability of public officers?"
Commissioner Romulo: "Yes, the intention here really is to limit. This is not only to protect public officials ... from harassment but also to allow the [Congress] to do its work, which is lawmaking. Impeachment proceedings take a lot of time."
Hearing the three complaints together will advance this constitutional intent -- no undue "harassment" of the respondent, or additional work for Congress.
But in addition, Rep. Teodoro Locsin shows that there is in fact a proper technical way to construe the three complaints. Congressional time is not normal people's time, he said. Congress can simply stop the clock and by parliamentary fiat freeze time, and the record will not show that they actually debated past midnight. Now by such reckoning, time stood still while Congress was on its constitutionally mandated one-month break. That Lozano filed first in that twilight zone is of no consequence.
Which brings us back to the controlling moment in Francisco, namely, July 25, when Congress re-convened, the "session day" when Speaker Jose de Venecia endorsed the complaints to the justice committee, simultaneously at 11:20 a.m. (recorded in the official Journal). Therefore, Francisco will hold that none of the complaints could have blocked off the others.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That, shorn of fancy lawyer talk, is one big part of the rule of law. The justices read the one-year bar liberally in favor of the "accused." This gave solace to the Chief Justice, who was worthy, but now it purportedly gives safe haven to President Arroyo, who is not. The solution is not to fudge what the Court said in Francisco, but to carry out our compelling intuitions through the disciplined craft of the law, and in Unger's words, "find the mind's opportunity in the heart's revenge." Remember Sun Tzu: Take away the energy of the enemy, take away their heart. * * *
Comments to passionforreason@gmail.com
(c)2005 www.inq7.net all rights reserved
This story was taken from www.inq7.net
First posted 03:38am (Mla time) Aug 26, 2005
Inquirer News Service
THE BEST way to kill the impeachment complaint is to wear out the people. No need to show that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is innocent. Just tire the sovereign people, bore them, make them indifferent to whether or not she is guilty. Reduce Gloriagate from a debate about principles to a wager on technicalities bereft of moral content. That is the peril of the vote by the House ofRepresentatives' justice committee to focus first on "prejudicial questions." To paraphrase Sun Tzu, war is like fire. Rather than putting it out, let it burn itself out.
Three impeachment complaints have been filed against President Arroyo, the first, filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano, apparently the weakest. The next step, under the Constitution, is for the proper congressional committee to say whether the complaints are sufficient in form and substance.
However, the Constitution also says: "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year." Pro-Arroyo congressmen say that the committee must first settle the "prejudicial" issue of whether the Lozano complaint has triggered off the one-year bar and, if yes, whether it can be supplemented by the stronger complaint drafted by opposition lawyers. Their goal, obviously, is to lock in the vulnerable Lozano version and knock out the high-octane opposition draft.
The Supreme Court has laid down the controlling doctrine. In Francisco v. House of Representatives, the Court cited the one-year bar and threw out a second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The anti-Davide forces invoked Rules 16/17 of the impeachment procedure adopted by Congress, which says that "impeachment proceedings [are] deemed initiated" only after the justice committee has acted on the complaint; by that rule, the first complaint couldn't have activated the one-year rule. The Court thus struck down Rules16/17 as unconstitutional and pegged the triggering moment much earlier: when the complaint is filed and referred to the justice committee.
Citing one of the founding fathers of the 1987 Constitution, the Court said: "Father [Joaquin] Bernas further explains: The 'impeachment proceeding' is not initiated when the complaint is transmitted to the Senate for trial [nor] when the House deliberates on the resolution passed on to it by the Committee.... Rather, the proceeding is initiated or begins when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. This is the initiating step which triggers the series of steps that follow." Pro-Arroyo congressmen now claim that Lozano has tripped the constitutional switch.
But, as Rep. Francis Escudero said at a forum in the University of the Philippines, opposition legislators have anticipated this, and deftly packaged their complaint so that it can either "stand alone" as an independent complaint or merely supplement Lozano's.
There is no technical bar to a supplement. I have heard forced analogies to judicial process, both civil and criminal, all of them inapt to the "sui generis" ("class by itself") nature of impeachment proceedings. The current procedural rules on impeachment are silent on supplements. Therefore, to hinder the other complaints is an exercise of discretion. Our legislators must not wash their hands through technicalities, and be candid enough to confess that they are voting their true selves.
This gap ("lacuna") in the rules beckons us to turn to the "intent of the framers." Note the following exchange in the Constitutional Commission when they drafted the one-year bar.
Commissioner Villacorta: "Does this mean that even if evidence is discovered to support another charge ... a second ... proceeding cannot be initiated [within] one year? ... The intention may be to protect the public official from undue harassment. [But] is this not undue limitation on the accountability of public officers?"
Commissioner Romulo: "Yes, the intention here really is to limit. This is not only to protect public officials ... from harassment but also to allow the [Congress] to do its work, which is lawmaking. Impeachment proceedings take a lot of time."
Hearing the three complaints together will advance this constitutional intent -- no undue "harassment" of the respondent, or additional work for Congress.
But in addition, Rep. Teodoro Locsin shows that there is in fact a proper technical way to construe the three complaints. Congressional time is not normal people's time, he said. Congress can simply stop the clock and by parliamentary fiat freeze time, and the record will not show that they actually debated past midnight. Now by such reckoning, time stood still while Congress was on its constitutionally mandated one-month break. That Lozano filed first in that twilight zone is of no consequence.
Which brings us back to the controlling moment in Francisco, namely, July 25, when Congress re-convened, the "session day" when Speaker Jose de Venecia endorsed the complaints to the justice committee, simultaneously at 11:20 a.m. (recorded in the official Journal). Therefore, Francisco will hold that none of the complaints could have blocked off the others.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That, shorn of fancy lawyer talk, is one big part of the rule of law. The justices read the one-year bar liberally in favor of the "accused." This gave solace to the Chief Justice, who was worthy, but now it purportedly gives safe haven to President Arroyo, who is not. The solution is not to fudge what the Court said in Francisco, but to carry out our compelling intuitions through the disciplined craft of the law, and in Unger's words, "find the mind's opportunity in the heart's revenge." Remember Sun Tzu: Take away the energy of the enemy, take away their heart. * * *
Comments to passionforreason@gmail.com
(c)2005 www.inq7.net all rights reserved
Thursday, August 18, 2005
EMERGENCY POWER IS A FORMULA FOR DICTATORSHIP - MAZA
NEWS RELEASE
18 August 2005
For Reference: REP. LIZA LARGOZA MAZA 0920-9134540
Tels: 9316268, 9315001 loc7230;
Jang Monte (Public Information Officer) 0917-8226635
GABRIELA Women's Party Representative Liza Largoza Maza criticized today proposals to give Mrs. Arroyo emergency powers as a formula for dictatorship.
"This emergency power could be abused by the administration not to control oil prices but to control critics and dissenters. It could be used not to manage the oil crisis but to maneuver a prolonged Arroyo leadership in the midst of this political crisis. Giving Mrs. Arroyo emergency powers while the question of the legitimacy of her leadership still hangs only means Martial Rule," said Maza.
The lady solon insisted that the imposition of price control mechanisms as well as the repeal of the oil deregulation law is all that is necessary for the government to arrest oil price increases and bring down oil prices by as much as P3.68 per liter. "These are urgent measures that the government should implement in the midst of increasing oil prices."
Maza cited a study made by think-tank IBON Foundation revealing that from while pump prices should have increased only by P6.91 per liter from 2000 to 2004, an increase of P10.59 per liter have been recorded. IBON's estimate takes into consideration the peso-dollar exchange rate and Dubai crude prices.
"Once the oil deregulation is repealed, government can easily arrest the overpricing being committed by major oil players by keeping oil prices at minimum levels," said Maza as she lashed out on all giants who continue to amass huge profits at the expense of ordinary consumers.
Maza sought the immediate passage of House Bill 1065—An Act Repealing RA 8479: Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1998 and House Bill 3219 which seeks to include LPG and kerosene in the list of basic necessities in the Price Act.
"More than a small-scale energy conservation program that will again place the burden of managing oil consumption to ordinary, individual consumers, a measure that is of a larger scale such as the repeal of the oil deregulation law is imperative in the face of skyrocketing world oil prices. Giving the public immediate relief should be a priority."#
18 August 2005
For Reference: REP. LIZA LARGOZA MAZA 0920-9134540
Tels: 9316268, 9315001 loc7230;
Jang Monte (Public Information Officer) 0917-8226635
GABRIELA Women's Party Representative Liza Largoza Maza criticized today proposals to give Mrs. Arroyo emergency powers as a formula for dictatorship.
"This emergency power could be abused by the administration not to control oil prices but to control critics and dissenters. It could be used not to manage the oil crisis but to maneuver a prolonged Arroyo leadership in the midst of this political crisis. Giving Mrs. Arroyo emergency powers while the question of the legitimacy of her leadership still hangs only means Martial Rule," said Maza.
The lady solon insisted that the imposition of price control mechanisms as well as the repeal of the oil deregulation law is all that is necessary for the government to arrest oil price increases and bring down oil prices by as much as P3.68 per liter. "These are urgent measures that the government should implement in the midst of increasing oil prices."
Maza cited a study made by think-tank IBON Foundation revealing that from while pump prices should have increased only by P6.91 per liter from 2000 to 2004, an increase of P10.59 per liter have been recorded. IBON's estimate takes into consideration the peso-dollar exchange rate and Dubai crude prices.
"Once the oil deregulation is repealed, government can easily arrest the overpricing being committed by major oil players by keeping oil prices at minimum levels," said Maza as she lashed out on all giants who continue to amass huge profits at the expense of ordinary consumers.
Maza sought the immediate passage of House Bill 1065—An Act Repealing RA 8479: Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1998 and House Bill 3219 which seeks to include LPG and kerosene in the list of basic necessities in the Price Act.
"More than a small-scale energy conservation program that will again place the burden of managing oil consumption to ordinary, individual consumers, a measure that is of a larger scale such as the repeal of the oil deregulation law is imperative in the face of skyrocketing world oil prices. Giving the public immediate relief should be a priority."#
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Pack Your Bags, Gloria
By: ALAN C. ROBLES
Hot Manila
Perhaps President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo can't take a hint. The most respected and credible members of her cabinet have abandoned her and want her to resign; the Makati Business Club has asked that she stepdown; Cory Aquino twice called on her to relinquish her post. Demonstrations against her are increasing and show no signs of abating, opinion polls show her credibility in the negatives and political allies are turning against her. There's even a web site that's been set up called gmaresign now.com
Might there be something about the word "quit" that Mrs. Arroyo doesn't understand?
She maintains that if there's a case against her, it should be done constitutionally, through impeachment. Here's a quote for her: "Snap elections are unconstitutional, while impeachment is a long process." Who dared say this? Why, it was somebody named Gloria Arroyo - back in 2000 when she was vice-president and demanding that Joseph Estrada resign.
In the purely expedient world the President and her advisers apparently inhabit, nothing matters now except appearances. A pro-Arroyo rally that musters 120,000 people - most of them members of the El Shaddai cult, clients and employees of the loyalist Manila mayor or bussed-in province mates of Mrs. Arroyo -- is seen as proof of her popularity. The refusal of the Catholic hierarchy to call for her resignation is seen as a tremendous victory. A storm is building and the administration's reading tea leaves to check the weather.
To confuse the public, Arroyo allies last week released an alleged wiretap of Joseph Estrada plotting against the government. A shabby, amateurish production , the second wiretap doesn't invalidate the first, which strongly indicates President Arroyo cheating in last year's elections. Also, Estrada is already safely under custody. The persons in the "Garci" tape are not.
Mrs. Arroyo's spin meisters have been so busy conjuring the basest, darkest motives for her opponents (the resigned Cabinet secretaries are "traitors", Cory Aquino wants to protect Hacienda Luisita) that they haven't bothered to check how ridiculous their messages play. The smears are only causing irritation among people who are beginning to suspect their President is both a cheat and a liar, and her spouse could be seriously into graft.
Arroyo strategists might want to consult recent history in Central America and Eastern Europe, which shows that besieged governments that stubbornly cling to power tend to fall the same way, firing off defiant, blustering broadsides just before they suddenly capsize. The record also shows all the presidents ousted the last five years were driven to resign rather than impeached.
If for nothing else, Mrs. Arroyo should resign for an amazing display of crisis mismanagement. A chief executive can't even handle a deadly threat to her political career has no business handling the affairs of millions.
The whole wiretap scandal has been bungled from the get-go. In an alternate Universe in another dimension - one where the Philippines has ethical politicians - this is what an alternate Gloria Arroyo might do: if she were innocent, she would immediately and ferociously deny it, demand an investigation to clear her name, sue her accusers and order election commissioner Virgilio Garcilliano interrogated.
If she were guilty she would immediately apologize and resign, possibly making sure her husband is turned over to investigators.
Pick your poison
Faced with the hair-raising prospect of a Fernando Poe victory, the middle class was a passive accomplice. It turned its face to the wall and refused to see how the Arroyo administration packed the graft-ridden Comelec with allies, and profligately spent public funds on the campaign. Mrs. Arroyo didn't shrink from enlisting the same dirty tricks advisers, the notorious Puno brothers, Joseph Estrada used.
Mrs. Arroyo's middle class supporters could barely wait to rush in with fulsome congratulations when the President made a public confession and promised to "punish" herself by working twice as hard. Some of those supporters, writing on newsgroups, have put a class tone to the dispute: they've dismissed the anti-Arroyo protesters as "motley" because they're either poor or leftist. Presumably, rich and rightwing street demonstrators who support Mrs. Arroyo are not motley.
Civil society has been so misled by the perfumed rallies it used to overthrow Estrada that it's in danger of thinking it has an exclusive franchise on People Power.
The administration has tried to keep People Power off the agenda by insisting on a "constitutional" process. This means going through Congress, where a richly comic drama is being played out. Four years ago, Estrada's enemies were demanding that an envelope proving his corruption be opened, and his supporters blocked the move. Now, Mrs.Arroyo's allies are blocking a motion to play a recording of the wiretap.
Mrs. Arroyo herself has tarred all her current critics"destabilizers", while her propagandists have succeeded in defining "opposition" as consisting solely of Joseph Estrada and his Gangrene Gang. The president's supporters have also put down Susan Roces as a mere actress, forgetting how in 1985 a certain Cory Aquino wasdenigrated as a "mere housewife." Mrs. Aquino's subsequent career shows that it isn't necessarily what a leader can do that's important, it's what she symbolizes.
And right now Mrs. Arroyo symbolizes divisiveness. If this is just thef irst year of her term, it's hard to see her surviving until 2010. Her credibility has taken such a terrific battering that the only way she can recover is by doing something breathtaking and spectacular: repudiating the colossal debt on the useless Bataan reactor; jailing a couple of Marcoses and their cronies and recovering their ill-gotten wealth.
Assuming she survives this year, her administration will lurch along, trailing blood. She'll be hard put pushing her "terror n' taxes" agenda: codifying a national ID scheme, increasing revenues through regressive taxes, and ultimately perpetuating the administration by transitioning to a parliamentary system. And the Supreme Court just dealt her another blow by ordering an injunction against the extended VAT, a centerpiece of the government's economic program.
Weakened by massive graft and corruption, an unjust justice system and poverty, the country does not need a leadership crisis like this. The middle class, business leaders, and conservative politicians fear that throwing Mrs. Arroyo out of office could cause turmoil and economic devastation. They're not looking at the other side of the coin: an Arroyo who hangs on to office could also cause turmoil and economic devastation.
Painful as it seems, the time could soon come when the public will have to make some choices about a new leader. If the middle class refuses to involve itself in this process it might see the landscape dominated by the Estrada clique. Its own fear of bloodshed and violence could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
hotmanila.ph
Copyright 2005 Alan C. Robles All rights reserved editor@hotmanila.ph
Hot Manila
Perhaps President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo can't take a hint. The most respected and credible members of her cabinet have abandoned her and want her to resign; the Makati Business Club has asked that she stepdown; Cory Aquino twice called on her to relinquish her post. Demonstrations against her are increasing and show no signs of abating, opinion polls show her credibility in the negatives and political allies are turning against her. There's even a web site that's been set up called gmaresign now.com
Might there be something about the word "quit" that Mrs. Arroyo doesn't understand?
She maintains that if there's a case against her, it should be done constitutionally, through impeachment. Here's a quote for her: "Snap elections are unconstitutional, while impeachment is a long process." Who dared say this? Why, it was somebody named Gloria Arroyo - back in 2000 when she was vice-president and demanding that Joseph Estrada resign.
In the purely expedient world the President and her advisers apparently inhabit, nothing matters now except appearances. A pro-Arroyo rally that musters 120,000 people - most of them members of the El Shaddai cult, clients and employees of the loyalist Manila mayor or bussed-in province mates of Mrs. Arroyo -- is seen as proof of her popularity. The refusal of the Catholic hierarchy to call for her resignation is seen as a tremendous victory. A storm is building and the administration's reading tea leaves to check the weather.
To confuse the public, Arroyo allies last week released an alleged wiretap of Joseph Estrada plotting against the government. A shabby, amateurish production , the second wiretap doesn't invalidate the first, which strongly indicates President Arroyo cheating in last year's elections. Also, Estrada is already safely under custody. The persons in the "Garci" tape are not.
Mrs. Arroyo's spin meisters have been so busy conjuring the basest, darkest motives for her opponents (the resigned Cabinet secretaries are "traitors", Cory Aquino wants to protect Hacienda Luisita) that they haven't bothered to check how ridiculous their messages play. The smears are only causing irritation among people who are beginning to suspect their President is both a cheat and a liar, and her spouse could be seriously into graft.
Arroyo strategists might want to consult recent history in Central America and Eastern Europe, which shows that besieged governments that stubbornly cling to power tend to fall the same way, firing off defiant, blustering broadsides just before they suddenly capsize. The record also shows all the presidents ousted the last five years were driven to resign rather than impeached.
If for nothing else, Mrs. Arroyo should resign for an amazing display of crisis mismanagement. A chief executive can't even handle a deadly threat to her political career has no business handling the affairs of millions.
The whole wiretap scandal has been bungled from the get-go. In an alternate Universe in another dimension - one where the Philippines has ethical politicians - this is what an alternate Gloria Arroyo might do: if she were innocent, she would immediately and ferociously deny it, demand an investigation to clear her name, sue her accusers and order election commissioner Virgilio Garcilliano interrogated.
If she were guilty she would immediately apologize and resign, possibly making sure her husband is turned over to investigators.
Pick your poison
Faced with the hair-raising prospect of a Fernando Poe victory, the middle class was a passive accomplice. It turned its face to the wall and refused to see how the Arroyo administration packed the graft-ridden Comelec with allies, and profligately spent public funds on the campaign. Mrs. Arroyo didn't shrink from enlisting the same dirty tricks advisers, the notorious Puno brothers, Joseph Estrada used.
Mrs. Arroyo's middle class supporters could barely wait to rush in with fulsome congratulations when the President made a public confession and promised to "punish" herself by working twice as hard. Some of those supporters, writing on newsgroups, have put a class tone to the dispute: they've dismissed the anti-Arroyo protesters as "motley" because they're either poor or leftist. Presumably, rich and rightwing street demonstrators who support Mrs. Arroyo are not motley.
Civil society has been so misled by the perfumed rallies it used to overthrow Estrada that it's in danger of thinking it has an exclusive franchise on People Power.
The administration has tried to keep People Power off the agenda by insisting on a "constitutional" process. This means going through Congress, where a richly comic drama is being played out. Four years ago, Estrada's enemies were demanding that an envelope proving his corruption be opened, and his supporters blocked the move. Now, Mrs.Arroyo's allies are blocking a motion to play a recording of the wiretap.
Mrs. Arroyo herself has tarred all her current critics"destabilizers", while her propagandists have succeeded in defining "opposition" as consisting solely of Joseph Estrada and his Gangrene Gang. The president's supporters have also put down Susan Roces as a mere actress, forgetting how in 1985 a certain Cory Aquino wasdenigrated as a "mere housewife." Mrs. Aquino's subsequent career shows that it isn't necessarily what a leader can do that's important, it's what she symbolizes.
And right now Mrs. Arroyo symbolizes divisiveness. If this is just thef irst year of her term, it's hard to see her surviving until 2010. Her credibility has taken such a terrific battering that the only way she can recover is by doing something breathtaking and spectacular: repudiating the colossal debt on the useless Bataan reactor; jailing a couple of Marcoses and their cronies and recovering their ill-gotten wealth.
Assuming she survives this year, her administration will lurch along, trailing blood. She'll be hard put pushing her "terror n' taxes" agenda: codifying a national ID scheme, increasing revenues through regressive taxes, and ultimately perpetuating the administration by transitioning to a parliamentary system. And the Supreme Court just dealt her another blow by ordering an injunction against the extended VAT, a centerpiece of the government's economic program.
Weakened by massive graft and corruption, an unjust justice system and poverty, the country does not need a leadership crisis like this. The middle class, business leaders, and conservative politicians fear that throwing Mrs. Arroyo out of office could cause turmoil and economic devastation. They're not looking at the other side of the coin: an Arroyo who hangs on to office could also cause turmoil and economic devastation.
Painful as it seems, the time could soon come when the public will have to make some choices about a new leader. If the middle class refuses to involve itself in this process it might see the landscape dominated by the Estrada clique. Its own fear of bloodshed and violence could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
hotmanila.ph
Copyright 2005 Alan C. Robles All rights reserved editor@hotmanila.ph
Saturday, August 06, 2005
COMMENT: The Imperative of Impeachment
By Patricio P. Diaz
MindaNews /04 August 2005
A Publication of the Mindanao News and Information Cooperative Center
Vol. IV, No. 072/5 August 2005
GENERAL SANTOS CITY -- The impeachment of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has become most imperative. The senators and House of Representatives should cast off partisan loyalties, biases and interests and proceed with the impeachment strictly according to merits. So judging the President is the immediate solution to the political crisis, not the change of the form of government.
The presidential unitary form of government has nothing to do with the very grave doubt in the legitimacy of the President's election in the May 2004 election and the suspicion about her part in the jueteng scandal. The legitimacy and jueteng issues are now being interwoven.
Our political crisis is not about the form of government but about the integrity of the President. The crisis is about moral leadership too bankrupt to sustain political leadership. Integrity must be beyond doubt in order to strengthen leadership and consequently untangle the crisis.
The Substitute
The President thinks a truth commission can sort out the mess. That will be poor substitute to impeachment in determining truth about the charges against her. Impeachment derives its authority from the Constitution.
It's even doubted if the truth commission can come out with the truth. And if it does, what will it do with the President should the truth call for her to vacate the presidency? If the commission finds her just maligned, it will be doubted by the opposition because it derived its authority from the President.
On the contrary, the Constitution has instituted impeachment with the mandate to Congress to investigate, try and convict or acquit an erring President -- defining the impeachable offenses and prescribing removal as the penalty in case of conviction. If the senators, as judges, and the congressmen as prosecutors act as statesmen, their verdict will not be doubted.
By impeachment, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will be removed from office if found guilty. That will remove the root of the present political crisis which, like a storm, will abate.
If the President is found innocent of the charges against her after the evidence and witnesses have been subjected to intense and thorough judicial scrutiny, her innocence will restore integrity and confidence in her leadership. That, too, will remove the root of the crisis.
Garci to Zuce
The "Hello, Garci!" or "Gloria tape" played to the Malacañan greporters last June 6 triggered the political crisis embroiling the legitimacy of the President's election. The demand for her to resign built up and snowballed.
The President's admission last June 27 that the woman's voice in the tape was hers intensified the demand instead of defusing it, as calculated. She did not admit wrongdoing. But her owning the voice was enough to confirm the charges of the political, militant and radical oppositions.
"Hello, Garci!" did not die. Last August 1, Michaelangelo S. Zuce surfaced to reveal the well-funded and well-organized special operation in Mindanao intended to make President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo win in that region in the 2004 election by buying the election through the election officials.
Heading the special operation established in 2002 was Virgilio Garcillano, whom Zuce identified as his uncle. Zuce, a Malacañang employee in the office of Secretary Jose Ma. Rufino, the President's political adviser, coordinated the special operation under the direction of Garcillano.
Damaging
According to Zuce, it was he who introduced Garcillano to Rufino to organize and manage the special operation. This implied that among Rufino's functions is the election of the President paid with tax money.
Zuce also revealed that Garcillano, a retired Comelec regional director, worked for the election of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for vice president. His appointment as Comelec Commissioner was demanded by the special operation.
Evidently, however, the special operation was not only in Mindanao but nationwide. Zuce talked of meetings of regional directors and provincial supervisors at hotels in Manila and one at the La Vista residence of the President where the President appealed to them for help and they received money from Lilia Pineda, wife of jueteng lord Rodolfo Pineda.
This tied up the jueteng and election anomaly issues involving the President. Zuce also said in one meeting at La Vista, he saw Isabela Gov. Faustino Dy Jr., who was reported to have said that before the election the regional directors received P2 million each from Pineda.
Zuce's affidavit if sustained and his documentary evidence if proven authentic are very damaging. By identifying the "Louie" in the Garci tape as himself, he authenticated the tape to strengthen the charge of vote-fixing against the President.
Responses
As usual, the Palace denied Zuce's revelations and discredited him. It is expected that in the next news report, Zuce will be buried in the avalanche of libel and damage suits like the jueteng witnesses who implicated the President's husband, son, and brother-in-law. But this will not defuse the crisis.
The Palace said the President will not be distracted from her work, a reiteration of past statements. The President herself said it, "My attention is focused in bringing about change in the lives of Filipinos who are in need." She has stated this many times since her first day as President on January 20, 2001. It only damages her credibility.
In her so-called "media blitz", the President and the Palace want to change the Filipinos' negative impression of her through the media. She's now pictured in the front pages as smiling, holding babies, or tripping along with children.
This will not help defuse the crisis. The President smiling among the unsmiling poor will not drive away poverty, one of the social components of the crisis. Neither will the oft-repeated promises do.
The Only Way
Only the fanatical anti-Gloria believe Zuce and other witnesses likeSandra Cam are telling the truth. Only the Palace and the loyal pro-Gloria believe the exposes are lies. The only fact is: The testimonies and documentary evidence are either true until proven as lies or lies until proven as true. As such, they erode more and more the President's leadership and credibility.
The President must be investigated. Evasion will only worsen the crisis and the bitter division. But only Congress can investigate her through impeachment. To the President's credit, she has dared her political foes and critics to take their cases to Congress.
The pro-administration majority in the House should endorse, not abort, the impeachment. That's the least expected of them. Let the minority prosecute the President at the impeachment court.
Both the pro- and anti-Gloria senators, as impeachment judges, should shed their party loyalty, biases and interests. They should judge the President strictly according to evidence.
The pro-Gloria and the anti-Gloria should not only be ready to accept a fair decision but to unite around such a decision. This, the senators must take to heart.
An innocent verdict can keep President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in office until June 30, 2010 unless her term is shortened by a constitutional amendment. But if such verdict is unfair, it will keep the country bitterly divided.
"Comment" is Mr. Patricio P. Diaz' column for MindaViews, the opinion section of MindaNews. Mr. Diaz is the recipient of a "Lifetime Achievement Award" from the Titus Brandsma for his "commitment to education and public information to Mindanawons as Journalist, Educator and Peace Advocate."
You may e-mail your comments to patpdiaz@mindanews.com.)
(c) Copyright 2004 MindaNews
MindaNews /04 August 2005
A Publication of the Mindanao News and Information Cooperative Center
Vol. IV, No. 072/5 August 2005
GENERAL SANTOS CITY -- The impeachment of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has become most imperative. The senators and House of Representatives should cast off partisan loyalties, biases and interests and proceed with the impeachment strictly according to merits. So judging the President is the immediate solution to the political crisis, not the change of the form of government.
The presidential unitary form of government has nothing to do with the very grave doubt in the legitimacy of the President's election in the May 2004 election and the suspicion about her part in the jueteng scandal. The legitimacy and jueteng issues are now being interwoven.
Our political crisis is not about the form of government but about the integrity of the President. The crisis is about moral leadership too bankrupt to sustain political leadership. Integrity must be beyond doubt in order to strengthen leadership and consequently untangle the crisis.
The Substitute
The President thinks a truth commission can sort out the mess. That will be poor substitute to impeachment in determining truth about the charges against her. Impeachment derives its authority from the Constitution.
It's even doubted if the truth commission can come out with the truth. And if it does, what will it do with the President should the truth call for her to vacate the presidency? If the commission finds her just maligned, it will be doubted by the opposition because it derived its authority from the President.
On the contrary, the Constitution has instituted impeachment with the mandate to Congress to investigate, try and convict or acquit an erring President -- defining the impeachable offenses and prescribing removal as the penalty in case of conviction. If the senators, as judges, and the congressmen as prosecutors act as statesmen, their verdict will not be doubted.
By impeachment, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will be removed from office if found guilty. That will remove the root of the present political crisis which, like a storm, will abate.
If the President is found innocent of the charges against her after the evidence and witnesses have been subjected to intense and thorough judicial scrutiny, her innocence will restore integrity and confidence in her leadership. That, too, will remove the root of the crisis.
Garci to Zuce
The "Hello, Garci!" or "Gloria tape" played to the Malacañan greporters last June 6 triggered the political crisis embroiling the legitimacy of the President's election. The demand for her to resign built up and snowballed.
The President's admission last June 27 that the woman's voice in the tape was hers intensified the demand instead of defusing it, as calculated. She did not admit wrongdoing. But her owning the voice was enough to confirm the charges of the political, militant and radical oppositions.
"Hello, Garci!" did not die. Last August 1, Michaelangelo S. Zuce surfaced to reveal the well-funded and well-organized special operation in Mindanao intended to make President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo win in that region in the 2004 election by buying the election through the election officials.
Heading the special operation established in 2002 was Virgilio Garcillano, whom Zuce identified as his uncle. Zuce, a Malacañang employee in the office of Secretary Jose Ma. Rufino, the President's political adviser, coordinated the special operation under the direction of Garcillano.
Damaging
According to Zuce, it was he who introduced Garcillano to Rufino to organize and manage the special operation. This implied that among Rufino's functions is the election of the President paid with tax money.
Zuce also revealed that Garcillano, a retired Comelec regional director, worked for the election of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for vice president. His appointment as Comelec Commissioner was demanded by the special operation.
Evidently, however, the special operation was not only in Mindanao but nationwide. Zuce talked of meetings of regional directors and provincial supervisors at hotels in Manila and one at the La Vista residence of the President where the President appealed to them for help and they received money from Lilia Pineda, wife of jueteng lord Rodolfo Pineda.
This tied up the jueteng and election anomaly issues involving the President. Zuce also said in one meeting at La Vista, he saw Isabela Gov. Faustino Dy Jr., who was reported to have said that before the election the regional directors received P2 million each from Pineda.
Zuce's affidavit if sustained and his documentary evidence if proven authentic are very damaging. By identifying the "Louie" in the Garci tape as himself, he authenticated the tape to strengthen the charge of vote-fixing against the President.
Responses
As usual, the Palace denied Zuce's revelations and discredited him. It is expected that in the next news report, Zuce will be buried in the avalanche of libel and damage suits like the jueteng witnesses who implicated the President's husband, son, and brother-in-law. But this will not defuse the crisis.
The Palace said the President will not be distracted from her work, a reiteration of past statements. The President herself said it, "My attention is focused in bringing about change in the lives of Filipinos who are in need." She has stated this many times since her first day as President on January 20, 2001. It only damages her credibility.
In her so-called "media blitz", the President and the Palace want to change the Filipinos' negative impression of her through the media. She's now pictured in the front pages as smiling, holding babies, or tripping along with children.
This will not help defuse the crisis. The President smiling among the unsmiling poor will not drive away poverty, one of the social components of the crisis. Neither will the oft-repeated promises do.
The Only Way
Only the fanatical anti-Gloria believe Zuce and other witnesses likeSandra Cam are telling the truth. Only the Palace and the loyal pro-Gloria believe the exposes are lies. The only fact is: The testimonies and documentary evidence are either true until proven as lies or lies until proven as true. As such, they erode more and more the President's leadership and credibility.
The President must be investigated. Evasion will only worsen the crisis and the bitter division. But only Congress can investigate her through impeachment. To the President's credit, she has dared her political foes and critics to take their cases to Congress.
The pro-administration majority in the House should endorse, not abort, the impeachment. That's the least expected of them. Let the minority prosecute the President at the impeachment court.
Both the pro- and anti-Gloria senators, as impeachment judges, should shed their party loyalty, biases and interests. They should judge the President strictly according to evidence.
The pro-Gloria and the anti-Gloria should not only be ready to accept a fair decision but to unite around such a decision. This, the senators must take to heart.
An innocent verdict can keep President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in office until June 30, 2010 unless her term is shortened by a constitutional amendment. But if such verdict is unfair, it will keep the country bitterly divided.
"Comment" is Mr. Patricio P. Diaz' column for MindaViews, the opinion section of MindaNews. Mr. Diaz is the recipient of a "Lifetime Achievement Award" from the Titus Brandsma for his "commitment to education and public information to Mindanawons as Journalist, Educator and Peace Advocate."
You may e-mail your comments to patpdiaz@mindanews.com.)
(c) Copyright 2004 MindaNews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
