Today's topic is the phrase CASE of IMPEACHMENT which is only applicable to certain very important high officials of the Government. By my count, there are exactly 31 impeachable officers under the 1987 Constitution, which provides in Article XI on Public Accountability--
Section 2. The President[1], the Vice-President[1], the Members of the Supreme Court [15], the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, [Comelec=7, CSC=3,CoA=3] and the Ombudsman[1] 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.
What is noteworthy in the above list is that the Judiciary has the most number of impeachable officials. The Congress has NO impeachable officials at all but it therefore makes sense to find the phrase in two more sections of Article XI that--
Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. . . . (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
So a CASE OF IMPEACHMENT is therefore a formal Judicial proceeding conducted entirely by the Political Branch of the Government. All cases of impeachment start in the House of Representatives and the Senate Impeachment Court decides the case in a trial. Thus a major chunk of the JUDICIAL POWER is apparently vested entirely in the House and Senate of the Congress. The Supreme Court has absolutely NO JURISDICTION over all cases of impeachment. The Senate's verdict is final and executory and cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court, in all cases of impeachment.
The other relevant occurrence of the phrase in the 1987 charter is in the provision on Executive Clemency:
Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
This provision reaffirms the statement that the Congress, having no impeachable officials itself, holds the sole judicial power to initiate, try and adjudicate all cases of impeachment, making even the penalty or punishment specified for all cases of impeachment is "impervious" to the power of executive clemency. We have Father Bernas to thank for the formulation in The Prosecutor's Lament
What is there in impeachment cases that is impervious to pardon? We have to go back first of all to the nature of a pardon. “A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” From this it is clear that there can be no pardon if no punishment has been imposed. Thus the prohibition regarding cases of impeachment can have applicability only if the impeachment process had ended in the imposition of a punishment, which it did not.
Joseph Estrada received no punishment from the impeachment that was started against him. The impeachment process was never concluded. In fact, even if it had been concluded, the only punishment he could have received would have been removal from office and disqualification from holding office in the government.If the Senate impeachment court never levied any punishment on Joseph Estrada in his Case of Impeachment before them, then there is no "perpetual disqualification from public office" for any pardon to reverse or impose on him?
I find Fr. Bernas' explanation a little disconcerting, though I would not adjudge his conclusions to be wrong, ipso facto. He says the trial of Erap's Case of Impeachment before the Senate was "never concluded" but that is obviously not true and he also says so.
His main point however, is that the only punishment that the provision renders impervious even to the power of granting executive clemency in all cases of impeachment is that of removal from public office and perpetual disqualification from office. This makes some sense because we know that these are the only punishments possible in all cases of impeachment.
But it also means that Fr. Bernas is saying even if an impeachable official is tried and convicted in a case of impeachment, he can still be pardoned in any subsequent CRIMINAL prosecution and conviction that becomes possible after being validly removed through a case of impeachment.
Suppose for example that GMA is impeached, tried and convicted on a charge of BRIBERY, according to my interpretation of Fr. Bernas, it means she can still be pardoned by a future President after she is subsequently tried and convicted in a hypothetical criminal and civil prosecution for bribery that would follow removal from office and perpetual disqualification.
Do you agree that this is the correct interpretation of the Provision on Executive Clemency in cases of Impeachment?
Is the opening clause "Except in cases of impeachment..." merely intended to provide that the President cannot nullify the punishment imposed by the Senate upon final conviction of a high Constiutional officer in a case of impeachment, but can do so in any subsequent criminal case against the same official?
Chief Prosecutor Dennis Villaignacio says they will question the constitutionality of Erap's pardon from GMA, despite an article by "Constitutionalist" Joaquin Bernas, S.J. declaring it okay by him. The 1987 Constitution contains this provision:
ART VII The Executive Branch Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
I think the question should be settled once and for all by the Supreme Court because of the following very possible scenario.
Suppose President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is impeached by the House and tried in the Senate in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010. Suppose further that, upon sensing that she is about to be convicted in the Senate Impeachment Court, and before a guilty verdict can be rendered, she voluntarily RESIGNS, but before she can flee to Hawaii or Shanghai, she is charged, arrested and convicted for plunder or some other capital crime and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, (exactly what happened to Erap.)
Now then, if the pardon for Erap by GMA in 2007 is deemed to be Constitutional, by parity of reasoning, the convicted Gloria Macapagal Arroyo would also be eligible for pardon, thus making a mockery of the clear intention of the Constitution to exclude cases of impeachment from the powers of the Presidency "to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons and remit fines and forfeitures."
In other words, if Erap's pardon is considered Constitutional, it would seem to me that we are allowing resignation to be a loophole by which an impeached Constitutional officer could defeat the Constitution and preserve his or her eligibility for reprieve, commutation of sentence and pardon in the subsequent criminal cases that could be brought against such officer after removal from office. It is a loophole that would certainly be resorted to once the impeached officer is relatively certain of conviction and removal from office anyway.
This seems to me to be absolutely unacceptable and a mockery of the Law. THE FINE POINTS:
Was Erap a case of impeachment?
Indubitably so, since the House of Representatives transmitted a case of impeachment against him in November, 2000 and his trial at a properly constituted Senate Impeachment Court began in December, 2000. Art. VII Sec. 19 explicitly states, "Except in cases of impeachment..."
Is there an ambiguity in the provision?
Yes there is, because the provision also explicitly states, that the various forms of executive clemency may only be granted "after conviction by final judgment."
In Erap's case, the events of Edsa Dos intervened, and though he was virtually certain of acquittal at the Senate Impeachment Trial after the Craven Eleven tipped their hand and showed Erap had the numbers for acquittal, the Supreme Court Chief Justice swore in the Vice President after she claimed the President was permanently incapacitated on 20 January 2001, which was later "construed" by the Supreme Court to be a valid resignation under the Constitution, in the historic case of Estrada v. Arroyo (March, 2001).
Thus it is now argued that there was a case of impeachment but no conviction by final judgment in that case. The conviction by final judgment now applicable to the pardon is that of the Sandiganbayan for plunder last September 12, 2007, six and half years after Erap's constructed resignation.
It would seem inconceivable to me that the framers of the Constitution intended for such a loophole to exist in cases of impeachment. The reason cases of impeachment are exempted from executive clemency would seem to be the serious nature of the high crimes and misdemeanors that qualify for impeachment of Constitutional officers. If they intended for resignation to be a means of preserving the possibility of pardon, they should have stated so in the Constitutional provision, explicitly.
The Supreme Court must settle this issue for all future cases of impeachment!
The first half of Thursday's Senate hearing on ZTE, Romulo Neri and Executive Privilege, was taken up by above heated discussion of the conundrum created by the Philippine Daily Inquirer's unrepudiated claims that four Senate sources revealed to reporter Juliet Labog Javellana what happened during a September 26 Senate Executive Session. The joint Senate committees went into Executive Session to hear Romulo Neri explain the assertion of executive privilege over his report to President Gloria Arroyo, of a 200 million peso bribe offer from Comelec Chair Ben Abalos.
In a front page article, two editorials and subsequent statements on television by a PDI senior editor, the Manila newspaper resolutely stuck to its claims, based on information allegedly received from those sources, that Senator Joker Arroyo had somehow prevented Romulo Neri from dropping a bombshell in the Senate's executive session, about his conversations with the President about the ZTE National Broadband Network deal.
But, whatever actually transpired in the Executive Session, has now been totally eclipsed by the possibility that the Philippine Daily Inquirer is telling the truth and that if so, there are in fact four persons who violated the strict confidentiality rules of the Senate and cannot be trusted to keep such sessions a state secret. If they are Senators, they could be expelled for such violation. If they are Senate staff members they could be dismissed. And since the only other person known to be in the executive session was Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya, there are at least three possible "talkative" Senators or staff members facing heavy sanctions, IF the newspaper is in fact, telling the truth that it had four anonymous sources and is not engaging in its habitual and common practice of the art of the kuryente.
At one dramatic point in the Thursday hearing, Senator Joker Arroyo named each of the Senators present and asked each one directly to confirm or deny PDI's claim that one or more of them were the aforesaid unnamed sources that violated the Senate's rules on executive sessions. Only Senator Panfilo "Ping" Lacson responded to this challenge by categorically denying that he spoke to any reporter about the session. Everyone else kept quiet, though my DVD recording of the session shows a few of them looking like they had swallowed a canary.
There is now the following inescapable logical conclusion.
Either the Philippine Daily Inquirer is lying and it never had four Senate sources of information about what happened in the executive session, OR it is telling the truth and the Senate actually has a big problem with four rule-breakers whose continued anonymity has effectively compromised the security, confidentiality and hence the essential utility of the executive session as a tool of Congressional investigations in aid of legislation.
On ABSCBN's award winning program, Media in Focus with Cheche Lazaro, first aired a week ago last Thursday, Senior PDI editor John Nery (no relation to Romulo Neri) and the New York Times Int'l Herald Tribune Manila correspondent Carlos H. Conde, both defended the right of the press to use anonymous sources, as enunciated in Republic Act No. 1477, also known as the Press Freedom Act, whose entire substance is contained in the following provision:
Sec. 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporterunless the Court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.
I was also a guest on that show and it seemed to me both John and Caloy were missing an essential point, because the main issue is not the freedom of the press to use anonymous sources as a general rule, but whether in this particular instance the editors of Inquirer abused their discretion to do so and had indeed violated the very law that protects such freedom. Throughout the show, I could not escape the impression that both these gentlemen believe the phrase in the law which reads "cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information" means they have a virtually unlimited right to publish such information if they believe it to be true or the source is considered by them to be reliable. Yet it is manifestly clear from a plain reading of the Press Freedom Law as quoted above, that there are definite limits to that freedom of the Press from being compelled to reveal such anonymous sources. In fact there are two explicit limits mentioned in the law. First the freedom to use anonymous sources is granted "without prejudice" to the publisher's "liability under civil and criminal laws," for example the laws against libel, blackmail, and oral or written defamation, character assasination and the like. Second, if "the Court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State," the Press can indeed be compelled to reveal such sources, under pain of contempt, fine, imprisonment, etc., as befits the violation of this Press Freedom Law.
I think this incident, however it is now resolved, is an important watershed in our understanding of the very concept of Press Freedom and its limitations. Press freedom is limited as much by the Law as it is by moderation in the exercise of its rights and privileges, and ought to be informed by wise discretion. Editors, publishers and ordinary citizen journalists (bloggers) have the obligation to recognize these limitations in their avowedly hot pursuit of the Truth. Such pursuits do not trump any and all rights, privileges and powers of other institutions as important to Democracy as the free Press, like the Senate of the Republic, without whose viable and secure investigations and hearings, the Press would have neither stories nor sources.
Let me say that I stand four square behind the Philippine Daily Inquirer in its normally sagacious and perspicacious investigation of corruption and malfeasance in government, most of time without relying on anonymous sources, which always demands due diligence and discretion to avoid trouble. The abuse of Freedom of the Press however, can be just as dangerous and destructive when such abuse is carried out by the Press itself, as by fascists and authoritarians.
I hope PDI will now have the wisdom and maturity to come clean on this matter, not necessarily by revealing who those four sources are, but by at least admitting that they recognize the real limitations on Press Freedom which are essential to defending democracy and enhancing everybody's freedom, especially when it comes to matters of national and state security. I was aghast on the answer that John Nery gave on Media in Focus to my request for an example of what PDI would not publish in the course of their work because it might endanger state or national security. He said they would never publish the identities of persons in the Witness Protection Program. Maybe he didn't have enough time to think but this hardly reflects a good appreciation of what constitutes national or state security, since this example clearly refers to the security of a certain class of individuals, and not necessarily the security of the state.
Many individuals and institutions, including me, are keenly interested in discovering the truth about ZTE and what Romulo Neri knows about it. I also strongly dislike the manner in which Joker Arroyo seems to be trying to keep the Truth from coming out. But what PDI did has not helped, it has only hindered the Senate's investigation by throwing into that rambunction bunch four apples of doubt and discord.
John Marzan of Philippine Politics '04 reviews what happened to the New York Times reporter Judith Miller in the United States when she refused to reveal an anonymous source, who turned out to be Karl Rove.
Ring around the rosie, Pocketful of posies, Ashes, ashes, We all fall down!
I don't know why, but I woke up this morning with this old Mother Goose nursery rhyme tinkling ominously in my head. Yes, ominously, because though I haven't thought about it for years and years, its simple lyric and rhythm have always evoked my worst and most undefinable fears, like the quiet, opening music to every scary movie that in childhood I told myself I would never, ever watch again. Hearing it in my head somehow presages the beginning of some nightmare with that barely audible refrain, just before the scarecrow inexplicably turns its head in an imitation of a man on the Cross, or birds like locusts appear --
I can not tell. Perhaps, I shall figure it all out as the spears of the morning sun dispel the vaporous shield of the night and we all emerge into the common waking dream...Updates all day on this strange and evil day...
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has granted executive clemency to former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, in an order read by Acting Executive Secretary Ignacio Bunye at Malacanang Palace. The pardon takes effect immediately and negates the penalties resulting from Estrada's Sept. 12 plunder conviction before a special Sandiganbayan Court after six and half years of detention and prosecution by Philippine authorities. Transcript and audio recording of the announcement follows.
Whereas this administration has a policy of releasing prisoners who have reached the age of 70,
Whereas Joseph Ejercito Estrada has been under detention for six and a half years,
Whereas Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or public office,
In view hereof, and pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant executive clemency to Joseph Ejercito Estrada, convicted of plunder by the Sandiganbayan and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights. The forfeitures imposed by the Sandiganbayan remain in force and in full, including all writs and processes issued by the Sandiganbayan in pursuance hereof, except for the bank accounts he owned before his tenure as President.
Upon acceptance of this pardon by Joseph Ejercito Estrada, this pardon shall take effect. Given under my hand, at the City of Manila, this 25th day of October, in the year of our Lord, 2007.
Signed, Gloria M. Arroyo
Attested, Ignacio R. Bunye, Acting Executive Secretary.
CAVEATS:
Former President Fidel V. Ramos was very much against the widely expected pardon. No wonder his man at Malacanang Palace, Executive Secretary Ed Ermita did not read the Grant of Executive Clemency and is reportedly on the other side of the world in New York.
Estrada lawyer Rene Saguisag told ABSCBN News that while he agreed with the grant of pardon for humanitarian purposes, he also characterized it as the "act of a tyrant" trying to mitigate her unconstitutional ouster of a sitting President in conspiracy with military and civilian leaders, starting one year before the historic events of January 2001, when indeed "Erap" was removed from office with the help of Armed Forces Chief of Staff Angelo T. Reyes whose mutiny was later blessed by the Supreme Court as a "withdrawal of support" and most especially Hilario G. Davide, Jr. wearing the costume of the Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Saguisag noted with not a little chagrin and irony that a number of very high profile corrupt criminal personalities are still running around free in Philippine society and ought now to be prosecuted properly and finally punished. For eample: Imelda Marcos and a whole rack of Marcos cronies holding high positions and large business enterprises; Joc Joc Bolante of the fertilizer scam, as well as the aforementioned Gen. Reyes and Injustice Davide.
Last Friday's deadly blast at the Glorietta 2 shopping mall in Makati City has officially been ruled a "gas explosion by the Philippine National Police". Nevertheless it could've easily been a real terrorist bomb attack with similar effects on infrastructure, populace and government. We need to be prepared for such a terrorist strike by reviewing disaster coordinating plans such as fire, medical and of course the over all law enforcement scheme. We need to look at the existing anti-terrorism law in the light of what was not a terrorist strike, but could've been. It is now, and not later, that we must examine the law and see how it would've performed if this had been a work of terrorism. It's not a pretty picture, actually.
Contrary to everything you might have been told, the Human Security Act of 2007 is NOT really an anti-terrorism measure, but a Terrorist's Bill of Rights. Senate Minority Leader AQUILINO "NENE" PIMENTEL along with his sidekick, the CPP NPA's newest recruit, fellow Senator Jamby Madrigal, made sure of that! They are primarily responsible for the most absurd flaws in Republic Act 9372, the Human Security Act of 2007, for example, :
Section 62 [Effectivity Clause] ..After the publication required above shall have been done, the Act shall take effect two (2) months after the elections are held in May 2007.
Thereafter, the provisions of this Act shall be automatically suspended one month before and two months after the holding of any election.
This is like telling the terrorists exactly when it would be advisable for them to commit terrorist crimes, like for example the bombing of malls, ports, airports, train and bus stations, or the kidnapping of missionaries like Giancarlo Bossi, the beheading of Marines, and of course the extortion, murder and cell site bombing activities of the New People's Army.
Right now for example, this very strange "part-time" law is in suspended animation for three months because of the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections, scheduled for October 29. Thus, any criminal act that would otherwise be considered a terrorist act and thus be punishable under it which is committed between now and just before New Year's Eve, is NOT a terrorist act for the purposes of the law. This is not only strange and twisted, thanks to Pimentel and Comrade Madrigal, it is also possibly a fatal flaw in the statute which could be questioned in the Courts if and when it is ever applied, for bringing absurdity to the very concept of a crime.
Now let's take a careful look at Senator Pimentel's Press Release today defending a law to which he once bragged that he added over a hundred "human rights" amendments:
PRESS RELEASE: Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. (PDP-Laban) today said the temporary suspension of the anti-terrorism law (Human Security Act) during the election season does not render law enforcement and security agencies helpless in going after terrorists.
Really?? But since the law is what defines terrorism as a crime and therefore, who qualifies as a terrorist for committing such crimes, and it so happens to be suspended in totality during this period, how in the world can the honorable sophistic Senator Pimentel make such a claim? There are NO crimes that can be considered terrorism during this period, and therefore no "terrorists" for the police to go after. The Press Release continues...
PRESS RELEASE: Pimentel said the Philippine National Police and other law enforcement agencies can still rely on the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws to file and prosecute criminal charges against terror suspects during the suspension of the effectivity of the HSA (Republic Act 9287) one month before and two months after the October 29 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
True enough, but I notice he even got the damn number wrong and the release calls it Republic Act 9287 when it is RA 9372. But it certainly is a totally vacuous and superfluous statement for the good Senator to say that the cops can enforce the Revised Penal Code, since they are supposed to enforce it, with or without his say-so!
PRESS RELEASE: He was reacting to the criticism of security and justice officials of the executive branch that the HSA has been reduced to a toothless law during the election period, specially in the wake of last week's alleged bombing of the Glorietta 2 Mall in Makati City which was suspected to be the handiwork of terrorists.
"They are correct in saying that the Human Security Act is inoperable at this time. But this does not mean our law enforcers will be helpless in combating terrorism because there are other laws that they can apply. There is, for instance, the Revised Penal Code that they are presumed to be familiar with," the minority leader said.
Since it was his doing, he now defends this provision in the law as follows:
PRESS RELEASE: Pimentel explained that the temporary suspension of the HSA during the election period was incorporated by lawmakers to prevent a situation where unscrupulous political forces may take advantage of this law to harass, harm and even kill rival leaders especially from the opposition and progressive groups.
In other words, he said the suspension clause was intended to be a safeguard against a possible escalation of violence and extra-judicial killings which have been a scourge of society in recent years due to the failure of the political leaders to clamp down on rogue elements in the military and police.
Now this really takes the terrorist cake! The only thing the "temporary suspension" clause does is precisely to encourage those "unscrupulous political forces" like the murderous Abu Sayyaf and the extortionist NPA to take advantage of the law to "harass, harm and even kill" and to "escalate violence" during this period.
With nary a trace of shame or self-consciousness, Pimentel declares the police and military as the "rogue elements" responsible for extrajudicial killings in the country. Weren't those Basilan Beheadings for example "extra-judicial killings"?? Yet why are they given a special conduct pass such that they can escape being punished for terrorist acts during a period when it would be most devastating in fact for such terrorist individuals and organizations to be launching attacks on our democratic way of life--namely during elections?
Next I wonder what the following provision means for Pimentel's theory:
SEC. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall Be a Bar to Another Prosecution Under the Revised Penal Code or Any Special Penal Laws. - When a person has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act.
But perhaps the most atrocious provision of the entire law is this one:
SEC. 50.Damages for Unproven Charge of Terrorism. – Upon acquittal, any person who is accused of terrorism shall be entitled to the payment of damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for every day that he or she has been detained or deprived of liberty or arrested without a warrant as a result of such an accusation. The amount of damages shall be automatically charged against the appropriations of the police agency or the Anti-Terrorism Council that brought or sanctioned the filing of the charges against the accused. It shall also be released within fifteen (15) days from the date of the acquittal of the accused. The award of damages mentioned above shall be without prejudice to the right of the acquitted accused to file criminal or administrative charges against those responsible for charging him with the case of terrorism.
Here is why Nene Pimentel thinks it's okay for this law to be suspended for three months at a time around every election:
PRESS RELEASE: In fact, Pimentel said that his original position was that there was no need for a separate anti-terrorism law on the ground that the Revised Penal Code and other existing laws were sufficient to equip law enforcers with the legal weapon to combat terrorism. He said he had also warned that the enactment of the new law would only result to redundancy which is bound to cause confusion in the criminal justice system.
What an immoral, unprincipled hypocrite the Senate Minority leader turns out to be. Why in the world did he sign the law then, if he thinks it redundant and confusing? Why did he sign it and then call for its immediate repeal just days after promulgation? Why? Because he is, in the quaint idiom of our times, an utter idiotarian.
By the way, there are about 44 provisions that punish law enforcement agencies and tie their hands and feet with the threat of jail terms and financial penalties if they so much as violate any of the sancrosant Rights and Privileges of terrorist suspects also put in the law by Pimentel and Madrigal. For example, on the matter of electronic surveillance and wiretapping of terror suspects, which under the law can only be done under warrants from a special division of the Court of Appeals, Pimentel requires law enforcers under Section 11 to inform terrorist suspects that they have been surveilled, if no case of terrorism results after a total of 30 days:
Section 10 Effective Period of Judicial Authorization If no case is filed within the thirty (30)-day period, the applicant police or law enforcement official shall immediately notify the person subject of the surveillance, interception and recording of the termination of the said surveillance, interception and recording. The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the applicant police or law enforcement official who fails to notify the person subject of the surveillance, monitoring, interception and recording as specified above.
The other seeming absurdity in the law, which was put in by Jamby Madrigal is this one:
Section 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications. – The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of communications betweenlawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondenceshall not be authorized.
Senator Pimentel is thus the Founding Father of the Magna Carta of Terrorism in the Philippines.
It is time for thoroughgoing review of the Human Security Act for the purpose of expunging from it most of Pimentel and Comrade Madrigal's handiwork and the adoption of a real anti-terrorism law without all the provisions that actually protect, encourage, abet and promote the terrorist agenda of violent nihilists, craven kidnap for ransom gangs, and the rest of the organized criminal syndicates posing as "revolutionaries" and "national liberators."
I think that contrary to Pimentel's claims ,the law in its present state unduly hampers the anti-terrorism efforts of the government and our allies. His reasons for it, place politicians and their interests (as well as murderous rivalries) above the human security needs of ordinary citizens.
"WHAT DIVERSION?" one may ask of the Makati Mall Blast (now found to be an "accidental gas explosion"). Nary a political beat was skipped as the political arpeggio builds to a new crescendo after a collective gasp of paranoia and prejudgment (even here at Philippine Commentary). There were many theories about whodunit, but all alone in a league of pure nuttiness was this, from Billy Esposo.
There is little time to pause, however, as major political developments take center stage once more.
The first is Precedent Joseph "Erap" Estrada's pending "full, free and absolute" pardon from President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo after his decision not to appeal his plunder conviction. A pox on both their houses, the PDI editorial says, without mentioning how their Sacred Cow, Hilario "Golden Calf" Davide made this absurdity of Justice possible with his false doctrines of constructive resignation and withdrawal of support. The root of all this evil, in my opinion, lies in Davide's destruction of constitutionalism in 2001, still ongoing from on high wherein the Supreme Court has usurped the Congress' exclusive and sole power to remove Constitutional officers with that silly impeachment initiation rule; consecrated the principle that if a military mutiny and coup d'etat works then it is legal and we must acquiesce; and their ongoing power grab of Commander-in-chief powers in the so called human rights "rules" of amparo and habeas data, which come into force this week! Of relevance to these issues are two statements that I recorded yesterday:
But a second development of great historical interest is the suit filed before the Ombudsman by lawyer Harry Roque and former vice president Teofisto Guingona against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo which challenges the notion of Presidential immunity from suit. For such normally rabid anti-Americans it is noteworthy that they cite as their justification a precedent in the United States Supreme Court decision in the matter of Paula Jones' lawsuit against then President Bill "Bubba" Clinton for sexual harassment.
I was just kidding about Harry and Tito being anti-Americans, but am dead serious about Erap and Gloria and Sonny and Angie all going to jail together, with a 24/7 webcam for all to look into a mirror of our own delusions. And of course, somehow, Hilario G. Davide must also be punished for his destruction of the Constitution, of separation of powers, of checks and balances. If he gets away with that, anything that happens to punish his creations will be for naught. It is his destructive memes that are the root of these present evils.
We do not need the false gods of unconstitutional moralism and elitism. We need Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Public Accountability. We need to fix the machine of Democracy that the barrio carpenters have "constructively" destroyed by their tinkering and judicial activism. Else, all is for naught!
UPDATES:
EVERY CLOUD HAS A SILVER LINING:Manolo Quezon(ABSCBN, The Explainer) delivered precisely the right message on his show last night, even before he had uttered a single word of actual explanation, when he chose for his audience a troop of Boy Scouts, whose enduring motto is of course: BE PREPARED! For although the October 19 Makati Mall blast was more than likely an accidental gas explosion, the lessons the Public and the authorities ought to learn are substantially the same, for the effects of a real terrorist attack on the populace are well enough approximated, at least qualitatively by this incident. The human tragedy in loss of life and limb, as well as mental security, are perhaps no less in all of these cases. It is NOW, before terrorist attacks do occur (may they never!) that the Filipino people and their government should undertake the serious task of preparing for the eventualities that have already touched us in the past, and is bedevilling many other countries today. Congratulations to that show's producers and participants for an important and essential message: BE PREPARED!
It is now a virtual certainty that last Friday's Makati mall blast was an "industrial accident" (most likely a diesel-methane gas explosion of the deflagration type) and NOT a terrorist attack by either the Rajah Sulayman Movement or a rogue AFP unit. No credible evidence supporting these two scenarios has been discovered by Philippine investigators working with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and Australian National Police, whereas evidence is building for an accidental gas explosion.
However, I believe that the Human Security Act criminalizes the attempt of someone posing as "Sheik Omar" to claim last Friday's deadly explosion was the work of terrorists. By parity of reasoning Senator Antonio Trillanes may also be culpable for accusing National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales and AFP Chief of Staff Hermogenes Esperon of masterminding and carrying out what would amount to a terrorist act based on alleged evidence he has from a network of informants or allies within the police and military. These are intrigues and possibly false testimonies outlawed by the following provision of the Human Security Act (Republic Act 9372), the Philippines Anti-Terrorism Law:
SEC. 47. Penalty for Furnishing False Evidence, Forged Document, or Spurious Evidence. – The penalty of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly furnishes false testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any investigation or hearing under this Act.
Although Philippine National Police Chief Avelino Razon, talking to Pia Hontiveros on ABSCBN News Strictly Politics tonight, described as a "prank" the text message and phone calls from someone posing as "Sheik Omar" of the "Rajah Sulayman Movement" and claiming responsibility for last Friday's Makati mall blast, the above provision ought to be applied against anyone who attempted to portray the incident as a terrorist attack. The accusations of Senator Trillanes against top national security officials and the claim that he has evidence against them, could lead to his prosecution for violation of this same provision if that evidence turns out to be "spurious" as in being nonexistent or untrue. Morally, and for the purposes of upholding the spirit of this anti terrorism law, all these hoaxers and false accusers should be prosecuted, in my humble opinion.
There is only one fly in this ointment: The Human Security Act, which I now prefer to call the Terrorists Bill of Rights is currently SUSPENDED for three months because of the barangay elections.
Section 62. After the publication required above shall have been done, the Act shall take effect two (2) months after the elections are held in May 2007.
Thereafter, the provisions of this Act shall be automatically suspended one month before and two months after the holding of any election.
Sheik Omar and Senator Trillanes can therefore thank Comrades Jamby Madrigal and Nene Pimentel for putting these provisions in the law! Trillanes, has until December 30, Rizal Day, to prove his allegations or withdraw his so called evidence, if any, or be culpable under this law, which comes out of "suspended animation" around then.
More than anyone ever wanted to know about ACCIDENTAL GAS EXPLOSIONS, can be found in the following online Gas Explosion Handbook (Access requires registration--and not for the mathematically faint-of-heart, but very informative, especially for systematic investigation of these types of explosions.) A sampling of the topics are shown in the list and links below, including the basic definitions, properties and different types of gas explosions, as well as, significantly for the authorities, accident investigation procedures.
Of special interest to everyone following the investigation into last Friday's deadly blast at Glorietta 2 shopping mall is Item #5 above on explosive DEFLAGRATIONS, where an explosive fuel-air mixture, such as diesel fumes, acetylene or even methane is ignited by a spark, hot surface or other accidental or intentional heat source within an initially confined or highly obstructed small space in which tremendous temperature and pressure buildup occurs, and then exits or vents into a unobstructed space wherein the pressure drops to normal atmospheric levels and there is no fire or flame, but all the energy is carried by supersonic or hypersonic debris.
This type of accidental gas explosion, where there is little or no fire in the unobstructed space that the explosion vents to, but a lot of high speed shrapnel and debris from the destroyed "confinement boundary material" is consistent with the type of injuries sustained by the victims reported by the receiving hospitals of last week's Makati blast, as well as the notable absence of fire in the first second and third floor levels affected. (However, we should hear about extensive fire or flame damage in that basement after the authorities announce further findings of what they observed down there.)
Have a good night's sleep for a change everyone! Time enough to think of the political and publicity fall-out tomorrow. For now I will only say:: God Bless America (and the FBI!) God Bless the Philippines!
These are the 64 thousand dollar questions needing definitive answers following last Friday's deadly explosion in the Glorietta 2 shopping mall in the Philippines central business district of Makati City. Establishing a truthful answer to them will require the strictest adherence to a logical and scientific discipline on the part of investigators and authorities. Unfortunately, some of the central figures in the evolving scenario, like the AFP Chief of Staff Hermogenes Esperon and the National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, have been accused by detained Senator and alleged Oakwood mutineer, Antonio Trillanes, of planning and orchestrating the deadly explosion in order to divert attention from scandals and controversies hounding the administration. The accusation has not been backed up with evidence by Trillanes, who is detained at Marine HQ in Fort Bonifacio. But it has gained credence with several sectors, including the Opposition and the Media, many of whom express the suspicion that the blast may simply be a diversionary tactic meant to draw attention away from the serious political trouble the administration has found itself in after spectacular Senate investigations into the Hello Garci wiretapping and ZTE scandals, an impeachment attempt against Pres. Arroyo in the House of Representatives, and the alleged attempted bribery of over 200 Congressmen, governors and mayors at a Palace meeting the other week.
Based solely on the physical evidence being gathered at the blast site in the Glorietta 2 shopping mall, the only reliable conclusion that has been reached is that it was not an accident caused by a gas leak but was indeed a deliberate act involving the use of a highly explosive material. This material was announced by Philippine National Police officials yesterday to be RDX after an initial laboratory analysis of specimens taken from the blast site, now known to be centered in the basement area under the ground floor of the Glorietta 2 shopping mall. A crater in that basement, reportedly eight meters wide, appears to have been caused by the explosion, which also caused a section of the ground floor above it to collapse, and whose hypersonic blast wave, filled with concrete, steel and glass debris, caused at least nine confirmed deaths and over 120 injured. The high energy explosion, however, seems to have also obliterated to smithereens, most of the bomb or explosive device, its triggering mechanisms and other physical remnants, such that the PNP crime lab can only reliably report the detection of chemical residues of RDX, which is a known component of explosives widely used by for both military and industrial applications. As such, it may require a far more detailed and perspicacious physical evidence gathering activity that local authorities may not be capable of, given the level of data acquisition sophistication, investigative experience, laboratory examination equipment and forensic interpretation required. Thus, there would be absolutely no shame involved in accepting the assistance of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reportedly offered through the US Embassy early Saturday. If they have not already done so, I strongly urge the authorities to seek out and accept such help from our allies given that the PNP crime lab may have already come up against the limits of its capabilities.
The possibility that the explosion was caused by a gas leak is well within the capability of the local police to investigate, and has already been eliminated by the absence of the tell tale scents and other physical characteristics associated with liquefied petroleum gas explosions, such as fire and the relatively low speed and force of such a blast's debris. Similarly, the local authorities are also quite capable of investigating the types of relatively crude improvised explosive devices that have been encountered in previous incidents in Mindanao and Metro Manila, such as the Rizal Day 2000 and Super Ferry 14 bombings (2004). In this case however, the police have refused to conclude anything about the explosion other than the nature of the high explosive, apparently for a lack of physical remnants from the explosive device involved. However, more physical evidence will slowly but surely be gathered from the blast site and shed more light on our first question of whatdunit, so let me turn to the second question: WHODUNIT?
Hours after the blast last Friday afternoon, ABSCBN News terrorism expert Maria Ressa deduced from the high degree of expertise and training necessary to pull off such a destructive operation, there are two main possible perpetrators, namely: (1) elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or (2) the Al Qaeda backed Jemaah Islamiyah terror groups and their local allies and trainees.
Treating both possibilities as hypothesis to be scientifically verified or falsified, I have adopted here at Philippine Commentary the latter of the two. My previous posts clearly show this inclination to blame the Islamic Jihadists and the Moro rebel groups (ASG, MILF, MNLF) and until otherwise disproven, that continues to be my working hypothesis. Let me just call it the Jihadi Hypothesis.
Yesterday, retired Navy Commodore Rex Robles, who was a member of the Feliciano Commission that investigated the Oakwood Mutiny, put forward idea that if the Makati Mall Blast is the handiwork of a local Islamic terror group, like the Rajah Sulayman Movement which reportedly has claimed responsibility for it, it may be a sample or demonstration of their capability to attack major infrastructure in the Philippine capital meant to attract future financing from the Al Qaeda terrorist network.
The claim of responsibility for terrorist attacks in general would seem to be an essential ingredient of global jihadist strategy and tactics, especially after Nine Eleven since their main benefit to the perpetrators is the propaganda value of the attacks, which are militarily and physically small compared to conventional or nuclear warfare.
Thus the reported text message in which the RSM's spokesman "Sheik Omar" is said to claim responsibility for the Makati explosion is supportive of the Jihadi Hypothesis. The reported demand contained in the text message for the release of their founder, Hilarion Ahmed Santos, currently in the custody of Philippine authorities after RSM's role in the Super Ferry 14 bombing and sinking by the Abu Sayyaf Group in 2004, is also important to the establishment of a terrorist act under the Human Security Act of 2007 since it is a required element of the definition of terrorism as a crime therein.
The veracity and provenance of this claim of responsibility by the RSM was assailed overnight by a Philippine Commentary source who told me in confidence that either in addition to, or for some reason, instead of, a text message, the claim actually came in as a voice call and that the voice did not match a previous recording of the RSM spokesman. However, I find this information, even if true, to be insufficient proof that the claim of responsibility is spurious, since there is no reason for the actual Sheik Omar to expose his voice in a spoken message.
Nonetheless, there are other objections and doubts in my own mind about it
The first of these is that the original posting by ABSCBN is no longer available at the following URL:
(UPDATE) Authorities doubt authenticity of 'RSM spokesman'
Authorities on Saturday doubt the authenticity of a person who claimed to be the spokesman of the Rajah Sulayman Movement (RSM) who said the group was responsible for Friday's explosion in Makati City that left 10 people dead and scores of others injured.
In a text message to ABS-CBN sent 7:00 a.m., the person who said he was RSM spokesman Ruben Omar Lavilla, alias Sheik Omar, said his group was responsible for Friday’s blast. He later talked on the phone with ABS-CBN.
A highly placed intelligence official who listened to a record of the call said however that the recorded voice of "Sheik Omar" did not match what they have on file.
National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales had earlier said that they have already received information regarding the "RSM" claim and are already investigating.
Gonzales said there are those who may just be using name of the group but still they cannot just brush off the claim.
In the text message to ABS-CBN , the person who said he was Sheik Omar also demanded the release of RSM founder Hilarion del Rosario Santos, alias Ahmed Santos.
RSM is a terror organization whose members are allegedly composed of Christians who have converted to Islam and reportedly operates in Manila and northern Luzon. It was suspected of carrying out the Rizal Day bombing in 2000 and Valentine’s Day bombings in 2004.
The text message also said RSM had sought the help of Assistant Secretary Severo Catura assigned to the Office of the Executive Secretary but its demand had fallen on deaf ears.
Lavilla, a former professor at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, is considered RSM’s religious, political and strategic leader.
Based on the record of the intelligence community, Lavilla allegedly trained RSM’s recruits in the group’s hideout in Pangasinan and Tarlac province. In 2002, the military stormed RSM’s training bases in both provinces.
It was reported that before the raid, Lavilla received P10 million from Abu Sayyaf leader Khadaffy Janjalani. The money was purportedly meant for RSM’s "operational expenses."
Since Santos’s capture in 2005, Lavilla served as the group’s spokesman.
What is very strange is that the claim of a text message is immediately contradicted by the apparent discussion of a voice call. Perhaps what was actually received was a Multimedia Mesage (MMS) that contained a voice recording. Or maybe they have decided it is just a prank or hoax. The above article claims that first a text message arrived and then someone called.
The plot thickens!
Apparently, the Trillanes Hypothesis has taken hold in some people's minds as having some possibility of being true, that is, that the Makati Mall blast may have been undertaken by "rogue AFP" elements or the President herself for self-preservation.
I am not buying this idea, though I would actually prefer its consequences to that of my own Jihadi Hypothesis.
For if the Trillanes Hypothesis is correct, it would only mean that some crazy people either in the military or the national security apparatus are marching down a road which can only lead to their own destruction, say to an "emergency rule" or "martial law scenario" that is doomed from the start, since I doubt the United States and other Philippine allies would support a regime running a country filled with insurgents, fascists and freedom-fighting bloggers.
Conversely, I fervently hope my own Jihadi Hypothesis is wrong because if it is true, the likelihood is we will sooner or later be hearing from the Bali Bombers Dulmatin and Umar Patek in a message far louder than we heard in Makati last Friday. The Jihadi Hypothesis, if proven true, also means we are now engaged with Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah directly, and that they have seen and are now exploiting the weakened state of the adminstration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, which is literally fighting for its political life.
The Filipino people are however, may already be fighting for something far more precious than that, and don't even know it yet!
(UPDATED 10/22) Please check later posts on this developing topic at Philippine Commentary. The news report on which this post was based contained statements later found by ABSCBN News to be inaccurate or misleading enough for the network itself to falsify the claim of responsibility for the Oct 19 Makati mall blast, including the identity of the claimant. ABSCBN News is reporting that it has received a text message from the spokesman of an Islamist terror organization claiming responsibility for the deadly bomb explosion in a Makati City shopping mall yesterday which killed 9 and injured over 120.
A person who claimed to be the spokesman of the Rajah Sulayman Movement (RSM) on Saturday said the group was responsible for Friday’s attack in Makati City that left nine people dead and scores of others injured.
In a text message to ABS-CBN News, the person who said he was RSM spokesman Ruben Omar Lavilla, alias Sheik Omar, demanded the release of founder Hilarion del Rosario Santos, alias Ahmed Santos, within 24 hours or the group will launch a similar attack targeting public places and vital installations.
RSM is a terror organization whose members are allegedly composed of Christians who have converted to Islam and reportedly operates in Manila and northern Luzon. It was suspected of carrying out the Rizal bombing in 2000 and Valentine’s Day bombings in 2004.
"Jihad (holy war) against the Christians will continue if the military will not stop the killings of Muslims in Mindanao and Ahmed Santos should be released within 24 hours, otherwise, [Christians will] suffer again the consequences," he said.
The RSM has assisted with the terrorist plots of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) in Manila and ther areas in the northern Philippines. It was involved in ASG's bombing of SuperFerry 14 in February 2004 and the February 2005 Valentine's Day bombings, according to Philippine security officials. In 2005, however, the RSM suffered several major setbacks. In March, Philippine security forces seized more than 1,300 pounds of explosives from an RSM safe house in metropolitan Manila. In October, Philippine intelligence agents arrested RSM leader Ahmad Santos in Zamboanga City and charged him with plotting to bomb high profile targets, including the U.S. Embassy in Manila. Two months later, Philippine security forces arrested another RSM leader in Zamboanga City. Philippine officials subsequently claimed that debriefings of these captives helped them thwart an alleged RSM plot to conduct attacks in Manila during the Christmas holiday season.
UPDATES and CAVEATS: Hmmm...seems very neat and convenient that the reported text message includes a clearly unlawful DEMAND by the group for the government to release the terror group's leader, a matter that National Security Adviser, Norberto Gonzales, fussed about yesterday as missing from the Makati City blast tableu, while talking to media yesterday. With this demand, if verified and confirmed, it would seem that all three elements required by the definition of a terrorist crime under the Human Security Act of 2007 now exists. This means, yesterday's bombing IS terrorist act and may be prosecuted under the Act. My own Definition of Terrorism is here. I argue that an explicit terrorist demand is not required by Republic Act 9372 for every specific component act of a terrorist organization but may be construed from the overall objectives and pattern of its activities. It bothered me yesterday that NSA Gonzales does not appreciate this aspect of the definition. (20:00) Eid Kabbalu of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has come on television to offer their help in investigating the Makati Mall Bombing. The MILF could start by surrendering the MILF ambush killers of those 14 Marines on Basilan last July, with ten of them beheaded.
(21:00) ABSCBN News has a follow up report on efforts by national security officials to establish the veracity of the claim of responsibility for the Makati mall explosion and the identity of the former University of the Philippines professor claiming to be the spokesman of the Rajah Sulayman Movement.
The last major attack on Manila by the Indonesian terrorist oganization, Jemaah Islamiyah, may well be that series of five bomb explosions on Rizal Day, December 30, 2000 (nine months before 9/11) in which 22 were killed and a hundred injured. The worst of these was a bomb triggered by a cell phone on the Light Rail Transit at Blumentritt Station in downtown Manila.
I mention this incident because it too was originally blamed by lots of people then in the Opposition and in the Mass Media, on the government of President Joseph Estrada and then Philippine National Police Chief and now Senator Panfilo Ping Lacson. Recall that the Senate Impeachment Trial of Pres. Estrada was by then three weeks old and the stunning testimony of bank vice president Clarissa Ocampo just before Christmas recess that she witnessed Erap sign "Jose Velarde" on bank documents, seemed certain to topple the administration. Speculation ran wild that his main enforcer, PNP Chief Ping Lacson or other supporters of the beleaguered President were desperate to create a "diversion" from the devastating trial proceedings and mounting evidence of his corruption. Three more weeks after the Rizal Day bombings, Erap was overthrown in the Edsa Dos military backed coup d'etat carried out by Hilario Davide, Angelo Reyes and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Later on however, Indonesian JI bomber Fathur Rohman Al Ghozi and Miklos Yunos were arrested and sentenced to 17 years in jail for their role in the Rizal Day Bombings. They escaped from "maximum security" prison at Camp Aguinaldo and were subsequently killed in Mindanao.
If yesterday's Makati mall blastwas terrorist attack by Jemaah Islamiyah or its local allies, it probably means that the old Moro nationalist, separatist rebellion has been subsumed into the global Jihad, since attacking Manila itself has not been one of their traditional tactics. It is certainly worrisome that the Bali Bombers Dulmatin and Umar Patek, along with Zulkifli Abdhir and other top ranking JI leaders still uncaptured have been lurking around Mindanao allegedly with the help of the MILF-Abu Sayyaf Group in exchange for training in the production and deployment of improvised explosive devices, fundraising tactics (You Tube videos of the long dead Janjalani brothers), and other terrorist tactics.
Today's Makati Mall Blast at about 1:30 pm (GMT+8) in the Philippines was definitely not an accidental LPG cooking gas tank explosion as first reported. ABSCBN's regional terrorism expert Maria Ressa, noted the improbability of this being the case earlier this afternoon in her analysis of the physical characteristics of the explosion, namely its very large blast radius (at least 200 meters in the enclosed space) which affected three floor levels of the mall and destroyed or damaged many vehicles parked outside; its evident high energy from the tremendous structural damage and devastation as seen in live tv pictures today, and the absence of any reported gas fumes prior to, or after the explosion, from both survivors and investigators. Eight are confirmed dead with about 90 others injured and in two Makati City hospitals.
Police crime lab investigators also said tonight that that they have found traces of high explosives in specimen swabs taken from an eight meter wide crater (actually the collapsed section) of the floor above the basement of the Glorietta 2 shopping mall in the central business district of Metro Manila, including C-4 plastic or gel explosive material. Philippine National Police Chief Avelino Razon and National Capitol Region Supt. Geary Barias have placed all of Metro Manila under full Red Alert.
The speculation about who perpetrated this dastardly act has begun in earnest. But stepping beyond mere speculation were a number of highly irresponsible and/or devious personalities. The detained Oakwood mutiny leader Antonio Trillanes immediately accused President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her National Security AdviserNorberto Gonzalesof carrying out the bombing in order to divert attention from several swirling bribery and corruption controversies that threaten to sweep Mrs. Arroyo from power by impeachment or worse.
Prof. Roland Simbulan an avid admirer of Che Guevara and sympathizer of the CPP-NPA meanwhile appeared on ANC's Crossroads program in order to spout out the Party line that a small group of professional operators and extra-judicial killers "might" have been responsible. A nice old lady from the Social Welfare Department smilingly averred that Simbulan's assertions were "absurd and ridiculous." I agree.
Then there is Alberto Lim of the Makati Business Club who claimed on television that it was either the Palace who did this or the Opposition, though I think his main expertise is on the likely ill effects of the Makati blast on his stock portfolio.
For many people who won't go as far as Trillanes and Simbulan in these incredible accusations, but who genuinely wish that President Arroyo would either resign or be impeached and removed, I guess it is but natural to:
(1) suspect that it is the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo trying to create a diversion from the deep doo doo she is in from the ZTE scandal and the massive bribery at the Palace last week; and,
(2) be reluctant to consider the possibility that Jemaah Islamiyah and its local allies have indeed carried out the most devastating attack yet on what Maria Ressa (author of the Seeds of Terror) calls JI's "Holy Grail" -- Manila.
Speaking with Ricky Carandang and Pia Hontiveros during yesterday's live coverage of the Makati mall blast, and assessing video of the blast area, Maria Ressa concluded that whoever did it were "highly trained" in deploying a bomb or explosive of this nature.
She says there are only "two umbrella groups" in the Philippines capable of this type of operation: Jemaah Islamiyah or the Philippine Military.
I for one cannot even imagine the possibility of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ordering such a thing, much less some rogue supporters who would act without her knowledge. She may be corrupt as events have proven, and craven enough to try to hold onto power by almost any means. But I just don't believe she, or any of her people would be ruthless enough to do this. If anything she would rather run away than fight, as shown in the Angelo dela Cruz incident in Iraq, and in her pusillanimous handling of the Mindanao situation, both of which were actually determined by the civil society uproar against showing any kind of spine against the terrorists.
For the Opposition, like Trillanes and Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel and Senator Jamby Madrigal, (who were also responsible for the Terrorists Bill of Rights called the Human Security Act) it is of course a most inconvenient development which may divert attention from them and the campaign to unseat the President, which up until yesterday looked like it was really going into high gear as even Bishops have called for GMA's resignation. Most of the leftist militant organizations and almost all of the local blogosphere which is also composed of leftists and communist sympathizers or "liberals" as they like to call themselves, are also sorely disappointed that their best laid plans may now have to be put on hold--which is why they are working up a mighty froth to pin the blame on the Makati explosion on the Palace.
But just like Rizal Day 2000, if I were the JI-ASG-MILF jihadists, this is the perfect time and situation to strike, just when the country is most divided and the democratic system itself looks set to topple President Arroyo. The misdirection game is already afoot, as the most voluble are already blaming the Palace for the blast as a diversionary tactic, while the rest of the people won't dare breathe the word: "TERRORISTS!" and would await further facts to emerge before facing the plausible reality.
That reality is that the old Moro nationalist rebellions is no more, for it has been coopted and absorbed into the greater global Jihad of Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah. If they can't get Bangsmorostan handed to them on a silver platter by President Arroyo with the help of that Indigenous Peoples Wrongs Act, then they will carve it out of our flesh, one cell at a time if necessary.
I actually hope this is all wrong and that when the sun rises in a few hours, the police will say it was a defective LPG gas tank that blew up in the Luk Yuen Restaurant near where the blast occurred.
Three (update: four) persons have been killed by a bomb blast at the Glorietta 2 Mall in Makati City, Philippines. An undetermined number of persons have been injured although ABSCBN News reports nine in hospital. The explosion occurred in or near a restaurant. Live television pictures are showing extensive damage, with debris and cars damaged, including a walkway. Police are said to be looking for other possible explosive devices. The cause of the blast has not been determined but police have ruled out a theorized gas leak, but Makati City councilor Jonjon Binay says it is too early to conclude the real cause just yet.
UPDATES (14:42 pm) : Makati Medical Center reports four dead and 45 injured.
(14:45) Explosion blew out part of the roof and has left a crater estimated to be 8 meters wide.
(15:00) No conclusion has been reached as to the cause of this explosion which occurred at at :25 pm. Conflicting reports are coming in.
(15:30) National Police Chief Avelino Razon, through NCRPO Deputy Dir. Jerry Barias, has just declared RED ALERT throughout Metro Manila. A media center has been set up and he has promised updates every thirty minutes. A fifth death has just been reported.
(16:00) Police have not determined the cause of the blast. The death toll has climbed to six and over 50 are reportedly being treated at Makati Medical Center, some seriously. Supt. Samuel Pagdilao has just expressed his concern about the possibility that this is the feared post-Ramadan offensive of the Jemaah Islamiyah -backed Abu Sayyaf after regular intelligence reports of Islamist threats. It is known that the MILF has been hiding Bali Bombers Dulmatin and Umar Patek in Mindanao. Ayala officials have promised an update by 4:30.
(16:15) DZMM AM radio reports that military officials meeting in Camp Aguinaldo believe C-4 plastic explosive was involved because of the wide extent of the damage.
(16:30) The death toll has risen to eight dead, and 80 are reported injured from counts at Makati Medical Center and Ospital ng Maynila.
(17:00) People like Sen. Nene Pimentel and Jamby Madgrigal really need to shut their big fat mouths at a time like this and refrain from issuing self-serving and hypocritical statements--after all these years that they have been fighting against the promulgation and implementation of the Human Security Act (Anti-Terrorism Law.)
(18:00) National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales says that the government is not planning to use the Human Security Act because of the many infirmities in it, that it would not be effective anyway. Well that's right. The HSA is really a TERRORIST RIGHTS ACT, thanks to nuts like Aquilino Pimentel and Jamby Madrigal who put those infirmities in the act.
(18:15) Maria Ressa, ABSCBN's terrorism expert, talking to Tony Velasquez and Pia Hontiveros notes that the blast radius of the explosion is huge compared to previous attacks like the Jemaah Islamiyah attack on December 30, 2000 (Rizal Day) on the LRT or even the SuperFerry 14 bombing. She mentions the presence in the Philippines of Dulmatin and Umar Patek, responsible for the Bali Bombings, and Zulkifli Abdhir, who have been busy training jihadists for just this very sort of thing. Maria Ressa believes that this successful attack, if found to be Jemaah Islamiyah's doing, represents their attainment of a long desired "Holy Grail" to attack Manila. And to think, we had Mrs. Dulmatin and that nihilist's progeny in custody earlier this year, but for lack of a suitable law, the government actually paid for their plane fare back into the arms of their terrorist pater. (19:00) SENATOR ANTONIO TRILLANES is a complete and utter idiot for declaring that the blast in Makati today was the work of the President or her allies. I hope he ROTS in jail now and never gets to dark the Senate's door. He's off the blogroll--first time I've ever removed anyone for reasons of total disgust.
At around 1:30 this afternoon the Makati area was rocked by a powerful explosion which so far resulted in 8 killed and at least 70 persons wounded. Initial investigations indicate that the explosion could not have been caused by a LPG accident as earlier reported. Circumstances indicate it is highly probable that it was caused by an explosive device.
We assure everyone that a full blown investigation is now underway. The Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines are on highest alert and are fielding an additional 2000 personnel to secure our public places and to prevent a possible similar occurrence.
I warn those who seek to exploit this incident to destabilize our government for their selfish political motives.
Meanwhile, we urge all sectors to remain vigilant as the government steps up security measures to protect our people.
I am deeply saddened by this unfortunate incident and I extend my sincerest sympathies to the families of those were killed and wounded. The Department of Social Welfare and Development and the National Disaster and Coordinating Council are in close touch with the victims in order to provide them the necessary assistance.
During these trying times we call on the people to pray for peace and unity.
No matter what our opinions of her may be, I believe it is our duty as citizens to support the President and Commander in Chief in this dark hour that is increasingly beginning to look like a terrorist attack. I agree with her that this is a time for all of us to unite behind the authorities for the sake of the national security.
(2100) Professor Roland Simbulan was introduced on Tony Velasquez's Crossroads program on ANC as "security expert" whereupon he delivered the usual communist line about state terrorism and how the Makati Mall blast today might have been done by a small dirty tricks operation under the control of the President in order to divert attention from the political controversies hounding the Arroyo administration. But if I remember right, he was also one of those who, in December 2000, blamed Erap and Ping for the Rizal Day Bombings which killed 22 and hurt over a hundred Filipinos. Recall that just a week before, Joseph Estrada was hit hard in the Senate impeachment trial by the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo and may be considered to have been in the same kind of dangerous trouble as President Arroyo is today. Later, the Indonesian Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists Fathur Rohman al Ghozi and Miklos Yunos were arrested for and sentenced to long jail terms for that terrorist attack -- but only three years after Erap was removed in a coup d'etat called Edsa Dos. The timing of that Jemaah Islamiyah attack is precisely the same as this one! Oh, by the way, read this adoring article from security expert Rolando Simbulan extolling his idol: Che Guevara!
The CPP NPA and its leftist allies like Simbulan have always supported the Muslim rebel movement. But here they may be helping out the Al Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiyah. International terrorists of a feather flock together. Security expert my foot!
IN DEFERENCE TO THE VICTIMS OF THIS ATROCITY, COMMENTS TO THIS POST HAVE BEEN CLOSED. PLEASE GO ELSEWHERE TO GET YOUR KICKS. THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER BLOGS FOR THAT PURPOSE. MY APOLOGIES TO REGULAR READERS BUT CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TROLLS TODAY.
AND THEN THERE WERE THREE: Aside from Pampanga Governor Among Ed Panlilio and Bulacan Gov. Jon Jon Mendoza, yet a third public official (Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante) has now confirmed that hundreds of thousands of pesos in brown paper gift bags were apparently distributed to EACH of 180 Congressmen and governors by Palace officials when the President called for a meeting that could've led to the ouster of House Speaker Jose de Venecia last week. The most damaging thing about Abante's testimony to media is thatthe distribution was done in the presence of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. (PDI) IMPEACHMENT is a game of numbers, they say. Two fractions to be precise: one third of the House of Representatives which has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment and two thirds of the Senate, which has the sole power to acquit or convict with finality. Now of course that interloping Supreme Court of Davide's time introduced a monkey wrench into the process of holding Constitutional officers to account for their impeachable crimes by horning in on the jurisdiction of the political branch of the government to make its own Rules on impeachment. But I have a feeling that not even that silly initiation impeachment rule of theirs can stop last week's bribery scandal from blowing up in the Palace's face in an avalanche of whistleblowing and self-preserving admissions by a growing number of those who may indeed have received the alleged bribe money.
So what might cause eighty or more Congressmen from the House of Representathieves to impeach Alibabarroyo this year, when they did not do so two years in a row? After all the Hello Garci recordings and cheating in the 2004 elections were certainly as big as the ZTE and Palace bribery controversies.
Why should the arithmetic game be different now. Three factors in increasing order of necessity and sufficiency to bring about a successful impeachment in the Lower House:
(1)The Catholic Bishopsseem to have ended their own pusillanimity in regard to impeaching Arroyo because not only is the prime whistleblower one of their own, (Catholic priest Ed Panlilio), but at least two of their own (Bishop Soc Villegas and Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales) have been implicated in the strong-arming of Vidal Doble in that infamous San Carlos Seminary incident along with Palace operator Medy Poblador. The Men in Skirts need to do something to save themselves now from the public perception of complicity in a dastardly plot to save the President.
(2) House Speaker Jose de Venecia appears to have broken ranks with Arroyo after his son Joey de Venecia III started all this with his hair-raising revelations of Benjamin Abalos' role in ZTE. On Manolo Quezon's The Explainer tv show last Tuesday, and Pia Hontiveros' Strictly Politics the same evening, JDV announced that he was calling for a Moral Revolution to cleanse the country of corruption. Even as he declared humbly that he himself was "not without sin" JDV called on the President to do a top-down revamp of the government and become the "greatest President in Philippine history". He also called the Pulido impeachment complaint a sham, bribery-tainted thing and explained that that was why he refused to refer it to the Justice Committee.
(3) But perhaps the factor that will indeed tip the scales and produce the required one third minority in the House is the existence of a Hanging Senate, that is, an Upper House with the requisite two thirds of the Members ready to convict. Much of the evidence needed to convict is already in the Senate joint committees investigating the Hello Garci and ZTE National Broadband Network controversies, or soon will be if and when Romulo Neri is forced to testify to what he knows about the President's wrong-doings in the latter. The President may lose a key ally in the Senate too, as Miriam Defensor Santiago yesterday announced that she is seeking a one year leave of absence to campaign for a seat on the International Court of Justice.
This last factor is the most important in my opinion because I think it is now a cardinal rule of the impeachment calculus in the Philippine setup that without a high probability, (if not virtual certainty), that a given sitting Senate will convict upon impeachment trial, the Lower House will never initiate a case of impeachment. It would be political suicide. as that would only be slitting their own throat if the President were to be acquitted. That lesson was learned in the 2001 Senate impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada, wherein the Constitution had to be wantonly violated and a military-backed coup d'etat carried out by Chief Justice Davide and Chief Prosecutor Joker Arroyo to install GMA and save themselves after it turned out they didn't have the numbers in the Senate.
That of course may be the big difference now, since the May 2007 midterm elections has evidently created a solidly oppositionist Senate. There is nothing like a nearly sure-ball conviction to turn the House's pusillanimity into statesmanship and bravado.
KORONADAL CITY -- Oblates of Notre Dame Sister Pat Babiera, justice and peace coordinator of the Diocese of Marbel, assailed Bayer for trying to introduce genetically modified rice variety Liberty Link 62 (LL62) in the country. "Consistent with our advocacy stancefor preserving the integrity of creation-we laud the temporary restraining order issued by a court stopping the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Plant Industry from approving the application of the genetically-modified rice Bayer LL62," she said in a statement.
As a "religious leader" naturally Sor Babieri also teaches little children that they will go to hell if they don't believe her male colleagues in skirts and funny hats can literally turn Mompo into real blood and bread into human-divine flesh. I don't suppose her Greenpeace pals would care to question her sincerity and consistency in this regard? What Sor. Babieri and friends need to do is start eating a lot more of that Vitamin-A loaded golden rice GMO. It may improve their eyesight, if not their politically-addled brains.
“With the unfavorable publications and debates these genetically modified organisms have spawned, it is but prudent that the approval…of the application of [Bayer] be restrained in the meantime considering that rice is a staple on the dining table of the Filipinos,” Judge Marigomen said.
Of course, Filipinos may freely eat as a staple on their dining table, all that rice from palay that has been dried on the roadsides, where asbestos particles from the brake-lining of buses, jeepneys and cars, and their lead-containing exhausts freely mix with the non genetically modified grain.
Seems that PDI's Rina Jimenez David may be trying to make up for all the free column space and open mike time she's been giving the anti-GMO campaigners of Greenpeace by pointing to the work of Dr. Nina Halos in introducing the DNA identification to solve criminal cases. Maybe all that late night television watching of shows like CSI has actually convinced her that science really is a good thing, on the whole, even though she had to first take a pot shot at GMOs by calling them "Frankenfoods" in her lead today. She forgot to mention, conveniently of course, that the Nobel Prize in Medicine this year went to inventors of a most wonderful and beneficial Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) -- designer mice. (But please, don't eat them yet, Sor. Rina). She needs to get the lead out of her lipstick.
All over the Philippines, the Greenpissers are setting up slick looking displays full of scientific and technologic sounding clap trap in shopping malls, doing everything they can to miseducate the Filipinos about biotechnology and genetic engineering, where Judge Marigomen probably picked up most of her information about these issues. But this story, about the approval of pest-resistant GMO corn in the Philippines (after 25 years of safe production all over the world) should drive them up a wall considering what spectacular failure their campaigns have turned out to be in stopping it.
Ah, but corn farmers in Mindanao and Visayas who annually lose between 50 to 100% of their corn crop to the corn-borer weevils, will certainly have plenty to rejoice, since the corn-borer resistant variety of corn will triple their annual yield and do more to raise their standard of living than going to shopping malls listening to all that strange drivel from the so-called environmentalists. Next time you see these fairy tale tellers at a mall, ask them if they really want diabetics to eschew the human insulin they get from genetically modified e-coli bacteria and go back to using pig insulin instead since it is so much more natural! REPENT YE SPREADERS OF PSEUDOSCIENCE AND SUPERSTITION!
What these "campaigners" and "religious leaders" cannot afford to allow Filipinos to understand of course is that "genetic engineering" is no different from "plant breeding"--except that by understanding the science of DNA, we have replaced luck and chance with systematic biology and engineering.
The Gene Revolution is doing far, far more to solve the problems of hunger and poverty than these ideologically motivated troglodytes ever will, for whom the point is not really the dangers of biotechnology but the old fight against multinational companies and imperialism!
Though no technology is without its dangers, biology and medicine really ought to be left to the scientific community--who have always been the first to raise safety concerns, caveats and problems, only to have their warnings hijacked by brochure and manifesto writers whose expertise is in making green the new yellow journalism.
Now then, if they decide to go on a hunger strike again as they did against BT Corn a few years ago, we really must all insist that this time they don't give up once they get hungry.
In Impeachment as Safety Net, constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas, S.J. reviews the 2003 ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the initiation of an impeachment proceeding:
The crucial point to determine is when the “impeachment proceeding” is deemed to have been “initiated.” In 2003, in the case involving the attempted impeachment of Chief Justice Hilario Davide, the Court ruled that the “impeachment proceeding” is deemed to have been “initiated” not when the justice committee starts deliberations on the complaint, nor when the committee submits its report to the House, nor when the House starts deliberation on the committee report, nor when the House sends the complaint to the Senate for trial, but much earlier—that is, when the House presiding officer sends the verified complaint to the justice committee for study.
In arriving at this conclusion the Court argued thus: “A proceeding must be ‘initiated.’ To initiate, which comes from the Latin word initium, means to begin. On the other hand, ‘proceeding’ is a progressive noun. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It takes place not in the Senate but in the House and consists of several steps: (1) there is the filing of a verified complaint either by a Member of the House of Representatives or by a private citizen endorsed by a Member of the House of the Representatives; (2) there is the processing of this complaint by the proper Committee which may either reject the complaint or uphold it; (3) whether the resolution of the Committee rejects or upholds the complaint, the resolution must be forwarded to the House for further processing; and (4) there is the processing of the same complaint by the House of Representatives which either affirms a favorable resolution of the Committee or overrides a contrary resolution by a vote of one-third of all the members. If at least one-third of all the Members upholds the complaint, Articles of Impeachment are prepared and transmitted to the Senate. It is at this point that the House ‘initiates an impeachment case.’ It is at this point that an impeachable public official is successfully impeached. That is, he or she is successfully charged with an impeachment ‘case’ before the Senate as impeachment court.”
The Court continued: “The ‘impeachment proceeding’ is not initiated when the complaint is transmitted to the Senate for trial because that is the end of the House proceeding and the beginning of another proceeding, namely the trial. Neither is the ‘impeachment proceeding’ initiated when the House deliberates on the resolution passed on to it by the Committee, because something prior to that has already been done. The action of the House is already a further step in the proceeding, not its initiation or beginning. 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.”
Did the Supreme Court correctly interpret the relevant Constitutional provisions? Here they are in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers):
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
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. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.
The word INITIATE occurs exactly twice in Article XI above, first in Section 3(1) which speaks of the exclusive power of the House to initiate all CASES of impeachment, and in Section 3(5) which limits to once per year the power of the House to initiate impeachment proceedings against a given impeachable official.
I agree completely that the Supreme Court correctly distinguishes between the "impeachment proceedings" and the "case of impeachment" which may or may not result therefrom, the difference being one of product and process, or even, cause and effect. A Senate impeachment trial will only result when the House exercises its exclusive power to initiate a case of impeachment, but the process or "proceedings" by which such a case is brought into existence, the Supreme Court asserts rightly, begins earlier. But when?? Though they enumerate four or five possible points of initiation, in this Decision they locate such a beginning of the process at the earliest of these possibilities, namely right after a verified complaint for impeachment has been filed and automatically referred to the Justice Committee for processing, as has just happened with the Pulido complaint.
Did the the Supreme Court have the right or the power or the privilege to make such Rule on the initiation of impeachment? Or did it commit a grave abuse of its own discretion?
It cannot be denied that the Constitution is quite silent about the question of WHEN the impeachment proceedings are initiated. The big question is, WHO has the right, the power, the privilege and the appropriate discretion to answer this question of WHEN the process begins? Take a look at the last sentence of Article XI: Section 3 (8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.
THE CONGRESS itself has this power, NOT the Supreme Court! I conclude therefore that the Supreme Court committed a grave abuse of its discretion in making the impeachment initiation rule for Congress, which, in the utterly corrupt desire of the pro-GMA leaderhip to save Davide from impeachment in 2003, it did nothing about, even if the complaint already had the one third minority required to initiate a case of impeachment!
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE AND IMPEACHMENT
There is yet another very powerful way of looking at Article XI that I have discovered by considering this crucial issue, and it has to do with the Separation of powers.
In my opinion, what Article XI does is to give to the Congress, which is the ONLY branch of the government that does NOT have any impeachable officers, the EXCLUSIVE and SOLE JUDICIAL POWERto remove from office the Constitutional Officers listed in Section 1, namely and in order of the numbers they possess, the fifteen Supreme Court Justices, the five Comelec Commissioners, the three members each of the Commission on Audit and Civil Service Commission, the two Executive officers, the President and the Vice President, and one Ombudsman.
Indeed, it is obvious from the most plain reading of Article XI that the Supreme Court does not in fact have ANY jurisdiction over such a power to remove their own Members and all other impeachable officers. It is a JUDICIAL POWER exclusive to and solely possessed by the POLITICAL branch of the government, the Congress. Article XI indubitably locates the entire process of removing such officers ENTIRELY and CONGRUENTLY within the boundaries of the Congress, giving to the House the exclusive power to begin the process and to the Senate the sole power to finish the process. The verdict of a Senate impeachment court CANNOT even be appealed to the Supreme Court, because such verdict is FINAL and EXECUTORY.
Although the Constitution does not specify explicitly WHEN impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated, the Supreme Court however had no right to do so, for the House clearly has that right by explicit mandate of the Constitution. The Supreme Court therefore exercised a power explicitly granted to a different branch of the government when it so ruled. It violated the principle of the Separation of Powers to save one of its own in 2003, the oh-so-destructive Hilario G. Davide, Jr. Thus the Supreme Court committed a grave abuse of its own discretion by exercising a power it usurped from the House of Reprenstatives. Its decision is legally and morally NULL and VOID ab initio, and may righteously be ignored and disobeyed by the Congress, even today. The House can adopt new Rules on Impeachment Initiation and overrule the Supreme Court's decision, and thus reclaim the JUDICIAL power usurped from it.
The Supreme Court of course is granted the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. But it made a mistake in this case. It should have ruled that the Congress alone has the power over impeachment, including making the Rules that fill in any blanks in the Constitution, such as WHEN an impeachment proceeding begins. It should have returned the petition to the House and told IT to decide under powers granted to it in Section 8, when such proceedings begin. By selecting for the House when along the process this happens, it abused its power to interpret the Constitution, a grave abuse of discretion!
I believe that several quite significant misinterpretations and demonstrable violations of these theoretical principles have led to a dangerously malfunctioning government that is producing an intolerably unjust society in which all manner of social and political evils go unchecked and the most serious crimes by public and private entities go unpunished.
Like a highly complex piece of moving and rotating machinery, the Government's very different and separate parts are normally kept running smoothly in close coordination with each other, by the nuts and bolts of these general principles and theories. Conversely, when the Machine's operators act unwisely and they loosen the screws, or lose them altogether, the resulting unchecked and unbalanced turmoil and strife increase exponentially and a major cataclysm or explosion becomes unavoidable.
The "Machine" to which I am referring is of course the Government itself, whose form and function are both defined in some detail by the Constitution.
The FORM of this Machine is that of a representative democratic government composed of three main branches: the Presidency, the Congress composed of House and Senate, and the Supreme Court.
These POWERS of the Government consist of the legislative power to make new laws in addition to the Constitution; the executive power to implement and enforce those laws; and the judicial power to interpret what the Constitution and the laws mean in the specific circumstances of "justiciable cases" that come before it in order to settle disputes between and among citizens and institutions.
I intentionally avoid using the termsexecutive, legislative and judicial branches of the government. I think applying these three adjectives to the branches of government rather than to its powers or functions, creates the wrong impression that Separation of Powers means the executive power flows like tree sap into the executive branch, the legislative power into the legislative, and the judicial power into the judicial branch.
Yet when one carefully examines the engineering design document for this Machine of separate parts --namely the Constitution--one discovers that the separation of powers mandated therein is far more complex and subtle than the above simplistic description might suggest.
For example, every Supreme Court Decision becomes part of the laws of the land. They have as much force to compel our compliance as any law crafted by the Congress, and therefore it is an inescapable conclusion that the Judiciary partakes of the legislative power in a substantial manner, and is indeed capable of overpowering and annulling any law passed by Congress that it deems to be unconstitutional. Of course, this is just a way of saying that the judicial power of the Court includes a "negative legislative power" of repealing existing laws.
Likewise, I think it has also been demonstrated that the Legislature actually has JUDICIAL power that is GREATER than that of the Supreme Court in the matter of the removal of impeachable officers.
Separation of Powers is thus seen to be the well-spring of CHECKS and BALANCES in a democratic government by which judicial and legislative powers are shared and distributed between Court and Congress.
Senate President Manny Villar just called Jamby Madrigal a liarlast Friday after she issued this utterly intemperate and possibly unethical press statement based on text messages accusing him of kowtowing to port monopolist Ricky Razon in the ZTE Broadband investigation.
JAMBY MADRIGAL: "I strongly urge Senate President Villar and Senator Cayetano to set a definite date for the next hearing. They should not hold the Senate hostage to uncertainty. By keeping the NBN deal in limbo, the Senate President and Senator Cayetano are lending credence to the allegations against them that a powerful business tycoon with links to Malacanang co-opted the Senate Blue Ribbon from conducting hearings before the Senate break. Otherwise, patriotic senators may be compelled to take this matter up before the Ethics Committee, chaired ironically by Senator Pia Cayetano. Should this happen, delicadeza dictates that she resign her post and give it to a more impartial Senator. The integrity of the Senate as a whole should not be sacrificed because of the unethical conduct of a few. If Senators Villar and Cayetano have nothing to hide, their actions should speak for themselves. Their continued non-action speaks volumes in itself. The truth should not be stifled. The Filipino people." deserve nothing less.
Pollster Social Weather Stations reports that Senate President Manny Villar has the highest satisfaction rating among our top government officials, a result consistent with the sterling manner in which he has led the Senate through the Hello Garci and ZTE investigations while passing at least nine major pieces of legislation and working hard on the 2008 national budget. His avowed theme of Senate independence stems from his own happy circumstance of being financially independent vis-a-vis the 2010 presidential run that I believe he will make and has a good chance of winning. The "allegations" regarding a "powerful business tycoon" influencing Villar and Cayetano turned out to be a text message that lots of people received. As for her threat to bring the matter up before the Ethics Committee, the Senate President welcomed it but warned that she might be facing ethics raps herself if she could not prove these wild allegations. Billy Esposo of the Philippine Star (As I Wreck This Chair) excoriates her arguments and says "Having half a brain and too much tongue can be politically fatal." Mr. Esposo overestimates the former and underestimates the latter. The continuation of the ZTE investigation has already been scheduled for October 25.
When the Philippine Senate reconvenes to take up the resolutions of Joker Arroyo and Ping Lacson to investigate the alleged breach of Senate Rules on the conduct of Executive Sessions, I have more than just a feeling that the investigation will center around Senator Jamby Madrigal, because if there is anyone capable of conspiring with the Philippine Daily Innuendo to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Senate, and to break the confidentiality of the Senate Executive session last Sept. 26, it would have to be someone with the demonstrated ability and inclination to do so, as the above incident proves her to be.
And now there is something of an even more serious, possibly international nature to Jamby Madrigal's streak of heedless behaviour. After issuing a Press Statement full of innuendo against the Senate delegation to the International Parliamentary Union that the trip is a junket and claiming to be too busy to join it because of her urgent work on the JPEPA free trade agrement with Japan and ZTE conroversy, guess where she suddenly flies off to but the Utrecht Space Station. Sitting like a prized poodle between the Chairman of the Communist Party and his right hand man, she then issued a Joint Statement castigating the Philippine government for not getting the CPP NPA and Jose Maria Sison off the US and EU lists of foreign terrorist organizations and personalities. She calls for a resumption of the peace talks that her comrades had called off themselves because the listing has put a crimp on their fund-raising activities and their comfy lifestyle under Dutch Euroleftist welfare. (Heck I can't tell who's more corpulent around the middle and above the neck -- Joma or Jamby! Mad cow disease must be fattening.) Although the headlines focus on the keywords "peace talks," when you read the statement it's more to do with getting her murdering, extorting, cell-tower-exploding pals off the terrorist listings. It's a repeat of the speech she made in Geneva last October in which she calls the Philippine government a state terrorist organization and also calls for the delisting (see Jamby Madrigal, Cracked).
Some patriotic Senator Jamby Madrigal turns out to be, eh?
Well I think it is time for the Philippine government to use the Human Security Act and place the CPP NPA, its leaders and financiers like the lil rich girl Jamby Madrigal on its own terrorist list. Perhaps Interpol or various intelligence agencies who take the terrorist listing seriously can be consulted for evidence that she has been communicating with and conspiring with the CPP NPA to help them pressure the Philippine and other governments.
I think Jamby Madrigal ought to be investigated by the Senate for those unethical allegations against Villar and Cayetano; for possible breach of its Rules on executive sessions, as well as conspiring with, and financially aiding the rebel terrorists. Perhaps they ought to call another executive session in which they all take Lie Detector tests to PROVE the integrity and independence of the Senate against those who deal in innuendo and defamation and dare to call it journalism or even patriotism as Jamby does.
I think it is an urgent and crucial matter for the restoration of the Separation of Powers and democratic checks and balances that the Senate not have in its ranks anyone who won't abide by the Rules, who insults their colleagues with wild and malicious abandon, and who wantonly mocks and endangers the national security by sleeping with its terrorist enemies.
Expel Jamby! She's not fit for office and may well be suffering from severe attention deficit disorder (or terminal stupidity). She says it herself in the press statement attacking Villar: The integrity of the Senate as a whole should not be sacrificed because of the unethical conduct of a few.
When Joker Arroyo walked out on the Senate Impeachment Trial of Joseph Estrada (because he was certain that the Senate would eventually vote for acquittal) he became the instant hero of the anti-Erap forces that later carried out the Edsa Dos coup d'etat. Then, when Hilario G. Davide Jr. abandoned his oath to preside over the Senate Impeachment Trial and put on the costume of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in order to illegally and unconstitutionally swear in then Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, he became the Saint that he still is today for folks like Amando Doronila and the Philippine Daily Inquirer, who now of course consider Joker Arroyo to be the Devil of Obstruction of Justice. The name of this game is The End Justifies the Means. It is the quintessence of moral inconsistency that in fact has resulted in the destruction of Separation of Powers and the very checks and balances among the coordinate branches of the Government from which flow the cultures of impunity and immoderation among them.
But I had a belly-laugh over two pieces in the Philippine Daily Innuendo today. First an editorial that sounds like any jilted lover's passionate portrayal of the Other as a scoundrel and most hated object of her animus (the said Joker Arroyo) and a threat to jump into the arms of an Also-Ran--in this case Panfilo Lacson. Second was the opinion column of former Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz, which offers an irrelevant and immaterial portion Senate v. Ermita as an argument against the invocation of Executive Privilege by the President. I think that even my amateur interpretation of that decision is more than enough to rebut Isagani Cruz today, so let me concentrate on the editorial, which advances the opinion, put in the mouth of another unnamed source that since Neri revealed nothing new at the Sept. 26 Executive Session that its confidentiality need not be strictly maintained or respected:
Senator Arroyo also takes violent exception to his having been reported as the instrument by which the Arroyo administration infiltrated the executive session, thus rendering its purpose impossible. To which, a fellow senator reasonably, in effect, asks: If there was no confession, could there be a claim to the seal of the confessional?
You know, I thought they were good Catholics over there at the Innuendo since some of the top staff kiss the feet of Mama Mary's statue on the way to work, but in case they've intentionally ignored their morning's Catechism Lesson, the seal of the confessional is indeed "content-neutral". A priest cannot reveal what is said, or not said, in the confessional.
Ah but how the worm has turned and the shoe be on the other foot. For unlike the halcyon days of their love affair, the Innuendo's emotions are bursting with tears of anger and frustration that Joker Arroyo won't play the old games of throw-out-the-Constitution. Nothing matters now but to utterly destroy and reject him:
The one in the dock is not the Senate, it’s not the media, it’s not the principles that permit the holding of executive sessions or the secrecy that should surround such proceedings. The one on the dock is not the Inquirer’s sources. It is Joker Arroyo.
Were the Senate’s efforts frustrated, because a witness was possibly browbeaten on the behest of a senator?
The purpose of executive sessions or any kind of official secrecy is to maintain the security of the state, the inviolability of legitimate official communications, but never, ever, under any circumstances, to obstruct justice or to hide official wrongdoing.
This interpretation of both the purpose of executive sessions and the nature of national security is the one preferred by those who believe that the Public's Right to Know is the same as the newspaper's right to make money on the news and their self-serving opinions. It says, the end justifies the means--the central fallacy that has ever motivated the Philippine Daily Innuendo.
Here are my amateur rebuttals of these jilted lover's laments:
NEW LOVERS Senator Jamby Madrigal is like a little kid who has her own set of the CAR KEYS and a bad case of attention deficit disorder. After issuing a statement last week that she was too busy with regular Senate work to attend the the International Parliamentary Union, there she suddenly is, an ex-officio member of the Communist Party Central Committee! Well, she's cruisin' for a bruisin', riding shotgun with those terrorists. It seems she doesn't even realize it was Joma's organized extortion and murder syndicate that called off the peace talks because every year since 2001, both the US and the EU have put the terrorist label on the CPP NPA. Who does she think she is, Hanoi Jane Fonda?
WHY DEMOCRACY Jamby and the Philippine Daily Innuendo editors need to attend a Red Chinese elementary school, where the BBC's recent episode of the "successors of communism" learning the principles and practice of democracy might show them where they've gone wrong--in the head and the heart.
NOBEL LAUREATE IN LITERATURE DORIS LESSING ON POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:"The phrase “political correctness” was born as Communism was collapsing. I do not think this was chance. I am not suggesting that the torch of Communism has been handed on to the political correctors. I am suggesting that habits of mind have been absorbed, often without knowing it."
Media in Focus with Cheche Lazaro interviewed Marites Vitug of Newsbreak, and lawyers Ed Lacierda and Marichu Lambino last week. Something I forgot about already was brought up by Atty. Lambino. It's to do with that infamous circular issued by then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. forbidding the disclosure of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of a Supreme Court Justice. Since SALs are public documents, the exemption is baseless and unconstitutional. It's immoral and self-serving.
Moreover, the Chief Justice Reynato Puno's close classmate in law school, Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago, is currently embroiled in an alleged case of bribery or attempted bribery that has been investigated and reported upon by Newsbreak Magazine. And Malaya editor, Jake Macasaet has been given a chilling "show cause" order why he ought not to be cited for indirect contempt of the Supreme Court, by his recent writings on the incident, but saying it was one of the relatively few Lady Justices. Though he did not name any specific Justice, nor did he even name the Supreme Court in his assailed editorials. (Ellen Tordesillas reports). In short, what happened is that Newsbreak got a tip that a staff member of Justice Ynares-Santiago was allegedly fired last March after she inadvertently opened a neatly gift-wrapped package intended for her boss, thinking it contained perishables. Surprise, surprise, the package reportedly contained about P10 million in cash. This incident apparently occurred just before Justice Ynares-Santiago issued an important decision in the Piatco case. Now with the whole thing turned into a public brouhaha, an important dilemma has arisen and is worth examining in some detail.
There is a fog that must be dispelled in the public’s mind about the Supreme Court–Marichu said it herself and struggled with the conundrum–the Supremes must not be above the law, but where does one appeal as simple a thing as the refusal to show a guest logbook, which any visitor to the Court signs and accesses. She tells Cheche we must appeal to their reasonableness. You realize of course that this cannot maintain the integrity of our conceptions of justice and Rule of Law. There must be a functional, institutional check and balance to the Supreme Court. And of course, it is obvious that the Congress itself possesses a JUDICIAL power as strong as the High Court’s –no stronger!– in the matter of Public Accountability of impeachable officers.
How this balance is to be restored escapes me also though, but it cannot be to the reasonableness of possible lawbreakers that we are forced to appeal. No Ma’m! I would burn down Padre Faura first than swallow such a bitter dreg.
A day of reckoning must come even to the Supreme Court, which for some reason, mystical or superstitious, has mesmerized so many people into believing the High Court is owed somehow owed more deference or respect than the other coordinate branches of government. Perhaps because they are so often called the Weakest Branch, and only infrequently intrude upon the public consciousness by publishing some tendentious piece of English grammar and composition, many give them a wide berth of honorability and a benefit of the doubt no granted the Executive or Legislative branches.
Yet ever since the overthrow of the President in 2001 by someone dressed in the costume of the Chief Justice and in a clear coup d'etat conspiracy with the AFP Chief of Staff and then Vice President Arroyo, the Supreme Court has been transformed into a self-protecting, self-justifying, nontransparent body of unelected Judges that are basically accountable to no one. Thus when the House of Representatives tried to impeach Davide for his despicable role in Edsa Dos, they got it slapped back on their faces as debilitating and self-serving rule about when impeachment is initiated, thus usurping the exclusive power of the House to impeach Constitutional officers like the Justices themselves!
NEW LOVERS Senator Jamby Madrigal is like a little kid who has her own set of the CAR KEYS and a bad case of attention deficit disorder. After issuing a statement last week that she was too busy with regular Senate work to attend the the International Parliamentary Union, there she suddenly is, an ex-officio member of the Communist Party Central Committee! Well, she's cruisin' for a bruisin'.
[Below, verbatim, is an article in Saturday's Philippine Daily Innuendo written by Senator Joker P. Arroyo,together with the newspaper's Notes,for purely academic commentary and discussion, schadenfreudian or otherwise.For now, Rizalist-and-I have little to say, as we have already had our say, in the above recent posts, on this grave issue of Liberty, Fairness and Privilege.]
Editor's Note: Per request of the author, the following is published "unedited and in full, including the title."
MANILA, Philippines -- When Secretary Neri pleaded at the close of the September 26th 2007 joint committee hearing on the NBN deal that he would like to consult his superiors before he could agree or not to disclose his conversation with the President, the Minority Leader Senator Pimentel broached to me the idea of an executive session where Neri could speak in the strictest confidence and thereby break the impasse. I agreed.
That was consistent with the Senate Rules on Executive Session, Rule XLVII, Sec. 127, which provides that it "shall be held whenever a Senator so requests it and his petition has been duly seconded."
The presence of DBM Secretary Andaya, as attested by the Blue Ribbon Transcript, was authorized by the lead Chair, Senator Cayetano in accordance with Sec. 126, that "such other persons as may be authorized by the Senate may be admitted to the (executive session)."
At the start of the closed-door session, Senate President Villar invoked Section 128, that everyone "shall absolutely refrain from divulging any of the confidential matters taken up by the Senate, and all proceedings which might have taken place in the Senate in connection with said matters shall likewise be considered as strictly confidential xxx."
So sacrosanct is the executive session that Sec. 129 proscribes that "any Senator who violates the [confidentiality injunction' may, by a two-thirds (2/3) votes of all the Senators, be expelled from the Senate xxx."
Three days later, on September 29, 2007, Inquirer's Malacañang reporter, Juliet Labog-Javellana, quoting four unnamed sources, filed a detailed account of what supposedly happened in the closed-door meeting which was banner headlined in the Inquirer issue of Sept. 30th.
It was a double-whammy, First, against the Inquirer for a patently baseless report that everyone privy to that meeting has stoutly denied. Second, against the Senate for the possible sources could only be the senators present who faced the prospect of the ultimate sanction under the Senate rules: expulsion.
Considering the serious breach of Senate rules, P.S. Resolution No. 165 was passed without any objection by the Senate.
The resolutory portion is simple and forthright. It reads:
"Resolved, as it is hereby resolved, to direct the appropriate Committee to conduct an inquiry into violation of Rule XLVII and/or other rules of the Senate as a consequence of the aforesaid [Inquirer] news account and to investigate any/or all Senators and non-Senators who were present during the said Executive Session and to impose sanctions as may be warranted under the Rules."
The Senate would go to great lengths to conduct a formal investigation of the erring senators, if any; for breach of its Rules, if there was; and to impose penalties, if warranted. The Senate cannot have four members who cannot work within its Rules. What was the response of the Inquirer?
Within hours after the Senate adopted the investigative resolution and as the Inquirer was going to press, its editors suddenly declared that it stood by the Javellana story wholesale. That is, without conducting any investigation--in sharp contrast to the Senate's careful and calibrated response.
Inquirer thought it had played a neat shell game. By absolving Ms Javellana with self-serving and indecent haste, Inquirer sought to absolve itself. Did it? Only if the accused is to be the judge of her own guilt.
But no one was accusing the Inquirer. Not yet anyway. The Senate has in fact provisionally taken Ms Javellana's claim of real sources at her word, and was conducting an investigation to uncover these sources and then check with them the veracity of the account they allegedly gave her.
Why should that so disturb the Inquirer like an inveterate cardsharp who may actually have been playing an honest game?
At no point will the Inquirer itself be investigated, only the senators and the others who were present at the executive session. Ms Javellana may invoke the confidentiality of her sources to stop herself from revealing their identities but not to stop the Senate from finding out for itself. Unless a newspaper is of the view that it has, in some regard, the last word on what a Senate may or may not do. We do not think so.
And now the Inquirer has hunkered down for a siege that no one intends to lay it, devoting four kilometric but distorted accounts of the issue on its front page, plus two editorials and numerous columns. Everyone at the Inquirer is at the ramparts scanning the horizon for enemies that are not there; for the inquiry will be of the Senate by the Senate without any regard to Inquirer. Unless the Inquirer is of the view that anything it may concern itself with is its sole prerogative to dispose of and no one else. What an odd self-important notion.
With characteristic imbalance, the Inquirer extended to me a single slanted headline coupled with a predictably editorialized news account of Senate Resolution No. 165.
It grasped at the off-tangent straw thrown in its direction by a lawyer with an axe to grind against the Senate because he was barred from attending any Senate committee hearings for unruly behavior and improper knowledge.
Amado Doronila, Inquirer's career obscurantist, joined the pride and writes about a freedom whose loss he was not around to experience.
Doronila labors mightily to transform the Senate Resolution into a battle for the liberty of the press. But the Senate has no fight with the press. Neither has the Senate a fight with the Inquirer. All the Senate seeks is the truth about the sourcing of Ms Javellana's thus far universally denied story so that it can deal with the offending senators and not with a newspaper whose feeble grasp of facts has lost it a lot of credibility though not, to be sure, any of its entertainment value.
Nor is the Senate interested in denying Ms Javellana the confidentiality of her sources, thereby hobbling the journalistic right to search for the truth. Far from it, the Senate seeks only to protect the confidentiality of executive sessions without which its effectiveness in searching for the truth will likewise be hampered.
What surprises us all is not that Ms Javellana made a claim of sources that has been roundly denied by everyone concerned but that her editors nonetheless published a story in the teeth of the declared confidentiality of the Senate proceedings, thereby damaging perhaps irreparably one of the legislature's most effective devices for getting at the truth. The fault was not so much Ms Javellana's for claiming sources that may not exist as her editors for going ahead with a story regardless of the consequences to the Senate and the larger public interest in arriving at the truth about the ZTE affair.
As the Senate grills all the senators who were present at the session, it may well be that some or just one of them may ask that Ms Javellana be invited to shed some light on the matter, perhaps also in executive session so that no one else may know what or whether she spoke. After all, as the writer of the offending article, no one is in a better position to help the Senate resolve the issue. This time we trust that the strictest confidence will be maintained by all concerned.
The Inquirer of course may refuse to allow Ms Javellana to attend or may threaten her continued employment if she does; that is its prerogative or rather that of the editors. But it cannot, in all decency, criticize the Senate for doing its duty in this matter. I hope the Inquirer publishes this statement. It would only be fair and a profound surprise.
Editors' notes: IN THE interest of fairness, the editors take exception to the author saying two less than factual items: First, that the Sept. 30 banner story about the leak of what happened to Neri at the Senate executive session of Sept. 27 had been "universally denied."
Except for Senator Arroyo himself, not one of Philippine Daily Inquirer's four news sources for the Sept. 30 news story had come forward to deny it.
Second, that the editors stood by the story bylined by Juliet Javellana without investigating first. There was no need. Juliet was assigned to check out a tip the editors got about what happened behind closed doors at the Senate executive session. Certain other editors were in on the whole process of Juliet's news gathering for and verifying and cross-checking the story. From the start, Juliet was not acting in a vacuum. Though she alone wrote the story, the editors were there all the way. There was nothing to investigate. All this time, the editors were on top of the story.
Well, at least Joker wasn't put in the Letters-to-the-Editor with the rest of the Innuendo's hand-picked ventriloquist's dummies, although Saturday, front page, lower left does not exactly match those "four kilometric but distorted accounts of the issue on its front page, plus two editorials and numerous columns" though it may indeed "disturb the inveterate cardsharp" who claims to have been "actually playing an honest game."
UPDATE:Al Gore has indeed won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with the IPCC. Now the BIG question will be asked and must be answered soon because of the lateness of the hour and the demanding mechanics of a US Presidential campaign.
RUMOR is rife that Al Gore may win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize today for his work on Global Warming and the Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Now if only that British judge had not recently ruled his arguments "alarmistic and exaggerated" and were it not for the even more inconvenient timing of the Burmese monks there might not be much of betting line on the Peace Prize this year. If he does win, it could make the Democratic race for a Presidential nomination a little more crowded and interesting. They could even end up splitting the Dems just like the Republicans did in 1912 when Republicans Teddy Roosevelt (the Bullmoose Party) and William Howard Taft (mainstream GOP) lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Given the American public's attitude to George W. Bush, Iraq, and the war on terrorism, on all of which the people are showing signs of predicted battle fatigue, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and John McCain are not gaining much traction in the public opinion polls. At the center of a possible Hillary-Gore dust-up and rivalry would be the saint of the environment, poverty and education shown at left, who really seems to be trying to steal the putative Oscar-winner's thunder on behalf of Hillary with that new multibillion dollar global initiative. National Review Online has a nice roundup of campaign news for POTUS.
FIL-AMs v. ABC Speaking of big bucks, Fil-am lawyers Rodel Rodis and Ted Laguatan are planning to file a 500 million dollar defamation class action law suit against Teri Hatcher and the ABC network for that throwaway line about Filipino doctors and their medical schools. Don't know what the legal prospects are, but they might not be too good, considering the "slur" was arguably motivated by bad publicity over last year's nursing exam leak scandal. The greedy exam review centers and corrupt government regulators are the true culprits in damaging the reputation not only of nurses, but the entire Philippine medical training and education system. But I guess even they don't have the deep pockets ABC and Teri Hatcher have. (Now, if only those Fil-Am lawyers would help get Joc-joc Bolante back here instead of helping him escape the short arm of Philippine law, I'd be a much more appreciative of their own struggles.)
ANOTHER EVIL IMPEACHMENT FARCE has just been perpetrated on the Filipino people by Alibabarroyo and the House of Representathieves using the infamous Davide Impeachment Initiation Rule. MLQ3 has the bloody behind the scenes details on the "vaccination."
Today is Eid'l Fitr, the end of Ramadan but possibly also the beginning of a renewed terrorist campaign by the Abu Sayyaf-MILF-Jemaah Islamiyah, according to the newly appointed chief of the Philippine National Police, Avelino Razon. I like this guy. He's a real law and order sort, unlike that Gen. Ben Muhammad Dolorfino, who doesn't seem to know the difference between law enforcement and diplomacy. Three months after the ambush and beheading of Philippine Marines near Albarka town, Tipo-tipo, Basilan, not a single one of the 130 suspects has even been arrested on the warrants issued by Basilan Judge Leo Principe. In my opinion, the peace processors like Dolorfino, Jesus Dureza and Gen. Rodolfo Garcia have been shielding their "partners in the peace process"--the self-confessed but unrepentant ambushmen of the MILF terrorist organization, in order to preserve them for GMA's coming "peace legacy"-- a Muslim Juridical entity in Mindanao that I've called Bangsamorostan for the use of the black bearded ones in Waziristan.
Well if you think the Supreme Court really messed up by usurping the powers of the Senate in 2001 to try and decide all impeachment cases, and the House with that silly impeachment initiation rule, wait till you see what that brain-dead piece of treason called IPRA will do:
I just don't understand how ABSCBN News could interpret this survey report by international market research firm, The Nielsen Company to mean that, "the lives of Overseas Filipino Workers and their families have not improved very much"--which was a sound bite on the Wednesday early evening news. Meanwhile the Philippine Daily Innuendo portrays OFW families as lazy lout-abouts just waiting around for the monthly check. Seems they blame the lack of improvement on the fact that some percentage of OFW families eat fast food at least once a week (when they could usefully be part of the SWS hunger stats). They also see something dark in the finding that large numbers of OFW spouses left in the Philippines can afford to quit their jobs and stay at home taking care of things. Maybe it was the materialism of those 800,000 OFW households that spent $12.7 billion last year on homes, cars, appliances, telephones and high-tech gadgetry like mobile phones, digital cameras and home video players, trying, but allegedly failing to improve their lives very much.
But I wonder what exactly is wrong with caring for and feeding the children while waiting for cell phone calls from the OFW family member abroad and the monthly check to pay for rent, food, transportation, education and e-load. In its headline carrying the same news dispatch from Manila regarding the Nielsen survey of OFW families, the London Stock Exchange Market News website put it like this instead: Spending power of Philippines diaspora bulks up middle class (Read it all!) So maybe that's the reason for the crablike sentiments of the mass media--they are feeling crowded out by the lowlier than thou.
Some of the salient facts reported by the Nielsen Co. are: "more than 91 percent of the families of overseas workers receive around 30,000 pesos (677 dollars) a month or less; Of that amount 32.9 percent goes to savings and investments, 8.8 percent to pay off debts and 58.3 percent is used for consumption." Though top real estate firms such as Ayala Corp say 39 percent of their sales are now accounted for by overseas workers, the survey found just 11 percent of these families had credit cards and 39.5 percent called their relatives abroad less than once a week.
Wow! Not bad work at all by the OFWs. They are earning six to seven times minimum wage, saving a third of their income or investing it, drawing down their debts, feeding their kids, have low credit card usage to Ayala's regret and 60% of them call their relatives abroad once a week. Now, that's what I call the rising tide raising all boats, and it is not at all trickle down because that 12.7 billion dollar bonanza is being injected right into the basic unit of society: the family!
Now if only these politicians taxing and spending the living crap out of the OFWs and newspaper columnists insulting them would just get their heads out of their pudendas they might see that it is them not improving very much at all while the OFWs are improving their lives and the ensuring the future of their families away from the evil and oppression of the Archipelago and its potentates and pundits forever slinging mud at each other.
Some people have even made careers of wringing their hands over the tragedy of "broken" or "separated" families among the OFWs--with an immediate segue into some rant about the OFWs lack of nationalism for seeking fortunes abroad, or a resentment of globalization for fueling the diaspora, and other such claptrap. But I think love and Filipino devotion to family, including 12.7 billion dollars of disposable income, can conquer time and distance and ennui. It is certainly much better than the grinding poverty, crime and hopelessness that come from sticking around an archipelago with a failed ruling class served by a media and a government unable to tell fantasy from reality in the nation's way forward.
Come to think of it, I think I know where all this nay saying comes from: ENVY! Just imagine a typical Filipina nurse working in California makes more than most tv anchorpersons and newspaper editors and reporters. No wonder we have so much CRUSTACEAN journalism nowadays when it comes to OFWs.
It is not a phenomenon limited to Filipinos. I was just reading Arthur M. Schlesinger's The Decline of Heroes in which he notes that, "Modern democracy inadvertently gave envy new scope. While the purpose of democracy was to give everyone a fair chance to rise, its method enabled rancorous men to invoke "equality" as the excuse for keeping all down to their own level. Great men make small men aware of their smallness. Rancor is one of the unavowed but potent emoltions of politics; and one must never forget that the envy of the have-nots can be quite as consuming when the haves have character or intelligence as it is when they have merely material possessions."
Perhaps in seeing the OFWs have relatively so much more of material possessions than "the common media man"--it has become necessary to strip them of those qualities others often extol the OFWs for: industry, love of family, self-sacrifice, and most of all, a demand for their talents by other nations where here they would be the clients of a schadenfreudian pity. Crabs just don't like seeing others succeeding without heeding their advice or seeking their help, I guess.
UPDATES:
NINE INCONVENIENT TRUTHS:The London Times reports on the resolution of a case in Great Britain. A Judge is allowing Al Gore's Oscar winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, to be shown at schools, but only with nine inconvenient corrections to errors made "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
Error one
Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.
The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.”
Error two
Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.”
Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
Error three
Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe.
Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.
Error four
Gore: He asserted - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”.
Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
Error five
Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming.
Judge: This “specifically impressed” David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
Error six
Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge.
Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
Error seven
Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans to global warming.
Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.
Error eight
Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice”.
Judge: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
Error nine
Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors.
Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.
WHAT THE HELL IS GEN. DOLORFINO HIDING? It may be his own role in that sorry Basilan Beheading incident, when he, and the rest of the so-called "peace processors" Sec. Jess Dureza and Gen. Rodolfo Garcia pre-empted local authorities from serving warrants of arrest on their partners in the peace process: the self-admitted ambushmen killers of the MILF and the administration ally, Wahab Akbar, the representative of the Abu Sayyaf in Congress.
AMERICA'S SOLDIER OF THE YEAR IS PINOY FROM GEORGIA Here's a guy that won't hide behind "lapses" or other excuses not to do his duty: Spc. Heyz T. Seeker, of the 75th Ranger Regiment at Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia, won the honor after competing with 12 other soldiers in tests of physical fitness and military skills ranging from marksmanship to first aid. He told the Richmond Times he wants to be the first Filipino American to become the US Army's Sergeant Major. Mabuhay ka, sundalo!(via GMATV News)
EVER SINCE the Supreme Court issued a ruling to protect its own Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. from an impeachment complaint already signed by more than the required number of Congressmen in 2003, the House of Representatives has been stuck with the silliest conceivable rule on the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Constitutional officers. Under this rule, as soon as anybody files an impeachment complaint and it is endorsed by a single Congressman, impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated and brings into play the Constitutional provision that "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year." The rule dictated by the Supreme Court on the House subverts the clear intention of the Constitution to assign to the Political Branch of Government the SOLE and EXLUSIVE power to remove Constitutional Officers. But let's take a look at the whole enchilada on Public Accountability and the removal of Constitutional Officers in the 1987 Constitution.:
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
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. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.
Davide and a couple of other justices were facing two impeachment complaints, the first of which was sat upon by the House, while the second one, which had the required signatories, focused solely on Davide in the matter of the misuse of the judiciary development fund.
To evade an impeachment trial and to save the prostituted hide of Davide, the high court’s interpretation of Article XI, Section 3 (5) which states that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once a year, was that the proceedings meant the filing of only one complaint a year, thus opening wide the doors of instant immunization of the impeachable officers through the filing of a yearly bogus complaint.
One must not forget either that the prostituted House of Representatives helped to strengthen this Davide Court ruling, by ensuring that the bogus complaint is accepted, while amended complaints that have substance are immediately killed, without benefit of the presentation of evidence.
This unconstitutional ruling by the high court has been used to the hilt by Gloria Arroyo and her allies in the House, to immunize herself from impeachment proceedings, then, now and up till her term ends — and by the simple expedient of getting someone to file a bogus impeachment complaint yearly which will then be endorsed by one of her congressional allies.
Ever since then, I've come to the conclusion that what has really happened here is that the Supreme Court USURPED the House of Representatives exclusive power to impeach Constitutional Officers (Section 3) the the Senate's sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment (Section 6) and the Congress power to make the rules for such process. (Section 8).
The clear intent of the Constitution is to shield Constitutional officers from the nuisance of multiple impeachment suits, but not the House and Senate from properly exercising their EXCLUSIVE and SOLE powers to impeach, try, and adjudge all cases of impeachment.
THE GENE REVOLUTION: Greenpeace, the radical environmental organization that's been spreading pseudoscientific claptrap in our shopping malls lately, won't like this, but the Nobel Prize Committee this year once more honors work on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by two Americans and a Brit who developed those wonderful and highly versatile designer or knockout mice, work that has led to all kinds of discoveries, therapies and drugs to treat human illness.
The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to award the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2007 jointly to Mario R. Capecchi, Martin J. Evans and Oliver Smithies for their discoveries of "principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice by the use of embryonic stem cells". This year's Nobel Laureates have made a series of ground-breaking discoveries concerning embryonic stem cells and DNA recombination in mammals. Their discoveries led to the creation of an immensely powerful technology referred to as gene targeting in mice. It is now being applied to virtually all areas of biomedicine – from basic research to the development of new therapies.
The Nobel awards goes a long way to filling the vacuum of scientific information on GMOs and genetic engineering that the Greenpeace activists have been assiduously filling with their mixture of pseudoscience and fearmongering about GMOs, especially of plants like Bacillus Thuringiensis (BT) corn, golden rice (Vitamin A built in) and all kinds of revolutionary GMOs that are doing more to solve the problem of hunger in the world than anything else. The Green Revolution did it in the sixties, now the Gene Revolution is on. Though of course Greenpiss activists never mention such stunning successes like the genetically modified E-coli bacteria that have been producing human insulin for decades so we don't have to get it from pigs. The sad thing is that these ideological numbskulls seem to have all the front page space they want from the usual newspapers and broadcasters who seem to turn to no one else for authoritative information on the scientific pluses and minuses of the technology.
IS SWS MEASURING HUNGER OR HARVEST SEASONS? Speaking of hunger,Mahar Mangahas and SWS claim that a new record in hunger incidence has just been recorded by them. No doubt they have collected and analysed their data professionally as they always do. But if you know about frequency analysis, go to the SWS website and run their quarterly time series data through your handy dandy fft alogorithm and tell me that the periodicities revealed don't suggest they are measuring something else. I shall give a hint: hunger nearly always peaks in the quarter just before the June and December harvests and highest in Presidential election years. Heehee! (Remember this is SELF-RATED hunger they are measuring.) I have always maintained that this is not a scientific survey because there is no independent event or process to verify or falsify the data, like elections do for their highly accurate and scientific voter preference surveys. Just because they use scientific methods to collect the data, doesn't mean the survey question sets up a scientific survey. It's not clear to me how a positive answer to the question "have you experience hunger at least once due to lack of food" amounts to "Moderate Hunger". Although it cannot be denied that hunger and poverty exist in the Philippines, the SWS survey's quantitative data is largely meaningless and only good for propaganda to beat the government over the head with. In an indirect rebuttal, it is amazing to me that at a time when dollar remittances and the Philippine dollar reserve is at an all time high, that hunger would also be at record levels..but how many days is it till Christmas harvest season?
CHILL OUT! The Washington Post has an excellent op-ed by Bjorn Lomborg on Global Warming. He avoids the two extremes of Al Gore's millennarianist doomsaying and the "atheism" of the global warming skeptics, saying, "We shouldn't ignore climate change or the policies that could attack it. But we should be honest about the shortcomings and costs of those policies, as well as the benefits." and "It's estimated that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold." He takes particular aim at the inutility of the Kyoto Protocols, pointing out a number of interesting assessments by the scientific community. For example,
"Global warming will claim lives in another way: by increasing the number of people at risk of catching malaria by about 3 percent over this century. According to scientific models, implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the rest of this century would reduce the malaria risk by just 0.2 percent."
When the Senate goes into Executive Session it is assuring witnesses of the same kind of confidentiality that the Press asserts for its "unnamed sources". Thus the leak was an act declaring Journalists Privilege to be higher than that of the Senate. Tuesday's PDI Editorial "Protecting News Sources" deserves to be dissected for the fallacious reasoning that has led to the destruction of Senate Executive Session as a tool in Congressional investigations in aid of legislation. Every single paragraph reeks of intellectual dishonesty and hubris. (This is my fourth post on the matter in as many days because I believe there are still some people in the PDI editorial board who may listen to reason and see the damage to public interest and national security that they have caused. )
My caveats to the editorial:
On Sept. 30, the Inquirer reported that Romulo Neri, former director general of the National Economic and Development Authority, was “on the verge” of disclosing what he knew about the $329-million National Broadband Network deal when Sen. Joker Arroyo intervened and said that Neri should be allowed to avail himself of a legal counsel of his choice. The story by Juliet Labog-Javellana was based on the account of four sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Arroyo called the report a complete falsehood and asked the Senate to investigate the senators and other officials present at the executive session for violating the secrecy rule on closed-door sessions. He also asked the Senate to investigate the Inquirer for publishing the report. He and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile said the Senate should cite Javellana for contempt unless she reveals her sources.
That's funny, my DVD recording of the public session that preceded the Executive Session, and PDI own news reports before Labog's article clearly state that it was Blue Ribbon Chairman Alan Peter Cayetano who said that Romulo Neri could bring along counsel of his choice! But PDI has it in for their former sweetheart Joker Arroyo and that was the whole point of this exercise: to put pressure on the pro-administration senator through lies and intrigue. Besides, I wonder how one Senator could've overruled an entire roomful of them.
The Inquirer is standing by its story. We also believe that we cannot be compelled to reveal the identities of sources since the information was given in confidence and on condition of anonymity. Our stand has a strong basis in law. Republic Act No. 53, as amended, otherwise known as the Sotto Law, says that the publisher, editor, columnist or reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information which was given to him unless it is demanded by “the security of the State.”
In the story, Labog quotes a "source" saying that, "“It’s hard to predict what he (Neri) was going to say, but he was about to talk. I think it’s the presence of Nonoy that stopped him,” one source said." There is an important grain of truth in this. Witnesses won't talk if they think what they say in Executive Sessions will be divulged. By leaking what supposedly happened in the session, whether accurately or not nevertheless destroys the credibility of the Executive Session in the minds of ALL future witnesses, including Romulo Neri. Has not PDI therefore seriously damaged the institution and the mechanism of Congressional investigations by abusing the so-called Journalists Privilege of using unnamed sources? Now, it is true that PDI cannot "be compelled" to reveal their sources, but the law clearly states that they can be punished for it, criminally and civilly. Read again R.A. 1477 which amended the Sotto law:
"Sec. 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the Court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State."
We do not believe that “the security of the State” is involved in the inquiry into the anomalous ZTE deal. What is involved primarily is the issue of corruption, as alleged by two witnesses in open hearings. Neri himself disclosed that he was offered P200 million by former Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos. Jose de Venecia III, son of the Speaker, said Abalos offered to give him $10 million so he would withdraw his bid for the NBN project.
They do not believe that the security of the State was involved in the inquiry into ZTE. But that was precisely the reason for the Executive Session, to find out if national security was involved. But let us assume that "the security of the State" was NOT involved in the ZTE deal, because I want to make the point that the investigation itself, not its target, IS a matter that involves the security of the state, because it involves the security of the Senate and its processes which ARE targetted at possible national security matters. The point is made in yesterday's Philippine Commentary that spying on the Senate and its Executive Sessions or breaching confidentiality by leaking its proceedings IS a breach of national security, just as much as wiretapping the President or Senators. It doesn''t matter if they end up talking about the weather or cheating the elections or anything else. Compromising the integrity of the proceedings is itself criminal and immoral, in my opinion. From now on, no one can rely on the executive session, because leakers have been emboldened that they can always do their dishonorable deeds with th ecollusion of a major newspaper, even if they go to some other media. Witnesses will never be sure that what they say won't end up on the front pages or prime time newscasts. And wait till the shoe is on the other foot!
In the executive session, Neri was on the verge of revealing more about the project when, according to our four sources, Arroyo intervened and allowed Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya to join the session as Neri’s legal counsel.
Arroyo himself has said that the case against Javellana is “a borderline case.” He is apparently aware of the protection given by the Sotto Law to journalists. The Senate committees investigating the case cannot compel Javellana to disclose the names of her sources, and the Senate cannot cite her for contempt if she refuses to identify them.
Oh yes, the Senate CAN cite them for contempt, even if they don't reveal their sources, because the basis would not be R.A. 53 or 1477, but the Senate Rules themselves which were clearly violated with the collusion of the newspaper: Take a look at the recently adopted Rules of Prceedure Governing Hearings in Aid of Legislation:
(1) If the Committee believes that the interrogation of a witness in a public hearing might endanger national security, it may, motu proprio or upon motion of any interested party, conduct its inquiry in an executive session for the purpose of determining the necessity or advisability of conducting such interrogation thereafter in public hearing; (2) Attend-ance at executive sessions shall be limited to members of the Committee, its staff, other Members of the Senate, and other persons whose presence is requested or allowed by the Chairman; and (3) Testimony taken or material presented in an executive session, or any summary thereof, shall not be made public, in whole or in part, unless authorized by the Committee
It is not only the law that gives protection to journalists who quote anonymous sources in their stories; their professional code of ethics also gives them such protection. In journalism, the protection of sources is a cornerstone of press freedom. A journalist who violates the confidentiality of his sources will soon see these sources drying up.
Ideally, the sources of information in a news report should be identified. But this cannot be done all the time. There are times when a journalist has to agree to keep his source or sources anonymous for certain reasons. One reason is if the life of the person giving the information would be endangered. Another is if he would lose his job because of the information he is disclosing. There may be other reasons, and it is up to the reporter and his editor to decide whether to use the material given on condition of anonymity.
At least the PDI Editors understand that it is a matter of discretion whether or not to exercise the Journalists Privilege. This time, I think they wantonly abused that privilege just to put pressure on Joker Arroyo and to make mischief by casting four Apples of Discord into a Senate already abused by the Chief Justice in 2001 (when Davide usurped the SOLE power of the Congress to remove Constitutional officers) and by the Chief Executive through various gag orders like EO 464.
Even now, Enrile is already proposing to amend or even repeal the Sotto Law. That certainly would be a reactionary move; it would remove one protection given to journalists in carrying out their work. Especially in these times when high government officials seek to hide anomalous multimillion-peso deals from public scrutiny, journalists will have to continue the practice of using information given by sources “on condition of anonymity.” Journalists are discerning people and they should be trusted to vet their sources very carefully before bestowing on them the mantle of “anonymity.” Also, there is the two-source rule: information given by one anonymous source has to be corroborated by another source. (In the case of the Javellana story, there were four sources.)
There is no need to amend the law. It is clear enough that even if they don't divulge the sources, they can still be put in jail for breaking some other Law or Rule.
If the Senate committee on ethics decides to conduct its inquiry, it should focus on the senators as well as the other people present at the executive session and not on the reporter who wrote the story. Javellana was only doing her job. The four sources who talked to her were the ones who supposedly broke the confidentiality of the executive session. A “roll call” type of inquiry should produce some results.
I agree with discovering if, who and how "four sources" have seriously compromised the integrity of the Senate and all future executive sessions. But focus should also be put on the Press, which thinks it can do anything, including lying, kuryente, and other dirty tricks, in order to "get at the Truth." I wonder how they would like it if some of the "truths" about their editors and publishers, their reporters and their staff were to be revealed anonymously. Only social and political chaos can result from institutional abuses of privilege.
I frankly don't see how the executive session process can possibly be saved now, even by the Senate. Perhaps only by increasing the penalties against such transgression and abuse of privilege can the road back to institutional sanity be regained. For now, abuse of Freedom of the Press has destroyed an important tool in the arsenal of Congress for oversight and legislation. Executive Sessions will be tainted for a long time to come.
It is most certainly NOT a privilege that the law gives journalists in any way, shape or form, even if one of the biggest newspapers in this country want people to believe it. It is entirely inconceivable to me that the Congress passed a law which intended for such an exercise of freedom of the Press to use "unnamed sources" in order to protect such sources from punishment for what is clearly a breach of the Senate's right to secure and confidential executive sessions. It is pure espionage and political intrigue what Juliet Javellana Labog and her employers at the Philippine Daily Inquirer did last week in publishing a story alleging that they had four sources of credible information about what transpired in the Sept. 26 Executive Session with Romulo Neri on his conversations with President Arroyo--and then went on to accuse Joker Arroyo of somehow being able to overrule at least 20 other senators there present.
In this regard, I accept the correction of John Nery of PDI (Newsstand Blog) that the statute that now applies is the amendment to Republic Act No. 53 (the Sotto Law) in Republic Act No. 1477 which states:
"Sec. 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the Court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State."
The two laws are identical except for the first clause in red above, which was added, and the word "security" which replaced "interest" in R.A. No. 53. It's an excellent clarification and makes the offense possibly more serious because what the first clause means is that the reporter/editor/publisher could still go to jail even if he or she cannot be compelled to reveal the sources. Now take a look at the recently adopted Rules of Prceedure Governing Hearings in Aid of Legislation:
(1) If the Committee believes that the interrogation of a witness in a public hearing might endanger national security, it may, motu proprio or upon motion of any interested party, conduct its inquiry in an executive session for the purpose of determining the necessity or advisability of conducting such interrogation thereafter in public hearing; (2) Attend-ance at executive sessions shall be limited to members of the Committee, its staff, other Members of the Senate, and other persons whose presence is requested or allowed by the Chairman; and (3) Testimony taken or material presented in an executive session, or any summary thereof, shall not be made public, in whole or in part, unless authorized by the Committee.
Senate National Defense Committee Chair Rudolfo Biazon has already labelled the crime of wiretapping as a violation of national security because it is essentially espionage performed on the Chief Executive and other high government officials. In the same way, I believe that the too-frequent and habitually cynical assertion by the PDI of the so-called Journalists Privilege to quote unnamed sources is most irresponsible and amounts to the same kind of immoral eavesdropping and espionage that political wiretapping represents under RA 4200.
As will all institutional privileges the moral principle violated and ignored by arrogant so-called journalists is ABUSE of privilege. This occurs when the institution, in this case the Press, asserts its privilege and undertakes certain actions which results in unfair or undeserved damage to another person or another institution, in this case the institution of the Senate. It is a matter of discretion which can indeed be gravely abused.
I think it is tantamount to a crime against the national security when a newspaper thinks that its Journalist's privilege outweighs the privilege of the Senate for secure and confidential executive sessions, because executive sessions as such, are crucial to the proper operation of the Senate in general, and the application of last year's historic Supreme Court ruling on the conduct of hearings in aid of legislation in particular.
What for example is the moral difference between what Isapf was doing in spying on Senator Gringo Honasan (as well as the President and a Comelec commissioner) and what Juliet Labog Javellana and PDI did?
Personally, I don't believe they had any sources at all and that the story was pure kuryente, but that isn't something I can prove. Yet it is entirely possible that in such Executive Sessions sensitive matters of military secrets, diplomatic relations and other privilege information would indeed be divulged. The willingness and actual disparagement of the integrity of the Senate executive session must be sanctioned if the mechanism is to be resuscitated and preserved.
If the President has abused her own Executive Privilege in order to thwart and damage the Senate, so has the Press in this case. Who are they now to call the President out, as the kettle calls the pot black?
Someone has abused the institutional privilege given to them by the Law. Either there were no real sources who said what the paper said they said, in which case it is an entirely despicable journalistic innuendo and intrigue, which are that particular newspaper's well known modus operandi (although they call it press freedom); or there really were sources and the newspaper colluded with their self-serving breach of their sworn oaths to obey the Rules of the Senate (if they were Senators).
The most intriguing possibility comes from something Juliet Labog mysteriously said to Ricky Carandang on the Big Picture last Thursday, when she said, "You can record what was said [at the Executive Session] without revealing your source." So, did she just get someone to turn on their cell phone during the session (like Jamby Madrigal) and that's what she meant by "record what was said?"
...there's another "slur" on American TV that's got us Pinoys all riled up. "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" is being castigated for showing a picture of Cory Aquino supposedly wearing a T-shirt bearing the word "slut," as part of a pseudo-story on how former women presidents are faring. I love our Tita Cory, but really, if you can't laugh at a skit on "The Daily Show," then your sense of humor needs some working on!
I should be charitable and just assume that Rina has not had much chance to think about the incident, which is why she wants her readers to just laugh it off.
What she fails to see is the "sociological root" of the joke-parody of Cory Aquino as a SLUT with the body of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. Or in simple terms, WHY Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee might have thought the skit would work. It is because of the old stereotype brought home by many young and old American servicemen who had the best sex they ever had in places like Clark and Subic that all Filipinas sluts, wonderful sluts!" Of course the fact that many Filipinos probably agree with them means there is no monopoly on horniness or racism or stereotypes. It's like the stereotype that all Italians are Mafiosi; that Irishmen are drunks; that Chinese are corrupt, greedy and worship money as their god; that Jews are worse than the Chinese; that Poles are stupid, but Negroes and Mexicans are stupider, etc.
So it must be a woeful day when our resident feminist turns out to be not only insensitive herself, but could be mistaken to be sexist to boot. It must be because she agrees with Jon Stewart's liberal politics and would not know how to castigate such an ideological comrade.
Here's is another strange and uncharacteristic reaction. In an email to a popular message board, Rodel Rodis, a well known Filipino-American politician in the San Francisco Bay Area, president of the City College School Board, and more than a dear old friend:
Cesar and the spokeswoman of Cory over-reacted to the "slut" reference to Cory in the Daily Show. I am a regular fan of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show which is the best news show in television and which, according to polls, is watched by 30% of all college kids. While it regularly excoriates Bush for his daily blunders and misdeeds, it does so in a satirical manner. It put the word "slut" over a picture of Cory in a segment about respected female leaders. The Daily Show would put "slut" over a picture of Mother Theresa and a sainted halo over the heads of Madonna and Britney Spears. That's par for the course in the show. To compare that satiric piece with the real damaging defamation of Desperate Houswives is ridiculous.
Well there you have it folks, from the "best news show on television"--Aren't all Filipinas, sluts anyway?--and that is why you should find it funny when a clearly non-slutty Filipina is portrayed like the "stuff" you get from Boy Bastos dot com? It's just a "satiric" piece on all Filipinas, compared to the "real damaging defamation of Desperate Housewives".
Well, it is true that in the Desperate Housewives thingy it wasn't Filipinas mainly but male Filipino doctors who are affected (though two of my brothers and a sister are medical doctors in the US). But there, the real culprits for the "sociological root" of the joke (Teri Hatcher:"I want to make sure he didn't graduate from some med school in the Philippines.") are Filipinos, not American GIs. Namely, the greedy Review Center operators and corrupt government officials who were responsible for that scandalous nursing exam leak last year, which damaged the reputation of mainly female nurses, the aforesaid Filipinas. ALL Filipino OFWs are paying now for the damage to that reputation in the form of a new stereotype created by the scandal that foreign medical graduates all come from low standard schools or cheat to get their licenses and diplomas. ABC TV is just the cat lapping up the milk the spilt by the err, leakers.
Then again, I also understand something about the American psyche and sociology. You see, they like good sports with good humor. Racist and nationalist slurs are how they welcome you to the mainstream, as a test of whether you can give as much as you can take, whether you can make it in that there meritocracy. Every immigrant wave that has made it in America have had to endure some of that at some time.
Viking of Norwegian Would has the "profuse" apology of Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee who basically suggest, like Rina David, that if you can't take political parody and satire you can just eat excrement.
Filipino doctors and nurses are fully appreciated by all who know them. They have proven themselves to be intelligent, hardworking and worthy Americans. They can laugh it off, but they don't have to like it or take it either.
In America, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Maybe Rodel Rodis will be offered a role in the next Desperate Housewives. He is handsome and winsome enough, most of the time.
Maybe it means Filipino Americans are going mainstream. Maybe all the attention will finally force the US Congress to recognize the historic contribution of an even earlier set of emigrants to America--the Filipino war veterans. BTW: ANIMO LA SALLE! UAAP BASKETBALL CHAMPIONS! Green Archers defeat U.E. Red Warriors 73-64 and Ateneo Blue Eagles weeks ago. Green Archers Rule!
CLICK TO ZOOM Looks like Jemaah Islamiyah may just have left a calling card in Kidapawan City Friday, as cellphone detonated "IEDs-improvised explosive devices" injured thirty and killed two young Muslim girls working as street vendors. Newly appointed chief of the Philippine National Police, Avelino Razon has issued a nationwide alert against more terrorist attacks from Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf Group. He should not also ignore the possiblity of involvement by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) who have been responsible for bombings in Central Mindanao in the past, where they hold sway, wherease JI and ASG are thought to rule the roost in Basilan and Tawi-tawi (where the MILF's bitter rivals, the Moro National Liberation Front, rule over the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao). Eid Kabbalu, (spokesman of the murderous MILF ambushmen that massacred fourteen Philippine Marines near Tipo tipo last July 10) claimed the blasts were probably done by people who are interested in derailing the peace talks. Yet the rebel groups MILF and MNLF and ASG have always understood and taken advantage of the fact that the present Philippine government is susceptible to capitulation and retreat when it comes to violent terrorist tactics. It really all started with President Arroyo's giving in to terrorist demands in Iraq, during the hostaging of Angelo de la Cruz. She was also responsible for a huge multimillion peso ransom paid on behalf of her billionaire contributor Reghis Romero, who had been kidnapped in the sensational Abu Sayyaf raid on the Dos Palmas Beach Resort in Palawan in 2002, which also so the kidnapping and detention of Gracia and Martin Burnham. But by saving Regis Romero, (and only Regis Romero through that ransom payment) she had proven to the terrorists that she can be blackmailed and coerced into capitulation.
The disgusting thing about Eid Kabbalu's statement is it indicates the government has already let bygones be bygones and has probably absolved the MILF in the matter of the Basilan ambush and beheading of those Philippine Marines. With Gen Ben Muhammad Dolorfino now the Marine Commandant, not a single MILF or ASG suspect has been arrested under the original arrest warrants issued by Basilan RTC Judge Leo Principe against the murderers and beheaders. NOT ONE! Remember, he too also paid ransom when "rogue elements" of the MNLF hostgaged him earlier this year to force the holding of peace talks over an eleven year old Peace Treaty already signed with the MNLF. There are also suspicions that it was Gen. Dolorfino who gave stand down orders last July which prevented air support from aiding the ambushed Marines on Basilan island.
But I am sure the usual suspects who love to counsel that we keep an open mind even as the troops are losing their heads, will also be beating the gongs for the resumption of peace talks with the MILF in order to help them take large chunks of Mindanao under President Arroyo's plan to leave a peace legacy by giving them their own Muslim Juridical Entity or homeland (Bangsamorostan). I guess the President feels she owes the Maguindanao warlords a lot for their "services" in the last two national elections.
Dhimmitude has definitely set in and is occupying the highest levels of government.
There may be no more use for peace talks if what we are dealing is not the old Moro rebellion but the new global Jihad. For that would make buying off the local warlords a largely useless gesture to the implacable nihilists. No one represents the Bangsamoro among them. Ideologically, the global jihadists are supplanting the old Moro nationalists, especially among the younger fighters.
The root of this "parody" is the old stereotype of Filipina women as sluts and prostitutes that GIs brought back with them. That is the "sociology" of this "joke" skit which was mainly a campaign ad for Hillary Clinton, who, as Jon Stewart declares, "does not shave her chest, DODD!"
Well I've never liked Jon Stewart with his too smart alecky take on things and now he proves that he is not only glib and dumb, he is mighty glib and stupid too. The insult to Cory Aquino was not only personal, it was also baseless, considering her personal demeanor as a widow, mother and globally revered President and leader of her people. Her reaction was naturally annoyance, but Ms. Aquino had the grace to say on Philippine television yesterday that she was actually praying for the people on Jon Stewart's Daily Show. (Don't bother, Ma'm!) She bears no resemblance or affinity to anything that ought to become a joke on sluts. Unless of course it is meant to call all Filipino women sluts. I bet even real sluts would agree though, Cory Aquino is not one of them! I was very curious though that the dyed in the wool liberal moon bats on that Jon Stewart Show picked on Cory Aquino as the woman leader of the Philippines and not Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who is the real...(censored by Bloggers' Privilege). I guess Political Correctness extends even to insults and an appearance with Bill Clinton recently may have saved President Arroyo from the fate of German Prima Angela Merkel, also lampooned on the Jon Stewart skit. Amazingly, conservative blogger La Shawn Barber makes a cameo appearance just before Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and Cory Aquino. [update: please see corrections to actual participants in the Comment Thread. hat tip to John]
Now this one is a lil different than Jon Stewart's totally gratuitous slur on President Aquino. It is the penalty all Filipinos are paying for that wholly scandalous Nursing Exam Leak last year, for which I don't believe the guilty have really been punished. The script writer at Desperate Housewives could not have utilized such a line if the scandal last year had not happened. While it is unfair and nasty to attack medical schools of the Philippines when those at fault were actually commercial review centers and government regulators, the damage to the reputation of all Filipino health care workers was really done by the exam leakers.
ABC-TV is reaping a whirlwind of indignation and even demands for restitution, even after the apology. I also think this is how waves of immigrants "melted" into Main Stream America (think of the Irish, the Jews, the Italians, the Chinese, the Mexicans)--under a hail of racial and national slurs. Hehe, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease in America. I'm pretty sure that Filipino American doctors, nurses and health care givers will all do just fine with Teri Hatcher and the Desperate Housewives. I am sure we'll even see Filipino characters in other television shows. With four million of them in the United States, and most of them of above average intelligence and good looks, success and prosperity will be the best revenge.
On the wackier side of this thing is of course Miriam Defensor Santiago, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who castigates the show Desperate Housewives for their racial slur, even as she just got done calling China the inventor of corruption for all of human civilization. Just a reminder that we Filipinos do live in glass houses too, and ought to see the log in our own eye whilst raising Cain about other people's hit-and-run tactics.
On a different note, check out Filipina Soul's post on Britney Spears and the lyrics of her new song which mentions the Philippines as a place to run away to.
The Journalist's Privilege of quoting unnamed sources in news reports and opinion columns is well established in our Constitutional traditions and explicitly by law-
Republic Act No. 53 An Act to Exempt the Publisher, Editor or Reporter of Any Publication From Revealing the Source Of Published News Or Information Obtained In Confidence
Section 1. The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the State.
But it is not an absolute privilege and can be abused just like Executive Privilege or any other institutional privilege, like the secrecy and confidentiality of Senate executive sessions. Under that "unless" clause, abuse of the law can be punished. Perhaps it should be, except that many of news reporters and so-called journalists are perfectly willing to cross the line that makes them something else, or they are willing to help politicians achieve objectives they could not otherwise achieve but which the journalists agree with.
It is when players in different institutions that are normally separated collude illicitly for common goals that I the outlines of an abuse of privilege by both may be seen.
Nevertheless these privileges are indeed founded on Constitutional rights and their exercise cannot be deterred or interdicted except by the virtues of moderation, prudence and wisdom. Only when each institution respects the privileges of the other, can we prevent the destructive collision among inherently powerful government and social institutions like the Press and "Civil Society". The institutional privileges are like walls of separation that protect institutions from one another by defining their boundaries. Good fences make good neighbors. The strength of Republic Act No. 53 will soon be tested. Some print and broadcast journalists seem to think that the Journalists Privilege trumps even the Senate's privilege for the integrity of its proceedings. But even the law clearly grants exemptions from this privilege"in the public interest"!
I think it is time to recognize the concept of Separation of Press and State, and the limits of Press Freedom by identifying how it can be violated by cynical journalists and cynical USERS of journalists.
The more famous "separation" of course involves the Church and State, but let me assert that a similar "separation" ought to be recognized as existing between the Press and the State in the following sense.
I have previously opined that Churches, as expressions of organized religion, are Constitutionally indistinguishable from NGOs, which are expressions of organized advocacies. Likewise, the Press and Mass Media are expressions of organized speech.
All these kinds of organized entities: churches, NGOs, newspapers, radio and television, are really expressions of fundamental human rights like the freedom of speech and opinion, the freedom of thought and expression. In this sense, Churches and TV stations are both NGOs. prayers and religious ceremonies, manifestoes and demonstrations, news reports and opinion columns, are all Constitutional manifestations of the freedom of speech.
They are also expressions of the freedom of assembly, the right to associate with persons of like opinion or ideology or, as in the case of the Media, to make a living out of reading and writing, entertainment and commentary.
In this sense we may regard Churches and Mass Media to be NGO's.
The right to speak also implies the right to be heard, which for the Mass Media is translated into the Right of the Public to Know about what the one Organization that exists in society but which cannot be described to be an "NGO".
That organization which cannot be regarded as equivalent to an NGO is the Government Organization.
Viewed like this, I find it easier to understand the sense of terminology like "Separation of Church and State". The Freedom of Religion cannot be exercised without such a separation because the Government could easily favor one religion over another, and pass laws prejudicial to the others. The principle contained in the Separation of the Church and State requires the Government to treat ALL Non-Government Organizations as having exactly the same rights and duties and privileges, appropriate to their status as organized expressions of free speech and assembly.
Now the Government Organization is itself divided up into three other Organizations, each with their own subdivisions and hierarchy. The Constitution defines the rights and priviliges, duties and responsibilites, domains and jurisdictions of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.
The Constitution defines the SEPARATION OF POWERS not only among the coordinate branches of the government, but also the main wall of separation between the Government and the "NGOs" like churches, mass media and other organizations of the people.
These walls of separation between and among GOs and NGOs are as necessary as the blessed wall of ignorance that prevents ordinary human beings from reading each other's thoughts and thus fomenting utter social chaos!
Freedom of speech and thought also implies of course the right NOT to express in public speech what one is actually thinking. Vice versa, freedom of speech and thought implies that we have a right to the privacy of those thoughts and opinions, even if we have the right to express them.
The freedom of speech and thought therefore also means that every person has the exclusive privilege to decide whether or not to speak at all. Even taking the Fifth Amendent, or the right to remain silent, is an exercise of that fundamental right of privacy called freedom of speech and expression.
Thus the walls of separation between the State and the Individual Citizen, or between the State and the Church, or State and the Press, actually consist of Rights and Privileges granted by the Constitution to those individuals and assemblies of individuals.
Notice for example that the Executive Privilege is being asserted by the President to "discipline" her Cabinet and prevent other institutions like the Senate and the Press from knowing about confidential deliberations with alter egos that are absolutely necessary to the function of her Office.
Of course the Senate, the Press, and the People also have their own Rights and Privileges.
For example the Senate has the Right to conduct investigations and hearings in aid of legislation, with processes and powers to enforce such right. The Senate also has the privilege of conducting its sessions in public or in Executive Session, exercising its own discretion as what is in the public interest.
Likewise the Press and mass media have the right to investigate and publicize what all these government organizations and individuals are doing, and may exercise their own discretion in exercising the right of the Public to know.
All these organizations and social institutions have been in critical conflict throughout the Presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Such a state of divisiveness can be seen in the large number of cases that reach the Supreme Court, and the prevailing attitude that all the differences and conflicts among them must eventually decided by the Supreme Court.
Which brings me to the following quotation from Justice Learned Hand writing in 1942 in The Contribution to Civilization of an Independent Judiciary:
You may ask what then will become of the fundamental principles of equity and fair play which our constitutions enshrine; and whether I seriously believe that unsupported they will serve merely as counsels of moderation. I do not think that anyone can say what will be left of those principles; I do not know whether they will serve only as counsels; but this much I think I do know — that a society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone, no court can save; that a society where that spirit flourishes, no court need save; that in a society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nurture of that spirit, that spirit in the end will perish.
Unfortunately there is every evidence that our society "is so riven [divided]" that this comment applies to us.
It is so riven because the Supreme Court itself, did not in fact respect the institution of the Senate in 2001, with its sole privilege to try and to decide with finality any case of impeachment against a Constitutional officer. The present regime of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was founded on an anti-Constitutional putsch that cloaked itself under the costume of Chief Justice Hilario Davide. Having itself murdered the Constitution on 20 January 2001, the Court merely absolved the murderer in March 2001 and did another Javellanaesque bit of political acquiescence.
The Demolition Job on the Senate continued throughout the past six years, with an attempt at fratricide evident in the Chacha movement centered in the Lower House. The attack from the Executive Branch comes in the form of gag orders like EO 464 and its progeny of administrative orders meant to skirt the more definite conclusions of the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Senate vs. Ermita.
The Press is disrespecting the Senate with that alleged "leak" to the Philippine Daily Inquirer about what transpired in its Executive Session with Romulo Neri last week.
Either there were real sources who leaked what transpired, or as Joker Arroyo charges, that the newspaper made up the whole report. I don't know what is true. But that is the diabolical beauty of quoting unnamed sources. The report can sound plausible to people because of the context, yet it can be a devious amalgam of truth, falsehood, speculation and conjecture.
Either way, though, someone has abused a Privilege that belongs not to them as persons, but to the Institution of the Senate, the Press or the Presidency.
The Senate has certainly been made a laughing stock of as serious allegations that possibly as many as four Senators leaked what transpired in an Executive Session to depose Romulo Nery last week on his claim of Executive Privilege. Now the reporter and her newspaper claim the journalistic privilege of confidentiality and refuse to name the source(s) of their news story.
That is their right by law to assert the journalistic privilege, but I think it is also in the Public Interest and well within the Right of the Public to Know if there are one or more Senators who willfully and maliciously violated the rule of secrecy over executive sessions of the Senate and its committees. Or, did the newspaper fabricate the whole story, as Senator Joker Arroyo fumed?
In the balance of today's controversy are sacred privileges claimed by major institutions of government and society, namely the Press and its privilege of keeping confidential sources; the Presidency and Executive Privilege; and the Senate privilege of secrecy over its Executive Sessions. The question begged is this: what are the limits of journalistic privilege to pursue and make known to the public, Interesting Knowledge, about the government or its officials?
PDI's John Nery, Juliet Javellana Labog and Business World's Vergel O. Santos were talking to Ricky Carandang on ANC about the roles that journalists have played in the recent ZTE bribery scandal -- both as reporters and observers of the news, as well as makers of the news and active players in the unfolding events.
That is certainly true for Jarius Bondoc, whose sensational columns about sexcapades and golf junkets in China, and millions of dollars in bribery money focussed the spotlight on ZTE and the national broadband project early on. Together with Joey de Venecia and Romulo Nery testifying in the Senate, the scandal has already resulted in the accused broker, Benjamin Abalos to resign as chairman of the Commission on Elections this past week.
But by revealing Romulo Neri to be the source of his news-making columns early on in the ZTE scandal saga, Jarius Bondoc broke a rule of omertathat has so effectively sustained journalism's art of the Unnamed Authoritative Sources (which has been perfected by local practitioners in the highly effective and devious Science of the Kuryente.) Vergel Santos opines that Jarius Bondoc ought to be fired for such breach of journalistic confidentiality by the Philippine Star, upon whom he believes the onus now rests to clarify their policy on the matter of journalists divulging their sources of information.
Meanwhile, in the brewing brouhaha over PDI's allegations against Joker Arroyo at the Senate's executive session with Romulo Neri on Sept. 26. Juliet Javellana Labog swears sweetly never to reveal her own sources of information, who may or may not have been four Senators at the supposedly confidential executive Session of the Senate. (That's for her to know and everybody else to find out if they can!) John Nery says the newspaper "stands by their story" that Joker Arroyo intervened to prevent Romulo Neri from testifying further on his conversations with President Arroyo about the ZTE project.
Ricky and guests concluded that there is now way PDI can be compelled to reveal the source or sources of information on what transpired during the executive session.
What exactly is the Journalistic Privilege of Confidentiality? It seems to rest on a 1946 statute:
Republic Act No. 53 An Act to Exempt the Publisher, Editor or Reporter of Any Publication From Revealing the Source Of Published News Or Information Obtained In Confidence
Section 1. The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the State.
Sec. 2. All provisions of law or rules of court inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved, October 5, 1946
That's the entire Republic Act No. 53! It is upon this that our good pundits think they can withhold information from the Philippine Senate. Yet it is crystal clear that "a House or committee of Congress" such as the Senate or its Blue Ribbon Committee in executive session can vote to compel revelation of such information by finding it to be "in the interest of the State."
From the sounds of it, Ms. Labog has been advised by the lawyers of the newspaper that she stands on firm ground with RA 53! Yet, Joker Arroyo does not have to look any further than RA 53 for the power he believed the Senate must have to determine if one or more of their members broke the rule of omerta that the Philippine Senate lives by: the secrecy rule covering Executive Sessions. In other words the Senate could use Republic Act No. 53 to put Ms. Labog in jail for contempt if need be.
I would think this is only elementary fairness if PDI also expects the Senate to apply the same strict rules the Privilege of the Executive for example, that Romulo Neri has invoked on his conversations with President Arroyo.
Unlike the Journalist's Privilege, the Executive Privilege of the President is far more potent and also well-defined by last year's unanimous Supreme Court decision on EO 464, Senate vs. Ermita. Thanks to Miriam Defensor Santiago, we can distill all that English Composition to this: The executive privilege of the President generally covers critical information relating to national security and diplomatic secrets.
To hear our good pundits talk of course, there is no higher or more inviolable privilege than that of confidentiality between a journalist and his or her sources. Never mind that the story which provoked the current controversy involves the dissing of not one, but two other forms of privilege: that of the Senate to have its Executive Sessions kept completely confidential and that of the President's Executive Privilege, which happened to be the subject of the Senate's executive session.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer, says John Nery and Juliet Labog stand by their story that four different sources of information, who must remain unnamed of course, revealed what happened after the Senate went into executive session last Thursday to get Romulo Nery to explain the basis of his invocation of executive privilege over their particular conversations.
Tonight, Juliet Labog very clearly declared she would not reveal her sources for the leaked information. If she does and the Senate exercises its prerogatives under the Law, she will most likely be cited for contempt and go to jail. The New York Times reporter Judith Miller once spent some time in jail because she would not reveal the source of a story she wrote. That source turned out to be Karl Rove.
However in the present situation, the Swinging Door of Observation allows us to glimpse into what I like to call the Art of the Kuryente. This is the most refined form of journalistic practice that utilizes the Principle of the Unnamed Authoritative Sources to create a news story to which some public official or famous personality is bound to react. It's like delivering a sudden "ground" or electrical shock to someone. They just have to react. Now the "kuryente" story may be based on fact or fantasy or diabolically--both (who is to know with unnamed sources invoked), but achieves an excuse for newspaper editors to use it under the very liberal rubric that the Press can do anything it needs to, including making stuff up, in order to elicit "the truth" from public officials.
I'm all for the cleverest investigative reporting, but I wonder if this qualifies as that. Here we have what could be four Senators breaking the rule of secrecy around Executive sessions of the Senate (without which it would lose a very important tool of Congressional versight and hearings in aid of legislation. They feed a news reporter their version of what happened in Executive Session, which the newspaper is free to mash up and spin out in the most shocking manner possible to get maximum reaction. It is possibly an unethical act for the purported leakers, as Pia Cayetano piously promises to investigate.
To me it does not look like "investigative journalism" as such. What would be most disturbing is if ALL of the story were true! Just think. If there really were four Senators who leaked what transpired during the executive session, then they were just using PDI and Juliet Labog to perform unethical or even illegal acts. Unchecked, this would make the use of the executive session would be seriously damaged.
Of course all three major players in this latest twist to the ZTE story -- the Press, the Senate and the Presidency -- have some Sacred Privilege they are guarding, because the maintenance of it is necessary for the democratic principle of Check and Balance to work.
I agree with the latter, but it does not mean that Juliet Javellana Labog's journalistic privilege outweighs the Philippine Senate's demand for information in a hearing in aid of legislation, and for the confidentiality of its Executive Sessions.
In any judicial action, the interests that would have to be weighed are precisely those of the Journalistic, Executive and Senate privileges that have been put at loggerhead's by everyone's monumental immoderation in the exercise of the same.
The Associated Press photograph shows Press Sec. Ignacio Bunye holding up two CDROMs on June 6, 2005 at Malacanang Palace in Manila. It captures the very moment when Secretary Bunye made known to the public the existence of wiretapped recordings of cellphone conversations with voices that sounded to everyone who listened to them to be those of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano and several other public or private persons.
Section 1(a)It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
Section 1(b) It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided,That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Section (3) hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
In the CDROMs he was brandishing, Bunye claimed that he had TWO sets of conversations involving the President. The first he claimed was a spurious conversation between her and a "Comelec Commissioner"; and a second recording which he claimed to be a genuine conversation between her and a Mr. Bong Ruado, identified by Bunye as a local Arroyo party leader. After Sec. Bunye had just revealed the existence of not one but two wiretapped conversations of the Commander in Chief, he also allowed the very curious reporters to listen to and make DIGITAL copies of the CDROMs he had waved for the unerring eye of posterity. Within days, what came to be known as the Garci Tapes or Garci Recordings were endlessly reproduced online and off, by enterprising investigative journalists radio commentators, tv anchor-folks and bloggers delighted with something politically intriguing yet geekable. Even the ringtone makers and car horn customizers made "Hello, Garci" the sound bite of the post-2004 political cacophony. Subsequently the recordings were investigated and even played in open session in the House of Representatives. They have been under intense scrutiny and investigation by the Philippine Senate.
Sec. Bunye had just violated several provisions of Republic Act 4200, the Antiwiretapping Law on national television. He knowingly possessed illegally wiretapped recordings of the Commander in Chief and a Comelec Commissioner; he played the same for many persons inthe Mass Media there present; he communicated the contents of both the "original" and the "spliced" recordings of the President and/or Garci and Ruado; he did not provide them transcripts but he allowed the reporters and journalists to make digital copies of the two CDROMs. The proviso that the Law makes regarding Section 3 crimes against National Security, cannot possibly be invoked by Sec. Bunye since his acts on that day, did not lead to an investigation of the Section (1a) crimes implied by the very existence of the Garci tapes. He did not accuse anyone of having made the tapes, and every indication exists that he himself was the party to the making of the spurious conversation between the President and Ruado.
But WHY did Ignacio Bunye commit such a faux pas? In hindsight it is now clear that he was trying to make it appear that the President was not talking to Garcillano but to a Bong Ruado. In concentrating on trying to prove the President wasn't talking to a Comelec Commissioner, Bunye inadvertently affirmed that the President had indeed been wiretapped!
I listened to two conversations as divulged by Bunye on that fateful day. Have a listen to GMA asking for the one million vote lead and the mention of one, Benjamin Abalos in the conversation with Virgilio Garcillano:
On his first CDROM was the alleged conversation between PGMA and Ruado:
Bunye was actually reacting to a radio broadcast earlier that day of the tapes on a local AM station. Had he not reacted the Hello Garci scandal might never have happened at all since the Public would not have given the recordings a second hearing if their revelation only came from persons closely associated with Joseph Estrada. But coming from the Press Secretary, the whole story got legs. And it's been running ever since.
Senator Biazon Sums Up Garci Investigations SENATOR RODOLFO BIAZON deserves the thanks of his countrymen for his stewardship of the Senate National Defense Committee investigating the Hello Garci wiretapping scandal. It can now be said with a high degree of certainty that the Intelligence Services of the AFP (ISAFP) was illegally engaged in wiretapping activities amounting to POLITICAL ESPIONAGE in the months before the May, 2004 Presidential elections, which was won by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in a long-controverted election.
WHERE IT GOES FROM HERE...The hapless Filipinos are once more the victim of a peculiar kind of blindness which prevents them from seeing what is right in front of their noses.
In this case, even Bunye was subject of this infirmity, for he was focussed on the apparent violation of a different set of laws, the Omnibus Election Code, that the content of the Garci recordings have always suggested.
But it is precisely that content which is "forbidden fruit" from a Constitutional viewpoint, where the Bill of Rights clearly states, Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The various generalities in the Constitution are seamlessly addressed by the 1965 law crafted by then Senator Lorenzo Tanada, RA 4200 The Antiwiretapping Law. Although new laws like the Anti Money Laundering Act and the Human Security Act expand upon RA 4200, any legislation arising from Congressional investigations in the Hello Garci Wiretapping case and ZTE National Broadband Network, ought to fully appreciate the masterpiece of English Composition as Law that the Antiwiretapping Act represents. It was suggested by Rudy Salalima of Globe Telecommunications that RA 4200 be amended to "modernize" it and take into account certain technological developments that radically alter the civil liberties battleground.
I think Congress ought to be very circumspect about such amendments.
I am afraid the BREVITY of R.A. 4200 will make it a natural target for volumetric expansion by our lawmakers. However it is the WIT of the law that must be preserved. Wit, not in the Comedy Club sense, but of Justice as fairness...RA 4200 is the closest thing to a poem or a mathematical theorem I have seen from the tribes of Leviticus in this Archipelago.
It consists of a mere six stanzas making illegal without Court Orders the act of eavesdropping and the use as evidence of the fruits of such acts such as recordings and transcripts.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
Sec. 2. Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding Sec. or who violates the provisions of the following Sec. or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding Sec.s in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the identity of the person or persons whose communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case of telegraphic or telephonic communications, the telegraph line or the telephone number involved and its location; (2) the identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear, intercept, or record the communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words; (3) the offense or offenses committed or sought to be prevented; and (4) the period of the authorization. The authorization shall be effective for the period specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the order, unless extended or renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest.
All recordings made under court authorization shall, within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the order, be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope or sealed package, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority stating the number of recordings made, the dates and times covered by each recording, the number of tapes, discs, or records included in the deposit, and certifying that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are included in the envelope or package deposited with the court. The envelope or package so deposited shall not be opened, or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have been recorded.
The court referred to in this Sec. shall be understood to mean the Court of First Instance within whose territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are to be executed.
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding Sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
Sec. 5. All laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or accordingly amended.
Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Approved: June 19, 1965
RA 4200 is an important national security statute, because the law explicitly gives the Courts authority to allow the use of wiretapping for national security purposes. This ability has been severely attenuated and constrained now by the Human Security Act, which allows wiretapping for anti-terrorism operations only with Court of Appeals supervision. The other significant legal use of wiretapping is in anti-kidnapping cases. What happens when terrorists like the Abu Sayyaf conduct kidnap for ransom or beheading for publicity? One wonders what law applies. For example, the judge in Basilan who has 130 arrests warrants against MILF ambushmen and beheaders of Philippine Marines last July 10 -- can the RTC judge authorize wiretapping under RA 4200 to help the police serve the warrants? Since they cannot possibly decide whether their suspects are "terrorists" under RA 9372 do they actually need Court of Appeals approval of intelligence surveillance of cell phones being used by MILF and Abu Sayyaf rebels?
Commission on Elections Chairman Ben Abalos, accused of bribery in open Senate Session by businessman Joey de Venecia (son of the House Speaker) and Secretary Romulo Neri, formerly Director General of the National Economic Development Authority, and before a highly charged audience of supporters in his own home in Mandaluyong, Manila, has resigned, effective immediately, "to spare the Comelec from the vicious attacks on my person." Audio recording of Chairman Benjamin Abalos statement:
It certainly averts the brewing crisis of a threatened impeachment in the House of Representatives after Gov. Rolex Suplico filed a case last week that looked like it was going to prosper.
RESURRECTING A DEAD LANGUAGE: Wall Street Journal has an item on VICIPAEDIA LATINA a version of Wikipedia in Latin. Some choice entries include Paris Hilton's famous X-rated Web video described as pellicula in interrete vulgate de coitu Paridis. Or Bartholomaeus Simpson is a skateboarder experto. As a pre-teen, Britannia Spearsapparuit in Canali Disneyi cum Christina Aguilera et Iustino Timberlake in Sodalitate Mici Muris.
Today's topic is the phrase CASE of IMPEACHMENT which is only applicable to certain very important high officials of the Government. By my count, there are exactly 31 impeachable officers under the 1987 Constitution, which provides in Article XI on Public Accountability--
How this balance is to be restored escapes me also though, but it cannot be to the reasonableness of possible lawbreakers that we are forced to appeal. No Ma’m! I would burn down Padre Faura first than swallow such a bitter dreg.