Even as the Supreme Court has finally spoken on the Hacienda Luisita case, the DAR is still certainly right in saying it would take from six months to one year for the farmers to reap up the full blessings of the Supreme Court's ruling. As a matter of fact, one year is even an understatement. To be able to identify the names of the farmers who are legitimately entitled to own lots out of more than 6,000 claimants -- no, some say there are actually close to 10,000 -- is surely bound to be a long and horrendous process. That, against the naked truth that the DAR will bow out and die a natural death by year 2014 -- that's the law, unless Congress re-extends its life.
The long process will surely exhaust many farmers of every wee patience still remaining in their lives after their long wait. It is not, then, a far-fetched speculation that the old ones, who have long ached to taste the fruits of their travail at least before they die, would sooner or later be tempted to sell their rights to the lot to many the unconscionable characters around them who, not unlike white sharks in the deep seas, are just waiting the opportune moment to seize their prey. And these characters include the owners of the Hacienda Luisita themselves, who are expected in the interim to leave no stone upturned rather that face bankruptcy in due course. It is of course illegal for any farmer to sell his right to the lot; but who can prevent one who may have been long wallowing in the quicksands of hunger, having lost his gainful source of living since their fight to own the land they till began?
Even the very noble wish of former Comelec Chair and pro bono lawyer of the farmers, Christian Monsod, for President Aquino to urge the DAR to help the farmers -- indeed, he can do that by the sheer sway of his hand as easily as Someone did at the dawn of time, saying "let there be light" and there was light -- is most likely to end up in vain. There can't be any gainsaying the fact that President Aquino has been most personally hurt by the court's final decision on the Hacianda Luisita case. Given the President's unquestionable honesty -- that's foremost among why I voted for him -- he will never contradict in words what lies deep in his heart. Let's then get real: why would he order the DAR to expedite the distribution of the titles? His honesty is absolute, he will never contract what he honestly feels. Lest he ends up, alas, a BIG HYPOCRITE! That, for me, is the supreme irony of our times.
Miyerkules, Abril 25, 2012
Martes, Abril 24, 2012
NO USE CRYING OVER SPILLED MILK
The escalating China-Philippines tension on the Scarborough Shoal is not only very unfortunate. It is also totally surprising and unprecedented. One recalls that before that much ballyhooed April 10 impasse between two Chinese vessels and the Philippine ship, BRP Gregorio del Pilar, with the latter vainly trying to accost Chinese poachers along the shoal's vicinities, China had not been known to be as hostile, bellicose or provocative as it has now suddenly become -- truth is, for many years it had been relatively cool and pragmatic in dealing with the Philippine authorities to a point even of apparent subservience -- to the Philippine claim on the disputed shoal. A rundown of old news reports lifted from the Internet archives will tend to give credence to this perception, as follows:
1) GMA-7 TV News (May 29, 1997): "Twenty-one Chinese fishermen were arrested for approaching the Scarborough Shoal. They were charged with illegal entry and poaching at the Zambales Regional Trial Court."
2) Manila Times (June 10, 1999): "The Philippine Navy arrests 27 Chinese for illegal fishing on June 7th. Perhaps mindful that even their laws were violated, Chinese authorities in Manila are seemingly taking their sweet time in acting on the Manila arrest of 27 Hongkong fishermen near the southern Philippine island of Palawan."
3) Phil Star Website (March 29, 2001): "The government will pursue plans to impose a ban on fishing in the disputed Scarborough Shoal, Vice President and foreign affairs Secretary Teofisto Guingona Jr disclosed on March 28. Meanwhile, the navy has sent a gunboat to Scarborough to ward off any attempt to erect strudtures on the shoal. According to national security adviser Roilo Golez, such gunboat's presence near the shoal would prevent the Chinese from landing to build structures."
4) Philippine |Daily Inquirer (May 24, 2001): "Philippine Navy vessels are tracking the activities of a number of foreign vessels 'encroaching' on waters claimed by Manila in the South China Sea. Philippine troops have in the past chased off or arrested Chinese fishing vessels and confiscated their catch. The Philippine Navy has boarded 14 Chinese-flagged fishing boats off the disputed shoal so far this year and confiscated their catch of giant clams and other endangered marine products. Last year, they shot dead a Chinese fisherman after he and his crew resisted arrest near the shoal situated 120 miles west of Luzon.".
5) Evening News (August 21, 2008): "Non-Filipino fishermen are tolerated in the area under the strict guidelines set and implemented by the Philippine Navy. A number of Chinese fishermen have been arrested in the area due to illegal methods of fishing, which destroy the marine habitat of the reef, and for the catching of endangered marine species."
In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I did also search for recent comparative news reports indicating that the present administration had continued to be as vigilant, strict, sustained and effective as the previous one in guarding and preserving the country's national interests and territorial claim on the Scarborough Shoal. Quite sadly, I did not find any -- well, up until that April 10 impasse. Alas, maybe -- just maybe -- the Aquino administration has kind of laid low (aka: "noynoyed" or "natulog sa pansitan") in that respect, in turn awakening China into re-asserting its claim to the shoal with relatively greater vigor and belligerent steadfastness. At any rate, there's no use crying over spilled milk!
1) GMA-7 TV News (May 29, 1997): "Twenty-one Chinese fishermen were arrested for approaching the Scarborough Shoal. They were charged with illegal entry and poaching at the Zambales Regional Trial Court."
2) Manila Times (June 10, 1999): "The Philippine Navy arrests 27 Chinese for illegal fishing on June 7th. Perhaps mindful that even their laws were violated, Chinese authorities in Manila are seemingly taking their sweet time in acting on the Manila arrest of 27 Hongkong fishermen near the southern Philippine island of Palawan."
3) Phil Star Website (March 29, 2001): "The government will pursue plans to impose a ban on fishing in the disputed Scarborough Shoal, Vice President and foreign affairs Secretary Teofisto Guingona Jr disclosed on March 28. Meanwhile, the navy has sent a gunboat to Scarborough to ward off any attempt to erect strudtures on the shoal. According to national security adviser Roilo Golez, such gunboat's presence near the shoal would prevent the Chinese from landing to build structures."
4) Philippine |Daily Inquirer (May 24, 2001): "Philippine Navy vessels are tracking the activities of a number of foreign vessels 'encroaching' on waters claimed by Manila in the South China Sea. Philippine troops have in the past chased off or arrested Chinese fishing vessels and confiscated their catch. The Philippine Navy has boarded 14 Chinese-flagged fishing boats off the disputed shoal so far this year and confiscated their catch of giant clams and other endangered marine products. Last year, they shot dead a Chinese fisherman after he and his crew resisted arrest near the shoal situated 120 miles west of Luzon.".
5) Evening News (August 21, 2008): "Non-Filipino fishermen are tolerated in the area under the strict guidelines set and implemented by the Philippine Navy. A number of Chinese fishermen have been arrested in the area due to illegal methods of fishing, which destroy the marine habitat of the reef, and for the catching of endangered marine species."
In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I did also search for recent comparative news reports indicating that the present administration had continued to be as vigilant, strict, sustained and effective as the previous one in guarding and preserving the country's national interests and territorial claim on the Scarborough Shoal. Quite sadly, I did not find any -- well, up until that April 10 impasse. Alas, maybe -- just maybe -- the Aquino administration has kind of laid low (aka: "noynoyed" or "natulog sa pansitan") in that respect, in turn awakening China into re-asserting its claim to the shoal with relatively greater vigor and belligerent steadfastness. At any rate, there's no use crying over spilled milk!
REASSESSING OUR TERRITORIAL CLAIMS
Even as the
Philippines is not to be cowed, according to the Palace, by China's
recent deployment of a large patrol ship at the Scarborough Shoal (PDI, 4/21/2012), such report cannot but also ring an alarm bell to our Department of Foreign Affairs. With
neither favoring China nor hurting my nationalistic sensibilities, allow me to discuss the basic reasons why.
Both
China and the Philippines appear to have reasonably valid historical
claims to the Shoal -- once upon a time called Huangyan Island by the
Chinese and
Bajo de Masinloc (now Panatag Shoal) by Filipinos. However, from the
standpoint of more recent documents, these disputed waters inside the
West Philippine Sea (a rather undue alteration of the "South China
Sea" that we learned from our grade school Geography) were not
included in the territorial lines defined in the Treaty of Paris (1898),
whereby Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States. Neither
were they part of our territorial boundaries as enunciated in the 1935
charter, nor in Republic Act No. 3046, passed in 1991 and otherwise
known as An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Seas of the
Philippines. Of course, the disputed shoal is closer to the
Philippines than to China and must theoretically belong to us by virtue
of the UNCLOS (United Nations Conventions on the Laws of the Sea).
Unfortunately, since it appears that neither China nor the Philippines
was a signatory to that convention, China is not strictly bound by its
covenants.
As things are, two alternatives are open to us: to continue our bilateral negotiations with China (the DFA eagerly pursues it) -- ideally towards our two countries' joint peaceful exploration of the contested waters' marine resources (this was proposed by Sen. Ralph Recto recently) Or, that failing, to elevate the issue to the International Tribunal on the Laws of the Sea (ITLOS). Even so, no light seems to beckon to us at the end of the tunnel on either option. That is quite understandable, firstly, with China in fact now openly reinforcing its marine patrol base along the contested territories following the April 10 impasse; secondly, given that the jurisdiction of such international courts as ITLOS are essentially based on consent, meaning China must willingly go with us to the tribunal and submit to voluntary arbitration, which option China had once rejected. Methinks the latter constraint necessarily makes virtually self-deceiving a recent statement of Presidential spokesman, Ricky Carandang, that our legal team is actually already preparing to unilaterally go to the ITLOS. I likewise refuse to believe that our existing defense relationships and "balikatan" exercises with US troops could urge without ado Mother America to come to our succor based solely on our territorial dispute with China.
A curious question aches for an answer at this juncture! Is our claim to the Scarborough Shoal indeed so crucial to our national sovereignty and overall interest as to make as forget that very seldom does a David beats a Goliath? I mean, ours should be a foreign relations policy that is anchored on relative, not on absolute, terms, one amply tempered with flexibility and pragmatism and guided solely by an ultimate aspiration for our people's welfare and the lasting security of our Republic. Premised on the new realities and hostilities now clearly surrounding China's position on the Shoal, it is becoming compellingly logical that we write off our existing claim thereon, as prudent finance managers would their uncollectible accounts. Incidentally, it also behooves that we extend the same decisive thinking towards our long dormant claim to Sabah in North Borneo. while remaining relatively steadfast and vigilant in our claim to the Spratlys. The first is in sincere recognition of the fact that the Filipino-Sabahans had voted in already two referendums in the early sixties, expressing their preferred allegiance to Malaysia; the second is given the municipality of Kalayaan in our Palawan province that we have so far peacefully established there. Then, only then, may we perhaps pleasantly congratulate ourselves, saying: "what does it profit a nation to lust for extra territories if it fails to at least exercise its plain common sense?"
As things are, two alternatives are open to us: to continue our bilateral negotiations with China (the DFA eagerly pursues it) -- ideally towards our two countries' joint peaceful exploration of the contested waters' marine resources (this was proposed by Sen. Ralph Recto recently) Or, that failing, to elevate the issue to the International Tribunal on the Laws of the Sea (ITLOS). Even so, no light seems to beckon to us at the end of the tunnel on either option. That is quite understandable, firstly, with China in fact now openly reinforcing its marine patrol base along the contested territories following the April 10 impasse; secondly, given that the jurisdiction of such international courts as ITLOS are essentially based on consent, meaning China must willingly go with us to the tribunal and submit to voluntary arbitration, which option China had once rejected. Methinks the latter constraint necessarily makes virtually self-deceiving a recent statement of Presidential spokesman, Ricky Carandang, that our legal team is actually already preparing to unilaterally go to the ITLOS. I likewise refuse to believe that our existing defense relationships and "balikatan" exercises with US troops could urge without ado Mother America to come to our succor based solely on our territorial dispute with China.
A curious question aches for an answer at this juncture! Is our claim to the Scarborough Shoal indeed so crucial to our national sovereignty and overall interest as to make as forget that very seldom does a David beats a Goliath? I mean, ours should be a foreign relations policy that is anchored on relative, not on absolute, terms, one amply tempered with flexibility and pragmatism and guided solely by an ultimate aspiration for our people's welfare and the lasting security of our Republic. Premised on the new realities and hostilities now clearly surrounding China's position on the Shoal, it is becoming compellingly logical that we write off our existing claim thereon, as prudent finance managers would their uncollectible accounts. Incidentally, it also behooves that we extend the same decisive thinking towards our long dormant claim to Sabah in North Borneo. while remaining relatively steadfast and vigilant in our claim to the Spratlys. The first is in sincere recognition of the fact that the Filipino-Sabahans had voted in already two referendums in the early sixties, expressing their preferred allegiance to Malaysia; the second is given the municipality of Kalayaan in our Palawan province that we have so far peacefully established there. Then, only then, may we perhaps pleasantly congratulate ourselves, saying: "what does it profit a nation to lust for extra territories if it fails to at least exercise its plain common sense?"
HYPOCRITICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS
The Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) issued just today, 23rd April, by the Baguio Regional Trial Court Branch No. 6 against the balling of the much ballyhooed SM trees confuses me endlessly, indeed!
True, the cutting of trees is prohibited under Republic Act No. 3571. Nevertheless, even a very cursory look into the sheer title of this law, -- to wit: "An Act to Prohibit the Cutting, Destroying or Injuring of Planted or Growing Trees, Flowering Plants and Shrubs or Plants of Scenic Values Along Public Roads, in Plazas, Parks, School Premises or in any Other Public Ground -- will immediately tell one that the SM is totally within its right because, first, the trees in question are growing inside a private property owned by SM, not in a public ground, which is that which the law precisely forbids. Second, SM is not destroying the trees at all; they are to be transferred to another property also owned by SM. Third, SM has even committed itself to plant 50 new saplings for every tree to be balled and transferred. And fourth, the balling and replanting of the trees has had the prior formal permit of the DENR. What more do these Baguio City protesters want?
Alas, I find it rather strange and pathetic that even certain otherwise well respected opinion makers -- Neal Cruz (who is not an architect), for example, in his recent column in the Inquirer -- wish to meddle with the architectural design of the new mall that SM plans to put up in Baguio by suggesting that the trees be retained in the future mall's parking lot. I just wish to tell Mr. Cruz that his "where's Baguio without pine trees," or something to that effect is mere motherhood statement. Methinks DENR Secretary Paje knew his onions relatively better, when he recently asked the government to choose between trees and progress. That's like saying "there's no free lunch."
Who does not love green surroundings? But let's do so without losing our plain common sense. it seems to me these so-called "environmentalists" in our midst and times have grown incorrigibly hypocritical in their clearly misguided concern for the environment. Worse, the oftentimes ignorant public -- unfortunately even some courts of law, for that matter -- are swallowing the say-so of these self-proclaimed "Protectors of Nature" kuno hook, line and sinker.
True, the cutting of trees is prohibited under Republic Act No. 3571. Nevertheless, even a very cursory look into the sheer title of this law, -- to wit: "An Act to Prohibit the Cutting, Destroying or Injuring of Planted or Growing Trees, Flowering Plants and Shrubs or Plants of Scenic Values Along Public Roads, in Plazas, Parks, School Premises or in any Other Public Ground -- will immediately tell one that the SM is totally within its right because, first, the trees in question are growing inside a private property owned by SM, not in a public ground, which is that which the law precisely forbids. Second, SM is not destroying the trees at all; they are to be transferred to another property also owned by SM. Third, SM has even committed itself to plant 50 new saplings for every tree to be balled and transferred. And fourth, the balling and replanting of the trees has had the prior formal permit of the DENR. What more do these Baguio City protesters want?
Alas, I find it rather strange and pathetic that even certain otherwise well respected opinion makers -- Neal Cruz (who is not an architect), for example, in his recent column in the Inquirer -- wish to meddle with the architectural design of the new mall that SM plans to put up in Baguio by suggesting that the trees be retained in the future mall's parking lot. I just wish to tell Mr. Cruz that his "where's Baguio without pine trees," or something to that effect is mere motherhood statement. Methinks DENR Secretary Paje knew his onions relatively better, when he recently asked the government to choose between trees and progress. That's like saying "there's no free lunch."
Who does not love green surroundings? But let's do so without losing our plain common sense. it seems to me these so-called "environmentalists" in our midst and times have grown incorrigibly hypocritical in their clearly misguided concern for the environment. Worse, the oftentimes ignorant public -- unfortunately even some courts of law, for that matter -- are swallowing the say-so of these self-proclaimed "Protectors of Nature" kuno hook, line and sinker.
Lunes, Abril 23, 2012
THE LAUGHABLY INEPT DOTC
The government's plan to reinvent the passenger jeeps as well as to consider the lowering of the age limits of passenger vehicles from what appears to be 15 years for buses, 13 years for taxis and 10 years AUVs, multicabs and vans must have been the direct result of the P1.0B class suit that the Philippine Medical Association is poised to file against the DOTC for its continuing failure to clean the air in Metro Manila thoroughfares. I doubt very much if this plan will really materialize as envisioned.
In the first place, one recalls that it was several years ago when a few passenger jeepneys run by either electricity or LPG were first seen in Makati. We all know that up to now those few remains as few. I also refuse to believe that the above cited age limits for passenger vehicles are being followed. In the same token, it is odd that no age limit has been set for jeepneys to continue plying in our streets, even as, let's get real, they are the single highest source of pollution in our midst and times. As a matter of fact, it is not far-fetched to speculate that there are still jeepneys that have been over 20 years on the run, and none of them is ever known to fail the ignition emission tests required by LTO prior to renewal of their registration. Proof is, look at the information required by the LTFRB to be posed on all passenger vehicles, such as for example: LTFRB Case No. 90-0123. That simply means that the jeep's franchise dates as far back as 1990 -- meaning 22 years ago as of 2012. Worse, there are still not a few whose original registration appears to be before 1990. Baka nga meron pang vintage World War II. Is this the reason why there seems to be no age limit set for jeepneys?
Given these circumstances, methinks the DOTC's plan "to reinvent the jeepneys" are only better said than done. And so, I regret to say to Atty Nic Conti, DOTC spokesperson: HUAG NA TAYONG MAGBULAHAN, KABAYAN!
And by the way, the DOTC is not only inept in its obligation to clear the air we breathe in our thoroughfares. It also miserably fails to ensure full implementation of the Seat Belt Law. Consider this: Nowadays, most passenger jeepneys sport bucket-type front seats, cannibalized from old cars, which should now normally accommodate only one instead of two passengers. Even then, no passenger jeep leaves the terminal unless two people, excluding the driver, are in the front seat. Worse, only the driver wears a seat belt. And even worst, jeeps using the expressway, such as those plying the Manila-Alabang route are allowed inside the expressway notwithstanding the expressway's warning sign at the entry point saying: WE IMPLEMENT THE SEAT BELT LAW HERE. If this is not disgustingly laughable, I do not know what is.
Ala eh, mukhang minamalas si Mar Roxas in being assigned to the DOTC at a time when he is beginning to build blocks for his presidential ambition. I know he is a good man, pero siya ang pinag-abutan!
In the first place, one recalls that it was several years ago when a few passenger jeepneys run by either electricity or LPG were first seen in Makati. We all know that up to now those few remains as few. I also refuse to believe that the above cited age limits for passenger vehicles are being followed. In the same token, it is odd that no age limit has been set for jeepneys to continue plying in our streets, even as, let's get real, they are the single highest source of pollution in our midst and times. As a matter of fact, it is not far-fetched to speculate that there are still jeepneys that have been over 20 years on the run, and none of them is ever known to fail the ignition emission tests required by LTO prior to renewal of their registration. Proof is, look at the information required by the LTFRB to be posed on all passenger vehicles, such as for example: LTFRB Case No. 90-0123. That simply means that the jeep's franchise dates as far back as 1990 -- meaning 22 years ago as of 2012. Worse, there are still not a few whose original registration appears to be before 1990. Baka nga meron pang vintage World War II. Is this the reason why there seems to be no age limit set for jeepneys?
Given these circumstances, methinks the DOTC's plan "to reinvent the jeepneys" are only better said than done. And so, I regret to say to Atty Nic Conti, DOTC spokesperson: HUAG NA TAYONG MAGBULAHAN, KABAYAN!
And by the way, the DOTC is not only inept in its obligation to clear the air we breathe in our thoroughfares. It also miserably fails to ensure full implementation of the Seat Belt Law. Consider this: Nowadays, most passenger jeepneys sport bucket-type front seats, cannibalized from old cars, which should now normally accommodate only one instead of two passengers. Even then, no passenger jeep leaves the terminal unless two people, excluding the driver, are in the front seat. Worse, only the driver wears a seat belt. And even worst, jeeps using the expressway, such as those plying the Manila-Alabang route are allowed inside the expressway notwithstanding the expressway's warning sign at the entry point saying: WE IMPLEMENT THE SEAT BELT LAW HERE. If this is not disgustingly laughable, I do not know what is.
Ala eh, mukhang minamalas si Mar Roxas in being assigned to the DOTC at a time when he is beginning to build blocks for his presidential ambition. I know he is a good man, pero siya ang pinag-abutan!
Miyerkules, Abril 18, 2012
SOME RATHER "STUPID" IDEAS
I regret I had been unable to activate my blog for more than a week.
Anyway, there were a couple of political developments in the news that intrigued keeps intriguing me endlessly.
Firstly, I consider it rather odd that P-Noy's lawmaker-allies are racing to give the President emergency powers to deal with the Mindanao power crisis even if he has practically admitted not knowing what to do to successfully address it. As far as I know, any "emergency" power of the president must, nearly always, suspend the implementation of certain laws or regulations, such as prior public bidding in the purchase of materials and/or awarding of contracts for services or projects. After coming out of the Energy Summit conference in Mindanao -- Armando Doronila calls it a monologue because it was P-Noy's thoughts that overwhelmed the meeting, more than those of the stakeholders -- the President said the Mindanaons must learn to bite the bullet by paying exceptionally high bills for their electricity consumption. That was of course too elementary a solution that any child in the street knows any way. Of course the President assures the nation that his successor would inherit from him a stable power supply in Mindanao after all of the long-term solutions the administration has lined up shall have been implemented. Why then is Sen. Trillanes still filing a bill to give the President "emergency" power in that regard? And worse, why must Sen. Chiz Escudero still insist on granting the President "stand-by emergency powers" to do something that the President does not really know what, in the first place. Methinks, both senators should have applied plain common sense in this respect.
On the other hand, that the Philippine Medical Association is poised to file a P1-billion class suit against Mar Roxas and the DOTC for the latter's failure to implement the Clean Air Act with respect to motor vehicles may be good news. As a matter of fact, such class suit is specifically authorized under Rule 52 of this law. But only on the surface. The problem is, will the sheer filing of the class suit really improve the kind of air we breath in our thoroughfares. I mean, I seriously doubt that the court could immediately order the closure of the inept ignition emission testing centers scattered over the archipelago -- such, I think, is what the class suit asks -- without due process. At any rate, let the public wait and see.
Anyway, there were a couple of political developments in the news that intrigued keeps intriguing me endlessly.
Firstly, I consider it rather odd that P-Noy's lawmaker-allies are racing to give the President emergency powers to deal with the Mindanao power crisis even if he has practically admitted not knowing what to do to successfully address it. As far as I know, any "emergency" power of the president must, nearly always, suspend the implementation of certain laws or regulations, such as prior public bidding in the purchase of materials and/or awarding of contracts for services or projects. After coming out of the Energy Summit conference in Mindanao -- Armando Doronila calls it a monologue because it was P-Noy's thoughts that overwhelmed the meeting, more than those of the stakeholders -- the President said the Mindanaons must learn to bite the bullet by paying exceptionally high bills for their electricity consumption. That was of course too elementary a solution that any child in the street knows any way. Of course the President assures the nation that his successor would inherit from him a stable power supply in Mindanao after all of the long-term solutions the administration has lined up shall have been implemented. Why then is Sen. Trillanes still filing a bill to give the President "emergency" power in that regard? And worse, why must Sen. Chiz Escudero still insist on granting the President "stand-by emergency powers" to do something that the President does not really know what, in the first place. Methinks, both senators should have applied plain common sense in this respect.
On the other hand, that the Philippine Medical Association is poised to file a P1-billion class suit against Mar Roxas and the DOTC for the latter's failure to implement the Clean Air Act with respect to motor vehicles may be good news. As a matter of fact, such class suit is specifically authorized under Rule 52 of this law. But only on the surface. The problem is, will the sheer filing of the class suit really improve the kind of air we breath in our thoroughfares. I mean, I seriously doubt that the court could immediately order the closure of the inept ignition emission testing centers scattered over the archipelago -- such, I think, is what the class suit asks -- without due process. At any rate, let the public wait and see.
Martes, Abril 10, 2012
MANNY'S ILL-ADVISED ARROGANCE
The Bureau of Internal Revenue may have good reason to believe that Manny Pacquiao had paid considerably less income tax than that which he should for taxable year 2010. BIR records lifted from the Internet show that Pacquiao was the number one individual taxpayer in 2008. The following year, he was not even included in the top ten posts. Then, in 2010, he was 135th.
The 2010 records show he paid just slightly over P8.0 million in income tax, against a total or gross taxable income of more that half a billion pesos, or a measly 1.7% ratio of income tax to gross taxable income. Comparatively, the number one income tax payer for the same year paid P67.7 million in income tax against a gross taxable income of only P295.5 million, or a tax-to-income ratio of nearly 23%.
Given the foregoing comparative figures, any BIR examiner -- or an accountant, for that matter -- couldn't help but suspect, at least preliminarily, that something was irregular in Manny's 2010 income tax return. At any rate, in fairness to the tax bureau, he was not being assessed of any tax liability yet; he was just being asked to submit certain relevant documents. That is normal in all tax investigation.
Manny Pacquiiao is known to be a very humble person, so one wonders that he suddenly became arrogant in responding to the BIR;s letter, calling it a form of assessment. I may be wrong, but based on available media releases, it was Manny, or maybe his allies, who first brought this otherwise strictly confidential matter to the public. Chances are, Manny had been erroneously advised by his lawyer and accountant. There is reason to believe it was these latter two staff who should be blamed for the worsening of this otherwise very simple case. Now Manny has been reported in the media as asking President Aquino to sanction the BIR official who, he believes, has been harassing him. That is, once again, another serious blunder of Pacquiao. He should have realized, assuming he really wanted P-Noy to help him, that in this life there that are better left unsaid. Telling the public about it will not definitely do him any good.
It is unfortunate that this happens at a time when he is training for his next scheduled fight. He will be a hypocrite if he says he is unfazed by this problem.. No matter what he says, it will surely be a mental concern, if not necessary torture, for him. Under these trying circumstances, I am sure everybody is praying to God that Manny will be able to survive this predicament and emerge triumphant in his forthcoming bout with Bradley.
The 2010 records show he paid just slightly over P8.0 million in income tax, against a total or gross taxable income of more that half a billion pesos, or a measly 1.7% ratio of income tax to gross taxable income. Comparatively, the number one income tax payer for the same year paid P67.7 million in income tax against a gross taxable income of only P295.5 million, or a tax-to-income ratio of nearly 23%.
Given the foregoing comparative figures, any BIR examiner -- or an accountant, for that matter -- couldn't help but suspect, at least preliminarily, that something was irregular in Manny's 2010 income tax return. At any rate, in fairness to the tax bureau, he was not being assessed of any tax liability yet; he was just being asked to submit certain relevant documents. That is normal in all tax investigation.
Manny Pacquiiao is known to be a very humble person, so one wonders that he suddenly became arrogant in responding to the BIR;s letter, calling it a form of assessment. I may be wrong, but based on available media releases, it was Manny, or maybe his allies, who first brought this otherwise strictly confidential matter to the public. Chances are, Manny had been erroneously advised by his lawyer and accountant. There is reason to believe it was these latter two staff who should be blamed for the worsening of this otherwise very simple case. Now Manny has been reported in the media as asking President Aquino to sanction the BIR official who, he believes, has been harassing him. That is, once again, another serious blunder of Pacquiao. He should have realized, assuming he really wanted P-Noy to help him, that in this life there that are better left unsaid. Telling the public about it will not definitely do him any good.
It is unfortunate that this happens at a time when he is training for his next scheduled fight. He will be a hypocrite if he says he is unfazed by this problem.. No matter what he says, it will surely be a mental concern, if not necessary torture, for him. Under these trying circumstances, I am sure everybody is praying to God that Manny will be able to survive this predicament and emerge triumphant in his forthcoming bout with Bradley.
Linggo, Abril 8, 2012
WRONG METAPHORS
Methinks the President has used the wrong metaphors in his Easter Sunday message to the people, as he draws parallelisms between the economic growth of the Philippines under his watch and the resurrection of Christ. He said we have now become a country of hope, from a hopeless one, since he assumed office in 2010. He had better told that to the Marines!
With all due respect, I cannot follow that which he is talking about. In terms of economic growth, as far as the numbers show, we inherited a 7.6 percent GDP from GMA. Now, we wallow in the quicksands of less than 4 percent. The President says that more and more OFWs are returning because there are now better employment opportunities here than before. Correct, there are indeed many OFWs who have returned and are still returning. But wrong! They didn't return because there are now greener pastures in these parts.. Rather, they are coming back essentially because of the growing political hostilities in the countries they were working, such as in Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Jordan, etc, as well as due to the rather inhuman treatment some domestic helpers have been getting lately from their employers in Hongkong.. Truth is, they would want to go back to their previous jobs abroad as soon as such hostilities and, hopefully temporary employment abnormalities, had vanished.. P-Noy says the "darkness" now belongs to our past. Well, as far as I know, Mindanao used to be a "brighter" community years before than it is now -- both literally and figuratively. There appears no immediate solution to the brown-outs our brothers there are now experiencing day in and day out. Moreover, recent surveys indicate a continually growing incidence of hunger among the poorest of the poor in most localities in as many regions. And that's amid the administration's propensity for the much ballyhooed CCT.. By the way, the CCT originated in Gloria's time. 'Kala ko ba, P-Noy tends to junk everything started by GMA? Ah, maybe -- just maybe -- he opts not to junk the CCT because of the billions of foreign-sourced money it carries, which in turn -- let's please get real and admit it -- is simply too easy to disburse, yet too difficult to audit and account for.
With all honesty and candor, I voted for P-Noy and I sincerely wish him to succeed. Nevertheless, all I keep hearing from him and his lapdogs are endless denials of his lackluster performance, meaningless, self-serving, press releases in his defense, and his unbridled expression of extreme hatred of GMA and the past administration. It's odd that no other president in this country's history from Quezon onwards -- not even his mother, Cory, who had the most valid axe to grind against Marcos (who caused his husband's death) -- can compare with P-Noy in this respect.. But, as I know, in fairness, that P-Noy is one of our most honest (not necessarily best) presidents, I do still pray to God that he could yet learn to graduate from his extremely unacceptable flair for political vendetta. Maipakulong nga sana niya si GMA for good, gaya ng ginawang pagpapakulong ni GMA kay Erap. Otherwise, he is going to be the whole world's laughing stock.
With all due respect, I cannot follow that which he is talking about. In terms of economic growth, as far as the numbers show, we inherited a 7.6 percent GDP from GMA. Now, we wallow in the quicksands of less than 4 percent. The President says that more and more OFWs are returning because there are now better employment opportunities here than before. Correct, there are indeed many OFWs who have returned and are still returning. But wrong! They didn't return because there are now greener pastures in these parts.. Rather, they are coming back essentially because of the growing political hostilities in the countries they were working, such as in Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Jordan, etc, as well as due to the rather inhuman treatment some domestic helpers have been getting lately from their employers in Hongkong.. Truth is, they would want to go back to their previous jobs abroad as soon as such hostilities and, hopefully temporary employment abnormalities, had vanished.. P-Noy says the "darkness" now belongs to our past. Well, as far as I know, Mindanao used to be a "brighter" community years before than it is now -- both literally and figuratively. There appears no immediate solution to the brown-outs our brothers there are now experiencing day in and day out. Moreover, recent surveys indicate a continually growing incidence of hunger among the poorest of the poor in most localities in as many regions. And that's amid the administration's propensity for the much ballyhooed CCT.. By the way, the CCT originated in Gloria's time. 'Kala ko ba, P-Noy tends to junk everything started by GMA? Ah, maybe -- just maybe -- he opts not to junk the CCT because of the billions of foreign-sourced money it carries, which in turn -- let's please get real and admit it -- is simply too easy to disburse, yet too difficult to audit and account for.
With all honesty and candor, I voted for P-Noy and I sincerely wish him to succeed. Nevertheless, all I keep hearing from him and his lapdogs are endless denials of his lackluster performance, meaningless, self-serving, press releases in his defense, and his unbridled expression of extreme hatred of GMA and the past administration. It's odd that no other president in this country's history from Quezon onwards -- not even his mother, Cory, who had the most valid axe to grind against Marcos (who caused his husband's death) -- can compare with P-Noy in this respect.. But, as I know, in fairness, that P-Noy is one of our most honest (not necessarily best) presidents, I do still pray to God that he could yet learn to graduate from his extremely unacceptable flair for political vendetta. Maipakulong nga sana niya si GMA for good, gaya ng ginawang pagpapakulong ni GMA kay Erap. Otherwise, he is going to be the whole world's laughing stock.
Sabado, Abril 7, 2012
CHRIST IS RISEN, REJOICE!
Very early this morning, as my whole family was preparing for the Easter Sunday mass and to watch the traditional "Dagit," my eldest granddaughter who is studying in a Catholic school, approached me, saying: Lolo, they say Jesus was resurrected after three days. Di ba, second day lang ngayon after He died on the cross last Good Friday? Rather than respond to her directly, I said: Recite the Creed, iha, and she did. Soon after, I told her, Di ba, it says, 'on the third day he arose from dead...' at di naman 'after three days?' But saying that, I knew she had a point, and I must admire her remarkable common sense.
Indeed, most members of the flock believe that it was after three days that Jesus rose from the dead, even as Luke, Matthew, Mark and John were unanimous in their respective narratives about the Resurrection. They all wrote: "... early at dawn, on the day after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, along with Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, with spices, perfumes and ointments, went to Jesus' grave to anoint His body, but found the tomb empty..... " Certainly, we need not make a big deal out of this little confusion. Well, except that when we really reflect on it more deeply, we are likely to ask ourselves: Which really is the true Sabbath Day, Saturday or Sunday? As we all know, this is one of the many sources of disagreement among members of several religious sects.
At any rate, I just happen to mention this in passing. Personally, I don't give it too much concern. For me, whether or not we treat Saturday or Sunday as our Sabbath Day does not really matter. What matters more to me personally -- hopefully to every one else -- is that we fulfill our holiday obligation on whichever.
Having said the above, and since today all roads lead to churches, let me post and share hereunder a sonnet I wrote when I was younger -- Ah, let me venture to say., if only to cap our Lenten woes with a relatively amusing note.
PICNIC
One Easter Sunday morn, as was their weekend plan,
A couple, with young Anne, packed up their tinted van
With food and drinks galore and lots of picnic ware,
Then beach-ward drove in haste to beat the summer air. . .
The car had passed the church when suddenly the lass,
On seeing worshipers march off the morning mass,
Remarked with focused glance at people on the way:
Mom, aren't we and Dad going to church today?
Trading embarrassed eyes, the couple felt aback
For, lo, in quick response their lips did truly lack;
The mother fumbled long to satisfy Anne's plea:
Dear, we can also pray and worship by the sea.
To which, as only from a four-year old may come:
But we won't Mom" said Anne, "will we? Oh, come on, Mom!
Happy Easter to one and all!
Indeed, most members of the flock believe that it was after three days that Jesus rose from the dead, even as Luke, Matthew, Mark and John were unanimous in their respective narratives about the Resurrection. They all wrote: "... early at dawn, on the day after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, along with Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, with spices, perfumes and ointments, went to Jesus' grave to anoint His body, but found the tomb empty..... " Certainly, we need not make a big deal out of this little confusion. Well, except that when we really reflect on it more deeply, we are likely to ask ourselves: Which really is the true Sabbath Day, Saturday or Sunday? As we all know, this is one of the many sources of disagreement among members of several religious sects.
At any rate, I just happen to mention this in passing. Personally, I don't give it too much concern. For me, whether or not we treat Saturday or Sunday as our Sabbath Day does not really matter. What matters more to me personally -- hopefully to every one else -- is that we fulfill our holiday obligation on whichever.
Having said the above, and since today all roads lead to churches, let me post and share hereunder a sonnet I wrote when I was younger -- Ah, let me venture to say., if only to cap our Lenten woes with a relatively amusing note.
PICNIC
One Easter Sunday morn, as was their weekend plan,
A couple, with young Anne, packed up their tinted van
With food and drinks galore and lots of picnic ware,
Then beach-ward drove in haste to beat the summer air. . .
The car had passed the church when suddenly the lass,
On seeing worshipers march off the morning mass,
Remarked with focused glance at people on the way:
Mom, aren't we and Dad going to church today?
Trading embarrassed eyes, the couple felt aback
For, lo, in quick response their lips did truly lack;
The mother fumbled long to satisfy Anne's plea:
Dear, we can also pray and worship by the sea.
To which, as only from a four-year old may come:
But we won't Mom" said Anne, "will we? Oh, come on, Mom!
Happy Easter to one and all!
Biyernes, Abril 6, 2012
OF HEROES AND VILLAINS
On this day, Good Friday, the whole of Christendom wallows in a mixture of conflicting emotions: - love of, and mourning for, Jesus and his suffering and death, and extreme hatred of Judas Iscariot, the traitor.
Since time immemorial, scholars, philosophers and theologians have endlessly debated on whether Judas should indeed be condemned for what he did. There is at least one Gospel truth that one may never assail. I mean, Jesus knew from the very beginning that Judas would betray him. Matthew 26:20 and John 6:64 had amply wrote about this. "When it was evening, while sat eating at a table with the Twelve, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, one of you will betray me!" And, "I chose you, the Twelve, didn't I? Yet one of you is a devil. Then he spoke of Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, as the one."
That said, and before anybody gets me wrong, I am not defending the treachery of Judas; merely positing that Judas' role as a villain had been clearly providential and that, not himself realizing it, Judas just didn't have the free will to go against.it. And so, let there be enough reason for us to ask ourselves on this day of of the world's extreme sadness for Jesus equally providential passing: "Had not Judas performed his luckless role, could there have been the Resurrection of Jesus and the Joyfulness of Easter, which we will in very due course commemorate?"
Incidentally -- pressed forward to our own times -- who could have ever imagined that former President Fidel Ramos and now Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile would turn villains to then President Marcos and end up as two of the principal heroes of Edsa 1? I ask this without malice towards any one.
Since time immemorial, scholars, philosophers and theologians have endlessly debated on whether Judas should indeed be condemned for what he did. There is at least one Gospel truth that one may never assail. I mean, Jesus knew from the very beginning that Judas would betray him. Matthew 26:20 and John 6:64 had amply wrote about this. "When it was evening, while sat eating at a table with the Twelve, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, one of you will betray me!" And, "I chose you, the Twelve, didn't I? Yet one of you is a devil. Then he spoke of Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, as the one."
That said, and before anybody gets me wrong, I am not defending the treachery of Judas; merely positing that Judas' role as a villain had been clearly providential and that, not himself realizing it, Judas just didn't have the free will to go against.it. And so, let there be enough reason for us to ask ourselves on this day of of the world's extreme sadness for Jesus equally providential passing: "Had not Judas performed his luckless role, could there have been the Resurrection of Jesus and the Joyfulness of Easter, which we will in very due course commemorate?"
Incidentally -- pressed forward to our own times -- who could have ever imagined that former President Fidel Ramos and now Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile would turn villains to then President Marcos and end up as two of the principal heroes of Edsa 1? I ask this without malice towards any one.
Huwebes, Abril 5, 2012
DISHONEST GAS STATIONS
It is needless to say that buyers of any commodity in the market place should be concerned not only with the price they pay but equally with the quantity they get in return. It is a bit strange, however, that this does not exactly hold true in the case of petroleum products.
I mean, even as some housewives are known to complain every now and then that they are not getting the right quantity of the LPG they buy in cylinders, we have yet to hear, generally speaking, of motorists, much less the noisy jeep drivers in our midst and times, ever suspecting that they are being short-changed in the volume of the fuels they buy from gas stations. But alas, there is reason to believe not all gas stations are honest in this regard.
I discovered this very coincidentally, anyway. Sometime last month, I decided to burn the fallen leaves and twigs in my backyard. (I know there is what I think to be a stupid law or local ordinance prohibiting the burning of garbage, but that is an entirely different matter I may probably dwell on later.) Realizing that the trash I just swept into a mound was still moist from a previous rain, I took an empty, 4-liter plastic container (the one used by bottlers of purified water) and walked to a nearby gas station to buy kerosine. I read from the station's pump that a liter of kerosine then cost 47 pesos, so I reckoned that if I bought two hundred pesos worth of it, the container would just be full to the brim. To my surprise, it was just slightly half full. But I just kept silent, knowing there's no use arguing with the gas tender. Even as I did not wish to store too much kerosine at home, I went through the same process with two other gas stations the next couple of days thereafter. The respective volumes of the kerosine I got in each of the succeeding experiments were just about the same I got from the first gas station: roughly 60% of the container's 4-liter tare capacity.
I know that the Department of Energy requires regular calibration of the meters of all gas stations. As a matter of fact, the oil companies, particularly the Big Three, do maintain so-called Sales Reps, whose primary function is to ensure the accuracy of their respective gas stations' pumps and meters. But then we are not born yesterday not to know that which apparently happens just after those calibration schedules.
Notwithstanding this unfortunate finding, I dare not reveal the identity of the suspicious gas stations. Suffice it for me to know that I know at least three gas stations who can't be relied upon, and for me to warn my own children and a few close friends who have vehicles never again to patronize these stations. I now leave it to the readers to try my very simple experiment and to be guided accordingly.. .
I mean, even as some housewives are known to complain every now and then that they are not getting the right quantity of the LPG they buy in cylinders, we have yet to hear, generally speaking, of motorists, much less the noisy jeep drivers in our midst and times, ever suspecting that they are being short-changed in the volume of the fuels they buy from gas stations. But alas, there is reason to believe not all gas stations are honest in this regard.
I discovered this very coincidentally, anyway. Sometime last month, I decided to burn the fallen leaves and twigs in my backyard. (I know there is what I think to be a stupid law or local ordinance prohibiting the burning of garbage, but that is an entirely different matter I may probably dwell on later.) Realizing that the trash I just swept into a mound was still moist from a previous rain, I took an empty, 4-liter plastic container (the one used by bottlers of purified water) and walked to a nearby gas station to buy kerosine. I read from the station's pump that a liter of kerosine then cost 47 pesos, so I reckoned that if I bought two hundred pesos worth of it, the container would just be full to the brim. To my surprise, it was just slightly half full. But I just kept silent, knowing there's no use arguing with the gas tender. Even as I did not wish to store too much kerosine at home, I went through the same process with two other gas stations the next couple of days thereafter. The respective volumes of the kerosine I got in each of the succeeding experiments were just about the same I got from the first gas station: roughly 60% of the container's 4-liter tare capacity.
I know that the Department of Energy requires regular calibration of the meters of all gas stations. As a matter of fact, the oil companies, particularly the Big Three, do maintain so-called Sales Reps, whose primary function is to ensure the accuracy of their respective gas stations' pumps and meters. But then we are not born yesterday not to know that which apparently happens just after those calibration schedules.
Notwithstanding this unfortunate finding, I dare not reveal the identity of the suspicious gas stations. Suffice it for me to know that I know at least three gas stations who can't be relied upon, and for me to warn my own children and a few close friends who have vehicles never again to patronize these stations. I now leave it to the readers to try my very simple experiment and to be guided accordingly.. .
Martes, Abril 3, 2012
GO FARTHER AND FARE WORSE
The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has certainly no valid reason to be irked by the allegedly strict safety rules and regulations imposed by the Philippine Department of Agriculture on meat and meat products imported from the United States -- as reported in a broadsheet this morning. That is even as, truth to tell, we are still to hear of people's health and safety unduly endangered by meats we import from the US, as much as they are from those coming from China, for example.
The only little irony here is that government doesn't seem to be equally alarmed by the "bothca" or double-dead meat that we have to contend with very frequently in our midst and times. That reminds me of the saying, "kita ang butas ng karayom, hindi ang butas ng palakol." The "pilosopos" amongst us will certainly retort: "But of course, because the axe's hole is concealed by its handle!" Fine. Allow me, then, to quote another adage: "Go farther and fare worse!"
The only little irony here is that government doesn't seem to be equally alarmed by the "bothca" or double-dead meat that we have to contend with very frequently in our midst and times. That reminds me of the saying, "kita ang butas ng karayom, hindi ang butas ng palakol." The "pilosopos" amongst us will certainly retort: "But of course, because the axe's hole is concealed by its handle!" Fine. Allow me, then, to quote another adage: "Go farther and fare worse!"
Lunes, Abril 2, 2012
'MON TULFO'S "BUKO" THINKING
In his Inquirer column today, Ramon Tulfo is so extremely bullish in highlighting the apparent great demand for "buko" juice in the US, Europe and China, he says the Philippines, being supposedly the world's number one coconut grower, should already forget copra. Tulfo's optimism is of course not entirely new.. One recalls that sometime in September last year, it was President Aquino who first broached that idea locally upon returning from one of his trips to the US, even as no one has since heard about it from the President. Maybe -- just maybe -- the President had eventually realized, or was reminded that coconut was, and is, no longer our principal crop and that, in fact, we can barely meet the likewise fast-increasing demand for buko juice and young coconuts in the local market.
That Tulfo suddenly suggests we avail of the opportunity to cash in on the current demand for buko juice worldwide and, at the same time, for other coconut products like virgin coconut oil, "tuba" and "lambanog," as well as coconut husks and shells for making upholstery and charcoal -- though he rightly says we may forget copra -- amuses me endlessly, indeed. Doesn't Tulfo realize that the production of buko juice and of all the other coconut products he mentioned is a contradiction of sorts? It's a matter of plain common sense that buko juice comes from young coconuts while those "other" products are produced only from fully matured ones. I didn't know, alas, that such rather "buko" thinking could emanate from an otherwise very coherent journalist, whose ideas, excepting this one, I highly respect. Excuse be for bluntly saying so; it's just that I always tend to react to statements that defy plain common sense.
That Tulfo suddenly suggests we avail of the opportunity to cash in on the current demand for buko juice worldwide and, at the same time, for other coconut products like virgin coconut oil, "tuba" and "lambanog," as well as coconut husks and shells for making upholstery and charcoal -- though he rightly says we may forget copra -- amuses me endlessly, indeed. Doesn't Tulfo realize that the production of buko juice and of all the other coconut products he mentioned is a contradiction of sorts? It's a matter of plain common sense that buko juice comes from young coconuts while those "other" products are produced only from fully matured ones. I didn't know, alas, that such rather "buko" thinking could emanate from an otherwise very coherent journalist, whose ideas, excepting this one, I highly respect. Excuse be for bluntly saying so; it's just that I always tend to react to statements that defy plain common sense.
Linggo, Abril 1, 2012
CHICKEN-AND-EGG SITUATION
My rather long respite from watching daily the televised impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona has afforded me ample opportunity to digress from merely digesting the proceedings per se into thinking of matters I barely considered before. To be more specific, I now tend to ask myself: Granting that Corona is convicted and removed -- or opts to resign albeit found innocent (having thereby duly vindicated himself) -- may President Aquino smoothly proceed to appoint a new Chief Justice? I strongly doubt so.
It should be worthwhile revisiting the related provisions of the Constitution at this juncture. Sections 8 and 9 of Article VIII provide, among others, that: "(a) A Judicial Bar and Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. (b) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. (c) The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy."
That is fine and well said! But then, a big question curiously emerges. I mean, without Corona, may the JBC -- ergo, sans a Chairman! -- still continue to exist constitutionally, so as to convene itself for the purpose of preparing the required official list of three nominees from which, in turn, Aquino may choose Corona's successor?
I have spent quite sometime scanning the charter, yet I failed to find a clue pointing to another government official -- for example, the most senior among the Justices -- who may at least briefly and temporarily sit in an acting capacity as Chief Justice. Looking back, methinks the contentious situation in May 2010, where former President Arroyo forthwith appointed Corona after former Chief Justice Reynato Puno had retired, was even slightly better or relatively more manageable than that which awaits the present administration if Corona were suddenly removed or voluntarily stepped down. At the very least, assuming Arroyo had then allowed Aquino to appoint Puno's replacement, the mandatory list of nominees from which Aquino might have named his choice -- although also still controversially -- had all along been readily available when Puno stepped down. As things now are, vis-a-vis the constitutional requirement that there be a separate list for every vacancy, there will definitely be no such thing for Aquino to consider in selecting Corona's replacement, if necessary.
In a nutshell, the Constitution is in effect practically saying -- subject, of course, to the dissenting views of some -- that without a Chief Justice to chair and convene it, no Judicial and Bar Council can legally function as such, and without a JBC to prepare the mandatory list of nominees, there can never be a new Chief Justice. A virtual chicken-and-egg situation, isn't it?
It should be worthwhile revisiting the related provisions of the Constitution at this juncture. Sections 8 and 9 of Article VIII provide, among others, that: "(a) A Judicial Bar and Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. (b) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. (c) The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy."
That is fine and well said! But then, a big question curiously emerges. I mean, without Corona, may the JBC -- ergo, sans a Chairman! -- still continue to exist constitutionally, so as to convene itself for the purpose of preparing the required official list of three nominees from which, in turn, Aquino may choose Corona's successor?
I have spent quite sometime scanning the charter, yet I failed to find a clue pointing to another government official -- for example, the most senior among the Justices -- who may at least briefly and temporarily sit in an acting capacity as Chief Justice. Looking back, methinks the contentious situation in May 2010, where former President Arroyo forthwith appointed Corona after former Chief Justice Reynato Puno had retired, was even slightly better or relatively more manageable than that which awaits the present administration if Corona were suddenly removed or voluntarily stepped down. At the very least, assuming Arroyo had then allowed Aquino to appoint Puno's replacement, the mandatory list of nominees from which Aquino might have named his choice -- although also still controversially -- had all along been readily available when Puno stepped down. As things now are, vis-a-vis the constitutional requirement that there be a separate list for every vacancy, there will definitely be no such thing for Aquino to consider in selecting Corona's replacement, if necessary.
In a nutshell, the Constitution is in effect practically saying -- subject, of course, to the dissenting views of some -- that without a Chief Justice to chair and convene it, no Judicial and Bar Council can legally function as such, and without a JBC to prepare the mandatory list of nominees, there can never be a new Chief Justice. A virtual chicken-and-egg situation, isn't it?
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)