The escalating wod war between Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Antonio Trillanes is truly unfortunate. Mukhang nagkamali si Trillanes ng binangga.
To some extent, one may not totally blame Trillanes for his recent behavior. Recently, as names interested to run for the Senate in next year's mid-term elections germinate like mushrooms in the daily news, most of whom aspiring to be part of either the UNA or the LP, si Trillanes, who won as an independent candidate in 2007, ay kapuna-punang tila yata hindi interesadong "ampunin" ng either kampo ni PNoy or kampo nin Binay-Erap.
It will be recalled that when Trillanes ran and won in 2007, it was very largely because in the eyes of the people he became kind of a martyr or "kawawang underdog." Towards 2007, especially given the ore or less general perception that GMA cheated FPJ -- although, wait a minute, that is still unproven until now -- the "hate-Gloria campaign" had been at its height. It was then that Trillanes suddenly came into the limelight with his much-ballyhooed coups against the government, and for which GMA put hm behnd bars. Alam naman nating lahat, in this country, the underdog, or who seems to be a martyr, the people generally supports. And that was how Trillanes, campaigning behind bars, won in the 2007 elections.
Ngayon, dahil tila nga wala yatang partidong gustong umampon kay Trillanes in next year's poll, kailangang medyo lumutang ang pangalan niya ngayon pa lang. And so, he must indeed either offered himself, or accepted PNoy's or the China's offier, whichever was true, to become a back-channel negotiator in the worsening Phil-China standoff on the Scarborough Shoal.
As of now, no one may yet know if the word war between Enrile and Trillanes will help or kill Trillanes' bid for re-election next year. In my view, medyo parehong may mali yata sa naging recent behavior nila sa Senado. Ang problema lang, ang sinagupa ni Trillanes ay ang pinaka-gurang nang kingpin in Philippine politics. On top of that, Enrile is not seeking re-election like Trillanes. Bukod d'yan, I doubt very much if the Palance will remain to be in Trillanes' side in the event that the worse should come to worst. So, as I always say at the end of my blog, ABANGAN!
Huwebes, Setyembre 20, 2012
Lunes, Setyembre 17, 2012
THE GARGANTUAN CHALLENGE ON SERENO'S SHOULDERS
So, the Justices skip flag ceremony with Sereno for the third time (Inquirer, 09/17/2012).
In my view, CJ Sereno need not worry too much about that. I am sure the Justices -- at best only the senior amongst them whom PNoy bypassed in favor of their youngest peer, Sereno -- will sooner or later come to their senses and stop boycotting the flag ceremonies. Of course, they cannot afford to do that permanently. As so-called Honorable Justices, they themselves fully know they have been unduly snubbing an otherwise nationalistic tradition and so doing they are leaving a bad taste in the people's mouth.
If I may use some metaphors, that which these Senior Justices are doing is a whip to the cow that is intended for the horse, the cow and the horse being CJ Sereno and President Aquino, respectively. Their axe to grind is, truth to tell, against PNoy's many unprecedented firsts in this country's political history, such as swearing not before the Chief Justice on his inauguration, impeaching a sitting CJ, breaking the time-honored tradition of selecting a new CJ only from among the Senior Justices. The last one is definitely what the Justices cannot let pass unnoticed: imagine that not one of them will no longer be able to realize most lawyer's ultimate dream to be Chief Justice in his lifetime. Whether we like it or not, Sereno's appointment has also obliterated the chances of the next three presidents after Pnoy to name the Chief Justice of his choice. The latter is of course entirely irrelevant and moot if Sereno would end up to the most desirable Chief Justice that the whole nation really wants until she retires in 2030. In these fast-changing times, this is probably the biggest challenge that any Chief Justice, not only in these parts but elsewhere in the world, has faced, and will ever face, in his career. In addition to her qualifications, as PNoy saw them but many others belittle, suffice it is for me to wish CJ Sereno all the luck there is in Planet Earth in proving her worth.
Having said the above, methinks the much ballyhooed equilateral triangle of power and of checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of this government is more of myth than fact, at least in one seemingly unnoticed consideration. I mean, the President is elected by the people and appoints the Justices; our lawmakers, also elected by the people, in turn elect their respective heads: the Senate President and the House Speaker; and yet it is still President that appoints the Chief Justice from among the Justices he has also appointed. Doesn't it more logically follow that the Justices should also vote among themselves and also elect their Chief? With with that put in place -- of course only by constitutional amendment -- the problem, if indeed a true problem it is, related to CJ Sereno, will no longer recur.
In my view, CJ Sereno need not worry too much about that. I am sure the Justices -- at best only the senior amongst them whom PNoy bypassed in favor of their youngest peer, Sereno -- will sooner or later come to their senses and stop boycotting the flag ceremonies. Of course, they cannot afford to do that permanently. As so-called Honorable Justices, they themselves fully know they have been unduly snubbing an otherwise nationalistic tradition and so doing they are leaving a bad taste in the people's mouth.
If I may use some metaphors, that which these Senior Justices are doing is a whip to the cow that is intended for the horse, the cow and the horse being CJ Sereno and President Aquino, respectively. Their axe to grind is, truth to tell, against PNoy's many unprecedented firsts in this country's political history, such as swearing not before the Chief Justice on his inauguration, impeaching a sitting CJ, breaking the time-honored tradition of selecting a new CJ only from among the Senior Justices. The last one is definitely what the Justices cannot let pass unnoticed: imagine that not one of them will no longer be able to realize most lawyer's ultimate dream to be Chief Justice in his lifetime. Whether we like it or not, Sereno's appointment has also obliterated the chances of the next three presidents after Pnoy to name the Chief Justice of his choice. The latter is of course entirely irrelevant and moot if Sereno would end up to the most desirable Chief Justice that the whole nation really wants until she retires in 2030. In these fast-changing times, this is probably the biggest challenge that any Chief Justice, not only in these parts but elsewhere in the world, has faced, and will ever face, in his career. In addition to her qualifications, as PNoy saw them but many others belittle, suffice it is for me to wish CJ Sereno all the luck there is in Planet Earth in proving her worth.
Having said the above, methinks the much ballyhooed equilateral triangle of power and of checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of this government is more of myth than fact, at least in one seemingly unnoticed consideration. I mean, the President is elected by the people and appoints the Justices; our lawmakers, also elected by the people, in turn elect their respective heads: the Senate President and the House Speaker; and yet it is still President that appoints the Chief Justice from among the Justices he has also appointed. Doesn't it more logically follow that the Justices should also vote among themselves and also elect their Chief? With with that put in place -- of course only by constitutional amendment -- the problem, if indeed a true problem it is, related to CJ Sereno, will no longer recur.
Miyerkules, Setyembre 12, 2012
PNOY AND PUNO
Talaga nga palang anong lakas ni Puno kay PNoy.
Alack, since when has there been nothing wrong with the act of entering into someone's private dwelling without the owner's permission? More bluntly put, since when has the President of the Philippines acquired the prerogative and full discretion to consider as "just OK" an undersecretary's entry into the condo of his boss, then missing in an accident, without permission from the condo owner's family? Of course, I am referring to Usec Rico E Puno, or his representative, securing Robredo's private residence, in an attempt to secure certain confidential documents.
Saying he authorized Puno to secure Robredo's offices, Pres. Aquino denied having asked Puno to also secure the DILG Secretary's condo. But when pressed to elaborate, PNoy said he saw nothing wrong with Puno also going into Robredo's condo. In my humble view, ano pa mang highly confidential documents, or even a ticking bomb, na nasa loob ng condo ng mga Robledo, walang karapatan ang sinuman, even if he is the President of the Philippines, to seek entry into the condo. without the permission of Robredo's wife. That is clearly a violation of one's constitutional right against unwarranted seizures. That Mrs. Leni Robredo called from Naga City DOJ Sec. Leila de Lima asking the latter to look into the matter after their maid or caretaker the condo phoned her about it clearly showed she was not happy about it. Of course, Mrs. Robredo had been ethical enough not to directly complain ti the President. But that need not give the President any inkling whatsoever that there was nothing wrong about it. Saan man silipin, maling-mali ang thinking ng Presidente about it. At the very, very least, PNoy should have called Mrs.Robredo on the matter, but he did not. He just keeps on defending Puno, apparently at all costs. It is just too unfortunate PNoy has lost all sense of values to defend his buddy. Well, chances are sasabihin rin ni PNoy, gaya ni Erap in similar occasion: "Mag-presidente muna kayo!" Let's see how Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago will react to this on Friday, when the Senate inquiry on Puno begins.
Alack, since when has there been nothing wrong with the act of entering into someone's private dwelling without the owner's permission? More bluntly put, since when has the President of the Philippines acquired the prerogative and full discretion to consider as "just OK" an undersecretary's entry into the condo of his boss, then missing in an accident, without permission from the condo owner's family? Of course, I am referring to Usec Rico E Puno, or his representative, securing Robredo's private residence, in an attempt to secure certain confidential documents.
Saying he authorized Puno to secure Robredo's offices, Pres. Aquino denied having asked Puno to also secure the DILG Secretary's condo. But when pressed to elaborate, PNoy said he saw nothing wrong with Puno also going into Robredo's condo. In my humble view, ano pa mang highly confidential documents, or even a ticking bomb, na nasa loob ng condo ng mga Robledo, walang karapatan ang sinuman, even if he is the President of the Philippines, to seek entry into the condo. without the permission of Robredo's wife. That is clearly a violation of one's constitutional right against unwarranted seizures. That Mrs. Leni Robredo called from Naga City DOJ Sec. Leila de Lima asking the latter to look into the matter after their maid or caretaker the condo phoned her about it clearly showed she was not happy about it. Of course, Mrs. Robredo had been ethical enough not to directly complain ti the President. But that need not give the President any inkling whatsoever that there was nothing wrong about it. Saan man silipin, maling-mali ang thinking ng Presidente about it. At the very, very least, PNoy should have called Mrs.Robredo on the matter, but he did not. He just keeps on defending Puno, apparently at all costs. It is just too unfortunate PNoy has lost all sense of values to defend his buddy. Well, chances are sasabihin rin ni PNoy, gaya ni Erap in similar occasion: "Mag-presidente muna kayo!" Let's see how Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago will react to this on Friday, when the Senate inquiry on Puno begins.
Huwebes, Setyembre 6, 2012
OUR "KAWAWANG" JUDICIARY
In the so-called "balance of power" or principle of check and balance among the executive, legislative and judicial branch of our government, nakalulungkot isipin na dehadong dehado talaga ang Judicial Branch.
Una, di ba sa nakaraang impeachment trial ni former Chief Justice Renato Corona ay maliwanag na pinagtulungan at pinagkaisahan ng Executive at Legislative branches ang Judicial branch? Ikalwa, "the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the 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. Such appointments need no confirmation". (Sect 9, Article VIII of th Constitution.) Ikatlo, In the membership of the Judicial and Bar Council (Section 8, same article) while there appears (originally) to be equal participation among the ex-officio members (Chief Justice as Chairman), Secretary of Justice (representing the Executive and a representative of Congress (representing the Legislative), the four regular members are all appointees of the President na kanino pa nga ba magiging beholden kundi sa Executve So lumamang na naman dito ang Executive. I used the word "originally" above, because it is no longer the case. Kung sa bagay ay sa kawalan na rin ng sariling backbone ng Judiciary, the Supreme Court has recently allowed two (2) separate representatives from the Legislature: one from the Senate and another from the Hous,. di bale sana kung these two have one-half votes each, but they have one each.
Then finally, and certainly not any less lamentably, the Legislative Department can elect its own Chief or Head, with the Senators electing the Senate President and the Congressmen electing the House Speaker. That, compared with the Chief Justice appointed by the President, even as when the CJ is vacated, the Associate Justices may elect his temporary replacement in the person of an Acting CJ which by tradition, has always been the most senior amongst them. Buti naman at sa kabila ng one-consuming obsession of the President to control the Judiciary ay hindi siya nagrereklamo for the Justices to elect the temporary CJ!
Of course, all of the above "Kadehaduhan" ng Judiciary vis-a-vis the Executive and Legislative branches can be traceable to the present charter, and partly to unquestioned tradition. Over the years, we have seen several virtual shortcomings of the 1987 Constitution which have in turn caused a lot of divisiveness among our people and prevented an otherwise smooth flow of governance in these parts -- divisiveness and governmental problems that, relatively, have never been brought to us by the erstwhile 1935 Constitution, even if that was in fact written way back before we finally became a truly independent republic. Indeed, that said, it's high time our 1987 charter is amended.
Una, di ba sa nakaraang impeachment trial ni former Chief Justice Renato Corona ay maliwanag na pinagtulungan at pinagkaisahan ng Executive at Legislative branches ang Judicial branch? Ikalwa, "the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the 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. Such appointments need no confirmation". (Sect 9, Article VIII of th Constitution.) Ikatlo, In the membership of the Judicial and Bar Council (Section 8, same article) while there appears (originally) to be equal participation among the ex-officio members (Chief Justice as Chairman), Secretary of Justice (representing the Executive and a representative of Congress (representing the Legislative), the four regular members are all appointees of the President na kanino pa nga ba magiging beholden kundi sa Executve So lumamang na naman dito ang Executive. I used the word "originally" above, because it is no longer the case. Kung sa bagay ay sa kawalan na rin ng sariling backbone ng Judiciary, the Supreme Court has recently allowed two (2) separate representatives from the Legislature: one from the Senate and another from the Hous,. di bale sana kung these two have one-half votes each, but they have one each.
Then finally, and certainly not any less lamentably, the Legislative Department can elect its own Chief or Head, with the Senators electing the Senate President and the Congressmen electing the House Speaker. That, compared with the Chief Justice appointed by the President, even as when the CJ is vacated, the Associate Justices may elect his temporary replacement in the person of an Acting CJ which by tradition, has always been the most senior amongst them. Buti naman at sa kabila ng one-consuming obsession of the President to control the Judiciary ay hindi siya nagrereklamo for the Justices to elect the temporary CJ!
Of course, all of the above "Kadehaduhan" ng Judiciary vis-a-vis the Executive and Legislative branches can be traceable to the present charter, and partly to unquestioned tradition. Over the years, we have seen several virtual shortcomings of the 1987 Constitution which have in turn caused a lot of divisiveness among our people and prevented an otherwise smooth flow of governance in these parts -- divisiveness and governmental problems that, relatively, have never been brought to us by the erstwhile 1935 Constitution, even if that was in fact written way back before we finally became a truly independent republic. Indeed, that said, it's high time our 1987 charter is amended.
Miyerkules, Setyembre 5, 2012
THE TAX EVASION CASE VS. CORONA
So, BIR Commissioner Kim Henares has filed a tax evasion case against impeached former CJ Corona. Fine! That's the government's and the BIR's right and prerogative. On the other hand, methinks Corona has not been Chief Justice not to know where he stands as far as taxation is concerned when he chose to reveal his dollar and peso bank accounts, which he did not include in his SALN. Likewise, I am sure his lawyers know how to defend him.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't intend to pretend so, or to know more than lawyers, in writing this article. It's just that my plain common sense cannot seem to reconcile how Corona has evaded paying taxes based on circumstances unearthed during his impeachment trial. Consider this:
Corona was found guilty of just one thing: his failure to include his peso and bank deposits in his SALN, period., which the Senators have in turn considered as a culpable violation of the Constitution. It was not proven that those bank deposits were ill-gotten. According to Corona, ang mga perang iyon ay sinimulan niyang ipunin sa bank since several years ago, hanggang sa dumami nang dumami. That statement by Corona was never contested by the prosecutors, so the prosecutors are estopped from contesting that -- well, unless they are able to produce evidence that Corona took those moneys from somewhere else.
Repeat, those moneys had been and continued growing in the banks for several years. Now, under existing laws -- I think everyone of us who has experienced to put some money in the bank fully knows this fact -- all money deposits in the bank are subject to a final income tax of 20% which is in turn debited or deducted from our deposits and appear as such at the end of our monthly bank statements? That deduction, or withholding tax, is in turn duly remitted by the bank and represent the income tax we have been paying on our bank deposit. Aba, eh, if the income that Henares had in mind for which Corona allegedly evaded or failed to pay tax indeed refers to the peso and dollar deposit that Corona has accumulated over the years, then isn't that very clearly DOUBLE TAXATION? Well, I gladly rest my case if Henares has in mind incomes other than that.
Meanwhile, the Ombudsman has been recently quoted as saying she will support charges of forfeiture of Corona's assets arising from this case. Again, I repeat, I am not a lawyer, but as I recall from my humble Accountancy practice before I retired, once assets may only be forfeited in favor of the government if those assets were proven to be ill-gotten. Ang PCGG nga, up to now that it is about to bow out, has failed so many times to forfeit Marcos' assets, di ba?
As things are, I am sure Henares, the Ombudsman and PNoy's lawyers -- as well surely as Corona's lawyers -- fully realize that the behavior of PNoy's government in this record are intended "for the public eyes only' as an instrument of persecution, rather than to satisfy the ultimate objectives of true justice.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't intend to pretend so, or to know more than lawyers, in writing this article. It's just that my plain common sense cannot seem to reconcile how Corona has evaded paying taxes based on circumstances unearthed during his impeachment trial. Consider this:
Corona was found guilty of just one thing: his failure to include his peso and bank deposits in his SALN, period., which the Senators have in turn considered as a culpable violation of the Constitution. It was not proven that those bank deposits were ill-gotten. According to Corona, ang mga perang iyon ay sinimulan niyang ipunin sa bank since several years ago, hanggang sa dumami nang dumami. That statement by Corona was never contested by the prosecutors, so the prosecutors are estopped from contesting that -- well, unless they are able to produce evidence that Corona took those moneys from somewhere else.
Repeat, those moneys had been and continued growing in the banks for several years. Now, under existing laws -- I think everyone of us who has experienced to put some money in the bank fully knows this fact -- all money deposits in the bank are subject to a final income tax of 20% which is in turn debited or deducted from our deposits and appear as such at the end of our monthly bank statements? That deduction, or withholding tax, is in turn duly remitted by the bank and represent the income tax we have been paying on our bank deposit. Aba, eh, if the income that Henares had in mind for which Corona allegedly evaded or failed to pay tax indeed refers to the peso and dollar deposit that Corona has accumulated over the years, then isn't that very clearly DOUBLE TAXATION? Well, I gladly rest my case if Henares has in mind incomes other than that.
Meanwhile, the Ombudsman has been recently quoted as saying she will support charges of forfeiture of Corona's assets arising from this case. Again, I repeat, I am not a lawyer, but as I recall from my humble Accountancy practice before I retired, once assets may only be forfeited in favor of the government if those assets were proven to be ill-gotten. Ang PCGG nga, up to now that it is about to bow out, has failed so many times to forfeit Marcos' assets, di ba?
As things are, I am sure Henares, the Ombudsman and PNoy's lawyers -- as well surely as Corona's lawyers -- fully realize that the behavior of PNoy's government in this record are intended "for the public eyes only' as an instrument of persecution, rather than to satisfy the ultimate objectives of true justice.
Martes, Setyembre 4, 2012
"SERENO'S APPOINTMENT IS GOD'S WILL"
New Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno says her appointment is the will God. I agree! Except that the God she refers to is none other than President Aquino.
Let's get real! Kailan lang ba nag-umpisang magustuhan ni Pnoy si Sereno as future Chief Justice? Di ba noon lang namang mag-issue ng dissenting view si Sereno saying the Hacienda Luisita should be valued One Million Pesos per hectare, against the unanimous decision of the 14 other Justices saying the valuation should be P40,000 lang per hectare, which latter valuation was based on the amounted that had been quoted by the Hacienda's own lawyers and duly recorded in Supreme Court files? I can more or less remember --- check it from your own news files -- what Pnoy said then: "It's Sereno's mold I want for a CJ" or something to that effect.
Indeed, it may well be said that it was that dissenting view that elevated Sereno to Pnoy's choice. I am afraid, unless recalled, that dissenting view might also seal her Waterloo.
In her first public meeting with the Associate Justices, most of whom did not attend, and with the other employees of the Supreme Court, CJ Sereno was quoted in the news as saying: "I plead with you. I understand your grievances and I wish to find solution to your grievances." Indeed, she knows her subordinates' grievances, and she may even understand them. But to find a solution to such grievances is going to be a sheer exercise in futility.
Methinks the Associate Justices' essential grievance is the sudden loss of their chance to become Chief Justice up until after Sereno retires in 2030. That that loss has horrendously demoralized all of the other 14 Justices certainly goes without saying. And such demoralization is principally what Sereno must first erase in their collective minds as her starting point to lead the reforms Aquino wish her to do in the Judiciary. Let's be honest, at least to ourselves if we can't be to others: Can Sereno do that? Truth is, even Jesus Christ cannot. By the way, let me explain why I always quote Jesus in arguments like this. I really do not mean to blaspheme. It's just that Jesus is both God and Man -- Dios na totoo at Tao namang totoo. Therefore, as Man, He may not be totally immune from human frailties.
Before anybody gets me wrong, this is not a critique of Sereno. In fairness to her, I think she has at least the minimum qualifications to be a CJ. And, believe me, I have nothing against her, personal (I only know him by name), or otherwise. I am simply speaking from the standpoint of plain common sense. At any rate, I sincerely wish the Lady Chief Justice all the luck there is in Planet Earth.
Let's get real! Kailan lang ba nag-umpisang magustuhan ni Pnoy si Sereno as future Chief Justice? Di ba noon lang namang mag-issue ng dissenting view si Sereno saying the Hacienda Luisita should be valued One Million Pesos per hectare, against the unanimous decision of the 14 other Justices saying the valuation should be P40,000 lang per hectare, which latter valuation was based on the amounted that had been quoted by the Hacienda's own lawyers and duly recorded in Supreme Court files? I can more or less remember --- check it from your own news files -- what Pnoy said then: "It's Sereno's mold I want for a CJ" or something to that effect.
Indeed, it may well be said that it was that dissenting view that elevated Sereno to Pnoy's choice. I am afraid, unless recalled, that dissenting view might also seal her Waterloo.
In her first public meeting with the Associate Justices, most of whom did not attend, and with the other employees of the Supreme Court, CJ Sereno was quoted in the news as saying: "I plead with you. I understand your grievances and I wish to find solution to your grievances." Indeed, she knows her subordinates' grievances, and she may even understand them. But to find a solution to such grievances is going to be a sheer exercise in futility.
Methinks the Associate Justices' essential grievance is the sudden loss of their chance to become Chief Justice up until after Sereno retires in 2030. That that loss has horrendously demoralized all of the other 14 Justices certainly goes without saying. And such demoralization is principally what Sereno must first erase in their collective minds as her starting point to lead the reforms Aquino wish her to do in the Judiciary. Let's be honest, at least to ourselves if we can't be to others: Can Sereno do that? Truth is, even Jesus Christ cannot. By the way, let me explain why I always quote Jesus in arguments like this. I really do not mean to blaspheme. It's just that Jesus is both God and Man -- Dios na totoo at Tao namang totoo. Therefore, as Man, He may not be totally immune from human frailties.
Before anybody gets me wrong, this is not a critique of Sereno. In fairness to her, I think she has at least the minimum qualifications to be a CJ. And, believe me, I have nothing against her, personal (I only know him by name), or otherwise. I am simply speaking from the standpoint of plain common sense. At any rate, I sincerely wish the Lady Chief Justice all the luck there is in Planet Earth.
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)