This year's choice of the new Chief Justice will go down in this country's history as the most beset by hassles and apparent, though debatable, inconsistencies. Let me analyze the relevant situations one by one.
First off, the Constitution provides that three members of the of the Judicial and Bar Council must be ex-officio in their respective capacities, being members of the Judicial (the Chief Justice), Legislative (the representative of Congress) and Executive (the DOJ Secretary) branches of government. With former Chief Justice Corona out, it was but appropriate that the most senior member of the SC, Justice Antonio Carpio, must chair the JBC. But Carpio inhibited, being himself a nominee for CJ, so the next senior Justice after him temporarily assumes the post of JBC Chair. Then DOJ De Lima, another CJ nominee, also inhibited from membership in the JBC, and was replaced by Michael Musngi, a Palace undersecretary It is needless to say that the purpose behind the ex-officio membership in the JBC was to ensure an equal participation of the Judicial, the Legislative and the Executive branches of government. But then that equal participation was suddenly distorted when the Supreme Court allowed the simultaneous participation of Cong. Tupas, representing Congress, and Sen Chiz Escudero, representing the Senate -- in clear violation of the Constitutional provision for only one representative from the Legislature. That there are now two lawmakers in the JBC could not have been debatable had the Supreme Court provided that each of the two should only be entitled to one-half vote. And worse, even as the Supreme Court stood by its original position that there should indeed be only one representative from Congress, it said that allowing for two was only for this particular case, and that in the future only one representation from Congress will be allowed. What an unthinkable Solomonic decision!
De Lima's Dilemma. DOJ Sec. Leila de Lima may really have a valid axe to grind for having been, in her opinion, singled out in the JBC's CJ-nominee disqualification process. Truth is, it was not only De Lima who has a pending administrative case, there were three of them, one of whom being SolGen Jardeleza. I mean, those cases have not been filed with the JBC, but in other judicial bodies, i.e. the Supreme Court and the IBP. Therefore, it is only the SC and the IBP that has the sole discretion to evaluate or determine the merits of the cases against these three nominees, definitely not the JBC. In the interest of optimum fairness, then, methinks the JBC could have simply disqualified the three rather than, indeed, singling out De Lima. This is to me one other unthinkable Solomonic decision, this time by the JBC that is downright unnecessary.
As things are, De Lima says the JBC rules are favorable to insiders in the Judiciary, meaning Justices, and unfavorable to outsiders. Maybe right. But in my opinion, not only tradition but practical wisdom indeed dictates that the next Chief Justice must always come from among the incumbent Justices. There was only one occasion when that tradition was broken: when Cong. Jose Yulo became CJ, but that was an exceptionally different matter, being solely at the behest of the Japanese government in the Philippines then.. Methinks practical wisdom dictates that a Chief Justice must be a Justice first.
That said, there is reason to believe Pres. Aquino's final choice would be either Justice Carptio or Justice Serreno. Gor, practicality again suggests that the President choose a sitting Justice than an outsider. With that, he would also be be choosing a new Justice -- of course this time from the outside -- to replace either Serreno or Carpio and thus increase his nominees in the high court. Meanwhile, there is now an aching need to cure the highly demoralized other Justices following what happened to Corona. Between Serreno and Carpio, I think Carpio is in a better position to do that. As a matter of fact, that demoralization inside the Supreme Court will all the more worsen with Serreno, the least senior of the Justices, suddenly elevated to the highest tribunal's helm. For one thing, one of the incumbent Justices could then never expect to be CJ in his lifetime because at 52 Serreno will be be serving as CJ until 2030, when, alas, all the existing Justices have all either been dead or had retired. At any rate, everything of course depends upon the President's unquestionable prerogative in this regard. . And so, as I often say at the end of my blog, ABANGAN!
Miyerkules, Agosto 15, 2012
Huwebes, Agosto 9, 2012
NATURE'S VIRTUALLY SELECTIVE CURSE
It seems to me Mother Nature has been kind of selective in sending us its virtual curse..
During the last two weeks there was practically no letup in media reports about how Metro Manila and Luzon have been transformed by Gener's monsoon rains into something not unlike Kevin Costners "Water World." Heavy floods never before witnessed in these parts since Ondoy and Pedring are all over the place, especially in the metropolis. In particular, no one, indeed, cannot but lament, as shown on on-the-sport TV footage, how residents of every wee district of Medro Manila lose lives and properties to the floods.
But haven't you wondered that there appears to be one district to be so uniquely immune from the ravages of these enormous floods? The district of Tondo! I don't know if it has ever come to others' observation that never has Tondo been covered by recent media reports on floods. For me, there seems to be a mystery. For one thing, Tondo is comparatively as low a place and as near to the sea as Malabon and Navotas, where the least of rains tend to create floods. For another, if garbage-clogged esteros and sewers have always been the principal cause of flooding in the metropolis, can any other district match Tondo in that respect?
I have somehow shared this personal observation with some neighbors, some of whom saying that perhaps the media are afraid to visit Tondo, in turn tending to put it reatively on the sidelines. I don't think so. At any rate, maybe -- well, just maybe -- people from government should find sometime looking deeper into this apparent miracle. I mean, what is true in Tondo that is not true in any other district of Metro Manila. Sino'ng mag-aakala? Baka makapulot tayo ng kaunting aral sa mga taga Tondo na puwedeng gayahin ng iba pang distrito, towards more or less taming down the unfortunate aftermaths of future floods.
Havubg saud the above, and going into relatively broader perspective, there are two other places in this country that have not been as horrendously ravaged by Nature's wrath as most others have been. I am proud to say that one is my very own hometown, Batangas City. Sometime ago, I tried to count, but vainly, how many times Pagasa have included Batangas City in its typhoon signals -- practically the whole province, for that matter, although I am not quite privy with the storm implications suffered by other Batanguenos for me to also speak for them in this regard. The other place which methinks has been virtually exempt from Nature's might, as far as related news reports are concerned, is Cebu City. I think most others will agree with me in this observation.
Well, in the absence of any possible logical explanation behind this seemingly mysterious fact, I could only manage to ask myself: What is clearly in common among Tondo, Batangas City and Cebu City? My ready answer is: the patron saint of each one of them is the Sto. Nino, annually venerated in January.
I will certainly appreciate comments not only with respect to this particular blog, but to all others. My E-mail: rudycoronel2004@yahoo.com
During the last two weeks there was practically no letup in media reports about how Metro Manila and Luzon have been transformed by Gener's monsoon rains into something not unlike Kevin Costners "Water World." Heavy floods never before witnessed in these parts since Ondoy and Pedring are all over the place, especially in the metropolis. In particular, no one, indeed, cannot but lament, as shown on on-the-sport TV footage, how residents of every wee district of Medro Manila lose lives and properties to the floods.
But haven't you wondered that there appears to be one district to be so uniquely immune from the ravages of these enormous floods? The district of Tondo! I don't know if it has ever come to others' observation that never has Tondo been covered by recent media reports on floods. For me, there seems to be a mystery. For one thing, Tondo is comparatively as low a place and as near to the sea as Malabon and Navotas, where the least of rains tend to create floods. For another, if garbage-clogged esteros and sewers have always been the principal cause of flooding in the metropolis, can any other district match Tondo in that respect?
I have somehow shared this personal observation with some neighbors, some of whom saying that perhaps the media are afraid to visit Tondo, in turn tending to put it reatively on the sidelines. I don't think so. At any rate, maybe -- well, just maybe -- people from government should find sometime looking deeper into this apparent miracle. I mean, what is true in Tondo that is not true in any other district of Metro Manila. Sino'ng mag-aakala? Baka makapulot tayo ng kaunting aral sa mga taga Tondo na puwedeng gayahin ng iba pang distrito, towards more or less taming down the unfortunate aftermaths of future floods.
Havubg saud the above, and going into relatively broader perspective, there are two other places in this country that have not been as horrendously ravaged by Nature's wrath as most others have been. I am proud to say that one is my very own hometown, Batangas City. Sometime ago, I tried to count, but vainly, how many times Pagasa have included Batangas City in its typhoon signals -- practically the whole province, for that matter, although I am not quite privy with the storm implications suffered by other Batanguenos for me to also speak for them in this regard. The other place which methinks has been virtually exempt from Nature's might, as far as related news reports are concerned, is Cebu City. I think most others will agree with me in this observation.
Well, in the absence of any possible logical explanation behind this seemingly mysterious fact, I could only manage to ask myself: What is clearly in common among Tondo, Batangas City and Cebu City? My ready answer is: the patron saint of each one of them is the Sto. Nino, annually venerated in January.
I will certainly appreciate comments not only with respect to this particular blog, but to all others. My E-mail: rudycoronel2004@yahoo.com
Martes, Agosto 7, 2012
WHAT'S UNCLEAR ABOUT PAGASA'S ADVISORY?
President Aquino is recently reported in the news as wanting Pagasa to simplify their typhoon advisory to be more understandable to the public. Well, as far as I am concerned, except for some Pagasa weather forecasters once in a while saying something about rain gauge level -- which, indeed, not only the common tao but even the better educated sectors of society will ever understand -- ano pa ba ang gusto ni Pinoy na kasimplihan sa kasalukuyang sinasabi ng Pagasa? Hindi ba't kung medyo malabo ay isa-isa namang nililiwanag ng mga news caster sa bayan, both in Tagalog and English. For example, ITC or Intertropical Convergence ay maaari ngang medyo technical, pero over time natutuhan nang maintindihan ito ng bayan. Gagawin daw ito ngayong "wind convergence." Pero di ba kasing technical rin ito ng ITC. Baka naman ang gusto ng Presidente ay tagalugin o bisayain o ilokanuhin ang salitang English na ito -- ewan ko kung merong katumbas ito sa ating wika o ibang dialect na kagaya ng "salipawpaw" meaning airplane, at "salumpuwit" meaning chair. Aba'y baka lalo tayong hndi magkaintindihan?
O, baka naman this is just the President's discreet way of hiding or sidelining the failure of government to render timely assistance to the masses during typhoons -- sa totoo lang, di ba lagi silang nauunahan ng ABS-CBN at GMA-Channel 7 sa pagdadala ng relief goods sa mga sinalanta ng bagyo. Come to think of it, hindi pa it is a well known fact that after each typhoon disaster in these parts, financial aids from all parts of the world do cone? What happens to these millions of pesos from foreign aid. Well, it may be a little bit late for one disaster, of course, but what about to the next incoming ones, in a country like ours where once the rains start to fall, typhoons do weekly come? O kaya'y hindi kaya nagbibingihan lang ang gobyerno sa matagal nang panawagan ng Pagasa na dagdagan ng konti ang kanilang budget para makabili sila ng a little bit more modern and sophisticated equipment? I hate to say this, but I believe that for as long as Pagasa's facilities remain as backward as they are now, its
weather "forecasters" are indeed bound to remain "poorcasters.
Those of us who are old enough to remember know that in decades past super-typhoons as turbulent as we experience now had also visited us: remember Typhoon "Yoling" in the seventies. But floods then had not been as widely spread as they are now: --remember Ondoy, Pedring and this current one, Gener. True, the truly low-lying areas like Malabon and Navotas, being below sea level, had been flooded even for a small but continuous rain. But today, even the relatively much highly situated communities like Quezon City, Marikina or Pasig, are always flooded even after the less turbulent rains. Why? Environmentalist will hasten to say everything is due to "climate change." No, they are rather due to government failure in many counts: garbage disposal, subdivisions near lakes and rivers, inefficient spill ways for floods, the national government's habitual passing of responsibility from the national to local government, and many other reasons. In a recent TV interview, MMDA chief Atty Tolentino has mentioned that there are more than 500 manholes in the Metropolis. Let us just try to inspect those manholes, and surely all of them are clogged with garbage, even as some of which may have somehow escaped to Manila Bay at the height of Gener's might. Of course, the national government will always pass the responsibility for the clean of these clogged manholes and esteros to the mayors. Pero, ganyan nga ang laging nangyayari since time immemorial, di ba? Why can't the national government have some relatively more serious political will and whip these local officials into doing what they must. Tolentino was also thinking of garbage incineration to ease up our garbage problem. But then again our environmentalists kuno will surely object, citing "global warming" daw.
But why is incineration practiced in Japan, are the Japanese not also concerned about global warming?
Perhaps, these environmentalists should confer with NASA, and ask it if it is possible that our garbage could be sent upwards to outer space.
Having said the above, maybe climate change may really be the culprit, as in fact which when I was in the grade school was known to be lying below the typhoon is now being visited by typhoons. If that is so, our government should then also deserve to institute an attitudinal change. It is unfortunate that whether he likes it or not, si Pinoy ang tila pinag-abutan ng lahat ng problemang ito. .
O, baka naman this is just the President's discreet way of hiding or sidelining the failure of government to render timely assistance to the masses during typhoons -- sa totoo lang, di ba lagi silang nauunahan ng ABS-CBN at GMA-Channel 7 sa pagdadala ng relief goods sa mga sinalanta ng bagyo. Come to think of it, hindi pa it is a well known fact that after each typhoon disaster in these parts, financial aids from all parts of the world do cone? What happens to these millions of pesos from foreign aid. Well, it may be a little bit late for one disaster, of course, but what about to the next incoming ones, in a country like ours where once the rains start to fall, typhoons do weekly come? O kaya'y hindi kaya nagbibingihan lang ang gobyerno sa matagal nang panawagan ng Pagasa na dagdagan ng konti ang kanilang budget para makabili sila ng a little bit more modern and sophisticated equipment? I hate to say this, but I believe that for as long as Pagasa's facilities remain as backward as they are now, its
weather "forecasters" are indeed bound to remain "poorcasters.
Those of us who are old enough to remember know that in decades past super-typhoons as turbulent as we experience now had also visited us: remember Typhoon "Yoling" in the seventies. But floods then had not been as widely spread as they are now: --remember Ondoy, Pedring and this current one, Gener. True, the truly low-lying areas like Malabon and Navotas, being below sea level, had been flooded even for a small but continuous rain. But today, even the relatively much highly situated communities like Quezon City, Marikina or Pasig, are always flooded even after the less turbulent rains. Why? Environmentalist will hasten to say everything is due to "climate change." No, they are rather due to government failure in many counts: garbage disposal, subdivisions near lakes and rivers, inefficient spill ways for floods, the national government's habitual passing of responsibility from the national to local government, and many other reasons. In a recent TV interview, MMDA chief Atty Tolentino has mentioned that there are more than 500 manholes in the Metropolis. Let us just try to inspect those manholes, and surely all of them are clogged with garbage, even as some of which may have somehow escaped to Manila Bay at the height of Gener's might. Of course, the national government will always pass the responsibility for the clean of these clogged manholes and esteros to the mayors. Pero, ganyan nga ang laging nangyayari since time immemorial, di ba? Why can't the national government have some relatively more serious political will and whip these local officials into doing what they must. Tolentino was also thinking of garbage incineration to ease up our garbage problem. But then again our environmentalists kuno will surely object, citing "global warming" daw.
But why is incineration practiced in Japan, are the Japanese not also concerned about global warming?
Perhaps, these environmentalists should confer with NASA, and ask it if it is possible that our garbage could be sent upwards to outer space.
Having said the above, maybe climate change may really be the culprit, as in fact which when I was in the grade school was known to be lying below the typhoon is now being visited by typhoons. If that is so, our government should then also deserve to institute an attitudinal change. It is unfortunate that whether he likes it or not, si Pinoy ang tila pinag-abutan ng lahat ng problemang ito. .
Lunes, Agosto 6, 2012
MORAL LAWS VERSUS MORAL VALUES
The manifest confusion, the hems and haws, shown by NEDA Director Balisacan when recently grilled by Sen. President Juan Ponce Enrile (PDI) on the relevance of population and economy may indeed be typical of an economist, as head-scratching Sen Francis Drilon has observed.
But Balisacan's sudden turnaround, his change of position -- this time saying the country's rather high population growth really constrains its economic development -- during an ambush interview by reporters after Enrile left does not speak well of an economist who is a also Cabinet official. That is plain double talk, a rather desperate effort towards damage control, given that one of the bases of President Aquino's leaning towards the passage of RH Bill is population control.
Enrile is known to be against the RH Bill. His said grilling of Balisacan was thus a foretaste of what would happen in the Senate when Senators themselves eventually debate on this long-subsisting controversial legislation.
Even as in the House the administration congressmen may have succeeded towards ending the debates and proceeding with the bill amendments/correction stage, I still believe the bill will finally still end up kaput, if not in the House, surely in the Senate. It is unfortunate that this issue seems to be creating a religious war -- we all know the most vocal proponents of the RH Bill are not Roman Catholics. It is ironic that in this country, the most predominantly Catholic nation in the Far East, the State and the Church has been manifestly divided.
For me, the issue here is sheer moral "laws", not just moral "values". Morale laws are absolute and objective, such as "Thou shalt" and Thou shalt not." They are not relative and subjective, such that "your" moral values, "my" moral values and/or "society's" moral values may indeed differ, depending upon the prevailing situations or circumstances. I mean, contraception is definitely anti-life -- imagine
preventing the very seed of life from germinating -- and is therefore against moral law, which is obligatory, not optional. Suppose a teenage child has a boyfriend who dates her regularly without their parents' knowledge. To get pregnant outside of wedlock is unquestionably wrong, being against morale law. Can that wrong be righted with the girl taking contraceptive pills or the boy using condoms? Definitely not. That, in a nutshell, is where the Roman Catholic Church firmly stands on this issue, which those on the other side cannot understand simply because they consider that moral laws and moral values are the same. The situation is not far from a millionaire who escapes from paying his income tax -- which is required by law -- and instead donates his money to charity or distributes the amount he should have paid to government as Income Tax as regular alms to the poor.
He may have been exercising an excellent morale value, but he is violating a morale law and may be imprisoned if caught by the government.
The RH Bill proponents also keep saying all they want is to give parents the freedom of choice between natural and artificial family planning. That's a lot of hogwash. Truth is, they are removing an already existing freedom of choice, as indeed, that's what a law always does, to tie people's hands into doing what the State wants. An already existing freedom of choice, indeed! Consider this. At present, when a couple plans to marry, they will first go to City Hall to get a license. At City Hall they will be subjected to seminar that emphasizes the use of contraceptives. At least in our place, bibigyan pa nga sila ng isa o dalawang kahong condoms. Then, when they go to their parish to schedule the church wedding, they will also be put in a seminar that teaches them natural family planning. O, di ba, ano pa ba namang freedom of choice we are talking about.
The RH Bill also wants to transfer the time-honored responsibility of the parents to educate their children on sex, or to put it bluntly, on the subject, "bata, bata, paano ka ba ginawa?" to their teachers. It is true that, probably because of other more prior family needs, such as looking for their daily bread, most mothers in our midst and times may not really be doing this responsibility. So, the RH Bill want it taught in school. Wrong! Shouldn't the righter solution be to encourage, even compel -- I don't know how -- parents not to forget this duty of theirs to their children, NOT to transfer it to teachers. Imagine what will happen. We all know that in the privacy of their room, husband and wife do not even talk of anything about sexual intercourse --they just do it -- dahil parang nababastusan sila na pag-usapan ito. Now, the government wants this discussed daily -- vocally at that like any other school subject -- by teachers and their pupils. For one thing, since the mother tongue is now required to be the medium of instruction in the primary grades, paano nga ba ita-translate ng maestra from English to the mother tongue and salitang "coitus" and many other related words without feeling embarrassed or hindi pinagtatawanan ng kanyang mag-aaral? Let's accept it, our traditional values as a nation are far different from those of the West where, for example, "Fuck you" is common place but in this country is downright taboo?
There are surely many other common-sense arguments I wish to cite against the RH Bill, but I do not wish to make this blog unduly long. I would certainly appreciate feedback from my readers.
But Balisacan's sudden turnaround, his change of position -- this time saying the country's rather high population growth really constrains its economic development -- during an ambush interview by reporters after Enrile left does not speak well of an economist who is a also Cabinet official. That is plain double talk, a rather desperate effort towards damage control, given that one of the bases of President Aquino's leaning towards the passage of RH Bill is population control.
Enrile is known to be against the RH Bill. His said grilling of Balisacan was thus a foretaste of what would happen in the Senate when Senators themselves eventually debate on this long-subsisting controversial legislation.
Even as in the House the administration congressmen may have succeeded towards ending the debates and proceeding with the bill amendments/correction stage, I still believe the bill will finally still end up kaput, if not in the House, surely in the Senate. It is unfortunate that this issue seems to be creating a religious war -- we all know the most vocal proponents of the RH Bill are not Roman Catholics. It is ironic that in this country, the most predominantly Catholic nation in the Far East, the State and the Church has been manifestly divided.
For me, the issue here is sheer moral "laws", not just moral "values". Morale laws are absolute and objective, such as "Thou shalt" and Thou shalt not." They are not relative and subjective, such that "your" moral values, "my" moral values and/or "society's" moral values may indeed differ, depending upon the prevailing situations or circumstances. I mean, contraception is definitely anti-life -- imagine
preventing the very seed of life from germinating -- and is therefore against moral law, which is obligatory, not optional. Suppose a teenage child has a boyfriend who dates her regularly without their parents' knowledge. To get pregnant outside of wedlock is unquestionably wrong, being against morale law. Can that wrong be righted with the girl taking contraceptive pills or the boy using condoms? Definitely not. That, in a nutshell, is where the Roman Catholic Church firmly stands on this issue, which those on the other side cannot understand simply because they consider that moral laws and moral values are the same. The situation is not far from a millionaire who escapes from paying his income tax -- which is required by law -- and instead donates his money to charity or distributes the amount he should have paid to government as Income Tax as regular alms to the poor.
He may have been exercising an excellent morale value, but he is violating a morale law and may be imprisoned if caught by the government.
The RH Bill proponents also keep saying all they want is to give parents the freedom of choice between natural and artificial family planning. That's a lot of hogwash. Truth is, they are removing an already existing freedom of choice, as indeed, that's what a law always does, to tie people's hands into doing what the State wants. An already existing freedom of choice, indeed! Consider this. At present, when a couple plans to marry, they will first go to City Hall to get a license. At City Hall they will be subjected to seminar that emphasizes the use of contraceptives. At least in our place, bibigyan pa nga sila ng isa o dalawang kahong condoms. Then, when they go to their parish to schedule the church wedding, they will also be put in a seminar that teaches them natural family planning. O, di ba, ano pa ba namang freedom of choice we are talking about.
The RH Bill also wants to transfer the time-honored responsibility of the parents to educate their children on sex, or to put it bluntly, on the subject, "bata, bata, paano ka ba ginawa?" to their teachers. It is true that, probably because of other more prior family needs, such as looking for their daily bread, most mothers in our midst and times may not really be doing this responsibility. So, the RH Bill want it taught in school. Wrong! Shouldn't the righter solution be to encourage, even compel -- I don't know how -- parents not to forget this duty of theirs to their children, NOT to transfer it to teachers. Imagine what will happen. We all know that in the privacy of their room, husband and wife do not even talk of anything about sexual intercourse --they just do it -- dahil parang nababastusan sila na pag-usapan ito. Now, the government wants this discussed daily -- vocally at that like any other school subject -- by teachers and their pupils. For one thing, since the mother tongue is now required to be the medium of instruction in the primary grades, paano nga ba ita-translate ng maestra from English to the mother tongue and salitang "coitus" and many other related words without feeling embarrassed or hindi pinagtatawanan ng kanyang mag-aaral? Let's accept it, our traditional values as a nation are far different from those of the West where, for example, "Fuck you" is common place but in this country is downright taboo?
There are surely many other common-sense arguments I wish to cite against the RH Bill, but I do not wish to make this blog unduly long. I would certainly appreciate feedback from my readers.
Martes, Hulyo 24, 2012
NON-BAILABLE CRIMES ARE STILL BAILABLE
At last, the court has realized that the case for electoral sabotage against Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is weak, and so the former president will now be released from prison on bail..
One recalls that there were two electoral charges that the government choose from when it filed the case against Arroyo: Electoral fraud with respect to the 2004 elections, where she won against Fernando Poe Jr, and electoral sabotage, with respect to the senatorial elections in 2007.
Plain common sense will readily tell anyone that between the two, the probability of GMA using the resources under her command was greater on the former than on the latter. Why? For the simple reason that she was a candidate in the former, not in the latter. The apparent evidence at hand was also relatively stronger in the first, at least iven the Garci Tape scandal, than on the former where the government's essential witness was one of the Ampatuans who, there is cogent reason to believe, must have been persuaded to stand as witness against her solely because he was taken out from the list of plaintiffs in the Maguindanao massacre. Given this, it therefore appears that comparatively the case against GMA was stronger for the 2004 electoral fraud than for the 2007 electoral sabotage. But why did the government still choose to file a case against GMA on the latter, not on the former? Again, the answer was quite commonsensical: - that is, under existing laws, electoral fraud is bailable, electoral sabotage is not. And so, it is crystal clear that the administration's primary concern was to put GMA in jail, like Erap before: in an unbailable status. And because of that, the government lawyers allowed themselves to appear stupid by filing a case against GMA on electoral sabotage, not bailable, than on electoral fraud, which is bailable. Now, the government is reaping the bitter fruits of its stupidity: GMA will be out on bail, and more importantly, for a relatively weaker case.
Of course, the government lawyers are now surely poised to file a plunder case against GMA et al, which again is another non-bailable crime. But n their one-consuming obsession to put GMA behind bars, certainly under PNoy's behest, they seem to forget that even non-bailable crimes may still be bailable whenever the evidence against the accused is WEAK.
At any rate, let's wait for newer related developments. As they say in comics, ABANGAN!
One recalls that there were two electoral charges that the government choose from when it filed the case against Arroyo: Electoral fraud with respect to the 2004 elections, where she won against Fernando Poe Jr, and electoral sabotage, with respect to the senatorial elections in 2007.
Plain common sense will readily tell anyone that between the two, the probability of GMA using the resources under her command was greater on the former than on the latter. Why? For the simple reason that she was a candidate in the former, not in the latter. The apparent evidence at hand was also relatively stronger in the first, at least iven the Garci Tape scandal, than on the former where the government's essential witness was one of the Ampatuans who, there is cogent reason to believe, must have been persuaded to stand as witness against her solely because he was taken out from the list of plaintiffs in the Maguindanao massacre. Given this, it therefore appears that comparatively the case against GMA was stronger for the 2004 electoral fraud than for the 2007 electoral sabotage. But why did the government still choose to file a case against GMA on the latter, not on the former? Again, the answer was quite commonsensical: - that is, under existing laws, electoral fraud is bailable, electoral sabotage is not. And so, it is crystal clear that the administration's primary concern was to put GMA in jail, like Erap before: in an unbailable status. And because of that, the government lawyers allowed themselves to appear stupid by filing a case against GMA on electoral sabotage, not bailable, than on electoral fraud, which is bailable. Now, the government is reaping the bitter fruits of its stupidity: GMA will be out on bail, and more importantly, for a relatively weaker case.
Of course, the government lawyers are now surely poised to file a plunder case against GMA et al, which again is another non-bailable crime. But n their one-consuming obsession to put GMA behind bars, certainly under PNoy's behest, they seem to forget that even non-bailable crimes may still be bailable whenever the evidence against the accused is WEAK.
At any rate, let's wait for newer related developments. As they say in comics, ABANGAN!
Biyernes, Hulyo 20, 2012
ISN'T PNOY ABUSING HIS POWER TO APPOINT?
"Aquino names Palace official to replace De Lima in JBC" -- news! Teka, is that allowable under the Constitution.
I am not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional expert. But one need not be such, he only needs to read the Constitution, to understand that the Constitution itself that created the Judicial and Bar Council (Section 8, Article VIII), providing at the same time its composition, appointment of their members, its functions, with the primary objective of making the appointment of members of the Supreme Court less political than what it was perceived to be under the 1973 Constitution.
It will be recalled that under the previous charter, only the President was involved in the appointment of high officials of the government, including members of the judiciary. There was then no effective remedy in case of abuse by the President of his appointing power. In fact, the situation as a deemed better under the 1935 Constitution.
The members of the Supreme Court used to be appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments in Congress. However, this power of Congress to confirm all appointments to the judiciary was deemed to be a source of political haggling and horse trading, in turn affecting the judicial independence of the appointees. Hence the creation, under the present charter, of the Judicial and Bar Council.
Under the auspices of the JBC, the selection of Supreme Court Justices requires the participation of the three equal branches of the government, because it is 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.
As things are, since each one of the above seven members of the JBC is entitled to one vote each, the Executive Branch may be said as having a distinct advantage over the Legislative and Judicial branches in the selection of the Justices. That is, each one of the the Judiciary and the Legislature has only one vote each: the Chief Justice and the representative of Congress, whereas the Executive Branch has very clearly five votes, i.e. those of the Secretary of Justice and the four regular members from civil or private sector, each one of whom are presidential appointees and must therefore be only expected to be beholden to the President.
Be that as it may, given the inclusion of Acting CJ Antonio Carpio and DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima in the list of nominees for the next CJ and, hence, their inhibition from the JBC, the new complexion of the votes has become zero for the Judiciary, one for the Legislative and four for the Judiciary. The thing is, the President still appears to want to preserve the Executive's five votes by appointing De Lima's temporary replacement in the JBC. If this is not an abuse of the presidential power to appoint, I do not know what else is.
I am not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional expert. But one need not be such, he only needs to read the Constitution, to understand that the Constitution itself that created the Judicial and Bar Council (Section 8, Article VIII), providing at the same time its composition, appointment of their members, its functions, with the primary objective of making the appointment of members of the Supreme Court less political than what it was perceived to be under the 1973 Constitution.
It will be recalled that under the previous charter, only the President was involved in the appointment of high officials of the government, including members of the judiciary. There was then no effective remedy in case of abuse by the President of his appointing power. In fact, the situation as a deemed better under the 1935 Constitution.
The members of the Supreme Court used to be appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments in Congress. However, this power of Congress to confirm all appointments to the judiciary was deemed to be a source of political haggling and horse trading, in turn affecting the judicial independence of the appointees. Hence the creation, under the present charter, of the Judicial and Bar Council.
Under the auspices of the JBC, the selection of Supreme Court Justices requires the participation of the three equal branches of the government, because it is 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.
As things are, since each one of the above seven members of the JBC is entitled to one vote each, the Executive Branch may be said as having a distinct advantage over the Legislative and Judicial branches in the selection of the Justices. That is, each one of the the Judiciary and the Legislature has only one vote each: the Chief Justice and the representative of Congress, whereas the Executive Branch has very clearly five votes, i.e. those of the Secretary of Justice and the four regular members from civil or private sector, each one of whom are presidential appointees and must therefore be only expected to be beholden to the President.
Be that as it may, given the inclusion of Acting CJ Antonio Carpio and DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima in the list of nominees for the next CJ and, hence, their inhibition from the JBC, the new complexion of the votes has become zero for the Judiciary, one for the Legislative and four for the Judiciary. The thing is, the President still appears to want to preserve the Executive's five votes by appointing De Lima's temporary replacement in the JBC. If this is not an abuse of the presidential power to appoint, I do not know what else is.
Miyerkules, Hulyo 18, 2012
BILATERAL, NOT WAR NOR MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY IS WHAT WE NEEDOMACY, IS BEST SOL
I learned from a recent Inquirer Editorial that Kalayan, part of the multi-contested Sratlys group in the South China Sea, is 285 nautical miles away from Palawan. This compares with the Scarborough Shoal, in turn less than 200 nautical mailes from Zambales. We have always said that the Scarborough belongs to us because it is very much within the Philippnes exclusive economic zone as provided by the Unclos. If the 200 EEZ is indeed the basis of a country's sovereignty on a contested island or reef, does it follow that the Kalayaan does not strictly speaking belongs to us?
But one wonders, if that is the case, then why is it that so far no other country with a standing claim on the Spratlys has ever formally contested our occupancy of Kalayaan, where we have even put up a municipality, even as it is clearly outside our 200 nautical miles of EEC? Two probable explanations would come to the fore in this connection. One, no other country may be as near to Kalayaan as we are. And two, we might be the first country, among those with standing claims on the Spratlys, to have put structures in Kalayaan, including a municipal hall and an elementary school where the Philippine flag is supposedly now flying high.
This brings me to my thesis. Why don't we also start putting up similar structures in the Scarborough shoals?
A recent news says another country, I don't recall which, already has existing structures there. Chances are, China will hasten to prevent us from doing so. There's really no harm in trying. Tila unahan at takutan lang naman yata 'yan, di ba. I remember -- one may dig up the Internet if he wants to -- there were several reports before the present administration when we have not been molested by China on the Scarborough as it is doing now. One news item then even reported that when we tried to drive away Chinese fishermen in the area, one of them who resisted arrest was killed by our own authorities there, while several were arrested. Those were the relatively good old days when certain mutual respect had existed between China and the Philippines.
It is indeed a mystery why China has suddenly become provocative or terribly defensive in this regard. Maybe, just maybe, we really have to talk to China on strictly one-on-one basis, just exactly the "bilateral" diplomacy that China keeps saying it will only agree on. Our disappointing experience with the ASEAN should tell us straight to our ears that we cannot rely any on multi-lateral diplomacy. As things are, parang nagiging arogante yata tayo, in saying we are building up our military capabilities through war equipment that the US is ready to provide us. Are we really prepared for war? And of all nations, against China?
As things are, why don't we seriously try to settle this strictly bilaterally - well perhaps in the same way that we sent VP Binay to China before to appeal for Filipins scheduled for execution then for being drug pushers. Of course, I know Binay failed in that vision. But who knows, we may succeed to at least convince China towards a joint exploration of the Scarborough Shoal resources between our two countries. After all, Binay was then appealing for criminals; with the Scarborough stand-off, we are exercising what we believe is our right. There's surely a hell of a difference between the two.
But one wonders, if that is the case, then why is it that so far no other country with a standing claim on the Spratlys has ever formally contested our occupancy of Kalayaan, where we have even put up a municipality, even as it is clearly outside our 200 nautical miles of EEC? Two probable explanations would come to the fore in this connection. One, no other country may be as near to Kalayaan as we are. And two, we might be the first country, among those with standing claims on the Spratlys, to have put structures in Kalayaan, including a municipal hall and an elementary school where the Philippine flag is supposedly now flying high.
This brings me to my thesis. Why don't we also start putting up similar structures in the Scarborough shoals?
A recent news says another country, I don't recall which, already has existing structures there. Chances are, China will hasten to prevent us from doing so. There's really no harm in trying. Tila unahan at takutan lang naman yata 'yan, di ba. I remember -- one may dig up the Internet if he wants to -- there were several reports before the present administration when we have not been molested by China on the Scarborough as it is doing now. One news item then even reported that when we tried to drive away Chinese fishermen in the area, one of them who resisted arrest was killed by our own authorities there, while several were arrested. Those were the relatively good old days when certain mutual respect had existed between China and the Philippines.
It is indeed a mystery why China has suddenly become provocative or terribly defensive in this regard. Maybe, just maybe, we really have to talk to China on strictly one-on-one basis, just exactly the "bilateral" diplomacy that China keeps saying it will only agree on. Our disappointing experience with the ASEAN should tell us straight to our ears that we cannot rely any on multi-lateral diplomacy. As things are, parang nagiging arogante yata tayo, in saying we are building up our military capabilities through war equipment that the US is ready to provide us. Are we really prepared for war? And of all nations, against China?
As things are, why don't we seriously try to settle this strictly bilaterally - well perhaps in the same way that we sent VP Binay to China before to appeal for Filipins scheduled for execution then for being drug pushers. Of course, I know Binay failed in that vision. But who knows, we may succeed to at least convince China towards a joint exploration of the Scarborough Shoal resources between our two countries. After all, Binay was then appealing for criminals; with the Scarborough stand-off, we are exercising what we believe is our right. There's surely a hell of a difference between the two.
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)