Look before you leap

The action star turned president. The nocturnal president. The poster boy of corruption. The academically challenged president.

Joseph Estrada, “Erap” to his millions of tangahanga, suffered miserably in the past. He has been scraped off his office, cutting short his six-year Presidential into two and a half. He has been jailed and convicted. But he has been pardoned since, thanks to Madame Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

After being away for so many years from the cockfight that is politics, now he’s back, vowing as he does to continue what he has started. But for lack of anything newer and better and more convincing to show to the voters why he still remains to be the best choice, Erap—-or whoever is in-charge of building him up—-has rummaged in his baul and found his most-prized possession: his many years of experience in public service.

Setting aside the question if Erap is allowed to run for any public office this coming elections, many are afraid that The Erap might win because of his still-wide masa following.

But let us look before we leap, i.e., let us look at Erap's past before we ever think of voting for him as a President---again. Read A portrait of Erap as a public servant at RP2010.com.

Thus ate La Gloria

It is a truth universally acknowledged, but furtively practiced, that a congressman in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wine.

Kakampi ni GMA ang Langit

"Great men talk about ideas; Mediocre men talk about things; Small men talk about people," said Admiral Hyman Rickover.

Was Rey Langit in the same league of small men who would rather inquire into what people think of other people when he asked both Presidents---Obama and Arroyo---about their impressions of each other?

Obama grateful to GMA. For what?

US President Barack Obama, the ABS-CBN News Online reports, is grateful to GMA because "of the strong voice that the Philippines has provided in dealing with issues in Asia, ranging from the human rights violations that have too long existed in Burma, to the problems that we're seeing with respect to nuclear proliferation in North Korea."

Nice. But what about the killing of journalists, which have taken place under her administration? What about the extrajudicial killings in Davao City where her former adviser on peace and order, Rodrigo Duterte, is mayor?

And what about the human rights violations that, according to the Commission on Human Rights Chair Leila de Lima, "have escalated since she [GMA] took office"?

Random SONA observations

Contrary to some of the Senators' and militants' reactions, I didn't boycott the SONA. Yesterday, in the silence of afternoon, I momentarily stopped from my occupation to watch ABS-CBN's live coverage of GMA's SONA. I regret I did, and wished it was aired late at night, so that it wouldn't interrupt the TV programs that afternoon, including my favorite, Maria de Jesus.

***

In yesterday's SONA, GMA reported her achievements by presenting statistics after statistics before a remote-controlled audience---the remote control being GMA herself. Her statistics, however, became a double-edged sword: While it lends credence to her achievements, her presentation by statistics makes it a lot harder for cerebral deficit Filipinos---many of whom were sitting in the gallery, dressed to the nines---to understand her message.

I believe, though, GMA et al are keenly aware of that possibility. Which is why they invited Tarnati Dannawi, Jennifer Silbor, and Mylene Amerol-Macumbal---all of whom ostensibly benefited from GMA's projects---to give a human face to the cold statistics.

***

I share the impressions of my neighbors who, like me, watched the SONA eagerly: That if GMA's SONA has accomplished anything, it is that she was able to get even with her critiques.

The SONA was indeed a score-settling speech. Take her advice to would-be presidents. "To those who want to be President," said GMA, "this advice: If you want something done, do it hard, do it well. Don’t pussyfoot. Just do it. Don't pander. And don’t say bad words in public."

Ouch! Mar Roxas, who once spouted invectives at a rally in Ayala, must have felt the slight.

Take this, too: "Those who live in glass houses should cast no stones. Those who should be in jail should not threaten it, especially if they have been there…" That's doubtless for Joseph Estrada.

Or this: "The noisiest critics of constitutional reform tirelessly and shamelessly attempted Cha-Cha when they thought they could take advantage of a shift in the form of government. Now that they feel they cannot benefit from it, they oppose it."

Was JDV in her mind when she uttered that? You be judge.

'Strictly speaking'

[caption id="attachment_635" align="alignleft" width="219" caption="Strictly Speaking: Will America Be The Death Of English? By Edwin Newman"][/caption]

Recently added to my mini-library is Strictly Speaking by Edwin Newman, which I bought last night at the Bookshop for P60.

Based on its introduction---the only part I managed to read so far---that a presidential spokesman opted to say he must be given enough time to make an "evaluation and judgment in terms of a response" than simply say "he'll think about it," is a commentary on the state of language. And the state of language is a commentary on the state of society.

"Language," Edwin Newman says, "is in decline." Does it mean society is in decline, too?

Newman says we have become a society when people say "at this point in time" instead of the more concise "now" or "today." Ours is a society where everything done "before" is done "prior to," and everything done "after" is done "subsequent to."

Newman's message, then as now, remains valid. It also hit close to home.

Arroyo vs. Arroyo

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is poised to veto the Right of Reply Bill--a bill whose principal sponsor is Senator Aquilino Pimentel. The bill seeks to give those criticized by the media an equal opportunity to hear their side by way of reply. And in the words of Bacolod Rep. Monico Puentevella, who is also pushing for another version of Right of Reply Bill in the Lower House, the objective is "to level the playing field in journalism."

The purported vetoing of the bill by Ms. Arroyo is a reckless political maneuver, precisely aimed at gaining "brownie points from the media." By vetoing the bill, Mrs. Arroyo would appear as though she is a champion of the press. Thus, she'll be spared from the critical eye of the media.

But no, says Senator Joker Arroyo. “Even if the President sides with the media on this, she will still be attacked by the media,” Mr. Arroyo was quoted as saying.

Lust for public office

Published in Mindanao Times 7/29/08

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) has barely two years left before she will step down from her office. By that time, we will once again have an election, which has become “the arbiter of political succession.”

To the people, it is still early for aspirants to make frantic noise. Yet the sight of politicos—presidentiables, those seeking reelection, and those eyeing for a seat in Congress—endorsing commercial products, is a subtle indication that the race for 2010 election is on. Indeed, election campaign has began, albeit not officially.

The President-eject

For political correctness's sake, President Obama, before he took his oath of office, was referred to as President-elect. Although it is obvious that there's no stopping Obama from taking the helm of US leadership, as Bush the Younger can not veto the inauguration day, and thus the former deserved to be called President, Obama is still addressed as President-elect until he is properly sworn into office.

But what do you call a person who has never been a President since 2004 but who acts like one, and whose mandate is severely questioned?

And yes, I am talking about GMA's staying in power. President-eject is perhaps an apt title.

The indefatigable anti-corruption crusader

It is no small irony that while Obama advised his good friend GMA to stop clinging to power through corruption and deceit, the latter has already been laboring to end corruption in the Philippines and bring down the shenanigans.

"Our investments also include essential ways to strengthen our institutions of governance in order to fight the decades-old scourge of corruption," she said in her 2008 State of the Nation Address. "I will continue to fight this battle every single day. While others are happy with headlines through accusation without evidence and privilege speeches without accountability, we have allocated more than P3 billion – the largest anti-graft fund in our history – for real evidence gathering and vigorous prosecution."

If that were true, why, as reported in the news, the US Millennium Challenge Corp. (MCC) just won't give economic assistance to the Philippines until it curbs corruption?

'On the wrong side of history'

Amando Doronila used to preach in his columns  that there is a frosty relationship between RP and USA. And that "It will take a blast of diplomatic climate warming to defrost the deep freeze between Manila and Washington."

I also used to subscribe to his sermons. But that was before Obama delivered his speech. I do believe now, after hearing Obama's inaugural address, that the relationship between the USA and the Philippines remains unchanged. It is warm as usual. In fact, so warm is the relationship that President Barack Obama, the first black president in the White House, expressed his concern over GMA's staying on "the wrong side of story." (Up to now it remains a mystery to everyone when she'll cease to be our President.)

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent," Obama said in his inaugural address, "know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

That's what friends are for, offering pieces of advice to each other and extending help to a derailed friend. Obama is really our friend. He even offered redemption for those who are "willing to unclench" their "fist."

***

But this one's for "Bitoy's Funniest Videos."

"Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita gave this piece of unsolicited advice to the first black US president when asked if there’s anything Mrs. Arroyo could learn from Obama," Philippine Star reports.

“If there’s anything to learn, it would be President Obama learning from President Arroyo,” the paper quoted Ermita as saying.

"She is the model… probably in the face of adversity," Ermita added, "the new president can learn from other leaders, like the Philippine president, on how to face up to problems and challenges especially when there are constant attacks from the opposition and detractors."

But can he?

"Yes, Obama can learn from GMA," quipped Prof. Winnie Monsod in an interview with News on Q's Ivan Mayrina and Rhea Santos . "He can learn from GMA on how not to do things."

Neal Cruz seconded

In a previous post, I said that the reason why GMA's life after 2010---

[caption id="attachment_144" align="alignright" width="300" caption=""FROM PRESIDENT TO JAILBIRD" She certainly can't afford it. (Photo courtesy of Teo Marasigan)"] [/caption]

supposing that she will indeed step down by that time---will not be peaceful is that she will be facing a deluge of complaints. It will be more stressful than her work in Malacañang. And the only way to keep herself out of that impending mess is to remain in power. Philippine Daily Inquirer's columnist Neal Cruz, in his column yesterday, thought the same:

So why doesn’t she step down? Because it may mean imprisonment. Because she may lose all the wealth she has accumulated. It would mean humiliation.

She knows that when she is no longer president, she will lose her immunity from suit. And considering her many grievous sins to the nation, she knows that she will be swamped with lawsuits once she is out of power. From president to jailbird—that is not acceptable. She has to avoid that at all costs.

Will it be halcyon days for GMA after 2010?

Pampanga Rep. Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s (GMA) eldest son, has been soliciting support from die-hard colleagues for a resolution that will call for both chambers of the Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate—to convene as Constituent Assembly to reconsider certain provisions in the Constitution.

In response to the apprehensions of the many, the younger Arroyo belied the allegations that it will be a pretext to extend his mother’s term. “I think she will take care of her grandchildren, Mikey was reported as saying. “I think she will go back to teaching or give lectures [as] what many former presidents do all over the world.”

I wonder where has Mikey Arroyo been all these days. Unless he was lying dormant in a remote enclave, he must have known that his mother’s administration is hounded by several controversies, scams, scandals, issues (whatever you call them), for which many sectors want to hold his mother accountable.

It is highly doubtful whether GMA will have a moment’s peace by the time she’ll step down in 2010. To say that GMA will lead a peaceful life after 2010 is to be ignorant of GMA’s yet unanswered liabilities—from the fertilizer scam to the scuttled NBN-ZTE deal to the North Rail Project and a host of other issues.

If today she can not be held accountable for, it is because as a President, she can not be sued. In other words, she is immune. Which is why those people who want to indict GMA will have to wait for 2010. But that is if we invest a certain amount of belief that she will be true to her promise that she will step down in 2010 as mandated by the Constitution.

Granting GMA will no longer be in office by 2010, her life will be far from peaceful. After she leaves the presidency, she leaves with it the privileges she once enjoyed, chief of which is the immunity from suit. In effect, a barrage of complaints will definitely be coming her way. The first thing she'll do then is to postpone the idea of teaching or taking care of her grandchildren because she has yet to fulfill her responsibility to the people—a responsibility bigger than her responsibility to her family.

That is her responsibility to tell the people the truth.

The Consti's primordial intent: A bicameral Congress

Several attempts to amend or revise the Constitution (popularly known in this country as Charter change [Cha-cha]) in the recent past did not fail to raise a howl of protest. From the administration of Ramos to Estrada to Arroyo, Cha-cha as an agenda of every administration never ceased to have a nemesis coming from different sectors—religious, civil society, political opponents, etc. The ones that are underway in the House of Representatives are no exemption.

But aside from Cha-cha itself, the mode of carrying it out is equally problematic. There are three ways to do it as provided by the Constitution: (1) through Constitutional convention (Con-con); (2) through people’s initiative; and (3) through Constituent assembly. The third one is the option the proponents of Cha-cha in the House want to pursue. However, it is also the trickiest because up to today it is still unclear (and the Supreme Court hasn’t decided yet) whether the two chambers of Congress---Senate and House of Representative---vote separately or jointly should they convene as Con-ass to change the Constitution?

To the proponents of Cha-cha in the House, who are staunch allies of GMA, the two chambers should vote jointly. Seen that way, the Senate, which is independent of the House, would be nothing but a mere cog with virtually no influence whatsoever. That is, of course, not what the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended when they deliberately made the Congress bicameral.

The Constitution may be silent on the question at hand—whether the House and the Senate vote jointly or separately—but a “structural interpretation” could shed light on the debate.

In his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. said “that the vote required is three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and three-fourths of all the members of the House taken separately.” The reason being that “Congress is bicameral and a bicameral body votes separately.” Fr. Bernas added:

When the Constitution wants the two houses to vote jointly, the Constitution says so. This it does when Congress is authorized to override a declaration of martial law. And even when Congress can act only in joint session, as it is the case when called to declare the existence of a state of war, the Constitution still commands that they vote separately. Similarly, under the 1935 Constitution, when Congress could propose amendments only if assembled in joint session, the Constitution commanded that they vote separately.

The reason for separate voting is simple: voting jointly, unless authorized as an exception by the Constitution, destroys the bicameral character of Congress. Thus, the silence of the constitutional text on the manner of voting must be interpreted in the light of the bicameral structure of Congress. Structural interpretation is one of the modes of constitutional construction.

One of the attempts to effect constitutional change comes from Rep. Mikey Arroyo, the President’s eldest son. His is an attempt to amend the Constitution through Constituent Assembly with the Senate and the House voting jointly, not separately.

What the Constitution put asunder let no fools join together.