For friendship?

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

For friendship?
Sunday, 07 18, 2004

US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone, reacting to the decision of the Philippine government to withdraw its 51-man humanitarian contingent in Iraq in exchange for the liberty of Angelo de la Cruz, was quoted as saying, “In a time where enemies demand that you kneel, [I] just ask you, please don’t refuse your enemies with your friends.” That statement speak volumes of the veiled threat of a friend to its ally, or rather unmasks that friend for what it really is, the real enemy.

The confusion in the handling of the crisis involving Angelo is more the product of the confused labeling of the relationship between the US and the Philippines insofar as the occupation of Iraq by the “coalition of the willing.” The government had no second thoughts about sending the humanitarian contingent to Iraq, on the premise that it is on friendly terms with the US. On the other hand, the Filipinos, from day one, never approved of their involvement in the occupation of Iraq.

Until the entire Philippine contingent is withdrawn, Angelo faces the unpalatable fate of either coming back upright and whole or horizontally, with its head severely missing the rest of his body. The risk – plus other forms of hideous bodily harm that the Iraqi militants can creatively think of – is what friendship has brought to bear on thousands of other Filipinos now working in the Middle East. The imposing mind of the military leadership imposing its will in Iraq is unmindful of the plight of the Filipino. Already, Iraq is off-limits to Filipinos trying to eke out a living. Can the President give them the jobs here that were denied them in Iraq? These, and the anxiety of the long wait, and the recriminations at home on whether to stay or to pull out, are the by-products of that much vaunted friendship.

The fate of Angelo laid for sometime on the stubborn head of the presumptive President. Nothing could make her take the conclusive move that would ensure a whole and hale Angelo coming back. Some outside force – impervious to prayers and rallies and certainly unmoved by tears – that has shaped the military policy of this country, continued to hold sway. The President was nowhere near any realization that she had better comply with the demand for a pullout rather than heed what her benefactor-friends are whispering to her ears.

And why should she not bring them back, indeed? After all, they are a mere token force, who have no mandate to engage the Iraqi militants, not even well-prepared or trained to cope with the perils of the occupation.

We have just gone through an electoral exercise that unfortunately did not take up the issue of involvement in an occupation of a foreign country. But the public outcry against the continued presence of Filipinos in Iraq, following Angelo’s abduction, is as much a referendum now as to how the country regards the Filipinos' presence there. The verdict is clear and strong: Pull them out.

What was the President trying to prove by not acceding earlier to the public clamor for a pullout? That she is her own man? That she cannot be dictated upon (by any Filipino) on what to do? How easily she forgets her commitment to govern on the basis of consensus.

The posting of Filipinos in Iraq was an act of machismo without regard to the consequences. It is symptomatic of the irrational mode of governance that has punctuated this government since it came to power. What did we gain from a friend by the deployment? Nothing. Nothing even that anyone can think will benefit us in the long run, not even peace from terrorism. Something is not right – or rather, everything is not right – in this friendship.

The ready commitment to deploy a token contingent was more to prove that we are the reliable friend that we have always been. And that is where the fault lies: They were deployed to that hellhole to please a friend, to curry favor and to affirm that she is the only President, and no other else in this part of the world, who could be depended upon.

An immediate pullout is something the government did not want to take the risk of, lest it displeases her military back-up. Not a whit of a rational thought was given, that could salve the aching Filipino demand for a rational approach to the maddening imposition for support for an occupation that should have never been in the first place. Here was a President who was trying to put up a brave and compassionate face, but in truth somebody who was more out to save her neck, more than willing not to make the fate of Angelo the casus belli for her early stepping down from her shaky throne, by some outside force.

Angelo is a pawn waiting to be sacrificed by two uncaring players. For many days that passed since his abduction, nothing was done to respond responsibly to the situation. The government even tried to manage the media, in order that it would not appear to be buckling down to pressure at home for a pullout. But the prayers and rallies of those opposed to the presence of Filipinos in Iraq brought enough pressure. The leadership finally agreed to a pullout, to the dismay of its friend.

The nation awaits the return of Angelo either whole or beheaded. It is a catharsis of sorts, and damn the powers that will impose their might on the future course of this government.

The sage once said there is no friendship between those associated in power; he who rules will always be impatient of an associate. Let not the government delude itself that a friendship exists. The sooner it realizes that it is but an associate in an immoral occupation of another country by the biggest terrorist country, the better it would govern and rule in the best interest of the Filipinos.

Nurturing a friendship is not worth the sacrifice of one precious, innocent life. We could lose our self-respect with Angelo’s senseless death for a cause he is not even involved in, or for our nation that gains nothing good for it. A friend never puts his friend in jeopardy. Somehow, the leadership seems to have realized that, albeit dimly and belatedly. Now, she could be the leader, if she only knows how to follow those whom she leads.

Prove it, Madame President. Forget your friend. You know who the real enemy is.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Moving on

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Moving on
Sunday, 07 11, 2004

The day following the dawn proclamation of the presumptive President and Vice President, somebody sent me an SMS – or texted me, as my son would say – with the following text message: “The war is over. Henceforth, dial 09178423170 for peace. Let’s move on.”

Knowing whom the message came from, I was struck by this revelation of how he, the sender, considered the recent elections and national canvass. A war indeed it had been, replete with the massive deployment of personnel, the commitment of money, resources and equipment, and the use of force, fraud and lies to baffle, confound and wear down the enemy on the other side of the political divide. Of course, the war was lopsided in favor of the wielder of power and dispenser of largesse. According to one of the strategists in the prevailing side, the endgame of that war was predictable as early as the day certain appointments were made to key positions in the office that would manage – and when certain situations demanded it, mismanage – the rules of engagement.

Now that the war is over, what then could we expect from those who prevailed and from those who claim that victory had been stolen from their hands?

From the small minority who managed to prevail through waves upon waves of force, fraud and lies, nothing much and nothing new is expected. It will be more of the same stream of patriotic pronouncements craftily issued at appropriate occasions to detract attention from a decaying and degraded state of governance. Or things could be much worse, unless these “victors” wake up one wonderful day willing up with a sense of fairness and commitment to do good henceforth, and a realization that enough is enough already. Already, the much vaunted 10-point program for governance is now being eroded by the succession of questionable appointments; by the spiraling increase in prices and fees for every conceivable aspect of living; by the succession of offers of reconciliation which are no more than thinly veiled demands for capitulation; by the succession of denials of the truth in the elections aching to come out; by the succession of violent moves to curtail rights, etcetera ad nauseam.

In the face of these aggravations, the great majority who rightfully claim to have prevailed, but who are obviously out of power – and it looks it could be quite a stretch of time before they could actually prevail – might do well to offer more tangible solutions than the hope for unity and real steps in living gainfully. After all, their somber handling of, and almost resigned reaction to, the atrocious and roughshod treatment they received from those in power is a reassuring message that peace among all will prevail. Nothing of the sudden grab for power is likely to be entertained. If they must – and they certainly would – they should lodge the electoral protest before the last day to file: Not in the parliament of the streets but through constitutional and legal routes. By now, it is quite safe to presume that the country has welcomed the declaration made the other day by the legislators in the opposition that they will fiscalize responsibly and are committed to support the legislative agenda that make for real gains in the standard of living.

Move on. We should expect no less than this unselfish act from rational men and women on both sides of the political fence: Set aside the differences that divided them in the last war that took a semblance of an electoral exercise. While these differences will not be forgotten soon enough, it is best to use them as constant reminders of just how far we can get away from them, and forge ahead despite them.

Peace in governance, and not much of the bickering of the past, should be the yardstick to measure how far those who have held on to power can accommodate the legitimate grievances of those who claim to have prevailed. For as long as no accommodation is given and the doors to the Palace are shut to those who want to say they have been cheated, the doors to the Palace will be continually shaken, rattled and pounded, and the enmity will exacerbate. The mute will not stay mute long enough; their words could come in torrents, sooner than later. The deprived will not be deprived long enough; the concentration of their frustrations is their secret strength. And only God, and not some bishop down south, knows what’s next.

It need not come to this, if those in power in the current administration as well as those in the future will wisely see that never has there been a good war or a bad peace.

Now that’s a good sound byte worth inclusion in the State of the Nation Address, but the Sona is too far away in the calendar to be anticipated. Besides, the nation had been regaled with too much pageantry in many Sonas in the past, only to find out nothing much has changed. Those kids and their bangkang papel are now dim memories in the newsreels in our minds. Where are they now? They have not moved beyond the shore of forlorn hope. Too much time to unite the country has been lost; too many opportunities to make good the promises made have been passed over.

Those who prevailed must move and act. Now. Many, including one obstinate cynic whom one hardly expected to reciprocate, accepted the offer of peace made by that text sender. This could be the beginning. A wise man once said all glory (no pun intended) comes from daring to begin. One step at a time, a foot in front of the other, could very well get us here.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Railroad 2004

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Railroad 2004
Sunday, 06 13, 2004

“Railroad” is defined in Oxford Dictionary as “sending a person to prison by false evidence.” Also, it is synonymous to “rush.”

The joint committee to canvass constituted by Congress is hell-bent on tallying the votes cast for President and Vice-President in the May 10 elections, toward sending to Malacañang the candidate garnering the highest number of votes based on certificates of canvass (CoC) whose authenticity, genuineness and due execution have yet to be established. By sheer force of numbers, those in the committee comprising the majority of 16 as against six are rushing to beat their self-imposed deadline of two weeks before June 30 to finish what they call the “ministerial and administrative” job of canvassing.

A joint committee of 14, when there were seven candidates for President, did its job well in 1992, without any rush to beat any deadline. It allowed the candidates’ counsel 30 minutes to scrutinize one CoC and the accompanying statement of votes by municipality (SoV/M) and the statement of votes by precinct (SoV/P) as required under Section 29 of Republic Act (RA) 7166, and only two at a time for a total of one hour. Thereafter, the counsels were given more than five minutes each to expound on their observations, one after the other.

Now, the joint committee of 22, when there are five candidates for President, allows only three minutes scrutiny per CoC, without the SoV/M or SoV/P, five at a time, for a total of 15 minutes. The counsels are now required to give their consolidated observations, not one after the other.

There is now a mere cursory, if not total absence of, discussions by the committee of the completeness of the documents subject of the canvass. The chairmen declare “NOTED!” with regularity of the counsel’s observations. No debate has been taking place on the completeness, authenticity, due execution or identification of the documents. The most mechanical motion of a member precedes the tabulation, without as much as determining first the threshold questions: Are the documents authentic? Have they been duly executed? Have they been properly identified? In 1992, the tallying was deferred whenever a CoC was not accompanied by SoV/M or SoV/P; now, notwithstanding the incompleteness of the documents, tallying must proceed.

How, indeed, can one make a comparison of the votes cast if only the CoC is submitted, without the SoV/M and the SoV/P?

How can one pass judgment on the authenticity of the documents, if the Comelec has yet to disclose the security marks? The current chairman of the House panel in the committee once said in 1998: “Without Congress knowing what the ‘secret mark’ is, no one can ever know whether a CoC is genuine or authentic if the parchments over which the votes are stated ‘cannot be determined as to genuineness, how can one declare the certificate of canvass authentic and genuine’?” Why is he now taking a different tack, even as his basis for taking an about face is a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1970?

How can one state with reasonable certainty that the documents have been duly executed, if the specimen signatures of all the members of the Board of Canvassers have not been submitted, as basis for comparison? The members of the BoC have not even come forward to identify these documents. The committee is tallying blind!

Except for one or two members of the House panel, and the opposition members, not one has even made the move to scrutinize the CoC laid out on the table. Yet, how can they make an informed judgment as to the authenticity of the documents, much less the completeness of the documents? When they vote – and how they vote is expected notwithstanding the force of the arguments against any tallying – they vote as if they have seen it all and understand everything. They raise their hands in mock surrender to some unseen force and then proceed to tally the votes.

The election returns (ER) are yet to be visited, despite the clear showing of a doubt as to the veracity of the votes cast. What is it exactly that the members of the committee fear will be exposed if the ER are to be opened? They know what everybody knows to be in those ER; that Freudian slip of the Senate president was a dead giveaway. The massive fraud will be exposed, which is why the train must go along its journey, without any stop to check the ER, notwithstanding the clear showing in the CoC, SoV/M and SoV/P that there is a serious doubt as to the veracity of the votes stated therein.

Why not visit the ER for all precincts in Sto. Tomas, Pangasinan or Tipo-tipo, Basilan, or Wao, Lanao del Sur, or Palompon, Leyte, ad infinitum? Or those from Pampanga, Cebu, etcetera? The irregularities are not few; they are many, in fact too many one will puke at the sight of them. The riddles of the immaculately clean CoC have been solved by the opposition, and I wonder how the numbers in the committee will fall once these are detailed in the deliberations, granting the opposition will be allowed. Those ER must be opened.

At the rate the opposition members in the committee are being outvoted at every turn, and the regularity of the banging of the gavel to signal the end of perfunctory discussions, the canvassing could be over within the week, no matter the incompleteness of the documents, no matter the failure to establish their authenticity and genuineness, no matter the non-production of the ER not reported in the CoC, notwithstanding the failure to have the documents properly identified, notwithstanding the alterations and erasures, notwithstanding the doubts as to the veracity of the votes stated, etcetera.

In its rush to arrive as its destination, in complete disregard of the Constitution, RA 7166, and its own rules, Railroad 2004 could get derailed by some force we thought would never ever rise again. Or, if by some luck the train arrives on time, it would nonetheless be sending its prized passenger to prison surrounded by the questionable CoC that serve as ticket to the Palace by the stinking river.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Go to the election returns (NBOC)

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Go to the election returns
Sunday, 06 06, 2004

Confronted with the Opposition’s voluminous and incontrovertible evidence on massive election fraud, which includes charges of tampered CoCs and SoVs, Malacañang’s apologists strangely point out that, in case of conflicting figures in the CoC held by Congress and the copies in Opposition hands (even when there is evidence of obvious alteration in the Malacañang copies), resorting to the precinct-level election returns (ERs) to determine the veracity of the votes cast as appearing in the CoC would entail a tedious and lengthy process. They say it would take the joint committee 14 years to appreciate every one of the country’s ERs even if they would have to spend a mere 10 minutes with each return. They added even if only 20 percent of the country’s ERs were to be reviewed, it would still take three years to go through an estimated 59,092 election returns (20 percent of 295,459 established precincts by Comelec’s count).

It does not take a genius to figure out Malacañang’s strategy for hiding the truth and ramming the proclamation of Gloria down the nation’s throat. By one sweep, Malacañang is peddling a contrived scenario of a rather terribly long and tiresome process of opening and reviewing ERs.

There are currently 226 congressmen and 23 senators in our legislature. Minus the members of the joint committee, we have 215 congressmen and nine senators who are relatively free for other tasks while the canvassing goes on.

Would it not be a wise and efficient move to delegate the verification of the accuracy of the contested CoC through a thorough review of the ERs to our otherwise idle lawmakers? They can be formed into some 70 teams, each can be assisted by their staff and some accountants in going through the contested documents. Comelec can have its provincial, city and municipal officers on standby for these teams as resource persons on call, while Malacañang, the Opposition, Namfrel, PPCRV and other election watchdog groups can field their own representatives to ensure transparency. The teams can then include their findings in a report to be submitted to the joint committee. This way, what would otherwise take three years can simply be accomplished in just over three weeks.

Malacañang made a serious exaggeration when it made the claim it would take 10 minutes to appreciate a precinct-level ER. This is not true. We must bear in mind that what is in question here is the accuracy of the CoC and SoV, not the ER. There is, for the purpose of Congress as a National Board of Canvassers, a presumption of regularity in the accomplishment of the ERs, and what is required of the Congress in the opening of ERs is merely to copy the figures for candidates for President and Vice-President and have these tabulated. Ordinarily, it would not take 30 seconds to recopy the votes for the nine candidates appearing in the ER but granting some extra time to ensure an accurate copying and tabulation, let us assume that every return would require about two minutes. Recalculating, we would end up with 28 working hours, or three-and-a-half (3.5) working days, for every team to accomplish its task and make its report to the joint committee.

What, indeed, is Malacañang afraid of? The Senate president’s Freudian slip, to the effect that if the ERs are opened Fernando Poe Jr. will win, answers the question.

Rufus Rodriguez, who has a lock on the ERs for Mindanao showing the massive fraud, has a proposition: Open all the ERs in Basilan, where Tipo-tipo, Basilan, Sumilip, Tuburan, etcetera are now as famous as Datu Piang in Maguindanao and SND in Lanao del Norte. If Malacañang can show even a single ER to be consistent with the SoV by precinct, the Opposition will concede and Gloria can have the presidency. Basilan is a classic example for massive cheating: All the ERs bear out a win for FPJ, but the SoV and the CoC tell a different story. And this is replicated in the 25 hot spots that the opposition has identified. The latest we heard, the municipal election officers are on the run, pursued by a warlord to part with their copies of the ERs and the SoVs.

By all means, let us go the ERs. After all, the Constitution, Republic Act 7166 and the rules of the joint committee allow this.

Ano ang ikinatatakot nilang mabunyag sa taong bayan?



For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Into the breach

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Into the breach
Sunday, 05 23, 2004

The outburst of Senate President Franklin Drilon over the discovery last week within the premises of the Senate of envelopes containing unfilled certificates of canvass (CoCs) and statements of votes (SoVs) was understandable. After all, with the Senate teeming nowadays with a horde of armed security personnel and surveillance gadgets, including an APC, it should have been inconceivable for any outsider to intrude and plant evidence within Fortress Senate just so the effectiveness of these security measures would be subjected to derision of the public at large. The outburst was directed more at his chief security officer, under whose watch the intrusion took place.

I join Drilon in condemning this breach of security in the Senate. This should not happen to the institution - at any time, under any circumstance. It is as if the intruders have waggled their fingers on the face of anyone who loves the Senate, that they could do anything, the heavy security notwithstanding.

What was not expected of Drilon was the fingerpointing at the Opposition, as if blaming “one of Angara’s lawyers” as the author of the intrusion absolves Drilon’s chief security officer of any responsibility over the caper committed right under his very nose. It was pitifully precipitate of Drilon in putting the blame on the Opposition too soon after the discovery of the envelopes.

Between now and the actual opening of the ballot boxes during the national canvass, suspicions abound. What if in fact there had been a switching of ballot boxes? Or stuffing of ballot boxes with fake CoCs and SoVs? Who will benefit from the consequences of the intrusion into the Senate? Whose hands are dirty of the grime of this caper?

The integrity of the national canvass has been compromised. Here is a Congress - which will convene the day after tomorrow as a national board of canvassers for the presidential and vice-presidential elections – whose leaders cannot even guarantee that the ballot boxes containing the CoCs and election returns in its custody are beyond suspicion of having been tampered with. Hopefully, the discovery of the envelopes is providential, as it forced the Senate to adopt stricter security measures. But it did not help any that an unnecessary opening was made through the Senate kitchen several days later, fanning more suspicions that the chief security officer, a retired army officer, may not really be cut out for the job of securing the integrity of a prime Constitutional duty of his employer.

The signs are there for all to see who gets to benefit from this caper at the Senate.

Cancel out the Opposition. They would not dare take any self-defeating step at undermining the national canvass. They want their candidate, the real winner, proclaimed in accordance with the Constitution, and on time.

A “no-proclamation” scenario is developing, and this is the scary part. Imagine a situation in the Congress canvass where several ballot boxes yield CoCs that are proved to be fakes. The ensuing debates could be messy and interminable, with neither the side of the Opposition agreeing to the canvass of a CoC different from what the KNP holds, being the dominant opposition party, nor the side of the Administration party recognizing a CoC other than that brought out of the ballot box taken from the closely guarded depository at the Senate’s Recto Room. The impasse would admit of no other recourse for solution – the authenticity and due execution of the CoCs being under question - other than the opening of the thousands of ballot boxes containing still thousands of envelopes containing multi-paged election returns. Would the canvass ever end well before June 30?

Complicate this developing scenario with the proposed set of Rules governing the national canvass by Congress, which Rules are Constitutionally infirm in many respects, and tailor fit for long-drawn debates before its adoption, which may not happen soon enough, thereby again depriving Congress enough lead time to conduct the actual canvass.

What results from all these is a looming failure on the part of Congress to proclaim by June 30 a president and a vice-president. A constitutional crisis could ensue, if you ask me.

Such a situation could goad the usual adventurists to take stock of the situation and grab power if need be.

Yes, the adventurists should be factored in here, but Drilon obviously missed this scary consequence while he raged against the Opposition.

Or did he, really? Somebody in the Constitutional order of succession could become the interim president, a juicy prospect indeed for anyone who need not have to spend billions of public funds just to become president.

There is scarier endgame to what is happening at the Senate prior to the national canvass. As I write this, somebody carelessly whispered to me that someone could be, in the impersonal terminology of the Company, “terminated with extreme prejudice.” That careless whisper was something that made me afraid. Very, very much afraid.



For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Money talks, and more

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Money talks, and more
Sunday, 05 09, 2004

Looking back, the mind-boggling spending extravaganza of public funds for the campaign was the ultimate turn-off. Plunder was the name of the game. Cash was available alright. A government functionary, with offices somewhere around the Elliptical Center in Quezon City, on-board a flight to Davao City last Friday confided to us he had brought P25 million to Mindanao the week before and that another P25 million was being carried by him that day for distribution to others. Will there still be money left for government to spend after tomorrow?

Cash could be available up to a certain extent, but as of today, there are reports that many government agencies have yet to release the salaries of their employees. Naubusan na raw. And yet, there are plenty of promises to give cash, in the midst of a hyped victory propped up by the managed surveys.

There is not enough cash or promises to buy the decency of the Filipino voter, and somebody will have to suffer for this. It is simply too much, the spending of public funds I mean, that any right-thinking voter would certainly think that if he gives those already in power another chance at power, what is to stop them from doing a Marcos before the new term expires? They could very well cook up a so-called revolution from the center, to perpetuate themselves in power. It is simply too much, that if public funds could be spent with impunity during a borrowed – hijacked and temporary, according to others – term in office, how much more spending and abuse will there be under a fresh term of six years?

A candidate worked the entire campaign on the weakness of the poor for the sight of lucre, in whatever form and denomination, be it a health card, a can of paint to beautify his hovel, a gallon of water, a scholarship, a bag of gravel for a strip of road, or outright cash, or simply a promise. Little did that candidate and her minions realize that the Filipino’s self esteem cannot be bought. Yes, the Filipino will receive what is offered to him; it is his money anyway that is being given to him, but the Filipino will spite the offeror for that political gesture by going against the latter: May halong hiya pa rin siya sa kanyang sarili. And that is when the payback occurs.

The check for a monstrous sum – the exact amount yet undetermined, the number of ciphers still being subject to debate – given to a popular movie star, given supposedly for services rendered in the campaign, but obviously only for the purpose of raising the hand of her favored candidate, highlight the obvious: Public funds are being squandered to guarantee victory, and the sum given was not paltry compared to two hundred pesos given to the voter just to be able to give a semblance of a crowd in a campaign sortie or for five hundred pesos for his vote on election day.

The campaign of one candidate was blinded by the managed surveys she herself capitalized on to project a winning edge. Her stupid drumbeaters have been making too much publicity about her non-existent lead, and eventually mixed the fantasy of their own making and the real numbers they opted not to recognize. And they brushed aside the decent path of pursuing with real hard work the need to overcome the big lead the real leading candidate had mustered. Nagkamali ng diskarte. That is the tragedy when lies are repeated many times over: The liar eventually believes in her lies, only to realize belatedly that the real truth has already passed her by. Of course, money was behind all those managed surveys; but buying out stupidity is an impossibility.

The managed media is another. How else can one explain the dearth of coverage on so many newsworthy events involving the opposition candidates as distinguished from the incessant undeserved encomiums for the highest ever spending candidate? Money first before I query, as one paid hack would start it.

That caper at the Senate was a dead giveaway of how somebody could possibly be made to win (by hook and by crook). Managed results, anyone? The projected switching of certificates of canvass scheduled to be done right at the building where, by the Constitution, the certificates of canvass are to be deposited awaiting the national canvass by Congress, can be successful only with the use of money. The whistle-blower from Caloocan, whoever he is, was not blinded at all, and he chose to be decent and expose it.

I am not equating with money the en masse dismissal of the disqualification cases, be it local or national. But somebody sounding like a senator called over the phone as I am writing this piece and threatened: “I will have you assassinated if you write that money changed hands!” “ Assassinate” is one word that, to me, now means “shut up or else” after G.S. sent to Tito Sotto a package of damning evidence. So, I will now simply say, the petitioners probably had no money to pay a good election lawyer like Boy Brillantes in the first place, that is why their cases could not prosper at all.

Tomorrow, accept the money anyway, then vote according to your conscience.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Shades of Watergate

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Shades of Watergate
Sunday, 04 25, 2004

Ever since we unmasked the fabrication operations of the lackeys of the administration designed to disqualify candidate Fernando Poe, Jr., we have been receiving nasty – sometimes threatening – messages. We have calmly accepted them as one of the occupational hazards of lawyering for a political party and gave them no further thought.

Last April 17, a Saturday, on my way to Baler, Aurora, another one appeared on my cell phone and it said as a business card message: OK KA BA? Little did I know that the following Monday morning, I would get the jolt of my life, when my clerk, who usually opens my law office in the morning, called me that the entire office was in disarray.

Whoever trashed my office must have been in constant track of my movements. Last Friday, I had been doing a very important task for the KNP-LDP, to meet some deadlines before I would go to Baler, so I worked late in the office.

The break-in must have been triggered by an irresponsible reference to me by a columnist (not of this paper) as a “demolitions expert,” and they were hoping to find among the documents in my office anything that might give credence to this undeserved sobriquet.

It could not have been a simple case of burglary because it is a law office. Walang mananakaw doon, except the bulky equipment which they cannot however spirit out the building without being noticed. The documents then were the natural objective, as in fact all documents in the office have all been gone through by whoever went inside. The diskette tray was in disarray; another (with its contents) was taken altogether.

My evidence bags - of the cases filed, and still to be filed against Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her minions falling all over the place to spend public funds for her candidacy - were taken by the intruders. The diskettes on the disqualification and other cases were not spared. Their choice of the loot was the giveaway as to the identity of the intruders. It was as if the intruder had scrawled “JP” (for “Jose Pidal was here”) on the walls of my office.

It is of no great loss to me as far as the importance of the documents and the evidence that they got is concerned, because they are documents and evidence that any legitimate party could easily get from the Comelec or from the courts where the cases are pending. Besides, I heeded the advice of the great Prof. Dakila Castro to “have more than one copy of your evidence.” Their loss is no big deal, except that the intended beneficiary of the documents and evidence now has an advance copy of whatever I will need to crucify her with. The order to do the necessary whitewashing should have been issued by now, as a matter of course.

I am alarmed by the brazenness by which they undertook the clandestine operation. They entered my office during a weekend and everything seems to have been well planned. From the neatness with which they entered my office (no sign of forced entry on all three doorlocks) to the calculated arrogance by which they left it in disarray. The intruders even have no respect for the statue of Our Lady of Fatima that kept constant watch over my office. They toppled it, as if to silence anyone to witness their caper.

What concerns those who know me as not the “demolitions expert” I am touted to be is the very real certainty that a dirty tricks department could concoct something and attribute authorship to me out of the bits and pieces of documents taken from my office. I am telling everyone that there is nothing significant taken from the office, such that if by chance something comes up and they say these are the documents taken from the office of Atty. Raval, then be forewarned that they are pure concoction from my political adversaries.

This is probably not the last among the harassment tactics that the opponents of my political party are hard pressed to impress upon me: that I am being watched and that they will not allow me to do anything legal or otherwise.

More than 30 years ago, the party headquarters of the Democratic Party was “burglarized.” That set off the investigation that culminated in the scandal that brought down President Nixon. The “burglary” in my law office, a very insignificant office in the entire FPJ campaign, has not reached that proportion of Watergate. But in a sense it does, because the intrusion in my office shows the arrogance of those in power, and their determination to threaten and put fear into their political adversaries. Yes, I am disturbed that they could easily enter my office, but now I am more determined to give double of my time for the cause to throw out the present occupants of that palace by the stinking river on May 10.

The investigation is moving ever too slowly. I am not entertaining anything out of the ordinary, not just yet, especially after a palace lackey uttered: Wala dito sa amin (ang ebidensya mo). To which I can only retort: Bakit tila alam ninyo and ipripisinta ko sa COMELEC noong Huwebes? I have disclosed everything there is to the investigators. I am waiting for results.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Concepcion

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Concepcion
Sunday, 04 18, 2004

She was her father’s favorite daughter. Born in that marvelous period of our history when teachers were looked up to as the models of a community, she grew up with the expectation from her parents that she would be a maestra. But fate was not so kind. The succession of two brothers and five sisters put a strain on family resources, and she had to stop schooling in second year high school to give her siblings the chance to taste how it is to be in school. So at the tender age of fourteen she found herself out of school - a very reluctant dropout - and a helper in a small family enterprise. Simultaneously, she tended the sari-sari store of her mother and helped in the management of the rice mill that her father had put up in his small farm in Balatong, now the site of Fort Ilocandia.

Life was arduous in that arid Ilokano barrio in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, but she refused to be vanquished by the doldrums of everyday existence. Instead of bemoaning her premature entry into responsibility, she sang away her cares as she tended her mother’s store and during those times when she would pack raw cane sugar into coconut shell halves to harden into palinang. This cheery disposition and the music in her soul struck a responsive chord in the heart of an itinerant teacher’s son who had strayed to Balatong from nearby Nangalisan, to listen to the amateur singing contest where she had won with her rendition of that heart-tugging classic Ilokano love song, Bannatiran. A typical Ilokano courtship followed, that culminated in a wedding that produced in steady succession eight children whom she would name after the idols and heroes of her time - the eldest after Shirley Temple, and a son after the writer who had won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Battle of the Bulge.

Her frustrations at not having realized her dream of becoming a maestra found redemption in her children who, even before they set foot in school, had mastered the three R’s through her patient, loving instruction. Her children would, many years later, look back and realize that they had been blessed with a truly remarkable mother during their passage from infancy to adolescence. Unlike other parents of her time, who tutored their children through intimidation, coercion and threats, she led her children through the path of learning by methods that were as delightful as they were instructive. For instance, instead of having to ask her children to memorize by rote that “two and two make four,” and “ten fives make a fifty,” she involved them in what present-day educators would now call as hands-on learning - she tasked them to tend to her tiangge and in no time they learned to count and make change in centavos, with the added benefit of being rewarded with an occasional treat of a candy bar among the merchandise in her small store.

When her husband bought her a sewing machine, she promptly discovered that the katsa of the fertilizer, sugar and feed bags that she sold in her tiangge could be tailored into some very nice shirts and shorts for her three young sons. After some considerable experience turning out clothes for her family, she was soon making good money out of the best Sunday dresses that she sewed for neighbors and acquaintances.

In the kitchen, she could turn whatever was available into mouth-watering gustatory delights. For miles around, she was known for the best isaw and the most savory ara-et. Even the flowers of the alokon tree were transformed into a delicious family dish once she set her mind to cooking them. The inabraw - that native dish that sets every urban, “transplanted” Ilokano into salivating - was something that she cooked best of all.

As if dressmaking, maintaining a small barrio store, and being a housewife were not full-time chores enough, she decided that a backyard swine project of two sows at a time would be a nice addition to her wifely duties while her husband sweated it out in a motor shop that he has put up. From their combined income, they saw to it their children received the best education. And in a town that recognizes well its achievers, it is no wonder then that she was once chosen Mother of the Year, having borne and provided guidance and inspiration to eight children who have all grown up to be professionals in their own right.

A mother is like a candle that lights others in consuming herself. For the best part of her active years, this resourceful, hardworking Ilokana mother had not been only a bright, shining presence in her household but also in her community as well. To her credit as a trustworthy citizen, every election time had always required her services as a poll clerk. For a short while, though, in 1981, she was devastated when her husband died, but she soon picked up the pieces of her shattered life and regained the inner strength that she had always found in a life of prayer. A devotee of Our Lady of Fatima, she continued to immerse herself in the activities of the simbaan and in the community.

She would have been thrilled had one of her sons opted for the priesthood. There was this son whom she had plighted for that vocation and had entrusted to a guardian, who would take care of him because he was going to grow up to be a priest. By the time the son graduated from the elementary grades, she was ready with everything - abel weaves of blankets, towels, bathrobes - that he was supposed to use at the seminary. But the son was not destined to heed the call of the Church; instead of the hushed and prayerful confines of the seminary, he preferred the tumultuous and exciting striving in a university setting and is now a damned good lawyer very much involved in trying to set right the affairs of the State.

Concepcion will live on for many more years. Like every tabako-chomping Ilokana, she is made of hardy stuff. Her senses are as sharp as they will ever be, except her eyesight which she lost five years ago. She, at 87, cannot read this awkward paean from a grateful son. Her daughter - my sister Evelyn - will have to read it to her.

Happy birthday, Mama.



For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

PHIC, DOLE, DPWH, DA, GSIS, DAR, MWSS, PAGCOR, DDB, PCSO, ETC.

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

PHIC, DOLE, DPWH, DA, GSIS, DAR, MWSS, PAGCOR, DDB, PCSO, ETC.
Sunday, 04 04, 2004

They are not mere letters in the alphabet; they are powerful endorsers of the candidacy of that lady with a mole deathly obsessed with staying six more years in that Palace by the stinking river. They are agencies of the government, whose heads owe their fat paychecks to the lady, and so they must support her if they also want to stay for six more years.

The unfortunate thing here is that these agency heads do want to stay for six more years like the lady. How to secure it? Promote and advertise the candidacy of the lady, by allocating extraordinarily huge amounts of public funds.

But they cannot do it that easily. They have to contend with the voting public that detests any advertising of agency accomplishments cleverly disguised to seek votes. The surfeit of criminal complaints filed against the agency heads – for electoral offenses ranging from electioneering, undue influence, use of public funds for election campaign to distribution of prohibited election propaganda, should already deter them from committing similar acts in support of the lady. They do not seem to mind, though, believing perhaps that the lady will win anyway, and they will be absolved eventually. Let us see.

And they are putting their candidate in deeper trouble. Already, she is facing 11 disqualification cases, many of them arising from the overzealousness of these agency heads to support her.

Take for instance the disqualification case for “Premature Campaigning” filed last Thursday by Mike Planas of the pro-Con(stitution). The filing understandably did not get full media coverage – anything against the lady these days is not newsworthy, considering the lack of worth (in pesos) to cause publicity ranged against the PR war chest for the lady, P400 million, I am told – but the lady should not sit easy. She has a fight in her hands.

Mike Planas and Pro-Con have documented the violations. From Jan. 5 to Feb. 9, before the start of the campaign period on Feb. 10, the lady had already logged 466 spots equivalent to 314.25 minutes in television advertising for her candidacy, courtesy of the agency heads beholden to her. Pro-Con estimates these ads to cost a staggering Php78,562,500.00 of the people’s money.

What is most telling about the case is that pro-Con appears to have everything covered against the lady. Pro-Con claims it has in its possession broadcast logs, tapes on air, placement orders, etcetera. Which means, for example, that pro-Con can tell the lady she appeared for one minute in a PAGCOR/MWSS “Patubig” ad on Channel 13 on Jan. 25 at 2:48;22 p.m., or for the same ad and duration on Channel 5 on Jan. 26 at 7:07:29 p.m.. These young lawyers really did their homework before they filed the disqualification case.

The print media advertisements by the alphabet agencies are even more scandalous. The endless full-page ads trumpeting the so-called achievements of the lady in patubig, pa-eskwela, pabahay, pautang, pa-droga, pa-sugal, atbp. make one wonder when these will all end. Pro-Con detailed all these in the petition for disqualification. As one undersecretary quoted in the Philhealth disqualification case was heard to have uttered: “Nakakasuka na ito!”

Premature campaigning is what the lady candidate and her minions in government are engaged in, without regard to decency and the law, and without any reservation as to its ill-effects on the bureaucracy and the state of funds of the government she is supposed to lead.

Another despicable attempt to fawn on the lady is the open letter of the DoLE secretary to her 6,842 laborers in her department. She mentions the questionable litany of achievements of the lady, and makes her appear as the only one capable of giving out employee benefits. The message of the DoLE secretary is clear, according to pro-Con: “Vote for candidate Arroyo in order that you, as a civil servant, will reap the benefits of Arroyo’s presidency, who is very much concerned for your welfare. Nobody else can give out the same benefits. Vote for her, and make her win, or else….” She ends her letter by exhorting the laborers to make the right decision, which she said must be the one who has “tunay na malasakit sa mga manggagawa ng pamahalaan.”

The DoLE secretary now stands charged by pro-Con for undue influence, use of public funds for an election campaign, and use of prohibited election propaganda material.

The lady candidate is blatantly skewing the playing field in the May 10 elections. To advance her candidacy, she has used and continues to use government funds, resources, facilities, equipment, vehicles and personnel in quantities and extent that transcend the limits of unmitigated avarice, to the greatly lopsided disadvantage of her fellow candidates who are unable to equal her humungous money war chest for the campaign.

The lady is unperturbed. She now goes around the country with her taped message to all graduates, courtesy of the Department of Education. The distribution of 25 million PhilHealth cards bearing her “ina ng bayan” image continues. The millions of blue billboards with “Gloria” inscripted in yellow continue to pose danger in every street and highway. The phony claim to “education for all” under her presidency is still an ad that sees print in every newspaper. Everyday, everything is still much the same. Her name, picture, or image and every conceivable achievement hog every available space and time to trumpet her candidacy.

Arroyo misses the point, and she could be in a for a lot of trouble with her arrogance. She is riding along with the illegal acts of the heads of the agencies whom she appointed. All of them will have to answer for all these.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Another disqualification case coming

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Another disqualification case coming
Sunday, 03 28, 2004

It all started very inconspicuously. A group of young lawyers, calling themselves pro-Con – meaning “Adherents of Constitutionalism; Advocates of the Rule of Law” – charged the sitting President having logged 189 minutes of televisions advertisement, well above the legally allowable limit of 120 minutes.

Arroyo’s action in this case is indeed not at all glorious, and is a strong ground for disqualification, as any right-thinking lawyer would readily conclude.

Against the clear evidence that the pro-Con is ready to spring on the violator, how then defend the violation? Easy. Adopt the puffed-up advice of a legislator who thinks he can think bigger than his big frame: That the 120 minutes allotted to the candidate can be complemented by the 120 minutes of the political parties supporting her, per television station. While that may sound logical at the first instance, its absurdity is exposed in the face of simple calculations using all television and radio stations throughout the country. Imagine a candidate being given a mind-boggling 105,840 minutes, or a total of 1,764 hours of radio station; and 15,960 minutes, or 266 hours of television time! At a cost of P250,000 per minute on the average for television time, for instance. Only Arroyo would have the wherewithal to bankroll that much of airtime. We might as well throw the Fair Elections Act out the window and adopt, say, an Election Expenditure Spree Law.

But Arroyo would not follow that kind of defense lined up for her. In her haste – read: hubris, meaning, damn the public, I won’t get caught anyway – Arroyo committed the monumental blunder that the guilty are wont to display: Admission against interest, as lawyer Patrick Velez of pro-Con would say. Let us read what Arroyo stated in her answer to the charge of overstepping the television time limit:

“4. Respondent denies the statements…of the petition insofar as television political advertisements stated therein were made for and on behalf of respondent. While the political advertisements show the respondent, they are not solely credited to her. The 188 minutes from Jan. 5 to March 19, 2004, is allocated between respondent and Lakas-CMD, the payor of the ads. The total minutes for Lakas-CMD and respondent appointed in six television stations… Based on the foregoing, the rule on 120 television minutes per…station was not violated. Even if under the rule of 120 total television minutes, no violation may be attributed to respondent since the 188 minutes may be equally apportioned between respondent and Lakas-CMD.”

The pro-Con petition fixed the time frame of the violation: From Feb. 14 to March 11, consisting of 189 minutes. Hard-pressed to approximate the minutes monitored by pro-Con, and in an attempt to dismiss the details of the monitoring report of the pro-Con as the job of mere amateurs, Arroyo countered that the time frame is from Jan. 5 up to March 19. Now here’s the rub: Jan. 5 happens to be the last day for the filing of the certificates of candidacy, and this is when the monumental blunder started to take shape. Arroyo probably thought that since she was already a candidate, she could start campaigning. Arroyo herself admits (what we all know) that starting Jan. 5 she was already airing her television ads. What carelessness, what outright stupidity! The campaign period was yet to set in on Feb. 10, and she was on Jan. 5, 35 days too early with her ads. It is therefore clear that Arroyo violated Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) against premature campaigning.

The television ads aired between Jan. 5 and Feb. 9 had Arroyo being glorified for her pseudo-achievements in the areas of patubig, pakalsada, pabahay, palupa, pabigas, pagamot, pabyahe, pa-ambulansya, pasugal, atbp.. All from government resources, mind you. Aside from those on TV, the costs of spots in radio, and ads in print media – all bearing the same glorifications – are already so astronomical that they belong to the realm of plunder.

Arroyo also is not a mindful of Section 32 of Comelec Resolution 6520, which took effect on Jan. 6. The plain language is very clear for a doctor of economics to understand: “All propaganda materials…showing the picture, image or name of a person, and all advertisement showing the image or mentioning the name of a person, who subsequent to the placement or display thereof becomes a candidate for public office shall be immediately removed by said candidate…” It is not an innocuous provision really. In the indecent haste and frenzy of her premature campaigning, and the sheer volume of the offers made by fawning bureaucrats to glorify her, Arroyo failed to order a stop to the airing of her television ads. or for those blue and yellow billboards posted nationwide, those PhilHealth cards and streamers, those PCSO, GSIS, Pagcor, DA, PAG-IBIG, DPWH, DoT, ad nauseam ads to be torn down or stopped from being printed.

Like they say, when you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind. Now Arroyo had better be prepared for another forceful blast from pro-Con as a consequence of her admission against her interest. Another disqualification case cannot be far behind.

It seems that the idealistic young lawyers of pro-Con have taken to heart the challenge of Comelec Chairman Abalos for everyone to monitor the candidates observance or violation of election laws. As a consequence of pro-Con’s trailblazing disqualification case against Arroyo, many others, I understand, have been emboldened to file other petitions, such as the one on the use of the road user’s tax.

To the detriment of the other candidates who are unable to equal her humongous money was chest for the campaign, Arroyo has not only blatantly skewed but also arrogantly manufactured her own version of the OEC, thus rendering the field of media exposure all too much in her favor. She cannot be allowed to juggle with the intent, much less the clear wordings, of the law. She must suffer the consequences of her outright and despicable violation. Her mockery of the laws and their laudable purposes must be weighed on the stern, impartial and unforgiving scales of justice.

At this point, the intervention of the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) in the disqualification case initiated by pro-Con is understandable. KNP has a legal interest in the outcome of the case. Besides KNP has its own evidence against Arroyo, which complement those that pro-Con has so far disclosed.

Let us see how Abalos, et al. will perform. I am willing to bet they will, in the face of the incontrovertible evidence, find it impossible to decide against the petition of pro-Con.



For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.phThe Daily Tribune © 2004

Our worst, forlorn hope

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Our worst, forlorn hope
Sunday, 03 21, 2004

It is clear that with Arroyo’s spending of 189 minutes and television time to further her campaign 69 minutes in excess (and still mounting) of the limits allowed by the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by the Fair Elections Act, she has violated not only Section 86 of the latter law but the resolutions of the Comelec… as well. She is guilty of blatantly skewing the playing field for television and radio media in her favor, to the detriment of her fellow candidates who are unable to equal her humongous money war chest for campaign. She cannot be allowed to juggle with the clear wordings of the law. She must suffer the consequences of her outright and despicable violation thereof. Her mockery of the laws and their laudable purposes must be met with a stern hand.”

This is the concluding argument of a group that calls itself as pro-Con(stitution), in its petition for disqualification against presidential candidate Gloria Arroyo. One of its members, Jose Vicente Salazar, a younger lawyer from Bicol, says the petition should be seriously considered by the Comelec – or even as it is being deliberated, by the country’s electorate – because “we cannot afford another six years under a President who has been known to renege on her word, and is a scofflaw, to boot.”

We have seen how, with a numbing regularity that bordered on obscene impunity, the nation has been bombarded with the “last, best hop” political ads of Arroyo. A pundit not exactly enamored with another six years of a directionless administration refers to the ads as the last gasps of our “worst, forlorn hope – sic transit gloria arroyo.” Amen, Salvador Abordo.

So, my dear Salvador, you can credit the pro-Con lawyers for their initiative in undertaking a painstaking inventory and monitoring of all television stations until they got their figures on March 11: 242 spots totaling 189 minutes. And the count is mounting, with Arroyo unperturbed.

The law says 120 minutes only per candidate, not a second longer. But here comes the Comelec, which now says it is 120 minutes per television station. I am not crying foul here - not just yet – but I am aghast at how the Comelec can possibly rewrite the law without any qualms, in complete disregard of the impartiality of a so-called independent commission, to hold itself above suspicion of collusion with the subject of the political ads.

Indeed, the claim that there is a Comelec resolution that practically absolves the accused candidate or offers her a convenient defense to avoid disqualification, is highly suspect.

The 120-minutes limit has its own reason for being. It is a cap to avoid political ads running riot in the campaign frenzy; its salutary objective being to level the playing field for the poor running against the moneyed candidate. But, to accommodate Arroyo, the Comelec sees otherwise. I say the timing is suspect, coming as it does at the heels of the violation by Arroyo of Resolution 6520, which spells out very clearly the intent to limit the broadcast time of political ads to 120 minutes per candidate for the entire duration of the campaign.

For all that it purports to revise, the amendatory resolution should not even be effective as yet. It has not been published, and there lies the intriguing question: Why does the Comelec ignore the advice of its own head of Information and Education department, that the relaxation of the limit must not be allowed because the Senate deliberations during the crafting of the Fair Elections Act show exactly and very clearly how much broadcast time a candidate is entitled to?

The Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino – or for that matter any other political party or individual who cringes at the thought of having Arroyo stay a minute longer at Malacañang – should intervene in the petition of pro-Con. Pro-Con has lined up a sizeable pile of incriminating evidence: From the report of long time, to tapes on air, to contracts, to monitoring reports of independent outfits, to vouchers…

Anak ng pating! The list is a long as my arm. The way I see it, the case is airtight for the outright disqualification of Arroyo.

For all it is worth, I have a question which pro-Con might have asked at the time the group presented the figures to the Comelec: Is there not a direct correlation between the breach of the time limit and the violation of the election spending limits? A 60 seconder in ABS-CBN already costs P354,000. Now, you do the math: If Arroyo had exceeded her time limit by, say, 69 minutes as of March 11, isn’t the total cost of those excess 69 minutes a clear case of overspending? Did I hear myself say “overspending” Anak ng Pating! That’s another ground for disqualification! Now, if you ask me, that’s an interesting ramification and another very inviting issue for another round against Arroyo. She should brace herself then for the next petition to be filed, not necessarily by pro-Con but by anyone who will pick it up from here.

It is my unsolicited advice that the pro-Con should set its sights on the buyer of the ads, put her under tight surveillance, so to speak. She could be up for another round of special operations designed to render moot any petition for disqualification. Personally, however, I don’t think she could still put up smokescreens and mirror to distract the attention of what she previously thought as a gullible and disinterested audience. Everyone is now wiser against any fabrication operations. And with the pro-Con lawyers having surveyed the gullies, ravines and quicksands of the political landscape so well, there can never be a repeat of the “manapatized” operations of recent memory if the Comelec commissioners make themselves aware of it all.

Let us see how the Comelec evaluates the evidence.



For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

5 million = 25 million = 2 billion

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

5 million = 25 million = 2 billion
Sunday, 03 14, 2004

No amount of mathematical acrobatics can one make out of the title of this piece. But ask candidate Gloria Arroyo, and she can rattle off the most improbable reason why these figures all add up to something that could guarantee her winning the elections in May by some five million votes. The boast made by her spokesman’s figures.

A group of young lawyers and law students advocating strict adherence to constitutionalism and observance of the rule of law, styling themselves under the name “pro-Con(stitution),” is at the center of a storm of the numbers they have ranked up: The filing of criminal charges against the heads of the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) and the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), for various election offenses related to the implementation of the “5 million = 25 million” program of the PhilHealth.

Pro-Con lawyers claim that they are out to protect their interests as taxpayers and as voters, against the continued illegal and scandalous use of public funds for election purposes. This is the first known criminal complaint against heads of government agencies, who are being criticized for their use of public funds to support the candidacy of Arroyo (The heads of the DPWH, DA, DoTC and OWWA should be next, if you ask me).

This is the second case filed by the pro-Con. Two weeks ago, the group filed a petition with the Supreme Court questioning the issuance of temporary appointments to Comelec commissioners Garcillano and Barcelona.

The “5 million = 25 million” program seeks to enroll five million families (for a total of 25 million individuals), at a cost of P6 billion, in the Medicare program not later than April 6, the birthday of candidate Arroyo. The program is funded by both the PCSO and PhilHealth.

On the charge of vote-buying, pro-Con alleged that PhilHealth and PCSO officials caused the expenditure of public funds to be made to persons of voting age, by way of enrolling families (and their members) in PhilHealth for one year, for free, at a premium cost of P1,200 per member-family. They say the free membership is obviously intended to induce the member-enrollees to vote for Arroyo in the May 10 elections.

Indeed, the name, mechanics and timing of the membership drive betray the intention to favor Arroyo by inducing member-enrollees to vote for her, or else their membership will not be renewed next year if he loses: The membership drive is dubbed as “PCSO GMA Program;” the PhilHealth card distributed to enrolled members prominently displays the picture and name of Arroyo on both sides of every card; the distribution of the cards was, and is being made through favored politicians sympathetic to Arroyo; expensive tarpaulin streamers, bearing her face and name have been distributed (pro-Con members claim they have secured thousands of these streamers as evidence); the starting date for the distribution of the cards coincided with the start of the electoral campaign for the May 10 elections, and is slated to be finished not later than April 6, to coincide with the birthday celebrations for Arroyo.

Pro-Con members claim that the head of the PhilHealth personally gave the regional members of PhilHealth a list of loyal local politicians supporting the candidacy of Arroyo, with whom the managers should coordinate in the distribution of the PhilHealth cards. Let us see how Dr. Francisco Duque III disputes this. Obviously, the pro-Con lawyers did their homework thoroughly: They have the documents showing the hand of Duque all over the place, including his fax number and personal memos claiming political mileage. Hubris!

The intervention of the heads of PhilHealth and PCSO using their office, personnel, resources and funds is pure and simple partisan political activity by public officer, electioneering to non-lawyers like PhilHealth member Dan Pinto, meant to benefit the incumbent running all over again and guarantee her victory.

The Law department of Comelec, where complaints of this nature are filed in accordance with the Omnibus Election Code, should immediately issue a cease and desist order against PhilHealth and PCSO with regard to this partisan political activity of theirs, and confiscate all prohibited election propaganda generated under the “5 million = 25 million program.

A day after the criminal charges were filed, Arroyo in a supreme display of arrogance and insensitiveness, bused in thousands to a venue in Angeles City and proceeded to distribute PhilHealth cards bearing her pictures and name. She was even quoted as saying those who filed the criminal charges are anti-poor.

Anti-poor, my foot! My informants say the indigent member-enrollees are even outnumbered by those who do not deserve to be members for free, principally because the “means-test” for membership – to determine whether they are indigent – was not observed in the rush to generate the 25 million new members. Indiscriminate, all in the name of election.

Arroyo misses the whole point, and she could be in a lot of trouble from the young lawyers of pro-Con with her arrogance. She is, in fact, riding along with the illegal acts of the heads of the PCSO and PhilHealth. A disqualification cased based on her not only being the beneficiary but also the prime mover of the scandalously illegal membership drive may not be far behind. A Comelec officials has even telegraphed such a move.

The brazenness with which public funds are being used to benefit Arroyo’s running for a new term is an argument for a prohibition against a sitting President’s running for a subsequent term. She has all the advantages to use with impunity that borders on reprehensible obscenity – in complete disregard of election laws – of public funds otherwise earmarked for other purposes. Arroyo does not know decency, the way she ignores illegality and scoffs at civility. Let her suffer come May 10, if she is not chastened by the crusade of the pro-Con.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Surprise! Surprise!

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Surprise! Surprise!
Sunday, 03 07, 2004

Our history is full of surprises. Consider Lapu-lapu. Who would have thought that this local chieftain of a small island – an underdog if there ever was one – would refuse to be cowed by superior weaponry of the Spaniards, and instead engaged them in a battle that resulted in the death of Magellan. And then there was a former secretary of National Defense whom his detractors dismissed as a mere mekaniko – another underdog, if you will – but surprised the pants off his opponents by becoming the most beloved President we have had so far. Not least of all is the surprising turn that the Filipino himself could take and, in the process, astound himself. This is what he did on that glorious day when he faced the tanks at Edsa and effectively brought back the rule of democracy in the country.

Last Thursday, just when everything seemed to fall into place for the administration, meaning, demolishing the principal rallying figure of the opposition, the Supreme Court came up with a decision that must have caused the smug-faced occupants of Malacañang to wonder, “Where did we go wrong in our appointees in that (expletive deleted) court?” This was one classic case of city hall getting waylaid by its own hubris.

If ever there was one, the 8-5-1 voting of the Supreme Court on the disqualification case against Fernando Poe Jr. (FPJ) was certainly a surprise. Against the widely-held view that the right honorable justices of the highest court of the land are at the beck and call of the appointing power in Malacañang, the court asserted, without any reservation, its institutional independence.

In one brief shining moment, the Davide Court deprived its critics the satisfaction of gloating over their contention it is a pit bull that Malacañang could sic on whom it wishes to tear apart. Tough luck for you skeptics out there – there are still justices in that court who can rise to the occasion, and temper their verdict with the strength and life of the law.

As one of those who have been lucky to have had up-close-and-personal experience in keeping up with the hearings, I could have expressed, through this column, my thoughts on the case as the hearings progressed. I kept my peace, however, preferring to report merely what happened over the 12 hours of oral arguments two weeks ago. But even then, in my mind was emerging a picture of how the case would eventually be decided. From the drift of the questions asked and the answers given, from the fumbles and foibles of the petitioners to the subdued brilliance of the amici curiae, the outcome was predictable. True to form, given the weight of the evidence and the arguments presented, the honorable justices voted that Fornier utterly failed to substantiate his case with the “manaptized” evidence at his disposal, which Justice Reynato Puno described in his separate opinion as “out and out fabrications” with “a zero value.”

At the risk of being accused of speaking from the benefit of hindsight, I was sure that Malacañang would be in for a surprise. But with so many imponderables, not the least of which was the possibility that this or that magistrate’s vote would go this way or that, nobody was willing to bet on exactly how the court would finally rule. It did not help any that Malacañang continued to foist the unarticulated but all to subtle boast that it had a majority of the magistrates securely under its thumb, which could squash all hopes of FPJ, who during the time remained tight-lipped as he took to the campaign trail.

The Davide Court proved everyone wrong: From Malacañang, which banked on the votes of its own seven appointees, to the paid hacks in media (check them out elsewhere, not in this paper) who all too suddenly claimed to have better arguments for disqualification than anyone while warning their readers of a grim scenario that would follow should there be a disqualification, to the politicians who trumpeted their alleged connections to the justices and predicted the end of FPJ.

The decision recognizing FPJ as a natural-born citizen finally brings the current electoral campaign to a high level. It has done away with the frivolous subterfuge of resorting to technicalities merely to eliminate a worthy and capable candidate. The court, by doing so, has averted a major civil unease that would have come about had its verdict been otherwise.

Now the nation sees a straight road ahead in the campaign for FPJ. The incendiary mines and smokescreens that have been planted to throw him off track are now disabled and gone. I can almost see previous fence-sitters now enthusiastically jumping over to the FPJ camp, taking their place in the now ever lengthening queue of supporters offering their contributions – financial, material, personal, whatever – to his campaign.

All the anxieties that beset the nation from the filing of the petition for disqualification early this year are gone. Short of Manapat again discovering another cache of spurious documents and thereby throwing the election period into another round of dilatory confusion, clear choices can now be made by the citizens. The candidates can now go back to proposing solutions to the problems that we face.

Gloria, we may not see her weeping in public, but you can be sure her hot temper will cause lackeys to walk on tiptoes in that Palace by the stinking river. And what about the spokesman who airily encourage the court to go ahead and junk the petition for disqualification because FPJ can be beaten anyway? I can almost see him cowering in fear; his facetiousness has come true, but he will now have to work his butt off ensuring that his boss at least does not get totally drowned by the wave of support that is getting bigger each day for FPJ.

Life is not always fair, but sometimes peccadilloes have a way of getting back at their perpetrators. When that happens, we get surprised – and relieved. The court’s ruling surprised a good number of villains lurking in the shadows of Malacañang. They might as well brace themselves for the next surprise, for it will come from the population that they have hoodwinked so much in the short time that they held power.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Garcillano y Barcelona

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Garcillano y Barcelona
Sunday, 02 29, 2004

A nationwide group of young lawyers, sporting a name that proclaims their idealism – Pro-Con(stitution) – has jumped the gun on those who would not dare challenge Malacañang’s propensity to violate the Constitution in this highly politically charge election period. The Pro-Con lawyers have filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC) questioning the appointments of Comelec Commissioners Virgilio Garcillano and Manuel Barcelona Jr.

Avoiding any attempt at diluting with political color and validity of their arguments against the constitutionality of the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona, Pro-Con made a mere passing mention of Garcillano’s colorful stint in Mindanao in the past elections or of Barcelona being a major contributor to then vice presidential candidate Gloria Arroyo. Pro-Con’s 29-page petition is a scholarly work on the nature of temporary appointments for constitutional officers, like commissioners of the Comelec.

Lawyer Agripino Baybay, the group’s spokesman, could not have put it better in perspective when he said the petition is designed to put an end to the use by President Arroyo of her appointing power to put in place election officers who will do anything at her bidding, to ensure her victory in the coming polls.

An ad interim appointment (which is what was extended to Garcillano and Barcelona) is, by its very nature, a temporary appointment. Garcillano and Barcelona, being temporary in their offices at Intramuros, would naturally be expected to make everything good for the appointing authority, in exchange for a permanent appointment. Pro-Con said in its petition: “The unprecedented filing by (them) of their respective position papers in the disqualification case of Fernando Poe Jr., even when they are not supposed to……exposed their servility to the appointing authority, upon whom their subsequent permanent status depends. (They) have no security of tenure. They are expected to toe the line written by the appointing authority.”

This matter did not escape the notice of Justice Reynato Puno during the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on the disqualification case against Poe. “Castigate” is a very mild term to describe Justice Puno’s tirade against the precipitate action of Garcillano and Barcelona in taking a stand contrary to the institutional position of the Comelec on a 5-0 voting. It betrays their dog-eared eagerness to please their appointing power, who is running for President no matter what the cost is to our constitutionalism and to the rule of law.

Baybay emphasized that Garcillano and Barcelona have no security of tenure; that they are not expected to be impartial; that they are in danger of being replaced anytime; and that they would do anything at the bidding of President Arroyo.

They are commissioners on an error-filled mission, as one observer noted, and no other truth can be as painful as this.

The Constitution is very clear: That in no case shall any member of the Comelec be appointed in a temporary or acting capacity. In other words, the three-step process of “nomination, consent and appointment” must be strictly observed. Yet, President Arroyo proceeded to do just the contrary: Extend ad interim (temporary) appointments to Garcillano and Barcelona, in order for them not to go through the crucible of the Commission on Appointments (CA) before they can start to wreak havoc on the electoral process. Borrowing the words of the SC in the case of Matibag vs Benipayo (2002), Baybay describes President Arroyo’s issuance of the questioned appointments as “render(ing) inutile the confirming power of the CA.”

Pro-Con cites the fact that President Arroyo issued the appointments the day immediately after the adjournment of Congress, when she could have very well made the appointments immediately after retirement of Commissioners Tangcangco and Lantion many days earlier. This would have given the CA enough time to exercise its checking function on the overly political appointing authority, and could scrutinize Garcillano and Barcelona before they could assume office.

The manner and timing of the issuance of the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona were resorted to as a way of sidestepping the CA in the appointment process. Such a veiled attempt to circumvent the intent of the Constitution is deplorable, not only with the way it was engineered but also with the resultant effect of derogating the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

The temporary nature of the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona gives them no more than a term of four months each, instead of the constitutionally mandated term of seven years. Without any confirmation by the CA, Garcillano and Barcelona will be out of office by June 11, 2004, which is the day that Congress will adjourn sine die. Unfortunately for Garcillano and Barcelona, President Arroyo would not be able to give them another appointment, because of the constitutional ban against the making of appointments two months before the presidential elections and up to the term of the sitting President.

Baybay, from Cavite, who was joined in the petition by lawyer Paulino Ungos III of Sorsogon was very emphatic when he said for the independence and fragile credibility of the Comelec not to be lost, and in order for that body to administer orderly, honest, credible and peaceful elections, the SC must nullify the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona and prohibit them from ever discharging again the functions of a Comelec commissioner.

Sen. Nene Pimentel, who has opposed the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona – and understandably most violently against Garcillano, for the reputation that precedes the latter borne out by Pimentel’s sad experience in the 1995 elections when he was cheated out of victory – could still get his sweet revenge with this petition of the Pro-Con.




For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Treaty of Manapat

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Treaty of Manapat
Sunday, 02 22, 2004

I am not being original here. Somebody coined it during the oral arguments on the Poe disqualification case before the Supreme Court, out of exasperation over the funny and rambling presentation of a petitioner, who was then trying to link the manapatized marriage contract between FPJ’s father to a character straight out of El Filibusterismo, indicating his nationality as Spanish, to the status of FPJ’s grandfather who was considered a Filipino under the treaty of Paris.

Yes, as certain as the $20 million consideration for the Treaty of Paris, there is a Treaty of Manapat. The turmoil outside the Supreme Court session hall last Thursday, exacerbated by the overacting crowd dispersal units of the police, finds its genesis in the ill-conceived plan to disqualify FPJ via this treaty, which is now causing division to our nation.

It was conceived in the late November 2003 under circumstances that everybody now knows. The conspiratorial signatories to the treaty have been identified, covering the jurisdiction from Perea to Arlegui via Azcarraga, with affiliates in Padre Faura, Philcoa and V. Luna. What we do not know is for how much, but the prize certainly is the presidency of six years, a prize valued at very much more than the consideration for the Treaty of Paris. The Treaty of Manapat led to the filing of the petition for disqualification with the Comelec based on fabricated documents eventually landing before the court.

The court tackled the Treaty of Manapat over 12 hours of oral arguments, all of them exposing the flimsy and lilliputian arguments of Fornier, et al.. From all indications, the Treaty of Manapat may not be ratified at all. From the drift of the questions propounded, the answers given, and the unanimous stand taken by the four amici curiae, one can most predict the impending verdict: That FPJ is a natural-born Filipino.

I refuse to believe the text messages regarding the alleged impending 8-4-2 ruling of the court unfavorable to FPJ. They are the work of the devils out to sow intrigue. I still believe, as I always have – in the wisdom of our honorable justices to side with the law. Right off, the 8-4-2 being bandied about is already wrong. Two members of the court who figured prominently in the text circuit as inhibiting from the case, were in fact present and asked questions during the oral arguments, which only means they will vote.

Justice Tinga hit it right on the head, when he asked petitioner Fornier how a bigamy charge could possibly be leveled against FPJ’s father one year before his marriage to Bessie Kelley in 1940. Obviously, the Treaty of Manapat overlooked this crucial detail in the fabrication process. Fornier cannot explain. But, of course, to Remmel, Emman and Vicelyn, who were present, the bigamy charge was made only in December 2003!

The Treaty of Manapat imputes to FPJ the manapatized sin of his parents, that of begetting him before they married. Justice Puno made this query: Why penalize an illegitimate child for his “involuntary coming into this world?” Why, indeed, should anyone prevent FPJ from exercising his political rights, like running for public office? After all, he had no participation in the alleged illicit relationship of his parents, if there ever was one. There should be no discrimination against illegitimate children, for this violates the equal protection of the laws clause, as asserted by Justice Puno, citing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the Philippines is a signatory.

Amicus curiae Ruben Balane, our idol in law school many years ago, whose brain matter continues to marvel everyone, who has gained weight but elegant still, extracted these from the New Civil Code which took effect in 1950, 11 years after FPJ was born and a year before FPJ’s father died: That Article 2253 recognizes the retroactivity to the date of birth of FPJ in 1939 of all the benefits of legitimation, and that under Article 2260 voluntary recognition of a natural child shall take place according to the code even if the child was born before 1950. So much for the senator’s claim that the benefits of legitimation retroact only to the date of marriage of FPJ’s parents in 1940. The conspirators in the Treaty of Manapat, including the senator, obviously goofed here.

Nobody could have put it better than retired Justice Mendoza, who lectured on the distinction between the civil status of a child and his political status (citizenship). He said, so long as the child’s filiation is clearly established then his political status can easily be determined, regardless of his legitimate or legitimate status. How his performance brought back memories in law school of his dissection of Marbury vs Madison, that classic in judicial review that only VV can handle with precision.

Dean Magallona, every law student’s mentor on the practice of following the letter of the law, however much it will make you poorer on your pockets, put it most succinctly: All that is needed is faithful observance of the mechanism on the transmissibility of citizenship, arising as it does from the blood relationship of the father to his son, regardless of legitimacy or illegitimacy. The transmissive essence of citizenship is such that if the father were a Filipino, then so must his son be. FPJ’s father was a Filipino; ergo, FPJ himself must be a Filipino. Amen.

Father Bernas, the authority had no kind words for the Office of the Solicitor General. He deplored the obviously “large-scale intellectual bankruptcy” that attended the position taken by the OSG, in using the obiter (which are not decisions) in the case law they cited to support the Treaty of Manapat. Worse, there is an absolute lack of “textual foundation” to the OSG position. Indeed, why cite cases which do not even involve the resolution of the citizenship of a child born of a Filipino father and an alien mother? Like the rest of the amici curiae, Bernas said there is no compelling reason to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate when it comes to the political status of a child.

The Supreme Court will decide for the country: it will junk the Treaty of Manapat. The overwhelming weight of the arguments for FPJ simply cannot be disregarded. FPJ and his committed 18 million supporters, who are the objects of sly operators out to destroy their equanimity and provoke them to violence, can rest easy. They can now go back to the hustings. And wait for victory, peacefully.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004

Ampaw (Pangilinan; Drilon; Tolentino)

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Ampaw
Sunday, 02 15, 2004

The word “manapatize” has not only become a catchword which has passed into the Filipino vocabulary to mean “to fabricate.” It has also spawned a lot of ugly variations. Its latest transmutation has taken us from the realm of fakery of flawed logic. We have the current Senate majority leader to thank for this etymological development.

A majority leader is supposed to be learned in parliamentary rules, practices and precedents. He is expected to guide the deliberations of the Senate, which draws on his experience to set everything in order. His leadership inspires confidence among his colleagues. After all, he is the chairman of the powerful Committee on Rules, which sets the tone of the proceedings in the chamber. If he knows his rules, everything goes well; if he does not, then that is when the big problem starts. As the Senate now faces.

It is on days like these that we pine for the good old days when the Senate has a majority leader in the mould of a Romulo or a Tatad; or, most recently, a Legarda. Today the Senate has a majority leader who is still wet behind the ears, and seemingly nothing in between, who is groping for the rules, prompting no less than Senate President Franklin Drilon himself to remark in disgust after once abruptly suspending the session: “Kabado naman itong si Kiko!” Drilon did not know he was near a live microphone, so that this remark was plainly heard by everyone in the session hall.

Why Senator Francisco Pancrateus Pangilinan became the majority leader is a big poser, but that is a subject for another column. What is of interest now is how he has led the administration senators into a committing another big mistake, which is what they do all the time. But this time they should not forgive Pangilinan for not realizing he is facing a monstrously laughable embarrassment on the 9-0-9 voting on the Manapat report.

Here we have on one side the parliamentarian non pareil of the Senate, Atty. Aluino Tolentino. Tolentino has sat through nine congresses over the past 40 years, and listened to the debates of the senators. With his exposure to parliamentary rules, precedents and practices, Tolentino is the man everyone in the Senate relies on for advice. Tolentino can rattle off the rules with ponderous authority without batting an eye and without skipping a beat. Drilon himself once gave Tolentino the highest compliment a superior can give his subordinate, by recognizing Tolentino as his “walking encyclopedia” on legislation. In an opinion, Tolentino had enlightened the entire Senate on why a 9-0-9 can only result in the adoption of the report and that the recommendation made therein must now be implemented.

And what do we hear from the majority leader? He denigrates Tolentino as just another subordinate who is not to be believed. Pangilinan comments as if his mighty position gives him the license to claim that whatever he says is authoritative, and that whatever Tolentino his subordinate says has no bearing at all. In this case, Pangilinan limply offers a mathematical solution to a parliamentary problem.

Tolentino cites the precedent of the Bar Flunkers Bill, but what does Pangilinan claim to refute it? He simply says a majority of 18 is 10; ergo, with 9 voting for the report, none voting against, and 9 abstaining, there is a standoff.

It is not that simple, Mr. Majority Leader. Try again. Forget for a while your biases or the collar around your neck that is attached to a leash that leads to that Palace by the stinking river. Take a deep breath, and clear your mind so that only the ability to think rational thoughts remains. Read Tolentino’s opinion without thinking of the consequence on the disqualification case against Fernando Poe, Jr., and you will learn that the votes of those who abstained are not to be counted for or against the proposition or for computing the legal votes cast.

Yes, indeed, under precedents, a senator is required to vote on a question, unless excused; and when he is excused, and abstains on a proposition, he is considered as not having really voted at all.

Tolentino had put it very succinctly in his opinion, thus: “Votes of abstention do not count. They are in legal contemplation a nullity. The 9-0-9 voting on the report could not, therefore, result in “a tie.” Only the affirmative votes and negative votes are to be considered. A situation where there are nine affirmative votes and no negative votes obviously is not a tie.” The nature and consequence of abstention is that this vote is never registered and would not count at all in the final reckoning of the votes. There would have been a tie had there been an equal number of affirmative and negative votes. Had Senate President Drilon and the eight others voted against the report, there would indeed have been a tie, which would have resulted in the motion for the adoption of the report being defeated. But a tie never ensued, when nine senators voted to adopt the report while the other nine abstained.”

The Senate Parliamentary Counselling Service was tasked to prepare a contrary opinion. It has been nine days since the debates, but the staff of that office are finding it impossible to come up with a precedent to the contrary, because they are they are the same subordinates who earned their parliamentary spurs under Tolentino, and who bravely fed details of the Quiem Case and the precedent of the Bar Flunkers Bill to the senators who voted in the affirmative to adopt the report.

So, left with no authoritative precedent that can be cited to denigrate the opinion of Tolentino, Pangilinan is now simply mouthing the ampaw official line put forth by the embarrassed and contrite Drilon: that the Manapat report is simply that, a committee report. And you know what ampaw means? It is all buffery, and no substance.

But then, again, Pangilinan and Drilon have forgotten that a committee report that has the imprimatur of nine senators in a legal quorum of 12 is a report of the Senate as well.

The blunder that all the administration senators committed, with the exception of Senator Juan Flavier who voted for the report – that of abstaining when they could have easily voted against it – would hound them forever. But for now, they are putting up a brave front, to cover up their blunder, even as they sheepishly rationalize to their masters that everything is under control. No, sirs, everything is going out of hand for your side. The report is being implemented, and the nation knows you botched it.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004