A grand deception

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

A grand deception
Sunday, 03 29, 2009

That is how former Senate President Frank Drilon of the Liberal Party describes the move to amend the Constitution through the resolution drafted by Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte.

The resolution calls “upon the members of Congress to convene for the purpose of considering proposals to amend or revise the Constitution, upon a vote of three-fourths of all the members of Congress.”

So whence lies the deception? The subterfuge lies in the seemingly innocent call for the convening of a Constituent Assembly (Con-ass) that would not extend the terms of office of the President and the Vice President and all other elective officials, the assurance that the term of the senators elected in 2007 would not be shortened, and the commitment that there will be elections in May 2010.

No one can argue with all these. But the devil lurks behind the motive and the details.

Here is the plan, as Drilon sees it: Gather the votes of at least 197 members of the House of Representatives to initiate Charter change (Cha-cha) through a Con-ass, bypass the Senate, thereby precipitating a justiceable controversy where the Supreme Court will eventually rule that “three-fourths vote of all members” means “the whole of the members of Congress or the entire or total thereof and not three-fourths of each House voting separately.” With the issue settled as to how a Con-ass can be convened and propose constitutional amendments, the House of Representatives in the 15th Congress, which at that time will have been dominated by former President-turned Rep. Gloria Arroyo of Pampanga and her minacious minions, will then convene as a Con-ass to author a shift to the parliamentary form of government so that she can now aspire to be prime minister and rule the country beside her now largely ceremonial President.

Of course, the Drilon scenario has to contend with many possibilities, not the least of which is the matter of the composition of the House of Representatives after the May 2010 elections. After all, given the current mood of the nation, Arroyo and her minions may not be able, in May 2010, to elect to the House the required number of 197 members who can ram Cha-cha down our throats via a Con-ass.

But it does make sense to foist, broadcast, upload and dump this scenario on the general populace to make the people vigilant and discerning in their choices for president, and for senators and representatives of the House. The ultimate question to be posed then to a candidate in the May 2010 elections is: Will you support a shift to a parliamentary form of government?

If a presidential candidate all too willingly supports a shift to a parliamentary form of government, then there is a great chance that this candidate, if he becomes president, would most likely be all too eager to become a ceremonial president to a Prime Minister Arroyo.

If a senatorial candidate, without batting an eyelid, says he is in favor of a shift to a parliamentary form of government, then there is a great chance that this candidate, if he becomes a senator, would most likely be all too willing to accept the proposition that the 197 votes of the House will suffice to initiate Cha-cha via a Con-ass.

If a candidate for a congressional seat publicly announces that he favors a shift to a parliamentary form of government, then there is a great chance that this candidate, if he gets elected as representative, would most likely be all too enthusiastic to enlist in the RAM — the “Retain Arroyo Movement” — in the House of Representatives which will conveniently ram through the constitutional amendment that will make a prime minister out of Arroyo.

So I say again at the risk of being prolix: It does make sense to foist, broadcast, upload and dump this scenario on the general populace, in order that the justiceable controversy that the Villafuerte resolution seeks to insidiously precipitate will never come within an arm’s length of the Supreme Court.

Right now, the resolution is short of 20 members needed to get past the threshold of 197 members voting in favor. We do not know who the deceitful 177 are. But we do know a few, most notable of which are Arroyo’s sons, the presumptive Speaker from Tacloban, and the proponent of the resolution. They have been flaunting the number 177 for many months now, which is transparent doublespeak and party-babble that betrays the fact there are actually many holdouts who refuse to enlist in the RAM. Possibly, the inability of Arroyo, et al. to get more converts for the RAM is a function of the stream of scandals in the administration: Anyone who wants to run in 2010 should keep his distance from the RAM, lest he be contaminated by the stench, swept away by the tide of public disgust and rejection, and thereby be consigned to the kangkungan of the elections. This RAM faces the very real possibility of being exposed as a helpless ewe.

Drilon and his Liberal Party are making the right choices this time. His presidential candidate, Mar Roxas, is also pursuing the right advocacies. (Roxas won a lot supporters, with a big help from IBP Gov. Abe Estrada of Northern Luzon, during the 18th IBP National Convention in Bacolod last Friday — and that’s an indication, if at all, that a lot of level-headed people are listening to him). Except for the LP, no other political party and its members have been consistent in this one issue on Cha-cha.

Now, if Drilon and Roxas can wrangle their herd, and prevail upon the (sheepish) party members in the House of Representatives to never affiliate with the RAM, then they can count on a grateful electorate who will not allow wool to be pulled over their eyes again in 2010.

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

The Daily Tribune © 2009

Nicole, look at what you’ve done (1)

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Nicole, look at what you’ve done (1)
Sunday, 03 22, 2009

I found this long letter slipped through the door to my office, with a note requesting that it be inserted (no pun intended) in my space in The Daily Tribune:

Dear Nicole,

I address you by your nom de plaisir because that is how the entire Philippines knew you, instead of the lady from Zamboanga who hogged the headlines three years ago (has it been that long already? - my, my, how time flies!) in a celebrated “rape” case committed by a Yankee serviceman who thought he was having a good time when he dumped you by the roadside, semen stains in parts of your body, your undergarments still around your legs, after he had his fun.

I would not know whether you still go by that name by now, as you savour your newfound freedom in anonymity somewhere in the land of the brave.

Our macho hearts cheered for you when you showed us how brave you were during the trial (you had wanted to see your “abuser” get the death penalty, don’t you remember?) and, sure enough, you secured a conviction. You were brave enough to stay within the country within three years after that conviction, and fight the appeal from the decision convicting your rapist. But, alas, you were not brave enough to carry on the fight until the very end.

Or, rather, you were brave enough to have executed an affidavit the contents, meanings, and intentions of which are as varied and numerous as the individuals who care to dissect it. And you are gone, possibly forever, nowhere to tell us what you really intend with the affidavit. If, by chance, you read this letter, do tell us:

Were you really raped or not? Did you recant or not? Were you paid to execute that affidavit? Do you think that affidavit is enough to acquit your alleged rapist? Do you realize that you may be monkeying around with the Philippine justice system? Are you really gone for good, never again to cause the furor you have inflicted on us all? Did you have the fate of the VFA in mind when you made a sudden change in tune? Did you sign the affidavit knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently? Are you sure you were not drunk when you signed the affidavit, like the same state you now claim you were in on that accursed and fateful night in Subic?

I’d like to ask many more questions and answer them myself, but I’m sure my answers would just be as speculative(?) as yours.

But what is certain is that your affidavit and your departure for the land of the brave has caused a lot of trouble to many.

For one, let us take the trouble that the lawyers in the law firm that prepared and notarized your affidavit will have to grapple with.

I heard your lawyer (or to be precise, your ex-lawyer) rightly say that the lawyers in the law firm that drafted your affidavit may possibly be haled to the disciplinary processes of the legal profession. She could be referring to the enforcement of this ethical canon decreeing thus: “A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of a controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel, and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law.” (Canon 9, Canons of Professional Ethics - ABA).

Lawyer Ursua probably had in mind Canon 8 of our own Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that “A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues,” or the sacrosanct phrase in the Lawyers’ Oath avowing “good fidelity” in one’s conduct as a lawyer.

I’m sorry if all these lawyerese seems to bewilder you, but then, you yourself showed an admirable ease with lawyerly lingo in that affidavit. My dear Nicole, you even came out like a lawyer for the defense!

The rule governing communicating with adverse parties has a reason, and it is a simple one. Let me quote this one from Professional Responsibility 1985 by Aronson, Devine & Fisch: “The rule is to prohibit lawyers form taking advantage of litigants who are presented by counsel. It has always been a recognized rule of conduct, regardless of any written rule, that a lawyer should avoid dealing with clients of other lawyers. This is for the protection of the client. A client who has selected counsel is entitled at all times to the advice and guidance of such counsel selected. If lawyers representing adverse interests seek to compromise or settle matters directly with litigants represented by counsel, then they are ignoring the relationship that exists for the protection of the litigants.”

Lawyer Ursua is to be commended for her valiant pro bono efforts at fighting for your rights. Never mind the shabby treatment she got when her services were terminated. Ursua has earned everyone’s respect and admiration.

But going after the lawyers who prepared and notarized your affidavit should already be beyond lawyer Ursua. It is a taxing exercise, if you ask me, to initiate and prosecute a charge against a fellow member of the legal profession. Let the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, motu proprio initiate and prosecute the proper charges against the erring lawyers.

Nicole, with all due respect, let me say that you probably had the best of intentions in executing the affidavit, and flee to where you think you can forget that “harrowing” experience. After all, who does not want to forget?

But the nation will not forget. (To be continued)

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2009

Disguised censorship (Right of reply)

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Disguised censorship
Sunday, 03 08, 2009

The critical provision in the Right of Reply Bill (RORB) reads: “All persons who are accused directly or indirectly of any offense or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behaviour in public or private shall have the right to reply to the charge published in newspapers and other publications or to criticisms aired over radio, television, website or through any electronic device.”

Right off, the absurdities spawned by this provision will be legion. Let us take the case of The Daily Tribune, and apply to it this ludicrous provision of the RoRB.

On any given day, this paper over its twelve pages minces no words - either by innuendo, suggestion, or outright accusation - in criticizing individuals and organizations for their indiscretions, corrupt acts, omissions, and lapses in behavior. With the enactment of the RoRB into law, could we still expect The Daily Tribune to retain on a daily basis its complexion as a fearless vehicle to lay bare the despicable acts or omissions of those deserving to be accused? What will happen would be, on alternate days, because the replies of those this paper and its writers have accused, criticized or denounced would have to be accommodated and given free space, The Daily Tribune would be fearless one day and generous the next. Unafraid and ballsy one day, and indulgent and obsequious the next. The public will be confused. Absurd and ludicrous, is it not?

This paper is a favorite venue for paid announcements critical of the administration. With the enactment of the RoRB into law, do we expect the administration to buy equal space for its reply to the critical announcement? Or expect it to demand equal space, for free this time because, after all, it has a legislated right to enforce? Either way - whether it pays or gets space for free - just imagine how confused the readers would be. The editors and the publisher of this paper will just have to grin and bear it, and accept that their editorial independence and discretion have been spiked and thrown to the dustbin.

This is disguised censorship, if you ask me. The Daily Tribune would no longer have the independence to report that crime, that dishonesty, that immoral or dishonourable conduct committed with impunity. There will no longer be consistency in its advocacy, as it must now allocate space to accommodate the replies - no matter how evasive, inexplicit, shifty and dilatory they are - which its editors and publisher cannot even edit. There will eventually be a restriction in its circulation, either in reduced number of printed copies, or simply that the copies available are no longer read, because the public will stop buying a fearless/generous, ballsy/obsequious paper.

Censorship takes many forms. One of them is undermining the financial independence of media. Imagine a newspaper like The Daily Tribune losing its readers who regularly buy the newspaper, who must now abstain from buying it on the expected day of the reply to the accusatory article (because they simply do not care to know the reply) or who will simply be turned off by the inconsistent handling of issues and articles. Then again, who would care putting in their advertisements in a newspaper that has lost its readership? On the day that RoRB is enacted into law, the independence of this paper shall have been compromised because of this disguised censorship.

Persons, whether private or public, and their acts and utterances, are legitimate subjects of comment or reporting when the interests of society require that their acts and utterances be subject to public awareness and discussion. To this extent, the rights of an individual about whom accusatory statements have been made are subordinated to the interests of the community. This is the object of the Freedom of Expression. The RoRB curtails that freedom. Once enacted into law, it would assume the role of arbiter of what must see print in this paper, its content and slant, and when. That is plain and simple censorship.

A final point. With the enactment of the RoRB into law, do we expect the replies to take the place of libel suits and recourse to damages? Presently, the person subject of a defamatory article can demand as a matter of right equal space to clear his name. That is without prejudice to his right to file a libel suit, with damages. With the RoRB under the proposed availment of only one remedy to the exclusion of the others, the other rights of the defamed are being legislated out. Hmmm, will His Immensity agree?

What to do then? Kill the RoRB now. The vigilance exhibited in exposing the evils of the RoRB must be vigorously replicated in getting the bill to be withdrawn by its authors, no matter in what stage it is now in the legislative mill. The vacuous promise of a veto by Malacanang should not lull media into complacency. We have heard so many promises before, the most galling one made in December 2002, using no less than our national hero as guarantor. After all, the RoRB once enacted into law could be a refuge of the administration to absolve itself of the misery, the corruption, and the thefts it has foisted on the nation.

000 --- 000

Erratum: The fifth paragraph of last Sunday’s article should have read as follows: “The accuser of Macasaet, et al. had included them as participants in an alleged break-in into the offices of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC), where vital documents, proving the multi-million plunder of PHC by a band of robbers labelled in a privilege speech by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as ‘Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves,’ were ‘liberated.’ ”


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

The Daily Tribune © 2009

The perils of the pen

ENQUIRY

DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

.

The perils of the pen

Sunday, 03 01, 2009

,

Notwithstanding the controversy over the “Alabang Boys,” which put the reputation of a passel of prosecutors under a nasty cloud, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez can rest easy with the thought that a great many of his prosecutors are decent.

We single out in this column, for being decent, the following: Second Assistant City Prosecutor Hannibal Santillan, First Assistant City Prosecutor Romulo Nanola, and City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi, all of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City.

Santillan resolved to dismiss, upon a preliminary investigation, a criminal complaint for Robbery in Band against Amado Macasaet of Malaya, Federico Pascual of Philippine Star, Victor Agustin of Manila Standard Today, and this writer. Nanola recommended approval of the resolution of Santillan, and Aspi approved the resolution.

In one stroke — no, make that three — the four writers, who were simply doing their journalistic duty to expose wrongdoings in a corporation partly owned by the government, can finally tell their accuser straight to his face: “Nice try; now get that shyster out of your stable of lawyers.” (A bootleg copy of Webster’s in CM Recto defines shyster as a lawyer locked in with his proverbial bag of dishonest tricks, looking forever to cash in on his clients’ ignorance.)

The accuser of Macasaet, et al. had included them as participants in a break-in (by a band of robbers labeled in a privilege speech by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as “Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves”) into the offices of Philcomsat Holdings Corp., where vital documents, proving the multi-million plunder of PHC, were “liberated.”

The trouble with the accuser is that he failed to get get his facts straight, and relied too much on his shyster. He placed Macasaet, et al. right there at the scene of the crime, when the truth is not one of them was even within shouting distance from Gil Puyat Avenue where the PHC office was. In fact, one of them was in Kabul, Afghanistan, at the time the alleged robbery took place, suffering from a severe attack of homesickness.

What their accusers did not know was that Macasaet, et al. had simply gotten hold of copies of the documents exposed by Enrile at the Senate during a privilege speech. Through Enrile, the bank accounts and recipients of the filched monies were identified; the so-called PR money coursed through a fictitious Veronica Nepomuceno was made public; the shyster’s gargantuan fees were disclosed; the modus operandi for the plunder was detailed, and many more nasty doings.

The sworn duty of Macasaet, et al. to “tell it as it is” impelled them to write in their respective columns the sordid details of the methodology of the plunder of PHC.

Rightly so, Santillan concluded that the accuser of Macasaet, et al. “miserably failed to show any proof or assertion that they directly participated in the alleged physical taking of the personal belongings averred by the complainant, and this should cause the outright dismissal of the robbery charge against them.”

All’s well that ends well, indeed, but the filing of this baseless charge against Macasaet, et al. is symptomatic of the peril that the writer who tells the truth has to face. The writer writes the truth about a particular incident, or about a particular issue. The subject of the truthful writing, enraged by the bad publicity generated by such writing, goes to his lawyer for advice. The lawyer, especially if he is the shyster type and thinks of nothing but his fees, will advise the poor sap to go ahead with the filing of the criminal complaint, however, baseless.

Between and among them, Macasaet, et al. probably are facing a host of libel and journalism-related criminal cases. They are unperturbed, although the peril of being haled to the prosecutor’s office or, eventually, to a court of law is always there.

The peril is not so much being accused falsely, but the effects of being accused unfairly. The journalist will have to engage a lawyer, for a hefty fee most of the time; the journalist will have to appear for several hearings, leaving him no time enough to research, think and write well enough. And because of the opprobrium associated with a criminal case, a journalist who faces so many criminal suits, however, innocent and unfairly accused he is, loses some of his readers; a journalist also loses his friends who are friends of people about whom he has written the painful truth; etcetera. Plainly and simply, a charge against the writer who does not deserve it, is a vexation to the spirit.

Once in a little while, a journalist invariably treads on the toes of one who is undeniably corrupt — with too much tainted money, or power and influence to use to get back on that writer. Therein lies the peril: With truth as his only defense, the writer will have to contend with the money and power in the hands of the corrupt. He will just have to rely (read that as “have faith”) in the common decency of the investigating prosecutors — as what Santillan, Nanola and Aspi have exhibited. But what if by bad luck the writer’s case is lodged with a prosecutor with an uncommon reputation that makes Secretary Gonzalez utter unprintable invectives in the privacy of his office?

Writing, particularly journalism, is a profession where those who write truthfully and without malice must thrive without fear. The risk of their being slapped with a criminal charge is there alright, all the time. But despite that risk — and that ominous Right of Reply Bill in Congress — writing is still a beautiful, brave and ennobling calling.


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

The Daily Tribune © 2009