Impeachment Trial, Now Open.

The Senate, after constituting itself into an impeachment court, and the senators have taken their joint oath as judges, looks forward to January 16, 2012 when the grinding impeachment trial commences.

The chief justice continues to insist on implicating the judiciary, the institution, in the impeachment case filed against him when he should not. The institution is insulated. The articles of impeachment are clearly directed against him.

While he raises in his defense the singularity and independence of his vote and those of the other justices, he contradicts himself when he says Pnoy will get the judiciary if the house succeeds in ousting him.

It is forthcoming for one to rally his sympathizers to his side in the face of overwhelming odds. The judges and court personnel across the country obliged understandably. Whether that was a good move will depend on the backlash it will create.

Already, unwittingly put to limelight is the perennial and enormous backlog of cases that have collected dusts in the courts. At any angle you look at it, a Court-sanctioned holiday does not assuage the sentiment against, at least, the snail’s pace that the cases take as they do now.

If one files a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against court personnel who abandoned their posts to show their support for the chief justice, would the court be justified to say that it had authorized it? Or if the OCA denies mobilizing them; for tolerating them, instead of ordering them back to their posts?

If so, then how does it reconcile with court’s jurisprudential pronouncements articulating that government workers are not entitled to the right to “strike”, or collective actions, as public service is not liable to disruptions?

My, I shudder to think the other side might make an impeachment ground out of it.

Rep. Toby Tiangco Can’t See the Forest for the Trees.

House Rep. Toby Tiangco claims he bolted out of the majority bloc in his dismay over the leadership's inability to defend the independence and integrity of the lower house. He attributes his allusions to the fact that in the caucus to impeach the chief justice, he was not given a copy, hence could not have read the content of the complaint, the same merely conveyed to them via presentation by Neil Tupas, chair of the justice committee.

I would not question his motivation, but the lower house is not a paragon of virtue when it comes to attention, listening while other speaks, let alone reading first before signing a measure. I am sure he has seen the house, perhaps with himself in it, covered live on tv while in session and how it has behaved: rambling around; throwing high-fives to one another; talking in groups of after-session rendezvous; etc. All while one of their so-called, yes they dare call him, "esteemed colleague", "gentleman from wherever" delivers his privilege speech (to the birds & bees).

It's tempting to say: quit the fake niceties, and get real. Solons don't read before they sign, but they are informed of what the issue is. The copy follows after, for even if they're given the copy on time, still, very few would read it before they sign.

One reason is party politics, there is implied trust in the party leadership. Another, some reps might need someone else to read it for them. Come on, they could have slight eye defect, sight trouble, many have, that's what I mean. You may have to re-read it “many” with a single "n."

You can’t be extra careful. It’s treacherous ground to touch on some words that might be mistaken for some big names.

One former solon once joked in an aired interview that you may pass around a napkin in the house, i'm hoping a table napkin, and reps would obligingly, readily, and mindlessly sign it, with the only likely question: whose is this? No, not how much is this for? Of course, it is laced with hyperbole, but the idea is axiomatic and hardly gainsaid.

Last Note

One who feels so alarmed about the impeachment exercise may be one who is poised to do wrong and hopes to get away with it like in the old times, thus abhors a functional accountability measure. The exercise is within the constitution so let us just sit tight and watch democracy play out, and hope to learn from it.

Let us trust the prosecuting lower house, the judging upper house, and the respondent chief justice, not the Supreme Court as others would like to portray.

They are the pillars of our democratic society. Once in while they may tussle up in the spirit of checks and balance consistent with our system of government. 

Constitutional Mechanism at Work, NOT Constitutional Crisis.

Midas my goodness! How can impeaching the chief justice translate to an assault to the judiciary? How does it usher in constitutional crisis when it is this same and very constitution that provides for, on the contrary, the only means, i.e. impeachment, of removing certain erring government officials?

I guess what would be crisis-like is a system that is bereft of means of redress and affords impunity to personalities of power. As long as these means are done in accord with constitutionally prescribed processes, we should see them in the light of democratic and republican exercise.

I stand by the Court, the institution, as opposed to its temporary occupants. I would not dare second-guess the capacity and ability of the chief justice and the Court to defend himself/itself. 

He has longer tenure than the president. If he weathers this question on his acts and dispositions, then he redeems himself, clears his name, and hopefully, finally earns the trust and confidence of the people.

To entertain the thought that the charges are completely baseless is almost schizophrenic.

Newsbits

Senator Mirriam Defensor-Santiago is elected to a judge's seat in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of the United Nation. Let's see how she fits in the oft sober ICJ. It is time it had its taste of ballistic representation. I am sure the senator will bring pride to the Filipino for her authentic personality and incisive wits.

RTC Pasay Judge Mupas issues warrant of arrest against former comelec chair Benjamin "HAMBORJER" Abalos. I can sense Veteran’s Memorial Medical Center (VMMC) is praying he does not suffer from any medical condition. GMA alone is a headache tagging along with her Ms. Horn who, insider says, even asked if there was a good restaurant inside VMMC. Two of them in the same facility would be a nightmare, worse if he turns up with his own "Horn."

It's time to dust off the 23 robes the senate bought for the botched Guttierrez impeachment trial, london parliament robe style @4-5k each I heard. One bought for then ombudsman may not fit the chief justice, but I'm sure the CJ can bring his own. Is this a case of every peso spent put to good use?

Quezon City local government giving free parking to senior citizens is a good move, but obviously it could not be as inclusionary and far-reaching as the yellow card -free health care access- of Makati. I can't imagine a good number of senior citizens driving around to really matter.

Someone Dehorn Ms. Horn, Please!

For days now, Ms. Horn has been blabbering to the media on all sorts of incredible accounts of how GMA has been violated etc.etc. to the point that it becomes irritating why the administration has been unusually meek on the issue. It is high time the government lawyers dehorned her and muzzle her up.

In my previous article I commended the GMA camp, including Ms. Horn, for competently doing its job vis-à-vis the indecision of the interior department and the police on such mundane issue as transporting an accused. But Ms. Horn has since gone way over her head, incessantly harping on legal matters she has no expertise over; even clear understanding of.

She had better leave the legal pronouncements or argument to their lawyers, and not arrogate to herself what clearly is beyond her competence.

Today, in her interview at Headstart, she continued her make-believe claims so exaggerated she starts sounding like a nonsense machine. For instance, she says that GMA’s terms of hospital arrest is excessively restrictive and poor that she may be worse off than a regular inmate in a regular detention cell. What baloney! I suggest she spend one day in a real detention cell to give her a clue of what she’s talking about.

Then she proceeds to lament that the police’s advice that there may be some curtailment in the amount of visits and access to GMA as a violation of Republic Act… –not surprising she failed to cite the number– (susmariosep magpakalawyer eh!) so let me supply, RA7438, the law which defines the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigations.

She goes on to say that it violates GMA’s right to access to her lawyers, doctors, priests, members of family, etc. Notably, she enumerated them in plural forms. But a reading of the subject special law, particularly Sec. 4 (b) enumerates, and seemingly in a conscious and deliberate manner, the said persons in its singular form.

It is not difficult to understand why it is so. For otherwise, if the law allows all the lawyers and doctors she could afford, all the priests and ministers she could convince, and all members of her family including Ms. Horn to confer with her at all times, then her hospital arrest will look more like a continuing reunion party or a political campaign.  

In fact, in that same law, it is provided that the security officer who has custodial responsibility over the detainee may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to ensure his safety and prevent his escape. Therefore, reasonable restrictions are in order considering that GMA is no doubt a person of interest. 

I concede that by all means she must be allowed access to her lawyers any time of the day, or even night if the urgency of the matter at hand warrants. But NOT to an entourage or retinue of aides and alalays. Again, both Ms. Horn and GMA must wake up to the latter’s reality now, that is, she is accused for crimes so heinous (electoral sabotage & several counts of plunder) the law may not allow bail.

Ms. Horn squeamishly ranting about being deprived of laptops, internet access, ipod, and such other things not allowed a detainee is just pushing luck too far. She is simply out of touch with reality. She has got to put her feet on the ground, and stop daydreaming as though all these are not happening.

If she does not wise up, then it is the job of the government to counter her innuendos of irregularity in the treatment of GMA. The administration’s silence lends Horn the bravado to go babbling in the media.

Sadly, the public tends to believe, regardless of the truth, whoever has a side of story to offer it. 

She’s Been Mirandized: That’s it! Cops Need Not Ask How an Accused Wishes to be Transported.

Time and again this administration seems bent on amusing us. Where on earth can you find an accused negotiating her transport with the police? And the Police and the interior obsequiously waltzed with her. Viola! We have a zarzuela; poor Pnoy’s got a black eye again.

Goodness, has the police ever done anything decisive? Neither can Sec. Robredo be expected to make a difference. Everyone remembers his incertitude or even faintheartedness from the Mendoza hostage crisis to the Sarah Duterte mauling punching incident. Today’s drama was a spectacle almost beyond belief, and sad to say it highlighted, once again, the ineptitude and the misplaced comity that is crippling this department.  

Granted, the accused finds all the succor in our constitution and laws. That is for reasons consistent with fundamental presumption of innocence. But nowhere in the litany in the bill of rights and other laws do you find that an accused has the right to negotiate or argue the propriety of the mode or means of her transport. That is overstretching and reading too much into what you don’t find in the laws.

If the chopper flight was never discussed with them before, as complained of, it is because they are never entitled to its discussion. It is police operation. For security reasons, all the more that the police should have the most latitude in discretion, and to hold in secrecy the ultimate means of transport if it so deem proper. Those pilots put and lose their lives doing what they’ve sworn to do. It is insulting of an accused to discount their judgment, as though one’s life is more dispensable that the other.

It is hilarious that the whole nation has to be treated to this incredible fence-sitting, shilly-shallying law enforcement yet again. One may be fuming: “But she’s the former president.” That is the whole point: She WAS the president. Besides the fact that she’s the president NO MORE, she was voted into office of PUBLIC TRUST by the people, and the same people believe she trampled upon that trust by the very nature of the charges against her.

It is fair to say we should not judge her, and I guess no one does.  Let the courts determine her fate; let justice take its course. People agree to that. However, we must remember that to their minds, the accusations are far from baseless. The “hello Garci” tape, and her belated aired “I am sorry” address to the controversy are prima facie in the mind of the public of breach of trust.

But again, that is a side issue as far as today’s event is concened. The point is the vacillation and indisposition of the interior department and the police under it. The lawyers and aides of the former president are, in fairness, just competently doing their jobs.

That notwithstanding, I believe the majority is willing to give little concessions to the former president, owing to her alleged health condition, but none should be of sort of any extra amenities. Like any mortals, she has to wake up to her reality: she is being held to account for crimes so grave even the laws may not allow bail.

Unfortunately, if it were one unknown accused, he would have been collared, cuffed, shoved into a police car, whisked to a precinct and hurled into a cell of 50 –for a 20-spacer. All like in a day’s work, and none of this fanfare, and could likely be for a petty crime.

It has for a long time been tempting, if they have not been tempted yet, for people to accept that each of us has his own REALITY depending on one’s stature. It is this double REALITY that has long undermined our brand of democracy.

That REALITY makes the “EQUALITY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW” an even more dubious proposition.   

Sara Disbarment and Ombudsman Cases: The Sara Duterte Saga.

Atty. Fernando Perito files a disbarment case against pugilist lady mayor Sara Duterte just as the Sheriffs Confederation of the Philippines (SCHOPHIL), for Abe Andres, files its own raps for direct assault and grave misconduct against the said mayor before the office of the Ombudsman. While we clamor for the Supreme Court to make its own statement on the mayor's (sara's) contumacious subversion of its order (of demolition), Court Admin. Midas Marquez, when asked to comment, said he has not had info on the disbarment, and went on to remind the media that disbarment proceedings are confidential.

Susmariosep, when you're a public person and you do something that media is certain to feast on, you tacitly shed off your right to confidentiality; this whole thing is public by any measure. Try googling her name and you get over half a million suggestions in less than a second, not all hers of course, but you can sense how the search engines had quickly adapted to such an entry. Scan the papers; tabloids and all, TV news programs, social networks, blogs, she’s all over, so pervasive that it borders on invasion. Given that, I guess confidentiality is the least of her worries.

Her popularity right now, I surmise, can even eclipse that of Pnoy's. And with the news on the disbarment and ombudsman cases, expect the media to go on a renewed and reinvigorated coverage of her . Free air time and ad space: Talk about incidental gains, or opportunities in crisis.

I strongly doubt if the incident (punching) itself could justify disbarment. Everyone knows now the antecedent circumstances to the incident: tragic flooding that took an unusually high number of casualties; roughly 3000 families displaced; over a hundred homes washed away; an estimated 40 million pesos damage on infrastructure; most of all, the ensuing evacuation problem, and its maintenance and management in the evacuation center.

That is no doubt stressful, and calls for tough and steady personal constitution, which I guess the mayor had displayed until that day. That she lost her calm, as the nation had witnessed, although not to be condoned readily, is understandable. As they say, when emotions are high, intelligence is low. In fact, that endeared her more to her constituents. Who wouldn’t want a leader who fights for her people.

However, to remain defiant and unapologetic is all IMPUNITY. That’s what sets off the furor. People elsewhere find it offensive that while all else have to process thoughts first before action considering the consequences vis-à-vis the laws, which is what keeps order, one can disregard the same laws and act based on her emotions and not be accountable to it.

We don’t lust for anyone’s blood, but we want the authorities to show and affirm that we are a country of laws and not of men. The last time I checked, Davao is still part of the Philippines, so there’s no reason why we should have different laws for them, or suspend the application of laws to them.

Sadly though, voices of our government have not pronounced one bit that has any semblance of what justice requires, and continue to be evasive and hedging on the issue. We’ve heard what the court, the DILG, and the police had to say. The police leadership from Manila even intimated that the bodyguard (SP01) is liable for failing to stop her boss, the mayor. Hell, he may be accountable for his act or omission, but to see him and NOT the mayor is cowardice for the police. Even so, knowing the Dutertes in Davao, would any bodyguard dare go against the mayor, or much less parry her punches. Not a chance, unless you’re on death wish.

The police if it had nothing sensible to say, should just muzzle itself. Damn, I’m reminded of the Manila hostage crisis. Now, with the Chinese thumbing their noses on us, it’s hard to see how our police would be of any help when it can’t even stand up to one mayor, lady at that.

Why Some Get 20-22 Ambulances, Others Barely Any. PCSO Says Can You GAS it?

There’s nothing wrong with PCSO distributing much needed ambulances to local government units. The question is in the manner in which they were distributed. Certainly, there’s nothing irregular with all but 3, which got 2 each, of the 29 congressmen getting 1 each, our own (Calbayog City) included. But the same could not be said of the 65 governors, of whom ten, who got as many 22, in the case  ofGov. Savellano as clarified in the senate hearing, are rumored allied with former president GMA.(Alleba Politics)

It’s difficult to ignore the inequity especially if you come from a province which finds conspicuous the absence of any ambulances. Former speaker lamely attempted to deflect the blame by pointing that former Gov. Among Panlilio got 5. People seem to understand the difference between 5 and 22 or 20, he seems to forget.

That said, however, the current leadership should not stop at uncovering and parading anomalies in the media as if it were its mandate. Most important is to get its own programs in motion and unimpeded or undistracted by every little bump that faintly suggests any irregularity. I hope it (PCSO) does not harbor any illusion that the distribution of ambulances  is unworthy of pursuit. It must continue and it has a long way to go, but to avoid the same flak, PCSO must provide for substantial standard for their distribution and comply with it. Right now, what I hear is for a standard, PCSO simply ask: “Can you GAS it?

 I would like to see PCSO more working closely with LGUs for their needs vis-à-vis its capacity not only in the distribution of ambulances, but in the general execution of its mandate as a charitable institution, than trumpeting past wrongs in the media. The republic does have a forum for that, it is called the court.

Is it Time to Abandon the Jury System of the US?

Americans may not be prompted to ask this question as a reaction to the development in the Casey Anthony case, but outside of the US where the system is accusatorial or decision by a judge hearing a case, many who followed the case (of a mom allegedly killing her daughter) are shocked by the jury's verdict. Shock is shared by many Americans as well who condemn the decision as betraying the child's right to protection and justice by the state.

I don't think it's wise to leave the delicate task and obligation of determining the guilt or innocence of an accused, which could potentially send one to lethal injection, to a jury of people who aren't trained at making such determination?

Even as the parents (Caylee's grandparents) believed in their hearts that their narcissistic daughter (Caysey) murdered her own child, they're quietly happy by the decision. It's difficult enough to live through Caylee's loss. Where Casey's own loss would take them as a family is hard to contemplate. The grandfather having already attempted suicide in the midst of all these.

By a jury system, the people opt to be tried for infractions of law by other ordinary people constituted into a jury. Every registered voter forms part of a jury pool, and may be called upon by the court to serve when needed. Interviews and examination to determine impartiality as well as biases are conducted by both the defense and prosecution.

In this case, the defendant mom by all circumstantial evidence, which is all that's availing, is guilty by all sense of the word: she did not report her child missing for thirty-one days; she's out partying all those times; got a tattoo; competed at wet body dancing (whatever that means), lied about Caylee (the child) being kidnapped by her nanny, Zany Hernandez (she even got a name for her) which later on turned out to be imaginary; all these while her two-year old daughter was missing, or maybe because she knew she wasn't missing at all.

It was not until the grandmother's frantic 911 call that the police stepped in to do an investigation and set the whole trial in motion. Detectives found out search entries on the family computer on chloroform (deadly substance) 84 times she searched on the subject, searches also on how to break a child's neck. They also found traces of chloroform was found in the trunk of her car which stank of decomposing dead body.

Then the jury acquitted her, and not one of them wanted to give any explanation on how they arrived at the decision. This would make the rest of the world even more bewildered by the jury system.

Is the Rainbow Fading for Pnoy One Year on?

As in any popular presidency, the kind of rockstar assent to a land’s highest office as was the case of America’s first African-American president, Barack Obama, whose own trust ratings on economy and other issues have dipped to its lowest one year into next year’s reelection bid, our own Pnoy is no different and insulated. Many even keep harping on the feeble vice-president and president rating comparison, which time and again has proven its pattern (the vice outrating his boss) for the reason that the expectation of a president is way far greater than of an oft-nominal republican symbol of the office of the vice-president so that any development that put the VP’s office to utility (remember the trip Binay, on instruction of the president, took to China to try to stay the execution, which he managed to secure for a short period, but eventually took place, of the three allegedly duped and victimized Filipino drug mules?) people feel they can already make a case of anti-president comparison, the past three administrations were consistent tell-tales. For sure there were developments that put to question the president’s choice of some key people in his government, though yet to be substantiated. Sadly, public opinion is not liable to criminal trial stringency; sentiments are formed out of perception.

Whatever is the president thinking keeping Ms. Torres at the LTO’s helm after the highly publicized row (or war-like confrontation) involving Stradcom , IT service contractor for LTO,  amidst conflicting claims of ownership between its two dominant groups of stakeholders , in which Ms. Torres allegedly took side, although the same has not been proven? But what in the world is her business withholding payment to Stradcom for services already rendered amounting to more or less a billion pesos when the then secretary, Mr. Jose “Ping” de Jesus, has ordered the same? Many have sensed the power play, she being a close friend of the president. Now, there’s much speculation as to the real reason for the sudden resignation of former DOTC secretary Mr. Jose “Ping” de Jesus, hailed by many as an asset and as one who could mirror Pnoy’s touted integrity, intimating a policy difference, put another way, cronyism or friendship metered-policy, how’s that for a new term. The grapevine suspects Pnoy had admonished Ping to stand down on the issue of Stradcom.

Then there’s the Leviste brouhaha, truant convict in escapade, which brought to the fore yet another Pnoy shooting buddy and Bureau of Corrections (Bucor) head, Mr. Ernesto Diokno, who’s just terrible at lying, if that’s what he was pinning his hopes on of exculpation. Have you seen his interviews in the ensuing media frenzy on the controversy? He’s like a child in denial while his hands are still in the cookie jar. Really, I didn’t take it. Then he blabbered that his responsibility was just for policy-making. What? Even high school student government officers know their measure of responsibility.  My golly, Mr. President, this tells people the firing range is not the best place to find people with a fair sense of accountability. I was willing to except from the no-good shooting buddies until you (Mr. President) intimated that you were mulling which other department of government you would transfer Mr. Diokno. Quit on him Mr. President, it was not honest mistake that got him into trouble in the first place, it was conscious and deliberate decision, even perhaps malicious and corrupt, that to move him around your cabinet or sub-cabinet portfolios is to be so insensitive to the sentiment of the people. You have no obligation to carry them on your shoulder. If anyone is any burden, ditch him.

Then lately, in one of the president’s press conferences, he lauds the likes of Mr. Florencio “Butch” Abad, the budget secretary, Corazon “Dinky” Soliman, the secretary of the DSWD, then laments the three or four cabinet members, whom he refuses to name, as headaches. Don’t say it, fire ‘em. I guess parading in media as though a blind item segment the president’s whining on his few undesirable cabinet people is amateurish. Be the Chief Executive that your office has made you. When exigency warrants, you have the power of removal at your disposal.

The president’s silver lining would have been the impeachment trial of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who at the outset had fiercely vowed to fight his accusers before the impeachment court of the senate, but later, as her bluff was called, decided to make a turnaround  and offered the president her belated resignation, and for her own good. The office of the Ombudsman under Mercy had written off whatever goodwill it ever had. Now with the dismissal of deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III on charges of gross misconduct and neglect of duty, nine other officers, and with the preventively suspended Wendell Sulit indicted for graft and betrayal of public trust in connection with the shady plea bargain deal with retired major general Carlos F. Garcia, the constitutional institution needs a rebirth, and much of it depends on who Pnoy appoints as the new Tanodbayan.

Mercy’s truce deprived the public and the academe the education what was hoped to be the first complete impeachment trial could have provided after holding the whole nation in suspended animation for a long time. Notwithstanding her resignation, she must be pursued in our criminal system in line with the administration’s avowed commitment to taking to justice those who have pillaged the coffers of an already flailing Philippines. As her conviction in impeachment court would have resulted in criminal charges after her removal, so must the department of justice devote time and attention to seeing that she account for her infraction whether by her acts or deliberate omission.

As I watched the multiple aired investigations in both houses of congress, bonus for the congress participants for the free media mileage, it’s bewildering how they argue why they could not withdraw the plea bargain they entered into with Garcia, citing all sorts of nonsense. They even surprised legal luminary and senate president Juan Ponce Enrile when they posited that it was in fact, a provisional plea bargaining agreement. They said it was subject to the Sandiganbayan’s approval, even after they have arraigned Garcia for a lesser offense, and granted him bail as a result thereof. The issue of this provisional bargaining agreement, which I truly doubt is the case, is interesting to follow through as it will bring a new meaning to pleading to lesser offense. Strangely, in this version, you can be arraigned and bailed and all, but the same can still be abrogated and the former charge revived, all at the court’s discretion. Multiple jeopardy. I want to find out how the Sandiganbayan plays this one up.

Still, I can’t help but wonder why one who’s charged with plunder having amassed from government funds 320 million pesos, as alleged, could be allowed to plea to a lesser offense of direct bribery on the condition that he return 120 million. Let me decipher this, does this intend to tell the rouges out there that if you’re shameless, clever, and gutsy, do it, suck the coffers dry, and if by the slimmest chance you get caught and placed under the unlikely threat of getting convicted, you can always buy your way out by just giving up the lesser portion of your booty? And in between these arguments, how much would have changed hands among the players: the accused, the go-between, and the wise guys?

But Garcia and Ligot could have resolved to straighten up their ways. They might want to make it up to their beloved country and its people. Let’s give them a chance. After all, who could deny one another? Coincidentally, there’s trouble in Spratlys with the Chinese bullying around with their world’s second mightiest navy. Our navy and all, let’s include the CAFGUS and tanods, and us reserves who’ve not undergone the lousiest training, save for ROTC, which sadly teaches you NOT to responsibly shoot, but just brag around, is handicapped to say the least. But in the spirit of vindication and natural valor, military that they are, Ligot and Garcia might want to do what they think could be the last right thing to gain redemption. So what do you say we put them at the frontlines on the Spratly’s to stand up to any posturing of aggression by the Chinese? Armed to the teeth with, well, whatever they have scrimped to provide/short-procure the AFP (Would they trust to use what they bought for AFP soldiers?)  And yes, let’s stream them online.