The people’s president

The people’s president

CORY AQUINO has faced many challenges in her life and she has always faced them head on. She’s had bad times before. Her presidency was plagued by both man-made and natural disasters (those debilitating coups, the great 1990 earthquake, Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption), but through it all she remained a person of courage and unwavering faith. It is one of the many personal traits that make her unlike any politician I know, and perhaps in the end, she was really never much of a politician, but more of a humanitarian. Looking at her life, in and out of politics, it is clear that she does not merely pay lip service to good values and to moral action. She lived these values. She represented the best of what we hoped for in our leaders.

A lot of other leaders can learn from her. Unlike the current president whose political legitimacy remains elusive because of alleged electoral fraud, Cory’s legitimacy was never in doubt. She survived those persistent coup rumors and actual military coup attempts, particularly the worst of them in August 1987 and December 1989, because people believed in her presidency. Yes, even when she disappointed not a few of the citizens, those who wanted the Edsa revolution to be indeed more revolutionary, they still stood by her. Cory was their hero, the only one who could have rallied and unified the people against the dictator.

One of the real lessons in Cory’s presidential term is that democracy offers the best means of overcoming extremism. Restore faith in the elections commission and strengthen other political institutions, have a vibrant civil society, restore constitutional rights and free­doms, and you’ve got a chance of quelling military adventurism, communist and secessionist rebellion and what have you. At the heart of it all, democracy’s survival lies in the people’s conviction that their president and her administration is legiti­mate; that the power of the presi­dent comes from the people, not a case of the president of wielding the vast powers of her office to rule over a her people, which is what many accuse GMA of.

Ninoy Aquino, whose death woke the Filipino people from their apathetic stupor, used to say that Marcos would leave the country with so many problems, his successor would be lucky to last six months. Of course, how could he have known Cory his wife would be the one to succeed the dictator. Maybe, knowing his wife, he would have given her better chances.

Never underestimate a woman with resolve and a just cause. She has an enormous capacity to inspire, as she did and continues to inspire Filipino people, and the world.

Cory was Time Magazine’s Woman of the Year in 1987, among Time’s 20 Most Influential Asians of the 20th Century in its August 1999 issue, one of Time’s 65 Great Asian Heroes (along with Mahatma Gandhi, Lee Kuan Yew, Aung San Suu Kyi and King Bhumibol Adulyadej) in its November 2006 issue. She was once nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Price. She was the 2nd woman to give a keynote address to the US Congress (the first was Madame Chiang Kai-shek). There are so many other honors given to her by the international community that when she is criticized here by fellow Filipinos, it is somewhat like a prophet not being accepted in her own land. She was adored and still is by the world.

Perhaps the Filipino people just expected too much of Cory. She was after all mythical—the devout housewife of a fallen hero who took up the cudgels and ousted the dictator without a drop of blood. How could what happened next (the real nitty-gritty of governance with all the confusing noisy politics and all the problems) top that? Edsa was a miracle. Perhaps we forgot that people worked hard to make that miracle happen. It is not just God’s and it is not just one woman’s inspiration alone. And if we expected true-blue socio economic emancipation after Edsa, well, that’s a miracle we had to work hard on as well. Who knows, maybe if there weren’t as many coup attempts during her term, maybe. If all those people who sought to bring her down, could have worked with her instead, who knows what could have happened?

Cory lasted more than six months. She did finish her term She was, after all, the people’s president. And as a testament of the woman’s character, despite having a chance to run again—and she would have won by a landslide—she walked away from it all, well actually, drove away, from Malaca­ñang, in a simple privately owned Toyota sedan.

They say that power corrupts, but Cory Aquino’s personal probity was beyond reproach. Even her critics swore by it. She never personally profited from her stay in office. And when her tenure as president was up, she never thought of staying a day more, despite having the chance to. Which is a lot more than you can say from a president who would do anything and everything to stay in power.

Good luck and godspeed to you, President Cory. We are all praying for you and believing that you will get well.

Presidencies and piracies

Presidencies and piracies

The verdict is out: Joseph Estrada is guilty of plunder!

The mixed reactions are understandable, given the prominence of the accused and the yawning political divide the plunder case has created since Joseph Estrada’s ouster in 2001. Everyone has a right to react to the decision based on one’s personal convictions and affiliations. Still, others have an equal right to react to those reactions. Let these be expressed openly.

Leaving the legal options to lawyers, what is worth pondering at this time is the subliminal message conveyed by the said anti-graft court Sandiganbayan’s verdict to civilized society, or to polities where the rule of law, and not of men, is an established norm.

The verdict on Estrada is undoubtedly a verdict on our justice system as well. By rendering the guilty verdict despite veiled threats of a consequential social unrest or even violent protests from die-hard Estradap fans, the Sandiganbayan justices effectively and clearly conveyed a message to public officials, more particularly to those on the totem poles of political power, that in this country justice is, indeed, blindfolded. Justice doesn’t see nor hear nor feel political power and is, therefore, not daunted by it.

Through its decision, the Sandiganbayan has stressed that no one -- not even the highest official of the land -- is above the law. The relevant laws contemplated in this case are perhaps best captured in these words prominently displayed on the main menu page of the Sandiganbayan website: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.”

The strong message implied in the decision is likewise sent to the corridors of power in Malacañang for its current occupant and her family to reckon with. That same message also goes to what-used-to-be-august halls of both houses of Congress, for the “witch hunters” and “whistle-blowers” in the Upper House and the “tongressmen” in the Lower House to heed. That same message should echo in the courts, for scalawags therein to think over. That same message should reverberate in all public offices, from national government agencies and constitutional bodies to provincial capitols, down to city, municipal and “barangay” [village] halls. Yes, that same message should send shivers down the spines of those involved in the fishy National Broadband Network deal.

Now, for the first time, Filipinos can hold their heads high before the Japanese and the South Koreans and tell them that in this country, too, there is a high sense of honor in public service. That sense of honor, that unequivocal standard of right and wrong, transcends politics. Now, for the first time, Filipinos can proudly proclaim that in this country’s drive toward transparency, honesty and accountability in public service, we don’t catch the small fish only; we get to catch the biggest ones, as well.

Had Estrada been acquitted despite the overwhelming evidence against him, the subliminal message would have been that in this country we confuse presidencies with robberies. Had Estrada been freed, we would have demonstrated to the world the inability of our justice system to draw the line between the roles of a president and the roles of a pirate. For, as Saint Augustine said, it is justice that distinguishes a kingdom from a band of robbers, an emperor from a pirate. In our context, to paraphrase Augustine, we can say that it is justice that distinguishes a presidency from a piracy, a president from pirate.

In this regard, what the saint and sage wrote in his City of God merits rereading and pondering:

“Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.”

Meet the cowinners

Meet the cowinners

This is the people’s verdict after the antigraft court’s guilty verdict on Estrada’s plunder case: Estrada and President Arroyo are cowinners. We just don’t know who, later on, will emerge as the bigger winner. But both won because this is how things are playing out.

Estrada is now seen as a martyr. Not bad for somebody who squandered his towering political mandate and ruined himself while in office in pursuit of his hedonistic, baser urges.

The sentiment that Erap was a victim of political prosecution and not a crook is an across-the-board sentiment. Only the billionaires share the sentiment of the Arroyo hard-liners that Erap is a thieving buffoon who deserves a lifetime in jail. The verdict only enhanced the already awesome popularity of Estrada.

Estrada’s popularity will lead to two scenarios.

First, a premature presidential pardon just like what Vice-President Noli de Castro had suggested. Expect de Castro to take it up with the national leadership in the name of his new buzzword—reconciliation. The leadership is inclined to respond positively and urgently.

Before we know it, before the Estrada hardliners can even agitate people to take up to the streets to protest, Estrada might be out of Tanay, although with a minor inconvenience—the mark of a pardoned convict. But with our moral bar so low, who cares?

Even if this does not take place, Estrada can just sit back and relax in his Tanay rest house cum jail and wait for 2010. Sure as the sun rises in the morning, the presidential candidate who will win in 2010 will have to have Estrada’s backing. With Estrada’s mass base, a big 30 percent of the voting population, the candidate only needs to work on his or her own 20 percent to win.

The 30-percent solid Estrada voting bloc will be of greater significance if there are three or more candidates. Victory in the 2010 presidential election will be owed to Estrada.

In this context, the 2010 winner can pardon Estrada right after assuming power and this will be a popular (very) decision.

Those who doubt the political leverage and muscle that go with popularity should take it from Homer Simpson. Son, he told Bogart Simpson, “Popularity is the most important thing in the world.”

Especially to politicians.

What made Mrs. Arroyo a cowinner? Easy.

With Estrada in Tanay, she can go about with her business of governing without having to worry about having Estrada on the loose and physically proselytizing about injustice and corruption. The second-level leaders of the opposition do not have Estrada’s clout and popular appeal and they can’t stir the crowds as deeply and passionately as Estrada.

So she is safe in office. From his Tanay detention center, Estrada cannot manipulate the events in the country and sow the seeds of popular revolt. To be agitated and rebellious, the Estrada crowds need his physical presence.

She actually bought enough time to decide on what her course for the next two years or so would be: governing well or the guillotine.

If she governs well within the next two years or so and make amends for the many corrupt, bizarre and mediocre acts her administration has committed since 2001, she will be spared the guillotine. She will exit office, if not on a blaze of glory, on an appreciative note from the nation.

But if the rest of her term will be of the same deplorable stuff: ZTE, Jose Pidal, “Hello, Garci,” she will suffer a fate worse than a Tanay detention.

The choice is hers. She has time on her side. She can still reverse what is looming to be a cruel verdict of history.

The verdict was a temporary hump for Estrada. It also gave Mrs. Arroyo enough time to make amends for her past indiscretions and work for an acceptable closure to her mistrusted presidency.

The nation, in some weird sense, is a bit of a winner. It got its break, a relief from a head-on clash between two contending political forces (both lusting for power) which our prostrate and polarized people do not even deserve.

With our national expectations so low, with our national mood so downcast, that can be considered a win.

Stickup

Stickup

ON THE SAME DAY THE SANDIGANBAYAN ended the trial of the century by sentencing her predecessor, Joseph Estrada, to life in prison for plunder, President Macapagal-Arroyo announced the creation of a new body to help curb graft and corruption in government. The President told the Bishops-Ulama Conference in Malacañang Wednesday that she had created the Procurement Transparency Group to monitor procurement for public projects. The inter-agency body, chaired by the Department of Budget and Management, will have representatives from civil society. It will monitor procurement biddings and report anomalies to agency heads as well as the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit. Its main purpose is “to ensure transparency and good governance in our massive public investments,’’ Ms Arroyo said. A separate group will “also harness civil society and the private sector in ensuring that public works projects serve the needs and objectives for which they are undertaken, and contract terms and timetables are complied with.’’

If the twin announcements were meant to signal a fresh resolve to combat graft in government, the President herself diluted the message with her other statements in the same forum. “We must be a government that honors contracts and agreements that go through the required processes, despite media attacks,’’ she said. “We live by the rule of law.’’ Later when asked by reporters if that policy included the ZTE contract to set up a national broadband network (NBN), Ms Arroyo reiterated that “as long as the contract goes through the required processes, we are required to comply’’ with its terms.

It was clear as day that she was referring to the $329-million contract with the Chinese firm ZTE. No other contract, whether involving foreign or local governments or companies, has been the subject of so much “media attacks’’ in recent months. And “transparent’’ is the last thing anyone can say about that contract or the processes that went before and after it was signed -- from the deliberations on the project to the negotiations and the decision to award it to ZTE.

To this day, top administration officials continue to dissemble and mislead the public about the NBN project and how ZTE bagged the contract. They cannot even agree if there is a contract or not. Some Cabinet officials say what has been signed is a memorandum of agreement or understanding, but others call it a contract. Commission on Higher Education Chair Romulo Neri, who used to head the National Economic and Development Authority, says there is a “supplier’s contract’’ but it is only a “prospective contract.’’ If that means it is not the real thing, then why did Transportation and Communications Secretary Leandro Mendoza sign it? And why did the President have to leave her husband, who had just undergone a delicate operation, to witness the signing in Boao, China? If the contract is “prospective,” it is probably because the plans and specifications are not spelled out so that no one can tell exactly what the country is getting for $329 million or if that would be the final price.

When pressed for answers, most Cabinet members point to Mendoza, saying the NBN is his baby and he knows it best. But Mendoza refuses to make the contract public and he doesn’t want to talk -- not to the press, not to the members of Congress. The only talking he has done recently was to the Cabinet where he supposedly explained the project in detail, including how it would save the government billions of pesos a year.

Funny that Mendoza bothered to do that. It was like preaching to the converted or at least to those who must act like true believers, given the President’s keen interest in seeing the NBN project through. But it is not the Cabinet that has been asking questions, it is the Filipino public. Does Mendoza think he owes it to the Cabinet to explain, but not to the Filipino people?

The Arroyo administration wants the Filipino people to approve a contract and pay for a project they know very little about, and it has the temerity to talk about transparency and good governance? In any other place, they would call this secret, rotten deal a stinking stickup.

Grace period

Grace period

THROWING MONEY AT A PROBLEM WON’T SOLVE it. President Macapagal-Arroyo says the government has the cash to automate elections. Clearly, she has the upcoming barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections in mind.

We believe pursuing automation in a rush would be counterproductive. The Commission on Elections, in particular as it is presently constituted under the beleaguered leadership of Benjamin Abalos, shouldn’t be entrusted with the authority to shortcut bidding processes in the rush to automate the barangay elections. Instead of modernizing our electoral system, this would only open up another opportunity for a controversial purchase of equipment, which could then put every subsequent electoral exercise under a cloud of doubt. Our political skies are too overcast for this at the moment.

What would a rushed automation of barangay elections next month achieve? An army of dubiously elected ward leaders eager to do the President’s bidding in 2010.

If we are to automate, let’s do it right, under a Comelec untainted by the most disgraceful set of commissioners since the Marcos years. If we are to automate, let’s give a sector that’s pretty much more respected and distinguished than our election officials—the IT sector—a chance to arrive at a consensus on the best form of automation to undertake. If we are to automate, and if we are (sensibly) to use the barangay elections as a laboratory to debug an automated system for voting, then let’s not rush into it pell-mell; let’s give it a year, no more, no less.

A happier confluence of events is possible. The President has a chance to fill the vacancy in the Comelec chairmanship that will occur in February next year—and other vacancies that may perhaps come up (we can only earnestly hope that the current Comelec commissioners see the light and resign en masse, together with their disgraced and disgraceful chairman)—with a credible appointment.

Electoral watchdog groups and the IT sector have a chance to show they can do more than make noise, they can achieve a consensus on solutions and, who knows, even on possible Comelec appointments. Our legislature can institute much-needed reforms, not on the basis of partisanship, but in acknowledgment of the public’s yearning for cleaner elections. There is an obvious opportunity here, for the executive and legislative branches to achieve a kind of redemption—or, at least, recovery of their standing—before the people.

While we’re at it, postponing the barangay elections by a year would also allow Congress to consider a much-needed reform. We endorse the manifesto signed on Sept. 5, in Baguio City, by educators and students calling for the abolition of the SK. The manifesto, signed during the annual training convention of student council leaders in public schools, proposes that the current revenue allotment for the SK—10 percent of every barangay’s budget—be re-channelled to public education instead.

The student-educator manifesto points out that all the SK has achieved is to put in the hands of young people large sums of money that they are not prepared to handle; and to serve as a take-off point for dynastic control of local politics. Money is power; and young people all over the country are getting a corrupt and corrupting introduction into power politics by means of the SK. In contrast, student governments represent a more integrated approach to representative government, without the tempting access to large sums.

Beyond personal culpability

Beyond personal culpability

Let’s not be deceived by the formality of the legal processes and the surface meanings of the trial of Joseph Estrada and the handing down of the verdict by the Sandiganbayan tomorrow.

Gloria Arroyo and what she represents, not Estrada, are on the dock here. Whichever way the Sandiganbayan decides, the jury will continue to be out on the question of the guilt or innocence of Estrada.

But the "guilt" of Arroyo, beginning with her usurpation of the presidency and her continuing debasement of constitutional processes to secure her continued stay in power, is as good as proven.

More important than the personal culpability of Erap and Gloria, however, are the social dynamics that that have been temporarily frozen, as it were, during these last six years. We are talking about the continuing struggle between the masses and the elites that are personified by Erap and Gloria in the Filipino’s march toward a just and equitable society.

It may seem anachronistic in this, the first decade of the 21st century, to view social dynamics through the lenses of the masses’ struggle for a place in modern society and the elites’ determination to keep their dominant and privilege position. But that’s precisely the self-understanding of the two protagonists in the drama.

Erap offered himself as the hope of the masses and won the 1998 election with an overwhelming mandate. Erap has been in detention for six years, but the perception that he is the champion of the poor and the powerless remains undimmed. Gloria has been representing herself as the embodiment of the ethos of the modernizing elite. But her mis-governance and corruption makes even the Makati Business Club cringe in embarrassment.

Gloria has given the modernizing elite a bad name. From a historical point of view, this is probably the biggest crime she has committed against Filipino nation. Counting from 2001 to 2010, she would have wasted almost a decade of opportunity in moving the economy strongly forward and in empowering the poor, two processes that are mutually reinforcing.

These unresolved social contradictions will continue to define our future in the near-term.

If Erap is found innocent, the bottled up pressure could tear the social consensus which has been frayed by a government lacking in legitimacy. Hopefully, elections of 2010 could come soon enough to enable the people to air their accumulated frustration and anger.

If Erap is found guilty, we see a massive outpouring of outrage. This could probably be contained through heavy-handed deployment of the state’s repressive apparatuses. Again, hopefully until the 2010 elections.

Three years of uncertainty. Three years of instability either way. And probably beyond as our scenarios are based on the assumption, which we are forced to make because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate, that the 2010 elections would lead to a return of social consensus.

Web gets wider

Web gets wider

TWO OF THE MOST FORMIDABLE, IF NOT intimidating, lawyers in the Senate took turns trying to beat Vidal Doble’s credibility (arguably shaky at best, to start with) to a pulp. Sen. Joker Arroyo tried to point out the contradictions between Doble’s past testimony and the version he gave the Senate. Arroyo seemed eager to spotlight Doble’s having had a civilian lawyer, which would suggest that the testimony was beyond military pressure—until Doble pointed out that his civilian lawyer was provided by the Philippine National Police.

Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile focused on Doble’s habeas corpus petition filed with the Court of Appeals, a document prepared by opposition-affiliated lawyers. Doble, however, revealed that he had been reminded, before he testified, that the long and short of whatever he said was that he remained under the authority of his unit, the Intelligence Service of the AFP. So, Doble said, with that pointed reminder still ringing in his ears, he lied.

Instead of demolishing Doble’s credibility, Arroyo and Enrile simply clarified the tremendous pressure—Doble himself bluntly said it was duress—that tainted not his latest, but his previous, testimony.

Arroyo and Enrile—as unlikely a pair of comrades-in-interest we would ever hope to find, but politics indeed makes for strange bedfellows—had to retreat with obviously ruffled feathers, in the manner of Estelito Mendoza and his confrontation with Clarissa Ocampo. We are far from saying that Doble is an Ocampo. But the way he stood his ground, and made a shambles of the two senators’ virtual cross-examinations, is a comparable demonstration of how a witness, instead of being impeached, can impeach the prosecutors.

But it is, perhaps, with regard to Doble’s testimony that he had been approached by presidential aide Medy Poblador, that his most recent testimony truly became more than a rehash or revision of his previous statements.

Doble said Poblador approached him, after he was spirited back to military custody under the auspices of Bishop Socrates Villegas, and offered him money in exchange for his refusal to testify before the House of Representatives. The public might just be willing to give the military the benefit of the doubt, for successfully retrieving one of its own who had, essentially, become a rogue agent. An aide of the President offering incentives to a witness to refuse cooperation with the House, on the other hand, is another matter altogether.

Poblador acts as a liaison between Congress and the President. She was perhaps most obviously in her role as presidential fixer during the first impeachment attempt, where she lurked in the lounge behind the Speaker’s chair in the plenary hall, for reasons best left to congressmen to reveal. There is no doubt she holds a favored place in the President’s innermost circle of can-do people.

The question now becomes, whether Poblador acted in a manner resembling US President Richard Nixon’s aides, to keep E. Howard Hunt, implicated in the Watergate break-in scandal, quiet in exchange for money. In the United States, the result of Nixon’s authorizing the bribe effort resulted in one of the articles of impeachment filed against him. We cannot emphasize how serious the allegation of Poblador’s potential involvement could be, precisely because it’s so reminiscent of the Nixon case.

Doble’s allegations concerning Poblador, who seems to have used family ties with Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, the Archbishop of Manila, to get Bishop Villegas involved, brings up questions about how the administration wields its clout with the Catholic hierarchy. Either the prelates naively acted in good faith, or were co-conspirators in crimes that range from intimidating a witness, including coercing the witness to commit perjury, to (possibly) outright kidnapping and the creation of a situation where an aide of the President could make an offer Doble couldn’t refuse.

At the heart of it is an insight into motive: If Doble were simply a liar, no government would have gone this far, possibly broken so many laws, or risked wrecking so many reputations. That it did suggests Doble really has the goods on them.

Waiting for the truth

Waiting for the truth

Scratch a liar and you’ll find a thief, a priest said, as he expressed the public’s hope that Romulo Neri would tell the truth about the government’s broadband contract with Chinese firm ZTE Corp. Neri was the socio-economic planning secretary and director-general of the National Economic and Development Authority when he was allegedly offered P200 million in exchange for a NEDA endorsement of the ZTE deal.

The story was followed by reports that Chairman Benjamin Abalos of the Commission on Elections had offered $10 million to the son of Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. so a ZTE competitor where the younger De Venecia is a majority shareholder would withdraw its bid for the broadband deal. Confronted with the story about the P200 million, Neri would neither confirm nor deny it, saying only that such matters were hard to prove.

Neri has been shunted to the Commission on Higher Education — a move that obviously caught both him and the man he replaced by surprise. The inevitable speculation is that the transfer was connected to the ZTE deal. Neri reportedly informed President Arroyo, who chairs the NEDA, about the purported P200-million bribe offer. The President allegedly told him to ignore the offer but approve the ZTE deal anyway. This is tantamount to condoning corruption, involving an amount that would constitute the serious crime of plunder.

Neri says he believes in karma, which is why he never accepted bribes. But crimes can also be committed through acts of omission. By looking the other way, the culture of corruption is perpetuated. It will take only a few good individuals to fight venality and other forms of evil. There must be such individuals of integrity and courage in this country — public servants who put more weight on truth and justice, who owe their allegiance to the nation and their Maker rather than their boss the appointing power.

At stake for Neri is a government position that he apparently does not even want. Would it be such a big loss for him in exchange for telling the truth?

Bad posture

Bad posture

Posturing, with regard to the coming verdict on the plunder trial of former President Joseph Estrada, is the name of the game. In this game, neither the opposition nor the administration is innocent. In the non-stop rumor mill that is the Philippine political scene, not only is a looming verdict widely whispered about, but the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan is supposed to be finding difficulty wrestling with the complexities of the case. What is sure is that the coming verdicts (there are multiple charges, after all) have political circles caught up in a kind of mass hysteria.

The result is saber-rattling on both sides, literally on the part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and rhetorically on the side of Estrada’s partisans. The AFP has held parades to show off the troops, while the Philippine National Police has pledged to mobilize enough policemen for crowd control. Malacañang has launched a propaganda offensive to condition the public into expecting trouble, which the Arroyo administration says it can handle. Estrada loyalists have reacted by proclaiming they can muster crowds and that these crowds would be big and angry.

As if such posturing weren’t enough, the Palace and opposition leaders have also taken to working at cross-purposes with Estrada himself. For months, the idea of either a presidential pardon or an amnesty proclamation ratified by Congress, in case of a conviction by the court, has been floated. Administration allies went through the motions of proposing it, and the Palace has also gone through the motions of considering it. The opposition has tacitly endorsed the idea by releasing the results of surveys it commissioned.

However, Estrada himself, whether merely in an act of political theater or because he genuinely believes in his innocence, has insisted that he will never accept a pardon. He may be in detention, but he remains a political virtuoso.

On the surface, it may seem appropriate for the Palace and the opposition to publicly consider options for Estrada after the verdicts have been handed down. Considerations of a pardon or amnesty, after all, mean politics only begins where justice ends in terms of a verdict. It would be a great error, however, for the public to think that all the posturing is par for the course. It is not. The administration and opposition both obviously think they have an insight into the eventual decisions of the court. More than that, both are actively trying to influence the court.

Left to its own devices, the court would have wrapped up the Estrada trial and proceeded with its deliberations and handed down its verdicts at its own pace and in its own good time. The public, used to Estrada’s long period of comfortable detention, would probably have shrugged off the whole thing, including the verdicts. The Palace, however, began to sound the alarm with regard to the reactions of Estrada partisans. The alarmed nature of the Palace’s reactions in turn inspired new heights of rhetorical bravado on the part of Estrada loyalists.

Sounding the alarm is a tried-and-tested administration tactic to hijack the headlines. The opposition is also an old pro at playing that game, hence its commissioned survey. Both sides are always looking for ways to reinvigorate the dedication of their supporters, while weakening the resolve of their enemies. Obviously, considerations of fair play and justice are irrelevant in the face of such tactical concerns.

The Palace is trying to reassure the Sandiganbayan that there won’t be chaos in case of guilty verdicts. The opposition is trying to frighten the Sandiganbayan into thinking there would be a revolt if it convicts Estrada. Both sides are trying to temper whatever verdicts are in the works, by emphasizing the verdicts they’d prefer (and options, including conviction for some charges and possibly, acquittal for others) and verdicts the public allegedly wouldn’t like.

In other words, the administration and the opposition are trying to turn the case into a political football and to strong-arm the court. By doing so, both sides are further eroding public confidence in the justice system. They are doing a disservice not to Estrada, who is a player in this two-sided game, but to the citizenry.

Perception vs reality

Perception vs reality

Sergio Apostol again exhibits his abysmal ignorance of how a modern society is governed in dismissing a Social Weather Stations survey where 7 out of 10 respondents said they believe Gloria Arroyo is enriching herself through corrupt practices.

Apostol says that’s just perception; reality is different. He sounds like one of those 70s New Age gurus talking pop philosophy by drawing a distinction between appearance and reality. But he doesn’t carry it off well. It clashes with our, uh, perception about Apostol, he of the multi-million allowances when he was ensconced in his sinecure as chairman of one of the subsidiaries of the Philippine National Oil Co.

We have, however, to give it to Apostol. That posting was his "consuelo de bobo" for not getting a Cabinet post in the Arroyo cabinet despite doing what he perceived as a yeoman’s job in prosecuting Joseph Estrada in the impeachment trial. Let’s not be uncharitable by saying the reality of his performance as prosecutor was something else.

Anyway, Apostol is now a member of a Cabinet as presidential legal adviser. With the exception of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, Apostol is perceived – here we go with that fashionable word again – as the most rabid attack dog of Arroyo. If there’s justice in this world, he ought to be in line for the post of the ailing Gonzalez. Agnes Devanadera, however, seems to have the inner track to the justice portfolio.

Apostol, like Avis, should try harder by equipping himself with a less shopworn analytical tool than the appearance/reality distinction. He should, we suggest, start with trust, the principle that underpins relationships in a democratic society. All our waking moments, we implicitly trust that all others will abide by society’s norms. Trust gains even more importance when we are dealing with the relationship between the citizens their leaders.

When people start believing their leaders are talking from both sides of the mouth, then that relationship of trust starts fraying. When the discordance between appearance and reality – and word and action – becomes habitual and institutionalized, trust is irredeemably broken.

We are near that stage. Everybody believes the worst about Gloria. While we won’t say perception is reality, we cannot simply dismiss the never-ending scandals – the $330 million national broadband project is but the latest – that hound the Arroyo administration.

If we have any consolation, it’s the thought that Gloria will be exiting in 2010. We are looking forward to the day when good governance becomes the appearance and the reality.

Serving the President

Serving the President

Last week President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo, through Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, asked Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez to go on leave for two months so his health would improve. The 76-year-old Gonzalez, who is obviously afraid his leave would become permanent, the next day said he would take only a one-month leave because he did not want to be idle for a long time. He even made a great show of signing 20 documents in his hospital room.

We say, like some senators, that Gonzalez should make his leave permanent because it will be good for his health. He has rendered enough service (or disservice, depending on one’s point of view) to his country and should be allowed to rest. There are hundreds of brilliant lawyers who can fill his shoes at the Department of Justice. It is not as if Gonzalez is indispensable, and is the only one who is qualified to be secretary of justice.

From newspaper accounts, Gonzalez’s ailments are serious. Last month he was hospitalized for a bleeding ulcer. Gonzalez said the ulcer affected his legs so he found it difficult to walk without any help. There is a photo of him being assisted to his seat at a meeting in Malacañang last Wednesday, a piece of gauze over his right wrist. There is talk that he may have to undergo dialysis. The secretary is obviously very sick.

He is in no condition to remain in a key Cabinet post where every day he will be subjected to various pressures -- not just work and deadline pressures, but also political pressure. For his own good, the President should ask him to go on leave permanently.

Gonzalez is a prime example of a Cabinet member who has politicized his position. He has not dispensed impartial, unbiased and apolitical justice. In many of his decisions, actions and statements, he has been biased, political and very protective of Ms Arroyo. Most of the time, one listening to him would think that he is not the justice secretary but a political or publicity spokesperson of the President and her administration.

On the Subic rape case: From the start, Gonzalez expressed disbelief at “Nicole’s” claim that she was raped by four American Marines. In his statements it appeared that he was lawyering for the US Marines whose interests were already being protected by the US Embassy and Filipino attorneys acting as their defense counsel.

On the Julia Campbell slaying: Gonzalez exhibited the height of insensitivity when he blamed the victim, saying that “she was careless when she took a lonely walk by herself in a deserted area” and added, “[she] is also a little irresponsible.” Apparently he made the statements to try to erase the impression that peace and order is very bad under this administration.

On the extrajudicial killings: Gonzalez said that United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston, who made a report on extrajudicial killings to the UN, was “just a ‘muchacho’ [a hired man]” of the organization. He was apparently downgrading Alston’s position to lessen the effects of his negative findings on the political killings.

On setting up a “rogues’ gallery” of purported coup plotters: On one hand, Gonzalez said there was nothing unconstitutional or illegal in this proposal. On the other hand, constitutionalists like Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. and the Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties said the proposed rogues’ gallery would violate the right to privacy and cause a “chilling effect” on critics of the administration.

On the $329-million broadband deal with China’s ZTE Corp.: Gonzalez said the contract was an executive agreement that did not need to go through a public bidding. He made the statement even without reading the contract, the original copies of which were lost and which had yet to be “reconstituted.”

These and other statements indicate that Gonzalez on many occasions acted not as a justice secretary but more like a political spokesperson or a propagandist for the President and her administration. His statements have hardly, if at all, promoted the ends of justice, but on the contrary, may have even caused injustice, as in the cases of “Nicole” and Campbell.

Gonzalez has rendered enough service to President Arroyo. He is no longer needed as a political spokesperson and propagandist -- unless she has secret political plans for 2010. For his own good and for the good of the nation, he should be allowed to retire permanently.

The truth . . . in trickles

The truth . . . in trickles

He kept mum as stories swirled about an official of the Commission on Elections who visited China about four times since last year at the expense of ZTE Corp., a company that was seeking a $330-million broadband deal with the Philippine government.

Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos finally spoke up only when all the other poll commissioners had denied that they were the official alluded to. Even then Abalos gave details of his links with ZTE in trickles, initially denying that he was familiar with the controversial broadband deal. After he was linked to the project by Nueva Vizcaya Rep. Carlos Padilla, Abalos finally admitted that ZTE executives in Manila were his golfing partners, and they had shouldered his expenses during his visits to China since last year. Abalos said ZTE executives helped his daughter source materials for her import business.

It is not clear if the daughter was present when Abalos introduced ZTE executives to Finance Secretary Margarito Teves. The finance chief distinctly remembers that the broadband deal was discussed.

What other admissions are in store from the Comelec chief as more people come out to jog his memory? Perhaps he could tell the nation if the project, signed by Transportation Secretary Leandro Mendoza with ZTE officials in the presence of President Arroyo in Boao, China last April, violated an election ban on such contracts. He would not know, Abalos claimed, because the project was never cleared with him in connection with the election ban.

Mendoza, one of the President’s most trusted lieutenants, now faces graft charges for the deal together with two other officials of his department as well as several ZTE executives. Abalos can be removed only through impeachment, but he is not immune from prosecution for graft. The project is double the price offered by ZTE’s closest competitor, and will be financed through a soft loan to be provided by China’s Export-Import Bank. At current exchange rates, that’s P15.4 billion that Filipino taxpayers must repay with interest for the next 25 years. The public deserves to know the full details of this deal, including who brokered it and why. So far the official response to demands for transparency is: Uncover the truth… if you can.

Ping, work for run off elections instead

Ping, work for run off elections instead

The reopening of the “Hello, Garci” controversy is but the first leg in the race for the presidency in 2010. Even Sen. Panfilo Lacson, the instigator of the probe into the 2004 bugged telephone conversation, does not seem confident that a second inquiry would go any farther than the first.

What it would accomplish though is to help Lacson capture the sort of media coverage that this early could put him on pole position in the presidential race. You don’t have to be a political scientist to figure that one out.

If there is still any doubt that a reopening of the “Hello, Garci” case would be anything but investigation in aid of election, how come it has drawn either perfunctory or no support from Manny Villar, Loren Legarda and Mar Roxas—all likely rivals of Ping’s in 2010?

By placing all its bets in the last senatorial elections—which it won in spectacular fashion—the opposition blew any chance of beefing up its presence in the House of Representatives. True, the opposition succeeded in turning the senatorial elections into a referendum on President Arroyo; but it found itself outmaneuvered in the congressional races.

As a result, there are now fewer oppositionists in the House than there were in the Thirteenth Congress—meaning, there are not enough congressmen to launch a credible bid to impeach Mrs. Arroyo once more. And impeachment is still the only legal way to sack a sitting president.

Lacson is well aware an impeachment bid now would be an exercise in futility—that is, if deposing Mrs. Arroyo is really what he has in mind.

The last senatorial elections showed that a candidate need not spend a bundle in campaign advertising. Rather, it is constant, favorable coverage by the legitimate news media that really counts come Election Day.

Reopening the “Hello, Garci” case—or just the attempt to do so—gives Lacson the advantage of a flying start.

But even if Lacson does manage to come out on top in 2010, he will be vulnerable to the same kind of instability that has plagued the current Chief Executive and her immediate predecessors.

With the introduction of the cumbersome multiparty system, as mandated in the 1987 Constitution, the presidencies of Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph E. Estrada and Gloria M. Arro­yo—not to mention Cora­zon C. Aquino’s—have been wobbly at best. Election by a mere plurality of voters made sure there is a larger segment of electors who did not vote for the winner.

FVR could never quite get rid of the thorn on his side named Miriam D. Santiago, who insisted—and still insists—that she was robbed of victory in 1992.

Erap, despite being the darling of the masses, could not defend himself from his “elitist” and leftist adversaries who took less than a week of street demonstrations to force him out of Malacañang.

That GMA has managed to survive a plebian uprising, a couple of mutinies and impeachment bids—not to mention Cabinet defections—gives ample testimony to her staying power. Still, it has not put to rest the stubborn questions about the legitimacy of her mandate. Although she can no longer seek reelection in 2010, the President continues to behave like she is still on the campaign trail.

An insecure presidency is what Lacson—or whoever wins two and a half years from now—will inherit even after hise proclaimed. Faced with so many rivals, the victor in 2010 will have to contend with the same causes of destabilization that GMA must deal with now.

What could assure an indisputable mandate is a mechanism long practiced in many mature democracies: runoff elections. If the first round of voting does not result in a clear majority—i.e. over 50 percent—for the first placer, another election is held between him/her and the second placer.

The winner of the runoff could then claim a solid mandate. Having gained the support of over half the voters, he/she could put to rest any questions about the legitimacy of his/her presidency.

Rather than continue to shake up the current administration, Lacson—along with the other presidential hopefuls—would be well advised to help ensure that when their time comes, their own regimes would not be as shaky.

More than a reshuffle of the Commission on Elections or a purge of the voters’ list or even multibillion-peso automation, a runoff vote could prove more effective in restoring confidence in our presidential elections.

Obstruction

Obstruction

If the “Hello, Garci” tapes had never surfaced, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be firmly in charge, there would be, at best, a token opposition, and she wouldn’t be, today, the Richard Nixon of Philippine politics. But the tapes surfaced, and the country then, as now, must ask: Why does the chief victim of the wiretapping, the President, seem the least inclined to get to the bottom of the matter?

When the first (modified) versions of the tapes appeared, let no one forget that the Palace began by trying to muddle the issue with its own doctored version. Then it proceeded to wield its own interpretation of the law like a club. It threatened media with prosecution if they broadcast the tapes or published transcripts. It then issued executive issuances that were found defective by the courts, but which provided a shield for vulnerable Cabinet and military officials. It embarked on a divide-and-rule strategy by resisting both a truth commission and impeachment, until it had lobbied enough support to block both.

The President herself tried to grovel before the people. When that failed, she proceeded to do her best to intimidate those who wouldn’t be induced into cooperating with her. We should never overlook the reality, however, that throughout this time, until the present, she has acted as the primary defendant, instead of the foremost victim, and that is because whether she instigated the wiretapping or not, at the heart of the tapes is the revelation of a larger crime, the subversion of democracy.

The public instinctively knew then, and on the whole continues to believe, that these revelations stripped the President of legitimacy. While the public has also, on the whole, been willing to keep an open mind, all efforts to resolve this paramount question have failed. This failure has given the President an uneasy tenure.

But there is a difference between what we, the people, knew about the “Hello, Garci” issue in 2005, and what we know today. Someone has stepped forward to testify how it was done, by whom, and to whom. That someone is Vidal Doble Jr.

In 2005, he was the kind of fugitive over whom various camps conducted a tug-of-war that the intelligence establishment won. Today, he is acting as a whistle-blower. And now the public wants to see if his allegations can be debunked, or if they can withstand sustained scrutiny.

Instead of finally resolving matters, the Palace has reached into its old bag of tricks. It has dismissed the whistle-blower out of hand, threatened to recycle discredited executive issuances, proclaimed its own interpretation of the law as the only valid one, and tried to rally its old reliables in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Doble has finally done what he didn’t do in 2005, which is to give testimony on the vital questions of who were wiretapped, by whom and how, all of which suggest a possible answer, at long last, to the question of motive. Who was interested in getting the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to eavesdrop on such a wide-ranging group as a member of the Cabinet (Michael Defensor), a constitutional officer (Virgilio Garcillano) and members of the opposition? In 2005, the public could only wonder, but now we are inching closer to suspects, and the chief suspect seems to be a member of the President’s official family.

These are allegations that demand an investigation. We are told that Congress can investigate with one of two purposes in mind. It can investigate in order to exercise oversight over the executive branch, or it can investigate in aid of legislation. Every aspect of these allegations touches on these two justifications to hold a Senate hearing.

Former senator Francisco Tatad warns of a constitutional crisis if the Senate proceeds to investigate the case. The separation of powers, he says, means the Senate cannot investigate a president unless articles of impeachment have been approved by the House.

Tatad is being true to the spirited defense he made of then-embattled President Joseph Estrada. But we are not convinced by his reasoning, and we’re glad that the Senate committee on rules voted that hearing by the committee of the whole is in order.

To be sure, the Senate, at the end of the hearings, can only recommend action or amend existing legislation or pass new bills. It cannot remove the President from office without an impeachment. But it can, and should, ask: Why the President, who may have been victimized by her own people, coddles them. Why did the law prove impotent to prevent such a situation? And is it being used to protect the culprits?

Lackey

Lackey

We do not know if Raul Gonzalez spends time looking at the portraits of his predecessors. He should. His portfolio has been held by public servants, quite a few of whom took their positions seriously, and didn’t view it as an opportunity to be a lackey; some viewed it as the summit of their legal careers or a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Two, in particular, established the possibilities for integrity while holding office: Jose Abad Santos and Jose Yulo. For all time, we would have thought, but how mutable time has proven in terms of the institutional erosion Gonzalez represents.

Abad Santos in 1922 originally stayed above the fight between Governor-General Leonard Wood and Filipino politicians, until Wood told Abad Santos that it was a fight between Americans and Filipinos: at which point Abad Santos resigned saying if such a line was being drawn, he had no recourse but to side with his countrymen.

Reappointed under subsequent American governor-generals, and then under the Commonwealth, Abad Santos then took pains to resist political pressure, whether from legislators or even the President of the Philippines: he would not hire or fire on the basis of purely political considerations, and he would not file or drop cases for political convenience. He would go on to serve in the Supreme Court and become the foremost Filipino martyr of World War II.

Jose Yulo was offered the position of secretary of justice four times. Each time, he declined. When he finally did accept the position, as the inauguration of the Commonwealth loomed, he attached a condition. He accepted, he said, “But only on one condition: that the Department of Justice be detached from politics.” Yulo would go on to become Speaker of the National Assembly, but he did so without wrecking the judiciary or leaving a reputation for partisanship while he held the justice portfolio. Two decades later, when President Ferdinand E. Marcos wanted to put together an impressive first Cabinet, he convinced the elderly Yulo to serve again, an appointment that conferred prestige on the administration.

We are used to Cabinet officers excusing every possible instance of petty politicking, on the grounds that they are merely “alter egos” of whoever happens to be president. But even the most obsessively political of our presidents (that is to say, all of them) put a premium on the justice portfolio as a flagship for their administrations. The present disreputable state of the position can be firmly traced to the present administration.

Raul Gonzalez takes what can only be described as a malicious pleasure in using his office for the partisan interests of his president. When the Senate expressed interest in pursuing allegations of wiretapping, Gonzalez said he’d start looking into the Aragoncillo spying case. He made a big to-do about asking the Americans for copies of court transcripts.

For what? The Americans investigated, then punished, one of their citizens, Leandro Aragoncillo, for leaking classified documents to his Filipino pals. Definitely a crime for an American. Is it a crime for a Filipino, under our jurisdiction? Only if we are still an American colony, with citizens and officials bound by an oath of loyalty to the United States of America.

Is there something about our government we don’t know? Does Gonzalez serve two masters—and expect everyone else to be liable for punishment for crossing Gonzalez’s apparent boss, Uncle Sam?

Gonzalez would be the first to insist he serves no master but our Republic—what he really wants to do, as he told the press, is warn the Senate it can expect “tit for tat” when it comes to investigations. He mentioned the Kuratong Baleleng case, too: suggesting his interpretation of justice is as crude as it gets. Anything and everything can be papered over, forgotten, dismissed, so long as President Macapagal-Arroyo is left alone. Embarrass the President, and the full weight of the justice department will lean on whoever dares to fight with the Palace.

So by all means, let him hide behind the President’s skirt, and let him sneer that he is only her alter ego. It only goes to show the President is foursquare behind Gonzalez: and that he is not the secretary of justice, but a crude lackey, a disgrace.

Everyone’s at risk

Everyone’s at risk

The technology that unites the mighty and obscure, the wealthy and the humble of means, isn’t television (class lines get delineated by the programs people choose to watch) but the cell phone. Politically, the battle for hearts and minds since 2000 has been waged by means of text messages. And whether it’s President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sending instructions to her subordinates, an overseas worker keeping tabs on the kids at home, bankers or security guards, the ties that bind are maintained by means of the cell phone.

When news first broke that a conversation allegedly between the President and Election Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano had been intercepted and recorded, a troubling thought sent shivers down the spines of many people. If it can happen to the President, people said, it can happen to anyone. That troubling thought has once more gained currency following the revelations made by Sen. Panfilo Lacson in a privilege speech last Tuesday.

We will set aside, for now, why Lacson’s witness, retired T/Sgt. Victor Doble, took so long to detail the circumstances surrounding the tapping of Garcillano’s phone. Doble explained how the phone tapping was done. He says it was undertaken by the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Isafp) with the assistance of someone, or some people, at Smart Communications Inc. The media relations machinery of Smart then kicked in, taking pains to deny that the company has a policy of conniving in the tapping of its subscribers’ phones. It also denied that its officers or rank-and-file condone, much less assist, wiretapping activities.

But the allegation has been made, and what’s more, what was alleged is not beyond the realm of possibility, according to the statements of Smart itself. It is possible, the company said, that someone, acting in an unauthorized manner, might have consorted with the Isafp and helped it. Of course, it can be said that anything is possible, but the question is: Did it happen? And if so, how could it have happened?

The privacy of communication is a constitutionally protected right; it applies to everyone, the exceptions being clearly spelled out in our laws. Our laws are so zealous in this regard that the anti-wiretapping law tries very hard to make any intercepted communication of little or no value in court.

Still, the allegations are grave enough, in terms of their implications to not only national security but to civil liberties, as to require a thorough investigation. There are fundamental issues of governance -- not just political, but corporate -- at stake here. There are issues involving civilian control over the military, and combined politico-military influence over private enterprise, or people who work for private corporations.

If the Isafp did conduct surveillance operations, who ordered it? If an officer did, why didn’t the civilian authorities know about it? If a civilian official authorized it, on what basis? And if somehow, Smart or some of its employees assisted the Isafp, how could it happen without management finding out, or being able to properly determine how it might have happened once allegations were made? Of course, there is a more sinister question: Could Smart have resisted at all a military “invitation” to assist in eavesdropping?

There are technological questions that need to be resolved, as well. Lacson, by way of Doble, suggests intercepting cell-phone calls is quite easy, as is recording conversations for future use and abuse. We have no shortage of technologically knowledgeable people who can verify or dispute this claim, outside of the private firms and public agencies that have a vested interest in dismissing such allegations out of hand.

Good corporate governance, not just effective public relations, suggests Smart would be wise to undertake a more thorough investigation of these allegations. If the Isafp can snoop on its subscribers, then kidnappers and extortionists can do the same, if all that eavesdropping requires is a pliable low-ranking technician. The economy in general, not just Smart, can ill-afford a blue-chip stock taking a hammering in the local or New York bourses because of investor concerns over the vulnerable security of telephone communications in the Philippines.

Closure

Closure

The alleged victim of poll fraud is dead, and wiretapped conversations or other forms of illegally acquired communication are inadmissible as evidence. These have not stopped several senators from pushing for a reopening of the investigation on the vote-rigging scandal where the purported smoking gun is a recorded phone conversation between a man named Garci and a woman he addressed as Ma’am. Garci was widely believed to be former election commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, while the woman asking him about her vote was widely believed to be President Arroyo.

Nothing was ever established and the “Hello, Garci” tapes were never authenticated by neutral experts. Now an intelligence agent has re-emerged after two years to claim that he was the one who tapped the conversations. Vidal Doble, formerly of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, also claimed he could not make his revelation earlier because his superiors had placed him under detention — a claim denied by the AFP.

As of early evening yesterday, senators were still arguing after a group including administration lawmakers decided to refer Doble’s case to a smaller body. Malacañang, meanwhile, prepared for battle, with officials threatening to bar members of the executive branch from facing the Senate in connection with the scandal. The secretary of justice also announced that his department had obtained documents on an espionage case in the United States that could prove damning for certain opposition figures. Those figures are widely known to include Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who had brought Doble out of hibernation, and deposed President Joseph Estrada.

Will there ever be closure in the vote-rigging scandal? Garcillano has stood firm on his story, denying that he rigged the 2004 vote in favor of President Arroyo. The President’s closest rival, actor Fernando Poe Jr., died several months after the elections. Closure here is unlikely. But if senators are bent on reviving the investigation, they should make sure it would lead this time to pieces of legislation. There are two issues here: poll fraud and illegal wiretapping. A congressional probe of the vote-rigging scandal should lead to electoral reforms. And Doble’s testimony should at least lead to the further fine-tuning of laws governing electronic surveillance. Something more than a political free-for-all should come out of this scandal.

Miriam’s counsel

Miriam’s counsel

Observers are hoping that Angelo Reyes and Miriam D. Santiago would patch up whatever differences they may have. The newly named energy chief can benefit from the wisdom of the veteran senator—and their collaboration can help solve much of the woes besetting the energy sector.

Unbeknown perhaps to many, Santiago was instrumental in the relatively successful stints of Reyes’s predecessors. For one, former energy secretary Vincent Perez derived immeasurable benefit from the counsel of Santiago—who chairs the Senate energy committee and is part of the Joint Congressional Power Commission.

She may not have the extensive technical know-how that would have given her the credentials of, say, Francisco Viray. However, Santiago is known to seriously study any subject matter that is of personal or professional interest to her. No doubt, she does her homework when it comes to her responsibilities as energy committee chair.

Sen. Miguel Zubiri took much of the credit for the Bio-fuels Act of 2006, but the former Bukidnon congressman must share the tribute with Santiago. After all, it was her guiding presence in the bicameral conference committee that did much to reconcile the Senate and House versions of the landmark legislation. It spoke well of the perfect combination of Santiago’s technical grasp and legislative prowess.

There are two major issues that the Department of Energy will have to deal with—if not now, then certainly in the very near future. On both issues the DOE will need a lot of Santiago’s support and counsel.

First is the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (Epira). It appears the energy sector is uncertain about what to do with it—whether to amend it or let it stay the way it is. What makes a resolution of this issue urgent is the clamor for lower power rates. One side of the debate believes that Epira is responsible for the high cost of electricity in the country.

You can expect many politicians to jump into the fray and—in true populist fashion—champion cutting power costs willy-nilly but Santiago will likely take a more prudent tack. After all, she is a maverick and has no qualms about taking the unpopular side if she believes it to be the right choice.

Santiago could provide the voice of sobriety in this debate. Observers hope that Reyes, as the new DOE chief, would find it in the best interest of the energy sector to tap the senator’s help in dealing with this issue.

Then there is the matter of energy sufficiency. This issue was buried in the brouhaha over power rates, but the reality is that the energy sector has not fully addressed the problem. A power shortage still looms. The two islands that face the worst impact of this shortage are Cebu and Panay.

Who could be a better authority on power issues, especially those that affect her native island of Panay, than the Ilongga senator herself?

A disastrous power shortage could have hit Panay as early as three years ago. The island was short by 200 megawatts, but then-energy secretary Perez opted to work closely with two lawmakers from Iloilo, then-Senate President Franklin Drilon and Santiago.

Perez got the political support for the interim power supply solutions he needed. In the process, however, he was publicly scolded by Drilon. Perez opted to exercise humility and avoided a head-on clash with the then-Senate chief. Result: the quick resolution of the Panay power supply problem.

The problem is, there have been no additional capacities for Cebu and Panay since Perez, Santiago and Drilon collaborated on an interim solution. As the new DOE chief, Perez will have to find a more permanent solution to the shortage—not just in Panay but the rest of the country, too.

Industry insiders are hoping Santiago continues to work actively on the legislative requirements of the power sector. While constitutional law is her forte, she has nonetheless done much for energy legislation.

Lifestyle check

Lifestyle check

Conducting a lifestyle check on private citizens to flush out delinquent taxpayers is a good idea – if it can be implemented efficiently and if it targets the right people. In the absence of racketeering laws, the move can be used to nail down notorious smugglers, jueteng lords and other crooks who enjoy the protection of influential people. The lifestyle check, authorities said, would go hand-in-hand with a tax amnesty program. Both measures aim to boost revenue collection, which has fallen below projections, creating a bigger-than-expected budget deficit and costing the revenue commissioner his job.

On the other hand, if the measures simply provide yet another opportunity for large-scale tax evaders and crooks to keep their dirty money after giving a token tax payment to corrupt revenue collectors, the idea should be dropped. Gambling barons and smugglers can buy the protection of police and military officers, judges, prosecutors and politicians. How hard will it be for these crooks to pay off revenue collectors, many of whom are already used to accepting bribes? Corruption has long been one of the biggest hindrances to proper revenue collection. The same problem bedevils the Bureau of Customs and its efforts to stop smuggling. Many revenue and Customs collectors are likely to fail a lifestyle check.

At the hands of the inept and corrupt, the lifestyle check on private citizens is bound to net a couple of small fry who cheat on their tax payments to make ends meet. The worst use for the lifestyle check is for political harassment, which some quarters in the opposition fear. It is often said that those who follow the law have nothing to fear, but in this country, being law-abiding does not guarantee protection from state persecution. The fear is valid, considering the track record of the administration in using state power to harass political enemies.

Fiscal reforms and their positive effects on the economy have been undeniable achievements of this administration. Now weak revenue collection is threatening that bright spot. In moving to increase government earnings, the administration will need proper focus and must keep its revenue collectors on a tight leash.

Conscience of the nation

Conscience of the nation

Former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga, the country’s oldest living statesman and my personal guru for more than 50 years, launched last Aug. 14 another illuminating, persuasive and life-changing masterpiece. The book’s title, “Not by Power or Wealth Alone,” is its best summation. As an exemplary public servant and brilliant lawyer, he has had a generous share of power and access to wealth in this material world. But in characteristic humility, he declares them thoroughly inadequate to satisfy life and to reform society.

Practised what he preached. Dr. Salonga, a Protestant, has spoken before many congregations, Catholic and Muslim included. He was always eloquent, spoke with the tremolo of infectious conviction, and left his audience with thoughts and reflections that led to action. But that is not all. True, he preached powerfully; but equally true, he practised even more stringently what he preached.

Believing that the Marcos dictatorship plundered not only the public treasury but also the people’s values, he sponsored the enactment of the Ethical Standards Law. Remarkably, in his personal conduct, he went even beyond the requirements of this law or of any known code of ethics.

For instance, when he and his law partners, Sedfrey A. Ordoñez (who became solicitor general, secretary of justice, and ambassador to the United Nations) and Pedro L. Yap (who was elevated to be chief justice of the Philippines), were recruited to public office by President Corazon C. Aquino in 1986, he was not satisfied with taking a leave from his prestigious law firm as demanded by law and ethics; he went all the way and dissolved permanently his law partnership.

In serving a government swept to office by legendary people power, he opted to forego the luxuries that wealth could buy to be able to demonstrate the virtues that power and wealth alone could not bring. He chose to live simply so that others may simply live.

Indeed, he is a living model of his teachings. He is a dedicated husband, a caring father, a faithful friend and a devoted man of God. Never compromising his principles in exchange for friendship, kinship, relationship, power or wealth, he lives an almost ascetic life. He does not smoke, drink, or gamble. Money, worldly pleasures, titles and honors hold no fascination for him.

Outstanding and humble. To say that Dr. Salonga is outstanding is to say something ordinary about him. He topped the bar examinations, topped his doctoral class in Yale University and topped the senatorial elections three times, a record unequaled in this nation’s history. Yet he remains humble and child-like, as our Lord Jesus Christ counseled all His disciples to be. No wonder, he had been selected as one of the seven Ramon Magsaysay awardees this year.

Even when I was his assistant in his law firm in the early ’60s, he was never allured by possessions, positions or propositions. He never quibbled over attorney’s fees; did not bill even his wealthiest clients like Don Eugenio Lopez Sr., leaving to them the problem of how to compensate him. Money had very little meaning for him then, and less so now.

Many of the essays, homilies and speeches included in the book had been written some 35 years ago, after his life was almost snuffed out by that bombing in Plaza Miranda, Manila on Aug. 21, 1971. In it are chronicled his pains, struggles and hopes. But like our Lord Jesus Christ, his faith grew stronger as his physical self felt weaker.

Sprightly at 87. On June 22, 2007, Dr. Salonga celebrated his 87th birthday. Yet, despite his advanced age and despite the many tiny pieces of shrapnel that are still imbedded in his frail body as a result of that grenade blast in Plaza Miranda, he is still sprightly. More important, his intellect and his interest in public welfare are still as sharp as when he was 40. Let me give just two recent proofs of this assertion:

1. Peeved at the Commission on Elections’ refusal to reveal the names of the party-list nominees in the last elections, he sued the poll body for violating the people’s constitutional right to public information; the result: a unanimous Supreme Court decision (in Rosales vs Comelec), promptly promulgated on May 4, 2007, commanding the Comelec to follow his demand; and

2. Alarmed that President Macapagal-Arroyo violated the Constitution in appointing to the Supreme Court someone who was not a natural-born citizen, he again sued; the result: again, a unanimous Supreme Court decision (in Kilosbayan vs Ermita), promptly issued on July 3, 2007, enjoining Gregory Ong from accepting his appointment to the Supreme Court, precisely because of his lack of natural-born citizenship.

Many times during his prayers and moments of solitude, he has asked our Lord why his life had been spared, and why he had been gifted with longevity when he was one of the most injured during that deadly Plaza Miranda blast. I dare say that our Good Lord had granted him a long and purposeful life, because He wanted him to be the conscience of the nation; to be its fearless anchor during stormy seas of political upheavals; and to be the indefatigable teacher and model of the young and not-so-young who aspire to lead this country.