Awesome

It takes a good leader to make hard decisions. It takes an awesome leader to make hard and unpopular decisions just when he needs to be popular – like in the run up to an election year for example?

From this news report, it seems like Noli de Castro knows what an awesome leader is. I mean, sure, it was Cerge Remonde who said

I think we should not glorify and glamorize these people by giving in to their demands as to whom they would want to negotiate with. I think that could be a very bad policy.

But the way things work around here, if de Castro wanted to score a few easy brownie points, he could’ve easily overriden sensible voices and gone on to Sulu for the photo ops. It is, I think, to his credit that he seems to be toeing the reasonable line with this one. 

Which prolly begs the question, when has he ever gone against this government? I’m all for that whole loyalty thing, but there comes a time in a politician’s life when, if he can’t break ranks, he can at least make his discomfiture known. Has de Castro ever done that?

The answer to that question will be relevant to those who are now considering him for 2010. He’s done a significant amount of good, sure; but a person who has kept his ass too safe will turn off the voters.

All told, de Castro might know what it takes to be an awesome leader, but is he good enough to actually be one?

Filed under: 2010 watch, news, politics , Abu Sayaff, ICRC, kidnapping, negotiation, Noli de Castro

Militarization is it?

It’s funny how we so love the labels created by agitators. It’s a public relations tool, really: reduce a complex idea into as brief a statement as possible – a one-word slogan would be best – and feed it to the masses. After all, the masses don’t need to fully under the whys and hows; they just need something to chant or scream until their throats are raw – a kind of shortcut to meaning. It’s the power of symbol, and some say that it lay at the heart of Hitler’s success as a demagouge. This administration has seen more than its share of these ‘key words’ and now the latest agit-prop is “militarization.”

What the rest of the world understands as the process of preparing for war or other violent conflict, we gleefully appropriate the word “militarization” to refer to the naming of former military officials to top government posts. Implicit in the use of the word is the promise of dark days of repression to come, the demise of liberty, and the extinction of all that is good and beautiful …. zxngrkCKZ!

The preponderance of military men in high government positions isn’t necessarily the portent of doom that some people wish it to be – yes: i think they actually want it to be that, so that they can later on have the bragging rights of having called it out first. If we’re being calm and logical about it, the appointment of military men to high government positions can actually be attributed to a number of factors:

First, very few people in the lucrative private sector want to enter the thankless public service. With GMA as appointing authority, even fewer. This means that, second, candidates for top level positions are actually drawn from a pretty shallow pool of people currently – or were – in the public service. Third, of the people currently – or previously – in the public service, there are very few who are as well trained as military men of officer rank in management and planning – skills needed by any good administrator. This is so because the military invests much in the training and schooling of its officers. In fact, it is the rare military officer who spends more than a week being unemployed after retirement from the service. They get snapped up by private corporations who see their upper management skills as potential assets. An uncle of mine was picking among offers three months before he finally retired from the service!

Outside this logic loop, military men are also much in demand on their own right – without necessarily being fiddle to private sector top picks. This is especially true for such services as reasonably require a background in military-style operations and discipline. It’s all well and good to emphasize the civilian nature of, say the PDEA, but the truth of the matter is, the learning curve is much steeper (steeper=better) when the person trying to learn the ropes has a background in activities like intelligence gathering, urban skirmish, and enemy engagement. And yes, dealing with crooks nowadays is practically like dealing with a para-military unit. You don’t send Mother Teresa in to arrest a bunch of BDSM brothel whores with whips and ballgags.

So talk of militarization is likely to be just more fear-mongering.

In fact, if anything, there was a massive de-militarization of society when the Reserve Officer Training Course – and it’s latter day cousin, Citizen’s Military Training – was effectively shelved.

Filed under: language, politics , militarization, palparan, PDEA

All apologies

I wish I was like you easily amused
Find my nest of salt, everything’s your fault
I’ll take all the blame, opposite from shame
Sunburn, freezerburn, choking on the ashes of her enemy

- Kurt Cobain

The once venerable Corazon Aquino – now called Sorry Aquino by Dick Gordon because she apologized to Joseph Estrada for being one of the movers behind his ouster in 2001 – ought to apologize to the Filipino as well.

She should apologize for helping take the nation into what she now considers a disastrous detour. Following her logic, she’s at least partly responsible for all the shit we’ve been through since 2001. Following her logic, if she hadn’t decided to play God with the country’s fortunes – if she hadn’t decided to completely take a crap on the millions who voted for Joseph Estrada – then we wouldn’t be in the cesspool we are now.

By extension – still adhering to her logic – what reason could we possibly have for believing her whining now? If she failed so miserably to forecast what was good for the nation then – and in the process irreparably weakened the foundations of our democracy – why should we believe that she is right this time about doing the exact same thing all over again? Thus, she should also apologize to the Filipino people for ceaselessly trying these past four years, to railroad us into the same detour which, by her own admission, led to our disastrous present circumstances.

Of course, in the aftermath of her apology, her spinners have tried to pass it off as a joke. Right. Tell that to her kumadres and sycophants in the Black & White movement. Maybe they’ll be as forgiving towards her as they were towards Jess Dureza. 

And speaking of her comrades in arms, maybe she should apologize as well to those who took to the streets in 2001 for turning their sacrifice into a sham. I mean, Estrada was convicted of plunder. He is a criminal in the eyes of the law and, swallowing the affront to the Constitution in 2001 as a fait accompli, that conviction amounted to something like a saving grace: they may have trampled all over the Constitution but at least they got that crook sent to prison. Now, those 2001 putschists don’t even have that anymore. And they have Cory Aquino to thank for that.

And after she’s done with all her apologies, she should pick up the phone. GMA has been calling her since the news of her apology hit the newsrooms. Seems like GMA wants to invite Sorry Cory to join the Honest Mistake Club.

 

Filed under: news, politics , 2001, apology, Corazon Aquino, Cory, EDSA II, Erap, Joseph Estrada

The right reasons

Amending the Constitution shouldn’t be as painful as pulling teeth. Nearly everyone agrees, in the first place, that the one we have now can use a little updating. The most fundamental argument for charter change, after all, ought to be that we want to give ourselves the right to take certain actions, or to do things in a certain way, that wasn’t necessary when the charter was originally written and ratified. And like it or not, things have changed since 1987.

Unfortunately, Charter Change is not the most popular of ideas. Mere mention of it conjures up images of tyrants and no-election scenarios (ironic that – most people against amending the constitution do not balk at playing the NO-EL card as though elections were the most sacred thing to them, when they’re the same ones who routinely try to rouse the people to revolutions that, perforce, make elections pointless). As a result, the intrinsically laudable nature of periodic amendments to the constitution gets buried under an avalanche of populist fear-mongering.

Charter change moves which, in the normal course of things, would lead to an updated constitution, ought to go through three phases. First it must be debated upon and proposed (in any one of three ways); second, the proposed amendments or revisions must be subjected to public debates; and finally, the proposed amendments or revisions must be submitted to the people through a plebiscite. One, two, three – and perfectly constitutional.

The problem we have – especially now – is that the anti-charter change contingent doesn’t even want to start that constitutional process. In fact, they don’t even want Congress to talk about it. Now, ordinarily, that wouldn’t be too problematic, except that they’re trying to nip the process in the bud by scaring the public into joining their raucous chorus.

For the most part, anti- moves now drum up this ‘Gloria Forever’ slogan and equate it with amending the constitution. The greatest weapon in the anti- aresenal therefore is nothing other than hatred for GMA. And they have done this so successfully that if you ask ten people on the street why they don’t want charter change, prolly six or more of them will tell you it’s because they hate Gloria ten different ways from Sunday.

Hand in hand with this hate-mongering is the bogeyman of term extensions. Anti- campaigners paint fearsome scenarios of amendments that would allow Gloria to extend her term, or allow her to run again. Most preposterous of all, of course, is the story-line that goes in a parliamentary form of government, Gloria will be able to run as MP for Pampanga and from there mount a run at the Prime Ministership – and voila! a constructive term extension.

Why is that preposterous? It’s fucked up because they’re saying that that scenario will unfold if we change the charter now. But the truth is, the move to a parliamentary form has always been part of the background noise for charter change, and that whenever that move happens, the same course of action remains open for GMA. So, even if they are successful in amending the Constitution only by, say 2013, GMA can still run for MP that year, and become PM soon after. If they amend it only by 2016, GMA can still run for MP then too. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how long she has to wait because no one can land her in jail for another half-a-decade at least. It took us even longer than that to convict Estrada, dint it? And even then, she can always skedaddle to some friendly country and have her proxies run the show for her.

Coming in a distant third and fourth are the political ambitions of grandstanding politicians like Mar Roxas – who, putangina, is a moron by the way – and substantive issues. In fact, I even hesitate to put substantive issues on the list of justifications for opposing charter change because I’ve never heard a single argument along those lines. 

So, the two biggest reasons being forwarded to justify short-circuiting the constitutional process of amending the charter are hatred of the incumbent, and the possibility of a term extension. WHile both are intrinsically flawed arguments, they have nevertheless been incredibly effective. Which, to my mind, highlights two things: those against charter change who routine spout this drivel are engaging in a fair amount of intellectual dishonesty for the sake of effective public persuasion; and that in so acting, they are doing the Filipino people an incredible injustice by forcing us to continue living with an anachronistic charter so that they can advance their own political motivations.

I, meself, am against changing the charter because – by my limited understanding of issues – I don’t think it’ll do any good. I don’t believe we are ready for a parliamentary form of government, nor do I even believe that form to be superior to the presidential system we have now. But just because I believe this way, that doesn’t make me think that I am absolutely right. Hence my gripe about how this whole anti-charter change campaign is being run. I may be against charter change, but damnit, I want the opportunity to have my mind changed through a reasonable and objective discussion of the issues. As it is, all I’m getting from these people who profess to have my best interests at heart are their propaganda. 

It’s prolly too late now, but anti-charter change campaigns should follow an entirely different model.

Instead of trying to head off charter change, anti charter change campaigners should let the process initiate and then focus their efforts on convincing the public that the Constitution shouldn’t be tinkered with; and instead of focusing and capitalizing on hatred for GMA, they should make good-faith attempts to present substantive issues for debate so that when the people refuse to ratify the amendments or revisions, they will be doing so for the right reasons.

Filed under: politics , chacha, Charter Change

Mar Roxas is a moron

“Putang ina! … Patayin ang Gloria-forever Cha-cha na ito!” 

Real classy, moron.

 

Filed under: 2010 watch, politics , Mar Roxas, putang ina

Gordon’s bullshit

I remember complaining how, everytime the Supreme Court rules against someone, the media always plays it up as a slap-on-the-face. That, of course, has roots in the idea that being slapped on the face is one of the gravest forms of insult possible, implying that the person doing the slapping has tons of disapproval and contempt for the person being slapped.

I mention this now because i find it curious that ever since the SC’s decision to grant JocJoc Bolante’s petition for habeas corpus over the Senate’s objections has not been characterized by media anywhere as a slap on the Senate’s face.

And now, Gordon – the same moron who gave insult to Thais and later on tried to weasel out of it – is trying to salvage things. 

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Gordon said the Blue Ribbon committee decided to release Bolante in the spirit of Christmas.

“We want to do this out of justice, out of humanitarian interest because of Christmas,” he said.

HAH! Whatta load of bullshit. Gordon secured the release of Bolante to moot the habeas corpus petition because he knows that the Senate’s actions would not pass muster. 

And so, from ordering Bolante’s arrest to force him into ‘telling the truth,’ Gordon ordered

 … Rodolfo Noel Quimbo, Blue Ribbon committee Oversight Office Management director general, charged Bolante with the crimes of disobeying summons issued by Congress, and false testimony yesterday.

Which begs the question, if they could file charges after all, why didn’t they do that in the first place? The answer ought to be obvious. It was much easier, more convenient, and more telegenic to just trample on the guy’s basic right to due process, which – as some smart guy once said – was designed to protect the presumption of innocence accorded to even the most hated person.

Gordon, for all his bullshit and bluster – not to mention spit spraying – seems to have forgotten that, and so (hehe) he got a slap on the face from the SC.

Filed under: judiciary, media, politics , habeas corpus, Joc Joc Bolante, Richard Gordon, Senate, Supreme Court

Who died?

Who died and made Anakbayan the boss of Manny? Who died and gave politicians the right to ‘advise’ people not to go into politics and – essentially – to not quit their day jobs?

In case these party-list types haven’t noticed – or maybe because they had a deadened sense of irony – they letting anyone run for office these days. So what makes Manny Pacquiao less suited for a career in politics than, say – a former news anchor? With the proliferation of lawyers in this country, politicians – party-list representatives included – do not even need to have skillz in law-craft. In this benighted country, politicians are expected only to look good and speak well. Sincerity trumps integrity, and celebrity hands sincerity its hat and kicks it out the door. 

Manny shouldn’t run. And as a fight fan, I am perfectly within my rights to voice the opinion that he shouldn’t risk the country’s place of honor in the international arena. It’s his fault for getting us there. Now that we’re there, it’s his responsibility to keep us there til someone comes along and takes over for him. Atlas can’t just put down the world and walk away. 

But politicians condescendingly telling Pacquiao to stick to boxing? WTF? No one – least of all party-list representatives – have the right to tell people with no political background that they can’t jump into the sandbox. Last I checked, politics was an old-boys club by dint of circumstance, not design. SO although the way things are practically guarantee that only politically connected people can have a real chance at winning elective office, theoretically, if anyone can get the same level of winnability even without a pedigree, that person is just as entitled to a shot at public office.

The root cause of all the hackles raised at the thought of a Pacquiao candidacy is fear. Fear that his overwhelming popularity will be used by the administration one way or the other. Well, duh. Tough. Deal it with it, Anakbayan.

First off, you don’t know Manny’s mettle as a pol. He may talk dumb, but like generations of your populism have pretty much ensured that politicians don’t need to be eloquent except with their wallets and their dance moves. 

Second, don’t try to pretend that you’re above using celebrity to further your causes. If Manny Pacquiao were critical of the government, you people would be creaming your panties trying to get him to run under your crimson banners. 

Third, everyone has a right to be voted for. If actors can run for office, so can dumb jocks, aryt?

Fourth, if the guy wants to flush his career down the toilet, that’s for him to decide, for us fight fans to crucify him for, and for you politicians to live in fear of. Not that he’s going after your turf anyway.

So leave Manny alone! (cue blond-emo-gay-video )

Filed under: 2010 watch, politics, sports , Anakbayan, Manny Pacquiao, politics

Hope

Well, well. Lookit. 

Citing initial field reports, Jimenez said day one of registration in Quezon City’s 1st district yielded 79 new voters; 303 for the 2nd district and 61 for the 3rd district. In Manila, its 5th district recorded the most number of new registrants with 256; followed closely by the 4th district with 221. 

So that’s fairly impressive, right? I thought that this registration thing would be greeted by something like a huge collective yawn by voters so thoroughly indoctriinated against trusting the system. As it turns out, people are still excited about being able to vote in 2010.

Good thing too. The way I see it, these numbers represent a rejection of regime change short-cuts. There is hope, after all, that not everyone is taken in by the allure of yet another ersatz revolution. 

The challenge now is to keep the numbers this high – or to better them even – in the coming months. All of a sudden – for me at least – the idea of an involved youth doesn’t sound as far-fetched as it used to.

Filed under: 2010 watch, musings, politics, society , 2010 elections, registration

Politicizing the Supreme Court

Those who accuse members of the Supreme Court of dabbling in politics have got it all wrong. It’s not the Justices themselves who do the politicizing, it’s the people who talk about them that are the most guilty of that offense.

Take Satur Ocampo, f’rinstance.

Deputy Minority Leader Satur Ocampo said on Saturday the Supreme Court would be closely watched should the majority in the House of Representatives succeed in their plan to bring to the tribunal the question of whether Congress as a constituent assembly should vote jointly or separately in proposing changes to the Constitution.

It would not only be the Constitution that would be tested but the magistrates as well, said Ocampo, who has accused Malacañang of plotting to amend the Constitution to extend the President’s term.

A joint voting scheme is expected to render the Senate a minority since the chamber would only have 23 votes that correspond to the number of senators compared to the House’s 238.

“It is expected it will be a big test for the Supreme Court,” Ocampo said.

Ocampo said a Supreme Court decision on Charter change (Cha-cha) would have political implications, and that a decision could reflect badly on the tribunal.

“The Supreme Court might rule that both houses should vote jointly, and the people would see this as being favorable to the President,” he said.

What the fuck?

In case you didn’t get it, what Satur – the same guy who admitted to attesting, under oath, to a document he knew was false – said was that if the Supreme Court didn’t rule the way he and his ilk feel that it should, then the Supreme Court will have ‘failed the test’ and would be branded as lackeys of the President. What Satur is saying is that if the Court doesn’t agree with him, it is manifestly partial and therefore unjust. This puts the Court in a difficult position. It can either agree with Satur blindly, if only to prove its independence; or it can be independent and yet suffer the ignominy of the charges of partiality hurled against them before any petition has even been filed before them.

And in case you still don’t get it, what that means is that Satur has already decided how the Constitution should be interpreted. He just wants the Supreme Court to rubber stamp his learned opinion. Now when did the function of interpreting the Charter pass from the Court to this one man who does not even recognize the authority of that damned document? Hell. If politicians can speak with unchallengeable authority about what the Constitution means, then there is no conceivable need for a Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and it should be able to do so without regard for whom the interpretation will favor. But that’s not the role Satur Ocampo and his ilk want the SC to play. So, as part of their game plan, they launch a campaign to shape the minds of the public, emphasizing the political color of the issues until political color becomes the only consideration. And they do this by accusing the Court of playing politics whenever the outcome is unacceptable for them, and playing up public adulation when the decision is favorable. It’s like Pavlov’s bell.

Either way, Satur’s massaging of popular opinion and shaping of public perception significantly and negatively affects how the SC does its job. Now, under Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, here’s what it says:

Contempt of court involves the doing of an act, or the failure to do an act, in such manner as to create an affront to the court and the sovereign dignity with which it is clothed.  It is defined as “disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity.”  

                (a)           Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions;

                (b)           Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;

                 (c)           Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under Section 1 of this Rule;

                 (d)          Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;

                 (e)          Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority

                 (f)            Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;

                 (g)          The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held him

Reads like a perfect fit.

‘Course it’ll be a cold day in hell before the Supreme Court even admonishes someone like Satur Ocampo. Which is why the politicizing influence of statements like his will continue until our Supreme Court either grows a pair or just totally gives up the ghost. 

 

…

 

And speaking of Pavlov’s bell … that particular image prolly explains why Satur and his ilk are able to express their contempt for the court with such impunity. If we had SC justices who were less preoccupied with media glory, then there would be a greater chance that they would move more decisively against people who think nothing of calling them puppets.

Filed under: politics , cha-cha, Satur Ocampo, Supreme Court

Due Execution

Something Satur Ocampo is reported to have said caught my eye.

After the hearing which ended at 2:45 p.m., Ocampo explained the discrepancy in the dates.

Ocampo said October 11 was used as the date of execution because it was the date of filing.

“It’s not a clerical error, it was in fact intentional. We dated it October 11 kasi iyon ang day ng [that is the day of the] filing pero nung panahon na ipanumpa nila sa abugado nandun na ang document [but at that time that they swore before the lawyer, the document had been drafted], so hindi na question kung magko-conflict ang [there is longer no question of conflicting] dates,” he said.

In the grand scheme of things, I suppose the date of the notary prolly doesn’t amount to much. But when a document is notarized, doesn’t the person seeking notarization swear to or affirm the truth of the information contained in the document, under penalty of perjury? So, if you knew that the date was wrong, doesn’t that amount to perjury?

Why would Satur Ocampo say such a thing?

Filed under: law and order, politics , impeachment, notary, Satur Ocampo