CONSTITUTION, EDSA II, GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, JOSEPH ESTRADA, PRESIDENCY

Politicking for 2004, January 27, 2002

In 2002 on August 1, 2013 at 1:07 pm

THE OTHER WEEK, there appeared on the front page of the INQUIRER a picture of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo carrying a little child in her arms. She was in a depressed community. A few days later, there she was again on the front page, this time eating with her fingers in a similar milieu. Last Saturday, the papers reported that she sang solo and then with Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes at a gathering of military personnel. The soldiers, who may have faced worse ordeals, gamely applauded their commander-in-chief. Shades of Erap! Only the politically naive will refuse to believe that in doing those unpresidential acts, Ms. Macapagal was not politicking. She was, indeed. The hard-nosed observers of the current scene know what her principal motivation is these days. It is her election in her own right as President of the Philippines in 2004. This obsession must be due to her insecure feeling that she is only a President by constitutional succession. She was elected only as a spare tire, so to speak, and not to the top position in the government. She was acceptable enough as a second fiddle with hardly a chance to succeed the robust-looking Joseph Estrada. Now she wants no less than a direct mandate from the people to be their deliberate and elected choice as President. Ms. Macapagals present gimmicks were a natural for Estrada but not for her. Erap acted cheap simply because it was in his nature to be cheap. But eating with her fingers and bussing babies are ill suited to President Macapagal, and neither is vocalizing ala Nora Aunor. Her best known gimmick in the 1998 campaign was looking pretty and carrying a rose in posters plastered all over the country. What that rose signified could not have been her competence to be vice president and, if fate should be so kind, to succeed to the presidency itself. That poster turned me off because it looked so pretentious. It was a none-too-subtle bid for the support of the Noranians, who rallied behind her although she couldnt sing like their idol and their resemblance was not that close either. In any case, that pretty picture was an effective advertisement that made her the second highest elective official in our government. As such, she could have been the counterfoil to President Estrada who, despite his immense popularity then, was not all that invulnerable. Her party-mates looked up to her to lead the opposition not only because of her impressive election victory but also of her outstanding intellectual and academic credentials. These were in sharp contrast with the meager qualifications of the college dropout and former movie actor who, by some fluke, had captured Malacaang.

Under the Constitution, the Vice President may be appointed as a department head. The President is not obliged to make such an appointment and neither is the Vice President required to accept it. President Carlos P. Garcia did not appoint Vice President Diosdado Macapagal to the Cabinet; they were from different political parties and the expected rivals in the next presidential election. We can only speculate now if Garcia would have offered Macapagal a Cabinet post and if Macapagal would have accepted it. President Estrada did make such an offer to Vice President Macapagal, and Ms. Macapagal accepted. Unlike her sire, she agreed to be a department head under Erap and thus became his alter ego. Whatever her motives might have been, she allied herself with him in resisting the opposition, of which she was the nominal but not the actual leader. She probably did not realize that in persuading her to sit in his Cabinet, the novice politician (compared to her) had disarmed her. Even when things began to get uncomfortable for Estrada, she joined the other Cabinet members in affirming their loyalty to him. It was only when Eraps impeachment exposed his many sins to a shocked nation that Ms. Macapagal considered a change in her political stance. It could be that her politicians instincts nagged her for continuing to side with the President,who was being discredited by the hour. Maybe and this was a more delicious thought she was also getting nearer to Malacaang as its chief tenant. In the end, she decided to desert Estradas sinking ship and belatedly raised the flag of the opposition she had earlier abandoned and betrayed. The consensus now is that our countrys condition has not much improved since she took over at the helm last year. Many people feel she is more preoccupied with her campaigning for 2004 than with the solution of the nations festering ills. But although they doubt her sincerity, they acknowledge her ability. They believe she is well equipped to redeem our nation from the blunders of the Erap years if she would only focus her attention on her duties and not 2004. The question is when this will happen, if at all. President Macapagal complained recently that undue emphasis on her visits to various groups in the archipelago was distorting her real purpose, which is to inform herself of their problems for her appropriate action. Of course, she cannot do this by trying to ingratiate herself with the masses through such superficial gestures as dancing with the Igorots. Neither can she blame the media for publicizing and describing her acts as premature electioneering because they are so in fact, no matter how hotly she may deny it. If she really means to promote the nations welfare, she should stay put in her office and, removed from the glare of media publicity and distraction, apply herself to the imperative task of leading our country into this new century. This would be convincing proof of her credibility and competence.

Succeeding in this endeavor could be her best recommendation to remain in Malacaang in 2004, no longer as an Accidental Excellency but as a duly elected President of the Philippines.
Comment BASIC RIGHTS, NOISE POLLUTION

A Glimmer of Hope at Last, January 26, 2002

In 2002 on August 1, 2013 at 11:37 am

I WAS talking on the telephone last Saturday with Chuck Laurel over plans for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Lyceum of the Philippines when a plane roared overhead and drowned our conversation. I took note of the time; it was 10:20 in the morning. Such disturbances are not uncommon in Merville, Paraaque City, where I live. They have disturbed our sleep, interrupted conversations and depreciated property values. This oppressive nuisance has bothered the residents of our subdivision and adjacent villages over the years under the Aquino, Ramos, Estrada, and Macapagal administrations. We have sent numerous petitions to the government for the alleviation of our plight, but to no avail. The insolent airplanes continue to cause us much inconvenience and, worse, are impairing the health of the residents, especially the children. A television documentary hosted by Noli de Castro emphasized the gravity of our situation. Interviews with noise experts and school authorities in the affected area stressed the pernicious effects of the excessive noise upon our community. The officials who owe us their special protection, particularly our mayor, actor Joey Marquez, and our congressman then, Roilo Golez, have been of little help. Golez, reacting to several articles I wrote, assured me that he had filed a resolution for the legislative investigation of our problem. That was all I heard from him. The airplanes have probably made Marquez himself deaf because as far as I know, he has not lifted a finger in our behalf. Largely through our own initiative, the Air Transportation Office decreed some years ago to limit the flights of the offending airplanes to specified hours only in the daytime. Despite this restriction, there were many times when those noisy intruders rudely awakened us at night or very early in the morning, to our justified but helpless indignation. The ATO received our grievances with a token apology but did not redress them. Lately, however, things have begun looking up. We might say, if some triteness is allowed, that we are now glimpsing the light at the end of the tunnel. Two days after I wrote my latest article on our noise problem last July, Sen. Loren Legarda invited me to lunch with the head of the ATO, Assistant Secretary Adelberto F. Yap, so we could discuss our
3

predicament. While waiting for her, I took offense, and testily said so, when Yap remarked smugly that our complaint was moot and academic. Fortunately, he changed his dismissive attitude later and agreed to help us. Senator Legarda, the ever-vigilant protector of the environment, referred our complaint to Sen. Joker Arroyo, chair of the committee on public services, environment and natural resources, who called a hearing. Yap testified on how his office has been trying to assuage our difficulties, but it seems to me that it has simply been making the motions with little enthusiasm and no appreciable success either. The arrogant airplanes are still plaguing us. In a letter dated Jan. 14, 2002, Senator Arroyo informed me of the results of the hearing and attached a report from Yap of the measures the ATO has taken and is planning to take for the alleviation of the noise problem in Merville and adjacent subdivisions. He also sent me a copy of Senate Bill No. 1024, titled An Act Providing for Aviation Noise Management and Reduction in Residential Areas filed by Sen. Manuel B. Villar, Jr. To be briefly called the Aviation Noise Limit Act if approved, the bill states in its declaration of policy that the State shall protect public health by determining noise impact of residential areas near airports and by establishing programs for the management of noise levels. The State shall ensure the constitutionally protected right of quiet enjoyment of private property. The measure provides for, among others, a definition of the area to be protected from excessive airplane noise and the maximum sound levels to be allowed during specified hours. It calls on the ATO to study the various methods for aviation noise reduction, including sound-proofing, relocation incentives, use of quieter aircraft, operations restrictions a nd revision of air routes. It also prohibits the ATO from making any airspace traffic change that will result in an increase of aviation noise. In the Lower House, Rep. Eduardo C. Zialcita, our new congressman, who appears to be more solicitous of our welfare than his predecessor, has introduced a resolution calling for the investigation in aid of legislation of our long-neglected problem. He has also delivered a privilege speech urging his colleagues to approve legislation to protect us, and other communities similarly situated, from the intrusion of insolent airplanes. It is certain that the airlines affected will, for purely commercial reasons, oppose any legislation intended to suppress airplane noise inimical to the peoples health and right of repose, as well as the constitutional mandate to protect and and cleanse the environment. While the lobby from these rich companies will surely be expensive, we are hoping it will not be irresistible to a Congress whose principal concern should be the public interest and not the profit motive.
4

Noise pollution is as serious a menace as the pollution of the air, the soil, the waters, and all other components of the environment. It has diminished our right to enjoy our chosen places of abode without the intrusion of the noisy airplanes that have bedeviled us all these years. That right belongs not only to us in Merville but to every individual in our society who makes common cause with us in resisting administrative condonation of corporate tyranny.
Comment EDSA I, EDSA II, EDSA III, GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, IMPEACHMENT, JOSEPH ESTRADA,PHILIPPINE HISTORY, SOCIAL COMMENT

Edsa Defiled, January 20, 2002

In 2002 on April 27, 2013 at 11:54 am

I HAD lunch recently with some friends Raul Contreras, Mario Ongkiko, Dean de la Paz and Nandy Pacheco (his treat) and discussed, as concerned citizens, the current political situation in our country. Our conversation focused on the two past people power demonstrations that have celebrated our nation throughout the world for asserting our freedom against abusive rulers. Edsa I was hailed as a legitimate uprising of the people against the excesses of Ferdinand Marcos during more than 13 intolerable years of despotic misrule. Edsa II was also received with universal approbation for deposing Joseph Estrada, a loyal follower and emulator of Marcos who may have exceeded his model in debasing his high office. The significant fact that both political upheavals were effected without bloodshed made them especially praiseworthy. There was a minimum of violence in both historic events that emphasized the level-headedness of our people in resisting tyranny. Despite the well-nigh unbearable oppressions of the hated regimes, we still eschewed the threat or force of arms and mayhem.We relied instead on our freedom of expression and assembly as our most formidable weapon of peaceful protest. The next demonstration that followed last May cannot be considered another people power movement. It was obvious from the start that it was not a spontaneous uprising like Edsa I and Edsa II. This one was clearly a devious conspiracy led by shadowy figures plotting to destabilize the new government for their own sinister purposes. The ultimate objective of this cabal was to restore the Estrada regime (with them as its accustomed satraps) that had been deposed in an eruption of popular fury against its abuses. Edsa II was sparked by the infamous session in the Senate where the majority of its members successfully prevented the disclosure of damning evidence against Estrada. It could have indubitably established him as a crook of plunder dimensions. The cowardice of that servile vote transferred the

impeachment trial from that tractable chamber to the court of the people at Edsa. Edsa II forced the exposed respondent to abandon Malacaang rather than face the peoples mounting rage. By contrast, what is foolishly sought to be dignified as Edsa III was motivated not by an alleged loyalty to Erap as the supposed champion of the masses. Estrada was the apparent but only incidental cause of that disorder, The people who attacked Malacaang on May 1 last year were a motley mob fueled by cash, drugs and gin intended to make them run berserk. Their crafty leaders later distanced themselves from their mindless followers when the authorities closed in. The participants in Edsa I and Edsa II included not only political figures but also citizens from all walks of life bonded by a common disgust over official cynicism and corruption. Students and teachers, professionals and laborers, housewives with their children, big and small businessmen, priests and nuns along with religious pretenders, the thinking and disenchanted masses, and other outraged Filipinos, joined in the widespread demand for the disgraced idol to step down. What little violence attended Edsa I was not its cause but its aftermath. The exuberance did not cry for vengeance (as the culprit Marcos clan and cronies had fled) but only exhibited the nationwide euphoria over the end of the despised dictatorship. There was little unruliness either in Edsa II because Estrada wisely chose not to risk his summary execution by standing fast in Malacaang like an improbable Davy Crockett defying death at the Alamo. By contrast, what can only be derisively called Edsa III did not have the redeeming quality of legitimate anger. It was first and last a mob action whose leaders goaded their followers with promises of worldly goodies only to cravenly desert them later. Left to their own resources, they resorted to mindless rampaging, injuring lawmen, burning property, overturning vehicles, smashing store windows (even outside the scene of battle), and generally running riot out of sheer depravity and vandalism. That shameful event happened almost a year ago, but its leaders, notably the more visible VIPs insolently immune from government strictures, have not been arrested and prosecuted. The ordinary perpetrators of the orgy have been forgiven by an administration hesitant to offend the rabble whose electoral support it will need in 2004. The police are reportedly still hunting a known organizer of that unrest who has openly eluded arrest so far. Probably they have not been looking for him hard enough, if at all. And now theres talk of what its plotters would self-importantly call Edsa IV. There seems to be no end to all this foolishness. In an earlier column, I warned that we should not squander Edsa II the way we have squandered Edsa I. It appears we have thoughtlessly wasted it too. The consensus we reached at our exchange of
6

views was that the only good effect of Edsa I and Edsa II was the ouster of Marcos and Estrada respectively. Little has changed since then, and pretty much the same problems are still with us, if indeed they have not even aggravated. There is no need to recite the litany of the old maladies that continue to afflict our country, let alone the new ones like the uncollected garbage and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyos premature politicking at public expense. Marcos ugly stone visage in La Union still waits to be blasted, and Estrada is enjoying comfortable detention quarters while his lawyers delay his trial and conviction. So what else is new?
Comment FERDINAND MARCOS, FRATERNITIES, REMINISCENCES, SOCIAL COMMENT, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Fraternity Friendships, January 19, 2002

In 2002 on April 27, 2013 at 10:56 am

THE RECENT decisions of the Court of Appeals on the Lenny Villa case brings to mind the practice of hazing in UP during my time. That was in the late 40s when I took my pre-law studies in the Engineering Building, both at the Padre Faura complex. I dont know if it still the rule now but the selection then of the editor in chief of the Philippine Collegian was a two-step process. First there was an editorial writing contest among wannabe journalists; then the Student Council elected from those who qualified the head of the incoming editorial staff. The first step required skill in writing, the second step, political connections. A qualifying candidate might write better than his rivals, but he would have no chance of landing the contested post if he did not have the support of the Student Council. That was where the fraternities came in. It was a point of honor among them to make their candidate win, not necessarily because he was the best writer but because he had the political clout. My friend Armando Manalo, who later became a well-known columnist and ambassador, vied for the editorship and easily qualified in the writing contest but did not get the top position. His closest competitor won because he had his fraternity to support him. I must say here, to be fair, that he was also an excellent writer but, realistically, it was his fraternity that made him win. Manalo did not have a chance in the election because he was, as they were called then, a barbarian. I was the executive editor of the Collegian at that time, which may have been the reason one of the big fraternities considered me a potential candidate for editor in chief. It really had nothing to do
7

with talent; I was merely regarded as possible material, with a chance to qualify in the writing contest. Against that remote possibility, I was invite to be a brod. I accepted albeit with no particular enthusiasm. Soon enough, I became fair game to the fraternity members, who were to be my masters during the initiation period. One of them immediately pounced on me and demanded, rather mockingly, that I kneel before him and polish his shoes. I refused because, truth to say, I had not even polished my own shoes. He wanted to know, now coldly, if I was disobeying his command and I said yes without any hostility. Well, that did it. That ended my brief experience with the practice called hazing. At that, hazing was not that bad during those days. I heard there was some physical testing involved but not enough to maim or much less kill. The demands of the masters were mostly amusing, like delivering flowers to a campus belle or kissing a horse on a busy street. While under initiation, Enrique M. Belo, later to become an outstanding lawyer, was a very visible figure, fanning a master wherever they went. Six-footer Ike and his five-foot short master provided comic relief from our classroom ordeals. I do not regret not joining a fraternity because I did not lose any friend because of my refusal. My best friend Fred bravely underwent the traditional hazing and was happily welcomed into his fraternity, but I would not say we became less close because I was not his brod. Some say that mere common membership in a fraternity makes for enduring bonds but that may be just hyperbole. Members of the same fraternity are not necessarily fast friends and may even be bitter enemies or at least only indifferent acquaintances later. The fiction of mutual loyalty is often belied by actual and even open enmity among fraternity members. The best example is Ferdinand Marcos, who belonged to one of the popular fraternities in UP. During his martial law regime, he persecuted some of his brods despite their supposedly undying friendship. He was more amiable with his classmates, whom he favored with choice appointments although not all of them belonged to his fraternity. Affection may deepen among sincere friends even without the benign influence of fraternity ties. The number of Court of Appeals justices who are members of the Aquila Legis fraternity may give rise to suspicion of their interference in the Lenny Villa case, but these have yet to be confirmed. In any event, it is regrettable that, right or wrong, the acquittal of 19 of the accused can never be reviewed by the Supreme Court. As Justice Cecilia Muoz Palma said in one case, However erroneous the order of the respondent court is, and although a miscarriage of justice resulted from said order, such error cannot be righted because of the timely plea of double jeopardy.

Mere membership in a fraternity is not a badge of dishonor but it is now tainted in the public eye because of its identification with the sadistic practice of physical hazing. Loyalty is not tested by subjecting the recruit to violence for the sheer pleasure of inflicting it. It is strange that this thought has not occurred to many otherwise respectable fraternities, which count among their members now esteemed leaders in their respective fields. Perhaps they entered at a time when hazing did not involve murder or homicide or even serious physical injuries. None of my five sons, who are all UP graduates, is a fraternity member. They are nonetheless, by all accounts, regular guys with many close friends from their student days, including fraternity members. Its not the fraternities per se that they dislike but the practice of violent initiation as a test of loyalty. They simply believe, as their father does, that true friendship, with or without fraternity ties, rests on thoughtfulness, understanding, altruism and a healthy sense of humor.
Comment IMELDA MARCOS, JUDICIARY, SUPREME COURT

Justice in Dreamland, January 13, 2002

In 2002 on April 27, 2013 at 10:02 am

As another year begins, it is pertinent to ask: How much longer will it take to decide the hundreds, if not thousands of cases that have been slumbering in our courts? Many impatient litigants have been invoking the old saw that justice delayed is justice denied, but to no avail. Apparently, the Supreme Court itself will have no truck with this trite reminder if its track record is any indication. True, it recently placed Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena of the Sandiganbayan on indefinite leave so he could dispose of his personal backlog of cases that had accumulated over the years. As of October 2000, according to his own report, there were as many as 415 cases in the court that had remained undecided way beyond the reglementary period. Four fifths of all the pending cases are assigned to the first division, which he heads. Many unresolved cases involve Imelda Marcos and her co-heirs and business cronies, who naturally have not been heard to complain about the long delay. As of Sept. 1, 2001, the PCGG was a party to more than 50 or such cases before the Sandiganbayan and to more than 60 cases before the Supreme Court. Most of these are still awaiting decision although some were filed as early as 1986 and 1987, 15 or so years ago. Meanwhile, Imelda Marcos is as free as a bird despite the seriousness of the charges against her and was even allowed to leave for Hong Kong during the Christmas shopping season. Her reason was that she wanted to avail herself of alternative Oriental medicine for her various ailments, including an injury to her head. The Sandiganbayan believed that there must really be something wrong with her head and granted permission.

Lawyers and even law students are aware of the mandatory constitutional periods for the decision of cases: 24 months for the Supreme Court, 12 months unless further reduced by the Supreme Court for lower collegiate courts, and three months for other lower courts. These rules are more honored in the breach than in the observance. The Supreme Court has every now and then castigated judges for sitting on their cases, but it is not cracking its administrative whip often and sharply enough. Among the reasons for the sluggish decision of cases are the lack of judges in some stations and the heavy caseload of courts in the urban centers. But the more obvious causes are the indolence of many irresponsible judges and the lack of management skills on the part of others in systematically scheduling, trying and deciding their cases within the allotted time. In fairness to the lower courts, it should be observed that the high tribunal is no paragon of speedy justice either. Many of its cases have not moved fast enough although it now meets only once a week en banc unlike during our time, when we met twice in division and twiceen banc to increase our output. The ultimate in judicial sloth is the case of Flores v. People, 61 SCRA 33, which started in 1951 and was finally dismissed in 1974, after a delay of 23 years. The case hibernated for all of eight years in the Supreme Court itself. Some cases are likely to outlive the parties and may in effect absolve the guilty. That is why some defense counsel intentionally prolong the proceedings (with the consent 0r is it the connivance? of the court) to escape their clients conviction. One of Joseph Estradas lawyers openly gloated that their defense panel could obstruct his trial by as long as five years, which could be a conservative estimate, judging from their many dilatory tactics. If the Sandiganbayan continues to indulge Erap, who complains of so many bodily afflictions that need urgent medical attention abroad, he may be dead before he is convicted. Many cases simply linger on and on like a comatose person, practically dead but still clinically alive. Others may be struggling to be alive but vainly waiting for the necessary stimulant, whatever it may be. The judicial inertia is puzzling. The Supreme Court can decide cases with lightning speed if it is so inclined, like, understandably, the challenge to the legitimacy of the Macapagal-Arroyo presidency. Other cases do not deserve equal expeditious action and have remained to gather dust in the judicial dockets. Some of them will be ultimately dismissed when the issue becomes moot and academic. On July 15, 1997, several petitioners, including the Commission on Human Rights (subsequently joined by the IBP and Mabini) sued Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim before the Supreme Court for his paint-spraying of the houses of known and confirmed drug pushers. Instead of ruling directly on the constitutional issues raised, the high tribunal referred the case to the regional trial court of Pasig City, which dismissed it on Sept. 12, 1997 for lack of cause of action. On Jan. 26, 2000, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and declared Lims paint-spraying ordinance
10

unconstitutional. On certiorari before the Supreme Court, which could have decided the case on the merits, the petition was dismissed in a minute resolution of Feb. 19, 2001, for, believe it or not, technical reasons. It took the high court one year to discover that ridiculous ground. Typical is the case of Annabelle Rama, who was charged with estafa in 1993. When the prosecution rested, she filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence that was denied in 1994. Allowed to present her evidence, she refused and later attempted but ultimately failed to prevent the promulgation of judgment. The trial court convicted her on May 25, 1995. Claiming she was physically unfit to be imprisoned, she asked the Court of Appeals to issue a restraining order, which it did on June 15, 1995. The government questioned that order before the Supreme Court, where it is still being pondered. It is now 2002. but the end of the beginning nine years ago is not yet in sight. Sadly, this is true not only of the Rama case but of many other cases that have been languishing among the moldering rollos in the futile hope of being resolved at last after the long, long wait. The time to repair the roof, said John F. Kennedy, is when the sun is shining. For our courts of justice, it must be perpetual rain.
Comment ABU SAYYAF, ARMED FORCES, CONSTITUTION, GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, NUR MISUARI,PARDON

What To Do With Nur Misuari? January 12, 2002

In 2002 on April 25, 2013 at 11:55 am

One of the incredible ideas I have heard about Nur Misuari is that he should be granted amnesty. The brainstorm came from Sen. John Osmea. He says that such a step would save the Philippine government the trouble of prosecuting the renegade rebel and the expense of providing for his keep if he is convicted. It would also keep his MNLF followers at bay. The other unbelievable report is that Justice Secretary Hernando Perez is urging Misuari to accept exile as an alternative to his prosecution and possible conviction for several offenses, particularly the aborted rebellion he is alleged to have incited and led. If that report is true, then it is another inanity, and more so because it comes from the top legal officer of the executive department. I hope Nani will deny it. Even first year law students know that amnesty is granted only for political offenses and is usually addressed to classes or even communities of persons, like the Huks during the 50s. It is unlike pardon, which is avalable for all other offenses and is usually given to particular individuals, like the notorious Norberto Manero. Amnesty may apply to Misuari and his followers for their failed uprising, but not for his alleged malversation of public funds during his tenure as ARMM governor. Exile is not prescribed under our existing laws as a punishment for crime. If decreed for this purpose, it will in effect be a pardon intended to relieve the grantee of the penalties imposed upon
11

him for the offense. As applied to Misuari, it will be a premature and invalid act because pardon can be granted under the Constitution only after the grantees conviction by final judgment. Misuari has yet to be tried and convicted. In that event, his sentence will be final only if he does not appeal or his appeal is subsequently withdrawn or dismissed. The Supreme Court has on many occasions invalidated pardons unknowingly granted by the President of the Philippines to convicts whose cases were still on appeal. If an appellant in a criminal case is assured of executive clemency, he must first withdraw his appeal to qualify for the promised pardon, which can be granted only after his conviction by final judgment. Withdrawal of the appeal will make the judgment final. The President can absolve a person of criminal responsibility through the grant of executive clemency, either by pardon or amnesty. Amnesty granted to Misuari, assuming its validity, may relieve him of the crime of rebellion but not of other common crimes like malversation. This will not be extinguished by the amnesty. The government may still prosecute him for this offense and hold him criminally and civilly liable for the amount he is liable to have misappropriated. If President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo does not choose to act against Misuari for his alleged malversation, she may be condoning that crime despite the massive evidence the government (principally the Commission on Audit) reportedly has against him. To repeat, she cannot do this without complying with the constitutional limitations of pardon or amnesty, if the latter is indeed applicable to the non-political offense of malversation. When Ms. Macapagal took over the presidency of the Republic last year, she solemnly swore to preserve and defend its Constitution and execute its laws. Among these laws are the Revised Penal Code defining and punishing malversation, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Plunder Law. These laws remain in our statute books and cannot be ignored or repealed by the President of the Philippines through a refusal to enforce them in proper cases. There is the theory that if the chief executive sincerely believes that a certain law is unconstitutional, he can simply disregard it on the ground that an unconstitutional law is no law at all, conferring no rights and imposing no duties. The better view is that it is not for the President to determine the validity of a law because this is a question exclusively addressed to the courts of justice. A contrary opinion would allow him not only to negate the will of the legislature but also to encroach on the prerogatives of the judiciary. The President can, of course, pardon any person convicted under such law for he would be asserting a power expressly conferred upon him by the Constitution. In nullifying the effects of the law, he

12

would not be intruding into the domain of the political departments in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. It is becoming increasingly clear, from the acts or is it inaction? of some of our high officials, beginning with President Macapagal, that Misuari has become a pesky problem that they would rather get rid than boldly confront. They are handling him with kid gloves lest he blow his broken bugle and rally his ragged recruits to total war against the soldiers of the Republic. The government does not seem to have much confidence in our Armed Forces, which have so far failed to subdue even the outnumbered Abu Sayyaf, let alone the NPA, the NDF, the MILF, and other dissident groups. Treating Misuari like a celebrity can only encourage others to defy the government for its timidity. The Republic could be the object of contempt and derision by potential outlaws who, if captured, will expect to be coddled like the failed insurgent now ensconced in the comfortable cottage formerly reserved for Joseph Estrada. Some of Misuaris imitators may be lining up to enjoy to enjoy the governments favors by simply brandishing the remnants of their tattered ranks. That bravado should be enough to petrify Malacaang with holy terror. What we need is not a commander in chief whose vacillations and timorousness will only enfeeble the country to defeatism and surrender, even to the likes of the bandits in Mindanao. What we need is bold and decisive action from President Macapagal that will galvanize the Armed Forces to gallantry and victory against the enemies of the Republic, including Misuaris ragtag rebels.
Comment ABU SAYYAF, ARMED FORCES, GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, MILF, MNLF, NPA, NUR MISUARI,REMINISCENCES

Can We Win a War? January 6, 2002

In 2002 on April 25, 2013 at 10:28 am

A CHILLING thought gripped me the other day while I was savoring the many blessings our country is enjoying compared to many other developing nations. What would happen, I wondered, if we should find ourselves at war with China over the Spratly Islands or, less ominously, a tiny state like Qatar over our overseas workers or Colombia over drug trafficking operations? If the enemy were China, I doubt if the United States would risk impairing its thawing relations with it for our benefit, never mind our mutual defense treaty. China is certainly more important to the Americans that we are, for political and economic reasons. Neither would our supposed ally lift a finger in our conflict with the other belligerent state, which could also be among its steadfast supporters. It may be offering more profits to Wall Street than our country and its plummeting peso.

13

So, if we were left alone to fight our own battles, how would the Republic of the Philippines fare against the enemy? When the Pacific War broke out in 1941, our people were filled with patriotic fervor and bravely urged one another to Keep em flying! meaning the Philippine and American flags. Yet, in less than a month, despite the protection of the United States (which was soon revealed as a paper tiger, at least at that time), the Japanese had installed their occupation government in the Philippines while the USAFFE desperately holed up in Bataan and Corregidor to wage a holding action. MacArthur fled to Australia. My guess is that, under present conditions, the Philippines would surrender to the enemy within the same period, at most, for lack of the capacity if not the will to fight. For one thing, we have a most indecisive commander in chief who can hardly provide an inspiring example of leadership to the Armed Forces. Its not because shes a woman; Indira Gandhi was a tower of strength when she was prime minister of India. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was tickled pink when the London-based Financial Times called her the Iron Lady of Asia, but how would it know from far-off England? Ms. Macapagal, to take only one tawdry example, has hemmed and hawed over the Misuari affair, to the puzzled annoyance of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia. As of this writing, the renegade Misuari has yet to be returned to our government at our request, if indeed such a request has been made. Out of exasperation over our Presidents indecisiveness, Mahathir might yet get rid of the unwelcome fugitive and allow him to escape to another country. President Macapagal strikes many as a mere politician who would not hesitate to break bread with the likes of Mike Velarde, a former political adversary, with her eye on 2004. Our soldiers cannot be expected to follow her where her ultimate target is potential electoral rivals and not the foreign enemy. They may feel that she is using the military not so much to fight the war as to raise her stock in the coming presidential campaign, which is still three years from now. Her vacillations may endanger our defense strategy and put the lives of our soldiers at peril. For another, our Armed Forces are not equipped to fight an international war when they cannot even cope with the Abu Sayyaf. The generals had boasted as early as two years ago that they had trapped the bandit group, but it has not only eluded them but also even grown in number and strength to thumb its nose at the government. In addition, there are the NPA, the MILF and the resurrected MNLF, let alone the kidnapers and assassins, all snapping at their heels. The government keeps saying that everything is under control, but whose control?

14

Our authorities have practically capitulated to Jose Ma. Sisons arrogant demand that the NPA be recognized as a belligerent group; they have probably been dazzled by his three-piece suit. Luis Jalandoni enjoys a celebrity status as another dissident leader although he is no longer a Filipino, having renounced his native citizenship along with his priesthood. And now comes Nur Misuari, the wasted captain of his ragtag MNLF, who appears to be the latest phantom terrifying our government with his rusted kampilan. The terrible truth is that with all our scores of generals in their be-medaled uniforms, our Armed Forces are a disorganized, ill-equipped and demoralized entity that does not have the discipline and preparation of a respectable military organization. They cannot be expected to defend our country in case of invasion by a foreign country because they cannot even suppress the local dissidence. This has been plaguing us since the heyday of the Huk movement and up to even the present time when our soldiers are supposed to be better armed and funded. The current general appropriations bill has allocated as much as P10 billion to the Armed Forces, much more than to other essential services of the government. There is a surge of military activity during budget time, but once Congress grants their requested outlay, the Armed Forces resume their lackadaisical military operations against the local insurgents. If they cannot capture our own homegrown subversives, how can we expect them to fight and win a war with a foreign foe? I mean no slight upon the rank and file of our Armed Forces for there is no doubting their patriotism and courage in defending the State against internal and external aggression. It is their leadership that is in issue, from the commander in chief to the generals and colonels and the rest of the elite officer corps. They have so far not proved their competence and motivation to galvanize the rest of the military establishment to victory, whether against domestic disquietude or external belligerence. Meantime, let us pray for peace on earth, especially in our country. We cannot expect the Armed Forces to save us, but God can.
Comment GRAFT AND CORRUPTION, LACSON CASE, SENATE

The Lacson Case on Deck, January 8, 2002

In 2002 on April 25, 2013 at 9:05 am

SEN. Joker Arroyo called me up the other week to inform me, in answer to the questions I raised in my column of Dec. 16, that the three committees jointly handling the Lacson investigation had terminated their reception of evidence from the parties and were now in the process of examining it. The three committees are the blue ribbon committee he heads, the committee on local government under Sen. Robert Barbers, and the committee on national defense and security chaired by Sen. Ramon Magsaysay, Jr.
15

I reminded Joker that there were other witnesses besides Victor Corpus and Mary Ong who wanted to testify in the case, but he said the committees felt they had heard enough testimony to reach a decision on Sen. Panfilo Lacsons alleged drug trafficking. The charge of money-laundering will have to be dismissed pending receipt by our justice department of the requested report from the US government about Lacsons bank accounts, if any, in that country. The dismissal will be without prejudice, meaning that the charge may again be filed when that report is received. To ensure an objective and impartial decision, the three committees have commissioned an independent law firm to evaluate the evidence submitted at the hearings. Arroyo did not give me the name of the firm, nor did I ask. Its conclusions, while not binding on the committees, could be the basis of their own report that they will submit to the Senate and, I hope, release to the public. That report, as I understood it from Senator Arroyo, will be ready by mid-January. His assurance will at least allay the fears of many people that the Lacson case had simply been swept under the rug to be eventually forgotten. Having myself earlier expressed this misgiving, I am glad that the Senate will soon come out with a definite ruling one way or the other on the charge against one of its own. I cannot speculate on how the committees will decide the case of Lacson although I personally hope they will find him guilty. I followed the hearings assiduously and am convinced that Corpus and Ong were telling the truth, compared to Reynaldo Acop and his fellow defenders of their chief. As Lacsons star witness, Acop was a disaster. He practically testified against himself and by inference against Lacson as his immediate superior. There were many holes in his written statement which, to say the least, admitted his own incompetence as former NarcGroup head in combating the massive illegal drug operations of the Hong Kong triad in this country. He blamed the connivance of some persons in various agencies of our government but could not satisfactorily explain his check payments to Ong of admittedly public funds drawn from his personal account. A legislative investigation is not a criminal case requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt for the conviction of the accused. The probe of Lacsons direct involvement in drug trafficking in his capacity as head of the PAOCTF and later of the PNP is in the nature of an administrative proceeding only. This is true even if the investigators in Congress are of a decidedly higher status than in most other administrative proceedings.

16

Substantial evidence only, not even the preponderance of evidence required in civil cases, is the criterion in administrative cases. In his excellent work on Evidence, the recently deceased Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, an eminent authority on Remedial Law, defined substantial evidence as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Legislative investigations are supposed to be held only in aid of legislation, but their findings may lead to the indictment of the respondent in a criminal case, where the quantum of evidence required to convict is higher. The proceeding will be judicial, with the technical rules of procedure strictly observed. Such rules are not mandatory in administrative cases where they may be dispensed with in the interest of justice and equity. The issues in the drug trafficking case being mainly factual, much will depend on the credibility of the witnesses. Inconsistencies may suggest inventiveness or mendacity but not when they are only minor lapses and do not impair the veracity of the testimony as a whole. The manner of the witness on the stand may reveal many telltale signs that will not be lost on the observant judge. The ready answer or the hesitant reply, the steady gaze or the shifty eyes, the flush of face or the sudden pallor, the confident posture or the slumped stance these and many other clues will draw the lines between fact and fabrication and tell the perceptive magistrate if the witness is telling the truth or lying in his teeth. Factual findings of the trial court are as a rule accepted by the appellate court, which does not have the opportunity to assess the conduct of the witnesses but can rely only on the inanimate and impersonal rollo. The senators who attended the Lacson hearings had the opportunity to personally observe the demeanor of Corpus, Ong, Acop and the other witnesses and can decide for themselves how to separate the goats from the sheep. Lacson himself did not choose to take the stand in his defense, probably believing the evidence against him was insufficient and did not have to be refuted. He was gambling that his colleagues in the Senate, exercising their own discretion, would agree with him and resolve all doubt in his favor. Pakikisama in the old boys club could work for him, but there is also the backlash of an unpopular verdict that might break the traditional bond. I hope the decision of the committees, whatever it will be, will be based on a fair appreciation of the facts and the law, regardless of personal or partisan ties or the compulsions of the hooting throng.

17