A FAUSTIAN DEAL?

It pays to wait--and also to have friends in high places apparently. That is the message I get from the successful evasion by Ping Lacson of his arrest while he awaited the quashal of the arrest warrant and the Information charging him for the Dacer-Corbito murders. All he needed to do was leave the country, cool his heels while there and then return as if nothing had happened.

In the meantime, a tectonic shift in perspective apparently had happened. The Secretary of Local Government, who is nominally (is Rico E. Puno still around?) in charge of the PNP, forgot who he was and became his de facto media liaison, even predicting that he would soon surface. The President even welcomed him back (as stated by his spokesperson), conveniently omitting to mention that Lacson had evaded arrest after congratulating new graduates of the PNPA (that's the POLICE academy--which we certainly hope is not the same academy in the four, or is that five, films) and exhorting them to avoid corruption.

Even before he can face a questioning and curious public, to whom he is accountable, he is eagerly welcomed by his Senate colleagues, not only by his mistah who knows a thing or two also about evading arrest (though not quite as successful as Ping) but even by those who never wore a uniform or a badge in their lives. The reason for the warm welcome? "We need all hands" in the senate trial of Merceditas Gutierrez.

More than the legal technicalities of a Senator and former PNP Chief successfully evading arrest for one year, what is more revealing in Lacson's successful evasion of arrest is the lie that he has put to the capacity of law enforcement agencies (PNP and NBI) to successfully locate and arrest suspects.

Lacson is not a nobody. He has run for President and his face has been plastered across the country before. He is instantly recognizable (even with his preferred disguise apparently, which is described as "a bonnet and dark shades") and short of a face transplant would not be mistaken for anyone else. He is quite the rake and I cannot imagine him dressing up in rags, even if just to conceal himself, and so a well-dressed, tall, fair-skinned, well-coiffed man looking like Ping Lacson would certainly, quite literally, sound the alarms.

There are two possible explanations why Lacson was able to evade arrest. I don't like both simply because if either or both are true, then we are in very, very deep doodoo indeed.

The first would be absolute incompetence. This would explain how, despite the police and NBI looking high and low, neither was able to find hide nor hair of him. If I presume regularity in the performance of their duties, then this explanation is the only one that makes sense.

The second would be corruption and connivance, which in this context would mean the same thing. For this, a presumption of good faith does not exist as this would be the only other explanation for how, despite the Secretary of Justice's pronouncement that the govermment would go all-out, he still remained hid. This might also explain how, despite a cancelled passport, he managed to enter the country.

I don't like the implications of either explanation. Unfortunately, the President appears to not be too disturbed by it as shown by his statements, made through his spokesman; and this saddens me the most.

The President was elected on the highest moral standard possible--a standard he himself set. Remember "tuwid na daan" and "kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap"? The "straight and narrow" road is a road that requires a lot of witnessing, i.e., walk your talk even when--or especially when--it is difficult and it is painful. That would also mean calling the attention of those on your team who do not walk their talk and holding them accountable.

Where was tuwid na daan in the Lacson evasion? Where was "walk the talk"?

What is disturbing about the warm welcome Lacson got from the President and the Senators, despite a clear and documented evasion by Lacson of a then-valid order of the court involving a very serious criminal charge, is the ethical ambiguity that their acts show. It is "the end justifies the means" reasoning--we need every senator willing to convict Merci, so we welcome him back and never mind that he actually did the very thing we would condemn if it were done by any other person.

It is a deal much like Faust's and it is a deal that I cannot live with and a deal I cannot accept.

When we become the very thing we hate in trying to stop that which we hate, what's left of us?

REVILLAME, ET AL.

Yes, Revillame is a hateful, insensitive, and crass man who simply does not belong in polite company let alone public television. I do not believe in censorship in any form, manner or circumstance but if I were to indulge a hypothetical, he (and one other) would be the best excuse for censorship.

He is not however the first and only one to "abuse" children or women on television for the sake of "entertainment" and of course for profit. Other shows on other networks also have done so through the years, though perhaps not to the same degree of crassness.

The formula of showing scantily-clad women gyrating their hips in unison for no discernible purpose didn't start with Revillame. That started a long time ago with another show.

The discovering of talented kids who would dress up like adults and would sing and dance like adults didn't start with Revillame. That started a long time ago also with that other show.

The only difference perhaps is that Revillame simply elevates crassness and insensitivity to a totally different level. If there were dementors for politeness and decency, Revillame would be the chief dementor; the five-star dementor as he simply sucks out all the decency in everything he touches.

Yes, Revillame is accountable for the utter insensitivity he showed to the 6-year old kid but also to his viewing public whom he continually insults with every word out of his mouth. But he is not the only one accountable. The parents of these children, the producers, the advertisers and the networks are also. Most importantly, so also the viewing public which does not switch channels or shut off the television.

File a case? Cancel the franchise? Boycott the show? Boycott the advertisers? All these are legitimate responses to Revillame's latest display. They, however, will not ensure that Revillame or others who wish to become like him will not do it again to yet another 6-year old or other scantily clad contestant on their inane segments.

You want to make sure something like this does not happen again? Change the way you view the people who view your shows. Do not pander to the least common denominator, instead raise that denominator. Put on shows that will raise awareness, educate, inform, provoke discussion (not revulsion) which are well-written, well-made, well-produced and are hip and fun enough to make sure that people do not switch channels. They may not earn as much money but they will earn you the gratitude and respect of your viewing publics. They may not rate as well as a show with scantily-clad gyrating women or kids forced to endure insults and taunts but they will certainly be remembered with great fondness and with much gratitude many years from now.

You do these? Then, Revillame et al. will have no choice but to find work in another solar system far, far away.

ADHD NATION

As a nation, we just can't focus on one thing at a time and finish what we're doing.

All this controversy that arose out of Angelo Reyes's death and the "taming" of the Senate is just another manifestation of the ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) we have as a nation. We swing from one end to the other, as our mood pleases, and lose track of what needs to be started, done and finished before we

move on.

This whole AFP pabaon mess isn't new. Mr. Rabusa had already been summoned before, and he told a different tale. Sordid stories of large-scale graft and corruption that would make even the Banana Republic dictators blanch had been told even then. And the Senate and the House had gotten into the action already. But what happened? After the klieg

lights went off and the cameras stopped rolling, suddenly the investigations stopped. What is more, no reports were submitted, no laws were amended, no indictments were recommended. No closure. All start, no finish. In the meantime, shift to another topic that's more controversial.

We've had a trail of state witnesses (legit ones like Ed Delos Reyes, Cory Dela Cruz, Jane Gomez, Mandy Capili and Mario Enad) and some stool pigeons (like Chavit Singson and Rosebud Ong) and some repentant accomplices (like Jun Lozada and yes Rabusa) in our checkered history as a nation.

And then we get someone like Heidi Mendoza, who, from all angles, looks like the real thing.

And what does Congress do? Treat her testimony like so much free political mileage instead of ensuring that her testimony, taken together with others, would finally allow us to cast our net and catch us the biggest fish in the ocean. Instead of quiet case build up and careful evaluation of her testimony, she is paraded like a celebrity, to be vetted by a public that cannot have enough of her. The net effect? Even before she steps foot in court to testify, her warts and all (if there are any) would be in full view of all and all her statements under oath would already have been judged not by a court of law but by a public so desperate for a hero.

IF Jinggoy Estrada has the goods, he did not need to taunt Angelo Reyes in the Senate hearing; he did not need to lead Rabusa through the script. He could have simply put all the goods together, put a nice ribbon on it and sent it with his compliments to an appreciative Secretary of Justice. After all, the Secretary of Justice is the one who can decide who to prosecute (I am pretending, for the moment, that we do not have an Ombudsman, because for all intents and purposes, while Gutierrez sits, we don't).

IF Sonny Trillanes has the goods, he did not need to publicly humiliate Angelo Reyes. He could have simply executed an affidavit and specified what he knew UNDER OATH. The vindication of their two-hotel caper would have been the best motivation for ensuring that all these pieces of evidence are not wasted because they would secure convictions for the people.

But, forgetting that the actual focus of the investigation that led to the taunting of Reyes and his eventual suicide was actually this felon Carlos Garcia and the toxic deal he made with a consenting Merci Gutierrez and her subalterns, the Honorable Congress of the Republic switched focus--from Garcia and Merci to Reyes and the whole parade of former Chiefs of Staff. And suddenly, no one's talking about Garcia, Gutierrez and the toxic deal.

And everyone else, riveted to the drama that was a 4-Star General taking his life, also forgot what we were talking about, as a nation.

Yes, the pabaon issue is important. But its more important that this gets ventilated in a venue where it will do the most good--in court, where we can convict these people and set an example; not in Congress where laws are never amended as a result of congressional investigations in aid of legislation (I wonder which laws Bong Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada amended as a result of their Katrina Halili investigation).

Jinggoy Estrada could do the nation a huge favor by simply documenting everything and sending the evidence to the one department that can make a difference--the Department of Justice (Of course, I know the biggest favor he can do to the nation, but I am being kind here).

We never achieved closure with Marcos, with Cory, with Ramos, with Estrada and certainly not with Gloria. Its about time we decide to focus and finish what we're doing. Then, we can truly move on to other things that are equally important.

THE POVERTY OF WORDS

Listening to the public hearing called by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to investigate the toxic deal entered into by the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor with former AFP Comptroller Carlos F. Garcia, I realized the poverty of the English language in expressing the sense of anger, outrage, and disbelief that I felt while listening to Angelo Reyes, former AFP Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense, and a former comptroller Jacinto Ligot publicly claiming convenient memory loss in relation to charges that Reyes and other AFP Chiefs of Staff received retirement money running to as high as Fifty Million Pesos and monthly stipends of about Five Million Pesos.

"Angry", "Enraged" and "Appalled" fail to scratch the surface in describing the emotions running through me as I listened to a public airing of dirty linen in the AFP hierarchy by its former budget director. There were no words then and there are none now, at least in the English language, to describe the anger, the rage, the utter sense of disbelief at the moral depravity of these "officers and gentlemen" in their cavalier treatment of people's funds.

Handing out the people's money to Generals to welcome them into the fold or send them off into yet another cushy job was apparently a way of life for them, and the monies that they handed out were not petty cash. These ran into the tens of millions, and not for one occasion but were given monthly! In what government manual these comptrollers saw the justification for being able to hand out money like that I will never know; I work for the government and I have yet to see a government manual that will allow me to hand out the people's money like it was a personal expense account.

Never mind that the money that was being handed out could have been used for soldiers' welfare; never mind that it could have gone to basic, minimum, and much needed protective gear and equipment like combat boots and field rations; never mind that it could have gone to housing, let alone better housing; never mind that it could have gone to better use for our soldiers in the field.

Mind only that the money lined the pockets of those few, those exalted, those influential, those connected enough to make it to the top tier of the AFP hierarchy; mind only that they think they are "entitled" to this money because they have stars on their epaulets while our soldiers gaze at the stars in open battle fields wondering when the wars will end; mind only that even as their pockets, wallets and bank accounts are filled to bursting with these amounts that they conveniently forget receiving such amounts.

The King's (or Queen's) English is such a beautiful language, yet on this occasion I find it so poor, so mendicant, so totally insufficient and inadequate to express what I, and I am certain many others, feel while listening to an account of plunder that would stir even the most jaded of hearts to anger.

Filipino is a much more beautiful language. It conveys feelings, emotions, passions and desires with greater profundity than English. Reflecting on how I felt, I thought that perhaps nakakagalit, nakakapoot, nakakapanlumo could better capture what was stirred in me by the revelations at the hearing yesterday.

I do not profess expertise in either English or Filipino and thus may correctly, under these circumstances, profess to be a "man of few words."

And so I sit here, trying to conjure up words like nakakagalit, nakakapoot, nakakapanlumo to express how I feel more profoundly than being "angry", "enraged" or "appalled"; and the realization strikes me that while these filipino words indeed scratch the surface, they nonetheless fail miserably at conveying the depth of anger of a soul reduced to simmering silence by the stark poverty of words.

NOT IN MY NAME

The President expressed his reservations about reimposing the death penalty because the judicial system isn't perfect. He used to be for it but has changed his mind. The President is right on this issue and here is why.

In People v. Efren Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, the Supreme Court made a landmark admission that the judicial system isn't perfect and how! Citing cold, hard statistics, the Supreme Court said that:

"Statistics would disclose that within the eleven-year period since the re-imposition of the death penalty law in 1993 until June 2004, the trial courts have imposed capital punishment in approximately 1,493, out of which 907 cases have been passed upon in review by the Court. In the Supreme Court, where these staggering numbers find their way on automatic review, the penalty has been affirmed in only 230 cases comprising but 25.36% of the total number. Significantly, in more than half or 64.61% of the cases, the judgment has been modified through an order of remand for further proceedings, by the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or by a reduction of the sentence. Indeed, the reduction by the Court of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua has been made in no less than 483 cases or 53.25% of the total number. The Court has also rendered a judgment of acquittal in sixty-five (65) cases. In sum, the cases where the judgment of death has either been modified or vacated consist of an astounding 71.77% of the total of death penalty cases directly elevated before the Court on automatic review that translates to a total of six hundred fifty-one (651) out of nine hundred seven (907) appellants saved from lethal injection." (underscoring provided, citations omitted)

The death penalty is the most final of all penalties. It cannot and should not exist where the conditions for determining guilt or innocence are so imperfect--as admitted by no less than the Supreme Court itself.

I have witnessed two executions. It is an experience I do not wish to inflict on my worst enemy. In the only triple execution so far (three convicts in one day, one after the other), at least one of the three who was killed was widely acknowledged by the inmates in Bilibid to be absolutely innocent.

My heart goes out to the Lozano and Evangelista families and all the others who have lost loved ones in the cycle of senseless violence but more violence is not the solution.

By all means, hunt down those who inflict this senseless violence, arrest them, build up cases against them, charge them, try them and keep them in jail. This must be done for every criminal who kills, who steals, who pillages, who plunders for it is this certainty that one who breaks the law will be held accountable that deters a criminal; it is not the severity of a punishment the criminal is confident of evading because he can get a good lawyer, can intimidate or kill witnesses and occasionally may even buy off judges.

Martin Luther King Jr. said it best and most memorably:

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

The death penalty is State-sanctioned murder.

The greatest irony and tragedy is that it is carried out in the name of the People.

I raise my voice to join the President's.

I OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY IN ANY FORM, MANNER, INSTANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCE.

DO NOT KILL IN MY NAME.

DOING A PACQUIAO...

...is what Mark Wahlberg's character Micky Ward does in "The Fighter", one of those really quiet, almost obscure films which really delivers, pardon the pun, a knockout punch. (Note: this film will probably not make it beyond Christmas, so catch it now, especially because from Christmas till the first week of January, we will be besieged again by that farce called The Metro Manila Film Festival; and oh yes, Kris Aquino will have a film, aptly a "horror" flick but sadly no, she is not the one wearing the gruesome halloween mask or the aswang in the film.)

Mark Wahlberg plays Micky Ward, an aspiring welterweight being "managed" by his mother Alice Ward (the very, very good Melissa Leo) and being 'trained" by his half-brother Dicky Ecklund (the absolutely brilliant, funny and tragic Christian Bale; note to the Oscars: you gave Heath Ledger the trophy for the Joker, Bale deserves the same trophy this year for this non-Batman role). Dicky is a crack addict whose only "claim to fame" is having fought Sugar Ray Leonard and "knocking him down" thus becoming the pride of their town, Lowell, Massachusetts.

While the film is about boxing, the greater subtext is clearly the love and loyalty that this totally dysfunctional family, revolving around a mother and her two sons, has for each other. While it is also a film about "rising from the depths", it is also a film about denial and how those denials become the substitute for or the expression of love.

Dicky is in denial about his crack addiction and even the whole Sugar Ray Leonard affair (throughout the film, a running thread is whether Dicky really knocked him down or Leonard slipped).

Alice is in denial about Dicky's crack addiction and the effects it is having on Micky's career.

Micky is in denial about the way that Alice is mismanaging his career and how Dicky is not training him at all. He is in denial that he

needs his brother at his side but also in denial that, until Dicky kicks crack, his career is dead.

And in this extremely dysfunctional family (an interesting and very funny sidelight is the one involvi

ng the sisters of Micky and Dicky and how they are related to Alice, Micky, Dicky and George Ward, Micky's father), that is what passes for love. And it is both heartbreaking and heartwarming, at the same time.

Wahlberg and Bale are absolutely brilliant as Micky and Dicky. Wahlberg has the body to pass for a welterweight and also the acting chops while Bale virtually inhabits the role of crack addict (from the

gaunt, haunted features to the nervous tics and twitches) and, in a really delightful change, is not surly, does not grunt, growl or glower but instead is funny, loving, angry and bitter as Dicky, who realizes that the only fight he has left is vicariously, through Micky.

David O. Russell (who directed Wahlberg in the riot "Three Kings") totally nails this one. This is one of those boxing films that does not sacrifice the boxing scenes (very well-made; it is comparable to "The Cinderella Man" by Ron Howard--known to be a stickler for detail in his films--almost five years ago) and integrates them into a funny and moving human drama. One minor complaint is that the last fight scene fails to generate the excitement of a championship fight, perhaps because of the lack of a rousing score (similar to Bill Conti's "Gonna Fly Now" from *errrm* Rocky) but this is a very minor complaint.

In the end, "The Fighter" is about fighting and not only on top of the boxing ring.

Alice and George fight to keep their family together; Micky fights for the title but also, more importantly, for his mother's approval and love; Dicky fights to keep what little dignity is left of him but also, more importantly, to keep the love, respect and adoration of Micky.

In the end, you feel for this family--for Alice, George, Dicky, and Micky--fighters all because of the way they fight for what is truly important: loyalty, honor, respect and love.

NB. The title refers to what Micky does after every win in the film. Mark Wahlberg, a certified and outspoken fan of Manny Pacquiao, does a homage to Pacquiao in this film--retreating to his corner after a win and kneeling in prayer. Finally, Pacquiao, a forgettable actor, has conquered Hollywood and he didn't need to act in a single scene.

Alter Egos

I. The Forest, not the Tree

I don't know Mr. Rico E. Puno. I have never met him. I had never heard of him until the day that President Aquino announced his appointment as Undersecretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).

In the 100 plus days since that time, however, not only I, but the entire nation and CNN-watching parts of the world, including Hong Kong and China, have come to know his name as well as his character.

His recent public statements have shown one thing--he has an ego problem. That he thinks of himself as indispensable to the President is revealing for the condescension he feels towards his friend and boss, the President. And that is a problem for one who is supposed to be the alter ego of the President, as the "eyes and ears" for all matters "PNP." His insistence on remaining as Undersecretary despite one actual screw up, which left eight (8) dead on his watch, and one perceived stain on his reputation--that of coddler to "friends and relatives" who would have wanted to lobby the President on jueteng (remember his selective amnesia on this matter before the Senate?) is not helping the President. Instead of the sturdy narra that would support this fledgling President and administration, he is turning out to be driftwood--others would even say deadwood.

One of the major plusses of the Second President Aquino is that he shows trust and loyalty to the people he works with. He takes up the cudgels for his cabinet secretaries (strangely, it should be the other way around--the cabinet secretaries should be insulating the President from having to explain all of these distracting missteps by not screwing up) publicly. But this major plus is also a big minus, especially when it comes to Mr. Puno apparently. What has become clear to many is that when it comes to Puno, the President cannot see the forest because of this one tree.

Despite admitted lack of training, experience, and capability, Mr. Puno was not even admonished for the major bungling of the Hostage incident at the Rizal Park; the President's own IIRC made a categorical recommendation for the filing of charges against him yet after a review by the President's two-person legal team (the Executive Secretary and the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel), Mr. Puno escaped unscathed. Not even a private reprimand. It is hard to imagine how Mr. Prisco Nilo, a career meteorologist at PAG-ASA felt: he was publicly scolded by the President and, thereafter, fired--all for failing to predict correctly the path of a natural disaster called Basyang. Mr. Puno's bungling led to the death of eight (8) persons, the wounding of several others and the "death by a thousand cuts" to the country's attempt to reinvent itself as being "open for business." Yet, Mr. Puno escapes unscathed.

Mr. Puno has an ego problem. He thinks too highly of himself; this is shown by his interview that appeared in the Inquirer. For an alter ego of the President, that alone should be enough reason for the President to fire him. The only ego an alter ego carries is that of his principal.

Mr. President, some unsolicited advise that you've already heard many times, Mr. Puno is not helping; rather he's dragging you down. Loyalty and friendship are great, especially in this lonely job that has been thrust on you. Yet, you have said, in response to the Bishops on the RH issue, that you are the President of everyone, of every faith. Your refusal to make Mr. Puno accountable to you, if not the Filipino people, contradicts that statement. Sabi nga sa text na kumakalat (tila ata galing kay Kgg. Teddy Casino)--mahirap maglakad sa daang matuwid kung may Puno sa gitna.

II. The De Lima Dilemma

I know Ms. De Lima; I've met her, and have gotten to admire her for her commitment to making the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) much better during her watch. I was among those who applauded her appointment to the Department of Justice.

Ms. De Lima now finds herself in the horns of a dilemma. Chairing the IIRC, she and her panel submitted very clear recommendations on what the President ought to do. She led the panel through the marathon hearings (despite being sick with pneumonia and against doctor's advice) in a sober, deliberate and very organized way. While I did not agree with all the recommendations of the IIRC Report, I thought that it was a very well-made Report and had much to commend itself; that much, I told her. I also thought it was a brave effort, made with full knowledge of the personalities involved and their closeness, perceived or apparent, to the President.

The Justice Secretary is the Lawyer of the Administration; the Solicitor General is the Lawyer of the Government and the Tribune of the People; the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel is the Lawyer of the President. Both the Justice Secretary and the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel are alter egos of the President. Understandably, they would not be appointed if the President did not have trust and confidence in them. They should not stay one minute longer in their posts if the President no longer trusts their legal opinion.

More than being the Lawyer of the administration, however, the Justice Secretary is also the Head of the Prosecutorial Arm of the Government. Thus, the Justice Secretary's opinion on the existence or non-existence of a criminal case should carry much weight especially if one considers that in the filing of criminal cases, the President no longer reviews the Secretary's determination of probable cause.

It is perhaps for good reason that Ms. De Lima has publicly aired her being aggrieved over twin moves that have made quarters think that the President may trust his other lawyers more than her.

First, the IRRC Report Recommendations were specifically ordered reviewed by the President's two-person legal team of the Executive Secretary and the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel; this, we now know, has resulted in a controversial conclusion--Mr. Puno, apparently the President's BFF, and Mr. Versoza, the immediate former Chief of the Police, were spared any sanction--not even a word raised in correction or reprimand.

Egged on by some quarters, the media included, Ms. De Lima hinted at the possibility of resignation later only to backtrack by issuing a sufficiently ambiguous statement promptly published online.

Second, the President signed and promulgated Proclamation No. 50 granting amnesty to those accused in the Oakwood takeover, the Pensinsula siege and the Marine standoff--all of whom are facing criminal charges before the regular courts with DOJ Prosecutors leading the charge. The Justice Secretary was, similar to the Interior Secretary during the bus hostage incident, kept out of the loop.

Understandably, Ms. De Lima felt aggrieved, perhaps not only for herself but also for the Prosecutors who have tried this case for seven (7) years. The promulgation for the Oakwood takeover is on October 28, 2010. Perhaps the more prudent way forward would have been to wait for the promulgation and, if necessary, issue the amnesty proclamation; if necessary, meaning the accused are convicted. Issuing an amnesty proclamation ahead of the promulgation sends a clear message to the prosecution: the seven year trial doesn't really count for much. (Note: I am counsel for 4 of the accused in the Oakwood takeover and I am confident that my clients will be acquitted. My comments on the propriety of the timing of the amnesty proclamation are my own, not my clients'.)

Ms. De Lima, like Mr. Puno, is the President's alter ego. Unlike Mr. Puno, however, Ms. De Lima has seen the start of the graffiti on the wall--she may not enjoy the full trust and confidence of the President, her principal. That is why she has hinted at leaving the Justice Department. Her problem is that, unlike Mr. Puno who had tendered a courtesy resignation only to later take it back and now insists that he is indispensable, Ms. De Lima has not seen fit to follow through and has simply left the possibility of resigning out there--in the minds of the people through the media.

This, of course, has led a former Justice Secretary, the current Senate President to tell Ms. De Lima, "Shut up or quit." To date, she has shut up.

Unlike Mr. Puno, De Lima is not driftwood or deadwood. She has demonstrated her ability to get things moving; in her short stint at the CHR, she managed to turn the agency around and get people to sit up and take notice. She has performed creditably so far at the Department of Justice and it would be a waste of talent and commitment if the President were to simply let her go. The De Lima Dilemma is the opposite of the Puno proposition--letting the former go would be a monumental waste whereas letting the latter remain would be a tragic farce.

III. BFFs and Alter Egos

What has clearly emerged from the 100-day plus Aquino II Presidency is that he maintains a closed inner circle in whom he reposes almost absolute trust. Similar to Mr. Puno, many of these people are perceived to be good friends of Mr. Aquino from way back. The popular term for this would be BFF (Best Friends Forever).

Unfortunately, governance does call for hard choices and tough calls. The President must show that he is able to make these hard choices and tough calls. There is a much larger interest at stake--that he demonstrate that he is capable of leading and taking charge and not, as condescendingly hinted at by Mr. Puno in his interview, controlled by BFFs like Mr. Puno.

I did not vote for Mr. Aquino, neither did I support him. But he is the President of the only country I am a citizen of. And unlike others, I want him to succeed--not because it will bring him glory, but because it is about time we got our acts together. I want to forge a future, not fight it.

Mr. Aquino as the President is the alter ego of the people, in whom all sovereignty resides and from which it emanates. He has, correctly, said in his inaugural, "kayo ang boss ko."

Mr. President, do not waste this window where you still have tremendous goodwill, when you still have the support of a people united only by the prospect that there is still hope that our country will get out of the muck. Make the hard calls and the tough choices. Draw the line in the sand clearly and sharply and make sure your team knows where the line is. You have six years--which is short for a great president but an eternity for a terrible one.

"...with a little help from my friends"

With friends like Rico E. Puno, the President doesn't need Edcel Lagman, Danilo Suarez, Len Horn or even Gloria Arroyo. Puno's doing a great job, all by himself, of alienating and isolating the President and making people doubt the President's resolve to stop jueteng once and for all. Indeed, the President doesn't need enemies with friends like Puno.

On Martial Law day 2010, Mr. Puno faced a curiously-composed panel led by Senator TG Guingona (son of a former Vice President and Senator), and Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos II (you know whose son he is) and attended by, among others, Senate President (Palpatine himself) Juan Ponce Enrile and his Padawan Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada (you also know whose son he is), Senator Chiz Escudero and Senator Loren Legarda. The topic was jueteng and the subject was himself, as it turns out.

Because of revelations from retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz that some members of Aquino III's official family were on the take from jueteng lords, the Senate Panel asked Cruz to "name names." Instead of doing so, he simply fished out a document and handed it over. Senator Guingona then read the names, among which was Mr. Puno's.

When asked about it, he categorically denied the charge. That should have been enough. However, because of previous statements that Puno himself made that he had been approached by friends and relatives, a phrase he himself repeated during the Senate hearing, about any interest in being contacted by jueteng lords, the Senators now wanted Puno to "name names."

That is when the puno (tree, in filipino) became pader or literally a wall--a stonewall.

One after the other, Marcos, Guingona, Legarda, Escudero and Ponce Enrile, the Senators attempted to extract the information from Puno as to who these "friends and relatives" were and each time, he declined, refused, and feigned forgetfulness--prompting a Senator to decry his "selective memory." Note that the Senators were not after him, for after all Puno did say that he had turned them down outright (which was commendable), but after those still unidentified "friends and relatives" who attempted to be the bridge between him (and through him, to the President) and the lords of jueteng. Despite this, Puno literally stonewalled.

At some point, in his exasperation, the Senate President even pleaded (his phrase, "I am pleading with you") to Puno to save the President from further embarrassment and to just simply be candid and "name names." Despite that, he refused.

In less than 100 days, Mr. Puno, the President's friend, has shown himself to be not only deadwood (during the IIRC hearings, he admitted that he was ill-equipped to deal with crisis situations such as hostage taking as he was not trained for it; indeed, one wonders what special qualifications or training he has, other than the President's clear and unshaken trust and confidence in him, that would qualify him to oversee the police) but also, in this case, kindling that could cause a major conflagration. The President should see beyond personal friendship and look at the much larger picture of what one like Mr. Puno can do, or is doing, to his fledgling administration.

In his less than 100 days in office, the President has shown that he can be obstinate. His obstinacy can yield good results--his insistence on not recognizing Mr. Bangit as Chief of Staff caused his early retirement; his diatribe against having blaring sirens has lessened the noise pollution. Yet that same obstinacy when it comes to people who are perceived as his "friends" or close confidantes can also yield bad fruit--as in the case of Mr. Puno.

It is a tough call for a man thrust into a lonely job. This President has shown how much he values relationships; and that, by itself, is not a bad thing. The quality of his relationships may be the key to making great decisions and arriving at great insights. But when these relationships become the millstone around his neck, the President must make the tough call to let go.

Mr. Puno should do what every decent civil servant is required: serve the country beyond his own interests. If he is no longer an asset to the President (as the hostage taking and this jueteng investigation have shown), then he should make it easy on the President: leave and not wait to be fired.