February 21, 2008

I have no words . . .

. . . to describe just how disappointing it is that some faculty members (I won't name names here because my source will get into trouble) and students of the law school choose to nitpick instead of 1) being constructive or 2) simply getting out of the way. (For perspective, go to Lobit's multiply site for her text exchange presumably with some student who, to her credit, she does not identify; for perspective on the faculty member/s, let us just say that media friends have been houding me for comment on what they have been saying.)

Yesterday, the Dean and some members of the faculty and students issued a statement that was carried over the media. It was deliberately sub-titled "A Statement from the UP Law Community" NOT "An OFFICIAL Statement of the UP Law FACULTY AND STUDENTS" or "An OFFICIAL Statement of UP LAW." To my mind, "community" means a group of people united by some principle or purpose; and those who signed the statement were.

Some have said we should have deliberated--we did.

Was everyone invited? Yes.

But not everyone invited chose to go. And I respect that; I respect your silence on the matter--but I would ask that you respect as well the sentiments of those who chose to participate and sign.

I have my first draft which is radically different from the one that came out to show just how deliberated upon the statement was. Truthfully, and the Dean and the others who were there will tell you--I do not completely agree with everything there. For instance, if that were my statement, it would consist only of the following words--'GLORIA, GET OUT--NOW!!!" But I was writing for a community and, therefore, my own thoughts and opinions and even style of writing would have to be subordinated to what the others felt they wanted.

Were contrary opinions entertained? Yes. I have always held the belief that the Senate investigations have outlived their purpose and should be terminated with dispatch; many who were around did not. So, I respected that and did not put that in the final draft that appeared.

Why did I sign it if it did not exactly reflect what I believed in? Because I believed it was time for UP Law to speak up and because it contained the essential points I wanted said--Gloria must go. Everything else in the statement was a means toward that end.

It is frustrating to see us fighting each other instead of the common enemy right now. That, by itself, is a victory for Gloria and Mike Arroyo and their minions.

Unity cannot be legislated or forced because many times egos get in the way. Would that we were to once again remember what it is that is truly important to us and not be weighed down by minor details like "why call it a law community statement if it did not reflect a majority view?" or even more minor details like "who gets the credit?" or "whose turn is it before the camera?" But I think that might be an even more difficult task than to get Gloria out.

February 19, 2008

unmarketable, unbelievable

Many things have been said about Jun Lozada, or J Lo as Chel puts it in sms shorthand, but one thing nonetheless strikes me about this whole affair--the extent to which the palace spinmeisters have gone on overdrive. Haven't they heard of the adage, "where there's smoke, there's fire?" They're the ones fanning the flames by their lame denials and spin.

Two things should have been immediate in the spin control:
1. Gloria speaks.
2. Mike speaks.

The thing with spinmeisters (even with one as pleasant-sounding and easy on the eyes as USEC Lorelei Fajardo) is that people know they are reading from a script or a marketing plan and that they are basically sales personnel. The product ought to speak for itself.

Except if the product is so unmarketable that no one would buy it if it were left to market itself.


Nonetheless, we must be thankful for small favors:
1. Raul Gonzalez muzzled and leashed.
2. Sergio Apostol muzzled.
3. Cerge Remonde muzzled.

Perhaps it would not be too much to ask that Ricardo Saludo be muzzled as well. Let Toting Bunye (he of the "this is the original Garci tape" fame or notoriety) earn his keep.


Now if we could also get the lawyers--from both sides--to shut up. Regular readers will know who I'm referring to.

February 12, 2008


1. Pathetic is how I would describe Sergio Apostol's attempt at a witty riposte to Jun Lozada's emotion-filled revelations ("They say he's a probinsyanong intsik. Bagay sa 'yo i-deport ka. Magulo ka dito.).

For crying out loud, he's Gloria Arroyo's Chief Legal Adviser. He should know that you can't deport a filipino citizen even if that person claims chinese lineage.

Now, who's causing trouble? Certainly not Jun Lozada, who was abducted at the airport by Gloria's and Mike Arroyo's minion, thereby causing a huge black eye to the country.

Apostol should know better than to attempt a quick riposte, he, of the thick tongue and even thicker brogue(remember his immortal "Madame Wetness"); but I guess he felt he had to beat the other old P.OM. (Pathetic Old Ma) in the cabinet, Raul Gonzalez, to the punch. Gonzalez is probably laughing his head off.

2. Craven is how I would describe Joker Arroyo attitude against anyone who would dare to sully the name of his benefactor, or leash holder. Remember, he ran as the sole KAMPI candidate in the last elections. Certainly, all that money should count for something. At least Judas got only thirty pieces of silver and heeded his conscience by choosing to go to the nearest tree.

Asinine is how I would describe Joker's rants against Lozada's relatives' use of the writs of habeas corpus and amparo. In the first place, why is he pissed off at Lozada who didn't file it and was the subject of those writs? As one who filed many a petition before, Joker should know that; I guess he has many reasons now to forget about those good old days, when his voice was raised in righteous indignation, and not today when his voice is just raised, period.

3. Offensive is how I would describe Lito Atienza's inept justifications at how he tried to protect Lozada. I stop here before I say anything truly libelous.

February 05, 2008

Zamora's Pox

Kennel News.
One good thing that came out of the nominal voting last night and early morning on the replacement of JDV as speaker with the favored pup, Nograles, was that I got to listen to the oratory of some of those who bothered to explain their votes.

Annie Susano of QC was totally a wreck, as in, you could not understand a thing she was saying. Erin Tanada at least tried to explain why he voted yes and gave a very clear explanation of the principles he stood for. Darlene Custodio is slowly gaining a reputation as someone who speaks well, at least the few times I've heard her speak.

But among those who stood out--good or bad:

1. Salvador Escudero, in his warning to Nograles to read the transcript fo the speeches and find out what exactly it is the members of the kennel, este, the house, are saying as they abandon JDV.
2. Lanie Cayetano, who was candid enough to say that it was all because JDV did not give Taguig Pateros any money.
3. Migs Zubiri's brother (sorry dont know his name), who quoted Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as a riposte to Ronnie Zamora; how many Congressmen can quote Shakespeare from memory or on short notice? That much, I have to give him, even if he is Migs Zubiri's bro.

But the one memorable line that stood out- Ronnie Zamora saying, quoting Romeo and Juliet, "a pox on both your houses." Indeed.

Perhaps the best unspoken line might have belonged to JDV, again quoting Shakespeare but this time Julius Caesar, "Et tu, Boy?"

"How much are those doggies in the window?"

I did not want to dignify the travesty perpetuated by the Arroyos in the House--Mikey and Dato, in collaboration with their uncle Iggy and their parents, Mike and Gloria, and of course let's not forget the always righteously indignant Luli--simply because JDV is not my favorite person. He ranks just slightly lower than Gloria, who ranks lower than athlete's foot, which is tied with diarrhea, in my list of favorite things.

So, I will just say this--for all the talk about change in the House and the independence of that chamber, what happened last night and all the way till early morning simply cemented the one fact the people already know--the house of representatives is nothing but a stamp pad for Gloria's malacanang, with his two sons as the attack dogs and nograles now as the favorite pup (of course, he was Mike Arroyo's law school classmate).

With apologies to Patti Page, the question really boils down to this--how much are those puppies?

To their credit, not a few congressmen and congresswomen were candid enough to say that it was because of the money. It was those who tried to justify what they were doing that really almost made me vomit.

From now on, the House of Representatives is just simply the biggest kennel in the country. Of course, the Senate is no better, but at least its just the noisiest circus in town.

Rant over. Back to work.