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.

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.

IMHO, Part 2

The President himself cannot be subjected to "clarificatory questioning" before a body he himself created. With due respect to the Justice Secretary and the President's Chief Legal Counsel, the fact-finding body created by the President to investigate the August 23, 2010 Hostage-taking Incident cannot even consider the possibility (as hinted by the Justice Secretary) of calling the President to testify or give a statement.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Congress cannot even invite the President to appear before it to give testimony, with the sole exception being the Question Hour under Article VI, sec. 22 (relating to appearance by Department Heads, with the consent of the President). The only appearance that the President makes before Congress is the State of the Nation Address or any other occasion when he chooses to address a Joint Session of Congress, with advice to and the consent of both Houses.

More than the legalities, however, the President should not be subjected to such questioning.

This ad hoc procedure (it is not found in any statute or constitutional norm) demeans and belittles the Office of the President. Moreover, it exposes the Office to the possibility that the President may be made to "testify" outside of an impeachment trial or to "give statements" outside of policy which may lead to impeachment motions. Finally, it serves no useful purpose because it is neither "in aid of legislation" or towards a determination of probable cause or for purposes of impeachment.

The President's daily "tick tock" is something that he may choose to disclose or keep confidential. Should he be called--and should he choose to--"testify" before the De Lima panel, the President should now consider his daily activities "fair game" for any sort of inquiry.

More than this, however, there is no need for the President himself to "give his side" because these are either matters of "judicial notice" or public record. Everyone in the Executive Branch is considered his alter egos if they are acting within their official functions, including the Justice Secretary who is the one contemplating the "testimony" of the President. They should be the ones "testifying", not the President.

The First President Aquino made a crucial mistake which "demeaned" her Presidency when she sued two journalists for libel. The Second President Aquino would make a crucial mistake which would belittle his Presidency if he does not shoot this ill-conceived idea down before it sprouts wings.

Unsolicited advise to the Second President Aquino so that we can close this episode, place accountability squarely where it should be and move forward:

1. Remove every perception or hint that there could even be a whitewash by:

1.1. Dissolving the fact-finding panel led by Justice Secretary De Lima; and

1.2. Instead, inviting Congress to convene a Joint Committee to investigate this incident once and for all, with a definite and limited timeline and with a clear commitment to not invoke "Executive Privilege."

1.3. Placing all relevant heads of agencies and persons concerned at the Joint Committee's disposal.

2. Personally, ask for the most pugnacious, most hostile, most adversarial members of Congress to co-chair the Joint Committee (e.g., Joker Arroyo for the Senate and Edcel Lagman/Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the House).

3. Make it clear, however, to the Joint Committee that you expect an objective, impartial, sober and quick resolution to this issue through a clear, detailed, objective Report.

4. Take action on the Report as you see fit.

Fans of The West Wing may remember a similar tack taken by the fictitious Bartlet administration in that television show when the fictitious President Bartlet was caught not disclosing a debilitating illness to the public. Sometimes, fiction is stranger than truth and, in this case, more compelling, instructive and relevant.

IMHO.

Judicial Touch Move?

In 1990, retired Supreme Court Justice Abraham F. Sarmiento, in Misolas v. Panga, G.R. No. 83341, wrote:

"It perplexes me why this dissent should first of all merit what appears to be repartees from the majority. I am but casting a contrary vote, which, after all, is in performance of a constitutional duty.

I am also concerned at how this case has journeyed from ponente to ponente and opinion to opinion, which, rather than expedited its resolution, has delayed it-at the expense of the accused-petitioner.

I was originally assigned to write the decision in this case, and as early as June, 1989, I was ready. On June 14, 1989, I started circulating a decision granting the petition and declaring Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1878-A, unconstitutional and of no force and effect. Meanwhile, Madame Justice Irene Cortes disseminated a dissent. By July 18, 1989, my ponencia had been pending in the office of the Chief Justice for promulgation. It carried signatures of concurrence of eight Justices (including mine), a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless. Five Justices, on the other hand, joined Justice Cortes in her dissent. The Chief Justice did not sign the decision on his word that he was filing a dissent of his own.

Subsequently, and as events would soon unfold quickly and dramatically, the Chief Justice returned my decision to the Court en banc, and declared that unless somebody changed his mind, he was promulgating my decision. Justice Edgardo Paras, who was one of the eight who had stamped their imprimatur on my decision, indicated that he did not want to "clip the wings of the military" and that he was changing his mind. This sudden reversement under the circumstances surrounding its manifestation, took me aback for which I strongly voiced my protest for a case (although the majority is very slim) that I had thought was a settled matter.

I am aware that similar events in the Supreme Court are nothing uncommon. The following are the ringing words of my distinguished colleague, Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, but they could just as well have been mine, as far as the instant controversy is concerned, and I could not have put it any better:

It has taken all of a year and four months to what, I hope, will see the final disposition of this case, notwithstanding periodic reminders for an earlier resolution. It is this delay that has caused me a great deal of concern. It is, to me, a crying example of justice delayed and is by no means "much ado about nothing," ... Nor is the question involved "none too important." ... The bone of contention is whether or not a criminal complaint, which is an offense against the State, may be dismissed on the basis of an amicable settlement between the complainant and the accused, who is a public officer.

As assigned initially, I was to prepare the opinion of the Court. My original "ponencia" annulling the Order of respondent Municipal Judge Eriberto H. Espiritu dismissing the criminal case against respondent Mayor Emiliano Caruncho, granting the petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, and ordering respondent Municipal Judge to reinstate and proceed with the trial on the merits of the criminal case against respondent Mayor without further delay, was circulated beginning July 30, 1982."

Justice Sarmiento proceeded to convert his original ponencia into a dissenting opinion, which he published in full as a dissent.

I recalled this case from law school when I heard of the Limkaichong case which has led to impeachment whispers again, this time of the Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court is--or should be--well known for its reclusiveness and its almost obsessive compulsion for privacy (although one may argue that cannot be the case where a photogenic and articulate PIO like Midas Marquez trolls the screens of our television sets). Very little is known about its internal processes and what little is known is not always confirmed.

That is why the leaked draft (being attributed to the newly-retired Ruben Reyes, controversial in his own right by virtue merely of being a Justice) in the Limkaichong election case pending before the Supreme Court is such a big deal.

The former Congressman, whose wife stands to benefit from the Reyes draft if promulgated, has been making the rounds saying that the Justices are presumed to know what they are signing and if they have signed it, then it can't be changed anymore. Something akin to judicial "touch move", to borrow a phrase from the sport of Kings.

The dissent of Justice Sarmiento in Misolas v. Panga (quote above) clearly shows that it has happened before--at least twice on record as his dissent quotes another Justice who experienced a similar reversal of fortunes, the venerable Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera in People v. Caruncho). In the Caruncho case, the new writer, Justice Abad Santos, made light of the circumstances by saying:

"This case is a good example of the saying: "much ado about nothing. And it serves as a reminder of the suggestion that we should relax, take it easy and not get unduly excited. For these reasons, a little whimsy is not out of place.

This case was originally assigned to Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera who was an outstanding student of the Chief Justice. The facts which led to the filing of the case had attracted national attention so it was thought that Justice Melencio-Herrera would once again pen a significant opinion. Due solely to the vagaries of chance, according to the Chief Justice, the lady justice was writing the decisions in leading cases. At one time Justice Antonio P. Barredo remarked that despite his long service with the Court he had not penned a landmark case. But that was before the Federation of Free Farmers case (107 SCRA 352-490 [1981]) which competes with the McDougal and Feliciano tomes in their soporific effects.

Justice Melencio-Herrera in fact already had a ponencia to which nine (9) other justices concurred. But alas, before it could be promulgated some of the brethren changed their minds. No, they did not exactly flip-flop; they merely flipped. Justice Melencio-Herrera has "threatened" to write a separate opinion and hopefully she will tell it all."

Not one to be intimidated or made light of, the Lady Justice from Cavite (direct descendant of Emilio Aguinaldo) quite pointedly replied to this:

"It has taken all of a year and four months to what, I hope, will see the final disposition of this case, notwithstanding periodic reminders for an earlier resolution. It is this delay that has caused me a great deal of concern. It is, to me, a crying example of justice delayed and is by no means "much ado about nothing" * Nor is the question involved "none too important." ** The bone of contention is whether or not a criminal complaint, which is an offense against the State, may be dismissed on the basis of an amicable settlement between the complainant and the accused, who is a public officer."

In Misolas, Caruncho and now Limkaichong, the Court changed its mind before promulgation of the Decision, which is the operative act for the effectivity of the Court's Decision. Anytime before the Court's Decision is promulgated, it may still be changed--as Justices Sarmiento and Melencio-Herrera and probably other Justices (who never told) discovered.

In all these instances, the Chief Justice was the determinative factor before a Decision could be promulgated. Does that indicate that the Chief Justice is partial, one way or the other? I do not believe so.

In discharging this function, the Chief Justice may be seen to operate on two levels--as an administrator and as a jurist. In the first role, he ensures that there is compliance with the number of votes so that the Decision may be promulgated. In the second role, he ensures that what the Court will be promulgating will carry weight.

That is apparently what Chief Justice Puno did in Limkaichong. While the number of votes was sufficient to indicate a ruling in favor of one party, the number of "in the result" votes cast sufficient doubts on the binding nature of the Decision for all future cases. It may be argued that the other Justices should simply have been polite enough to tell Justice Reyes that they could not go along with his reasoning; instead, they chose to do it with their votes. As Chief Justice, it was the role of Puno to ensure that what emerged from the Court would not be something that would apply only to a specific person in a specific instance but would be good enough to be a rule for many ages to come.

I am not an apologist for the current Chief Justice though I have written favorably about him. (I still cannot read the Gloria Arroyo legitimacy case without cringing at the triple hearsay rule adopted by the Court in that case.) But there is a line between legitimate criticism of the Court and its Justices and outright and outright political maneuverings. Right now, I do not see the legitimate criticism, especially of the Chief Justice because all I see are the political maneuverings.

Strategic Dismembering

It is as if someone took a really dull knife and starting hacking away at parts of one's body--not to kill but to maim, perhaps temporarily but hopefully permanently. That is how I feel when I read and hear the news stories about the way that institutions in this country are being dismembered.

The kennel (este the House of Representatives) came first. The coup d'etat that replaced Jose De Venecia Jr. with Prospero Nograles. Then the Court of Appeals with the Sabio-Roxas-Villarama scandal involving Meralco and GSIS; this resulted in the suspension of Sabio, the dismissal of Roxas and the lid being blown off what was previously only an open secret within the trade, este the profession of lawyering. Then the Senate coup d'etat, replacing Manny Villar with Juan Ponce Enrile. Then the PDEA and DOJ bribery issue, with Gloria taking the side of PDEA and ordering preventive suspensions for one Undersecretary (looks guilty), the Chief State Prosecutor (looks innocent but clueless), several state prosecutors and once again, the lid being blown off what was previously only an open secret within the trade of lawyering--that if you're resourceful enough, you can get the decision you really want. Now, the Supreme Court, with the threat of impeaching the Chief Justice and the reality that Gloria will get to appoint seven Justices before 2010.

All through it all, the people are too numb to scream in pain as parts of this body, especially parts that insure accountability now and in the future (especially after Gloria leaves Malacanang) are strategically dismembered, discredited or simply disregarded.

The greatest danger now is not that Gloria still remains in power, it is that she might remain in power by proxy even after she leaves Malacanang.

Perspective

I've been gone (from Manila) for about 1.5 weeks and things get exciting--explosions at the mall and a pardon for a plunderer. Wow, maybe I really should get out more.

Seriously, when the Erap pardon first came out, I was just about to prepare for a retreat and all of a sudden, I get this deluge of sms from irate friends cussing in all shades of blue (many of them female). Many asked me why, which is funny because I really don't know the answer (I have my speculations but, of course, your guess is as good as mine).

Let me hazard a guess though.

The Erap pardon is not an act of grace nor an act of forgiveness--it is purely political. Gloria is storing capital for 2010 because when she steps down--assuming she's not sooner removed before then--she is going to be sued for plunder, just like Erap. Right now, there is no one looking out for her because when she loses power in 2010, she will just be another ex-president facing a plunder charge. So the Erap pardon is clearly political security for her even as she anticipates the deluge of plunder suits she and Mike Arroyo will face.

As to why Erap accepted it--why shouldn't he? It is a golden opportunity to parlay into political capital once again his tarnished name and reputation. And if it means not calling for Gloria to step down sooner than 2010 and calling her "President", it is a cheap price to pay and a not too bitter pill to swallow.

In the meantime, we, the people, have just been had again.

Old dogs do learn new tricks--Erap and Gloria did. Whyever can't we, the people, learn?

Proven wrong

I did not expect it from him but I do know how to appreciate a decent gesture and I do recognize when I've been proven wrong.

Gloria Arroyo's obvious favorite candidate/cabinet secretary/all-around gopher* Michael Defensor conceded defeat in the Senatorial elections even before the COMELEC could finish its canvassing. Now, that is a decent gesture and certainly worth another post on him (I did say in a previous post I would not waste any more time and space blogging about Mike Defensor).

Of all the candidates running, he was the last one I would have expected to concede. That makes his concession even more significant.

As far as concession speeches went, Mike's didn't set off any fire alarms; this one (see below) did.





Now, that's a great concession speech.


* (1) To be fair to the mammal of the same name. the reference is to the american slang "go pher this, go pher that" which indicates that the human "gopher" is servile and/or in servitude. (2) For those who were born and were around in the late 70's to the early 80's, you may also remember that this was the name of the purser on "The Love Boat."

Nellie Banaag. Leticia Ramos.

Remember those two names: Nellie Banaag. Leticia Ramos.

They died because some coward out there considers life so cheap that he/she would hire equally cowardly goons (show your face, why hide behind bonnets) to deliberately put gas in a school building and burn down the place including Banaag and Ramos.

They died because people like Abalos of COMELEC--yes, he who is famous for looking the other way and blaming everyone else but himself--have absolutely no control over these elections and those who are armed and are out there.

They died so that trapos like Loren Legarda, MIke Defensor, Joker Arroyo and everyone else in GO and TU and even some independents like Gringo and Kiko could have their fifteen minutes of fame.

Let the sacrifice of Nellie Banaag, school teacher, and Leticia Ramos, volunteer pollwatcher, not be in vain.

Remember these two names: Nellie Banaag and Leticia Ramos.

Remember them, pray for them and those they have left behind--that they may find some measure of peace at this time.

Remember them but let us also do right by them.

To those who ordered the murder of Nellie Banaag and Leticia Ramos--there are no words to describe the evil of this act that you have done, none at all. When your time comes, may there be words to describe you and how you lived your life because right now, there are none. "Cowardly" and "Evil" are too kind.

To those who murdered Nellie Banaag and Leticia Ramos by burning them--may God, the merciful and the just, be precisely that: merciful but just.

To those who sit silent in the face of your knowledge of who murdered Nellie Banaag and Leticia Ramos--may God give you the grace to do what is right, not what is easy; what is just, not what is convenient.

Nellie Banaag and Leticia Ramos: you will not be forgotten. The hearts of a grateful nation go out to you and your families; may God's angels sing you to your deserved rest in Heaven.

The Cause for and the Costs of Remembering

Indeed. How many times must the Burgos family pay the price so that we may be able to remain free? (picture lifted from Malaya online)

___________________________________________

I reprint a Statement I drafted for FLAG three (3) years ago on Human Rights Day, December 10, 2004; this became the guest Editorial of the late, lamented Today newspaper on December 10, 2004.

One of the people I was thinking of when I was writing this was the late Joe Burgos, publisher of Ang Pahayagang Malaya and WE Forum--back when writing about the truth was really detrimental to one's health and, in fact, one's continued existence on earth.

He was one among many people I admired back then because he had principles and stood by them--at the great personal prejudice. When freedom came in February 1986, he remained, to my delight and great admiration, consistent and true to his principles---unlike many of his contemporaries during that time, whom I also looked up to then, who turned out to have feet of clay (one of them is running as Senator under Gloria's party, guess who? Sorry, bad ako.)

Although not so titled, this statement could very well have been written yesterday and could have been subtitled--For Joe Burgos.

THE CAUSE FOR AND COSTS OF REMEMBERING

One day every year, we remember.

We remember years of infamy and days of darkness: when law was perverted to suit the needs of one man, his family and his minions; when freedom was but a myth and a mantra; when human rights and social justice were but beautiful words that stared us in our faces and mocked us.

But we remember also very many shining moments of courage, of inspiration, of unity, of selflessness, of martyrdom: when freedom was no longer a myth but our muse—to spur on struggles for greater freedoms; when human rights and social justice became beautiful words that allowed courageous men and women to stand fast and mock the tormentors of freedom.

One day every year on December 10, International Human Rights Day, we remember for we have cause to remember. Yet we should stop not at just remembering one day every year for the cause for remembering brings with it costs of remembering.

Remembering our freedom and how we regained it carries with it the costs of keeping that freedom:

Vigilance. Constant learning.

Commitment to the cause of freedom, social justice and human rights and all that that commitment entails. Selflessness, courage, inspiration and a love for country that transcends the love for self.

The costs of remembering.

In the face of already grinding poverty, the reality of rising prices of water, fuel, electricity, food and transportation threaten to bring new days of darkness. A bankcrupt culture of corruption and patronage politics threatens to resurrect years of infamy. Every day, the news brings little comfort: more and more of the poor become poorer and more powerless even as more and more of the rich and powerful become richer and more powerful.

On its 30^th year and on the occasion of Human Rights Day 2004, the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) renews its commitment to the Filipino people even as we remember the many causes for and the costs of our freedom.

As the days of darkness once again threaten, we have cause to remember the shining moments of courage, of inspiration, of unity, of selflessness, of martyrdom—when freedom, this time from economic and social shackles, may become once again our muse and when human rights and social justice once again become beautiful words that allow courageous Filipinos to stand fast and mock the enemies of our freedom.

30 years ago, FLAG committed itself to the cause of human rights in the Philippines and the ASEAN region. This year, we remember and we stand fast by that commitment for the next 30 years, if need be: “to struggle for justice in time but under the aspect of eternity.”

----------------------------------------------

Ka Joe.

I remember. I am grateful. I will not forget.

The Emperor and The Watchdog

The problem with politicizing the Ombudsman is that everything she does is suspect.

Mercy Gutierrez has labored under the large shadow of Mike Arroyo since her appointment as Ombudsman; whatever she does--short of sending Gloria, both Jose Pidals and the original Jose Pidals's first born, to jail--she will never convince people she is the independent watchdog that the Ombudsman is supposed to be.

And it doesn't help that she allows herself to be used. . . so obviously.

The preventive suspension slapped on Jejomar Binay, Emperor of Makati (have you noticed that the decal for Makati is a stylized "B", which obviously is not a letter found in "Makati" but in "Binay" or "Bayan ni Binay"--but I digress), is just the latest example of how the Ombudsman allows herself to be used, so obviously, by Gloria.

Not even those who will not vote for Binay will dispute that the suspension coming one week before the election is politically-motivated. Moreso, because the one serving it is the Undersecretary of Interior and Local Government and the one "suspending" the suspension's effectivity is Gloria herself. At the very least, the Ombudsman, the DILG and Gloria should be reading from the same script.

No subtlety, no finesse, no class.

The tragedy of this all is that Emperor Binay (and his successors in waiting: his wife, his son and his daughter; if Teddy Boy Locsin didn't still have one term left, Binay's other daughter might have run for the 2d congressional seat) now milks his "underdog" status for all that it is worth and any real issue of corruption against Binay is now swept under the rug, so to speak--waiting to be resurrected during the next election.

Why vote?

Quite a few have been asking me who I'll be voting for on May 14. My usual response to that would be a semi-facetious "that will depend on whether I decide to vote or not." That usually elicits a reaction of disbelief that I would even consider not voting.

My reply--"that will depend on whether I decide to vote or not"--- is not a facetious one; it was not intended to be so. It is a statement borne out of experiences of being hopeful and, time and time again, rendered hopeless.

For those old enough to remember how Marcos rendered voting a farce in every sense of that word, my reply would not be so incredible; for many--including myself--who remembered the boycott movement for the Interim Batasang Pambansa elections, that was a statement that Marcos's government would never be "of the people, by the people and for the people." A refusal to vote was the strongest weapon against a craven dictatorship that desired but one thing: legitimacy; and the hope brought about by one's vote was, ironically, that which involved denying a dictatorship that vote.

For those old enough to remember how one's vote truly became a symbol of hope in the snap elections between Marcos and Cory, my reply would not be so incredible; many--including myself--remember casting a vote for Cory, not because we were great fans of hers (I was not and still am not; I voted for her though because I wished to spit in the face of the dictator) but because we truly abhorred the dictator; many still remember how our vote became a statement in itself, a collective repudiation of all that Marcos was and a collective affirmation of the hope that an anti-Marcos symbol like Cory was (never mind if she couldn't govern, we just wanted Marcos out). The hope brought about by one's vote was, fitfully, that which involved casting that one precious vote.

For those old enough to remember how Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo managed to once again reduce the hope that one ballot brought to unfathomable depths of ignominy, my reply would not be so incredible; many of us--including myself--still remember hearing the dictator Gloria--that unmistakeable voice, that unmistakable nasal tone--directing her underlings Garci, Ebdane, Esperon and so many others to steal not only an election but the hope that that election symbolized. The hope brought about by one's vote was, maliciously, snuffed out in the most cynical of ways--"but will I still win by over a million votes?"

The power of one's vote--my vote and yours--is the power to hope; it is the power to dream; the power to say to the face of a dictator, like Gloria, "Your time is up. Be gone"; it is the power to stay what may be an inevitability--the clash of arms drowning out the rule of law--and say, "not yet, not just yet."

The power of one's vote--yours and mine--is the power to chain as well as liberate; it is more than a symbol of hope, it is hope for change itself. To paraphrase Diokno, for change will come, if not now, then inevitably.

The power of one's vote--yours and mine--spells the difference between light and darkness; the light that comes out of a realization that hope is not lost, that change will not tarry much longer, that our passions, our ideals, our dreams, and yes, our hopes, will one day bear fruit in a country that is truly Filipino, truly free, and truly beautiful.

But why vote, when the very ones who stole our hopes for change in 2004 still abound in the highest places?

But why vote, when the obscenity that is "Hello Garci" comes back in full flavor and in living color to inflict himself on our popular psyche and our electorate by means of his very own full-fledged candidacy?

But why vote, when the very cynicism that eats away at hope abounds in every nuisance candidate made to run, in every Manny Pacquiao fielded, in every dynasty created?

But why vote, when even now the dogs of war have been unleashed and the staccato of gunshots rings out louder than the tolling of the bells of peace?

Why vote indeed?

Because there must be hope. Because there is hope.

The hope that one vote and one's vote--yours and mine--brings.

One's vote and one vote makes the difference between light and darkness, the difference between being in chains once more and being truly free, the difference between whining in enforced silence and raising voices in just and righteous indignation, the difference between all that is good for this beautiful country and all that will lead us further on the road to perdition.

So to those who ask who I will vote for, allow me now to answer you this way: I will vote for those who will truly symbolize the hope that my vote brings.

And so, I will not vote for any member of Team Unity--most especially not Joker Arroyo.

And so, I will not vote for most members of the Genuine Opposition--most especially not Panfilo Lacson or Loren Legarda (I am still praying about voting for Chiz Escudero).

I will most probably vote for Kiko Pangilinan simply because he has chosen to stand on his own, not allying himself with all that Team Unity and Genuine Opposition represents; my reservation is that he might finally find the voice and the passion that has eluded him in his previous term in the Senate; my hope is that he might truly stand on his own and speak only for those that matter--the people who put their trust and hopes in him.

But I will vote for the three gallant souls who have decided to fight the good fight--the three members of Ang Kapatiran: Martin Bautista, Zosimo Paredes and Adrian Sison.

Fittingly, the hope that one vote and one's vote--yours and mine--carries is borne on the shoulders of these dreamers; for only those who hope dare dream.

These three will lose the election and not become Senators but they would not have lost the respect of a grateful electorate; these three will lose the election but your vote would not have been wasted; these three will lose the election but they will have run the race extremely well.

In these times of cynicism, the hope that these three dreamers and "losers" represent is more than enough. The words of George Bernard Shaw borrowed by a famous Kennedy* and spoken by his even more famous brother** are apt indeed, "Some people see things as they are and ask 'why', I dream things that never were and ask 'why not'?"

My one vote represents the power to dream, the grace to hope, the courage to ask "why not?"

Why vote? Why vote for them? This is why--the power to dream, the grace to hope, the courage to ask "why not?"

To these three dreamers, my hopes go with you.




* Robert Francis "Bobby" Kennedy, U.S. Senator, killed June 6, 1968;
** John Fitzgerald Kennedy, U.S. President, killed November 22, 1963;

D.O.M., M.C.P.

What do you do with someone like Raul Gonzales?

Even as filipinos reeled from the realization that an American, who had come to love the country more than its own citizens, had been killed brutally and senselessly, this Raul Gonzales, desperate for a sound bite, blames Julia Campbell for allowing herself to get into a tight situation. He comes out in media saying that it was her fault for going to Batad alone; that's like saying that a woman who is raped asked for it--that's how bad his statement is, and coming from the Justice Secretary, it becomes much much worse.

Much as I believe in a God who is the perfect creator, the Raul Gonzaleses of this world make you want to ask God, "did you somehow miss a step here?"

But, there really is a rhyme to God's reason. The Raul Gonzaleses of this world are placed here to make us realize that we can--and should--be better persons than he; he is placed here to remind us that there are many other good people, in contrast to him; the likes of him are placed on this earth to remind us of that most difficult of commands, "love one another as I have loved you."

Indeed, if one can love a Raul Gonzales, then you would have taken on the Face of God already.

In the meantime, answering my question at the start of this post--first, make him apologize to Julia Campbells' family, all those poor people she worked with and for, all the women whom Raul Gonzales insulted by his callously chauvinistic remark, all the senior citizens of which he is one of the worst poster boys, all the filipinos, of which he is certainly among the worst examples; and then, after all these, FIRE HIM, now na!

No Joke.

Ang daming bad sa administration ngayon pero ba't di sila lagot kay Joker? Ang tahimik nga niya e. Baka naman joke lang yung kay Joker, na "pag bad ka, lagot ka."

Pero, ito hindi joke: pag di pa nagsalita si Joker tungkol sa militarisasyon at paggamit ng pondo ng gobyerno sa kampanya at di siya tumiwalag sa TU (make up your own meaning for this acronym), wala na siyang mukhang pwedeng iharap sa taong bayan.

Ako, di ko siya iboboto at hinihingi ko na huwag na rin ninyo siyang iboto. No joke.

You know we're really in trouble when. . .

1. You find yourself agreeing with Prospero Pichay about the need for principled politics.
2. You find yourself agreeing with Kit Tatad on the need for moral recovery.
3. The spectacle of Gloria Arroyo tonelessly and tastelessly "singing" (sic) Boom Tarat tarat is not enough to move people to revolt.

How quickly we forget . . .

On December 7, 2000, a distinguished member of the House of Representatives stood up in the Halls of the Philippine Senate and declared that "we cannot have a country run by a thief." That member of the House was Joker Arroyo, who later rode his participation as a prosecutor in the impeachment trial of Joseph Ejercito Estrada to a Senate seat in the elections of 2001.

Yesterday, Joker P. Arroyo filed his certificate of candidacy as senator under the administration ticket of Gloria Arroyo, who is widely suspected of stealing, if not money directly, then at least the elections of 2004.

Sir, seven years ago, you said this: "We cannot have a country run by a thief."

How quickly we forget.

Poetic justice

This may be a bit old but just have to say this.

I am on record as not being a big fan of Alan Cayetano--I think he's too glib for his own good and he's a bit shallow on the issues--but after the House Ethics (sic) Committee decided to recommend a 45-day suspension on him for failing to prove the expose he made against the Arroyo men (Mike, Mikee, Iggy and Dato) and the Arroyo woman (who else?), I am pretty sure that he's going to place highly in the Senate race.

And he has the Arroyos to thank for that; how's that for poetic justice?

Why is MVP not smiling?

For possibly the same reason I'm ranting.

We waited for this?

After what seemed like an eternity in this basketball-crazed country, the “leaders” of the governing bodies of basketball in the Philippines tell us that they finally have unity and they call themselves by the very original name --"BAP-SBP." And all the usual suspects are still onboard---Lim, Alentajan, Tan—the very same ones who threw a spanner in the works by their selfish, boorish, arrogant, and totally un-Filipino (what am I talking about, Graham Lim isn’t Filipino) machinations; plus a few more—Villafuerte (remember Con-Ass?), Cagas (remember Con-Ass?)—now if they had gotten Lagman and Jaraula on board, they could have sung “hail, hail, the gang’s all here!” But I digress, this is basketball, not politics--although sometimes you can't tell the difference anymore.

What is going on?

After the so-called Basketball Association of the Philippines (BAP), through its self-proclaimed “leaders” Lim, Alentajan and Tan, manage to pull off one of the most cruel stunts anyone could ever think of in this basketball-crazy country—getting us suspended from international competition—the SBP led by Manny V. Pangilinan agree on “unity” with this group. And they’re happy about it?

I don’t know about you—but it’s no longer only in Denmark that something figuratively stinks. Right here, right now, this stinks—it stinks big time.

What, the BAP is not even going to be held accountable for costing the country its best shot at an Olympic berth? What, the BAP is not even going to be taken to task for throwing back the calendar for ASEAN supremacy (alright, second place supremacy after China, which is light years away from where we are)? What, Alentajan and Lim are not going to be even "slapped on the wrist" for causing us all this trouble and this expense just so that we can play basketball internationally? What, we’re just going to allow this sell-out and even allow the BAP first billing in this “new” federation?

Can the saner voices in Philippine basketball do something please? Chino Trinidad? Joe Lipa? Please don’t allow this sell-out to take place.

Sure, let's unite but let's unite all those who have a legitimate stake in basketball--Alentajan and Lim have none, they're only looking to advance their own personal interests. Unity, yes definitely, but not at all costs. Not at this cost.

I am this close to switching to another sport—perhaps cricket might make more sense (despite all its weird rules)—than basketball under this "new" BAP-SPB alliance.

Clowns

Driving home last night close to midnight, I was listening to the late night newscast over the radio; the news bit I caught was about the expulsion case before the House Ethics Committee (an oxymoron, if I ever heard one; apologies to my ethical friends in Congress, you know who you are) filed by Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo, otherwise known as the First Gentleman, against Alan Peter Cayetano, Representative from Taguig-Pateros.

Two exchanges caught my attention.

The first involved both Mike Arroyo and Cayetano exchanging barbs about how their alma mater, the Ateneo de Manila (Arroyo and Cayetano both finished law at the Ateneo, something that I can be proud of--that they did not finish law in U.P.; unfortunately, Tinex Jaraula did, but that's another blog altogether), was ashamed of them. Arroyo brought it up first by belittling what Cayetano was asking and how he was asking them by saying that Ateneo was ashamed to be associated with him (Cayetano); never one to let a barb go by without a riposte, the Congressman retorted with a similar comment.

I’m from the Ateneo (not de Manila, Cagayan de Oro more popularly known as Xavier University, not the Xavier in Greenhills but the one in Mindanao) and may I add my Jesuit-trained two bits to this one: as an Atenean, may I confirm that I am absolutely ashamed to be associated with either of you. So, there.

The second exchange involved another Arroyo with Cayetano: Iggy, the hapless younger brother of Mike, who appears perpetually drunk, dazed, bewildered or something much more intoxicating or all four at the same time. Yes, Iggy—Jose Pidal himself.

When quizzed by Cayetano about relatives using aliases, Mike Arroyo promptly denied any such thing, never mind that right beside him was Iggy, who had publicly and several times under oath admitted that he had used the pseudonym (or alias, if you will), Jose Pidal, in connection with election-related spendings. So when asked by Cayetano, Iggy gave an answer out of the Imelda Marcos (vide “the black hole” in the cosmic plan of thing etc. etc.) and Melanie Marquez (remember "Don't judge my brother, he's not a book"?) school of witticisms —something to the effect that he is not yet the First Gentleman, maybe next year.

In the car, I had to figuratively and almost literally pull over as my jaw had dropped and was in danger of hitting the steering wheel and I was laughing so hard I could barely see; you could hear the “thunk” of collective jaws dropping in the hearing room, the muffled snickers even from Arroyo’s most rabid and asinine (and there are a lot of them; soundtrack to this: Patty Page’s “How much is that doggy in the window?”) sycophants. Such was the inanity of the answer.

Of course, Cayetano, being who he is, would not let Iggy off the hook that easily; quickly he inserted the question, “why, is Gloria Arroyo not going to be the President anymore next year?” Mercifully, I reached home before my jaw could drop any lower from any answer that Iggy would give. (NB. I’m not a fan of Cayetano—never have been, never will be. But with the way that Gloria, Mike, Iggy and Mikey, all surnamed Arroyo, have been going at him, hammer and tongs, and with Cayetano’s typical glibness and occasionally inspired witticisms against a totally inept and inarticulate trio of Arroyos, the possibility is that Cayetano might just end up in the Senate--inspite of Cayetano's efforts.)

I felt like I was listening and watching to a totally surreal and twisted episode of The Three Stooges (take your pick who Curly, Larry, Moe and Shemp are from the Congressman from Taguig, the First Gentleman, Jose Pidal and the 4th-rate "actor" who makes Manny Pacquiao look like Oscar-material), except that I wasn't and didn't feel like laughing.

Moral of this not-so-fictional fable: You put enough clowns in the room, you’ll definitely get one heck of a farce.

Mr. Smith goes back to the U.S.

With the finesse of a sledgehammer blow, Gloria Arroyo showed just how much she holds in contempt the rule of law; and just how stupid she thinks Filipinos are.

Spiriting away Mr. Smith in the dead of night on the last working day of the past year smacks of utter malice and deception; it also betrays the cowardice that is inherent in a government and a pretender who, never having been elected to the highest office in the land, continues to wield the prerogatives of the executive office under the shadow of constant fear of being thrown back to where she belongs—in the dustheap of disgraced dictators.

The rape victim in the Subic case said it best, Bastusan na. Indeed. It appears that is the only language Gloria understands.