De-Equilibrized

Not sure if there is such a word but that's how I felt earlier when I was told that I had to make a decision that would change many things that I had planned in my life.

But as with most of the de-equilibrized moments in my life, I remembered Psalm 37:23-24-"The steps of the man are from the Lord, and he establishes him in whose way he delights; though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong, for the Lord is the stay of his hand."

Its not a promise that I won't fall but that he will catch me when I do fall.

In the meantime, have to get back my equilibrium by focusing on what He wants me to do.

First things first, "fear not."

A blast from the past... for me, at least

"I read the news today, oh boy" (credit the Beatles for this line which I shamelessly rip off) and it spoke of the United States Supreme Court ruling 7-2 on the constitutionality of lethal injection as a method of execution for the first time; the landmark ruling is Baze v. Rees, involving a capital case from Kentucky. (Read the link to an AI-US blog, which also posts a link to the decision.)

What struck me wasn't that the US Supreme Court ruled but that it was ruling for the very first time on the constitutionality of lethal injection.

This brought me back to March 2, 1998, when, on behalf of probably my most well-known client, I filed a petition for prohibition, injunction and/or TRO assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8177 designating lethal injection as the mode of execution in the country; the petition docketed as G.R. No. 132601 was given due course and, on October 12, 1998, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled, for the first time and apparently nine (9) years before the United States, that lethal injection was, to rip off Chief Justice Fernando's famous double negative, "not unconstitutional."

What also strikes me about Baze is the obvious absence of unanimity; there are seven (7) separate opinions, with only two (2) Justices joining the Chief Justice Roberts in his plurality (if you could even call it that) opinion, three (3) Justices concurring only in the result and with separate opinions, and with two (2) Justices (Ginsberg and Souter) dissenting.

Unlike the Philippines, which has, at least for the moment, prohibited capital punishment, it appears that the debate in the United States has just gotten a lot more interesting.

Intergenerational courtesy and hubris

I did not land in the top ten when I took the bar in 1990; nor did I land in the top twenty (I know because the first 20 names in our batch were published). That does not make or unmake me, as a lawyer or as a person.

My batch did not have the benefit (or stigma?) of having our passing average adjusted upward by means of across-the-board points or having the 75% average required to pass the bar lowered or the 50% disqualification per subject lowered. That does not make or unmake my batch, as lawyers or as persons.

My having failed to land in the top 20 does not make me a success or a failure--as a lawyer or as a person. It only credentials me as one who was fortunate or blessed enough to pass, based on the standards of that year.

My batch's distinction of not having adjustments to the passing grade does not make my batch better or worse than any other batch. It just makes it a fact that no adjustments were made for that year.

The bar examinations are a test of a particular batch's entitlement to join the legal profession based on the standards of the Examination Committee for a particular year. It is not a standard for all generations, nor for all time. It is a standard only for a particular year because every year the standards change with the selection of a new Chairperson and the selection of new examiners.

Thus, one batch is not necessarily better or worse than another as each batch can only be compared to itself (if that is at all possible, factually and logically). That is the design of the bar examinations; each year's bar is sui generis. (Is this a flawed design? Yes. Would I want it changed? Yes. But that is fodder for another post, another occasion.)

So, all the buzz and the heat generated by a rather insensitive blog post by a lawyer who has yet to identify him/herself by the name he signed on the roll is quite understandably being passionately dissected by this year's bar passers.

I say it is insensitive because the post essentially blacklists this year's batch of passers and brands them as "second rate" and "unworthy" lawyers simply because the Supreme Court chose to lower the average--sight unseen. The lawyer blogger chooses to tar everyone with the same brush and writes off this year's batch as unworthy of his attention or employment.

I do not know if the blogger/lawyer (whose blog links to this site) teaches. I do. I taught this batch from U.P. And I know these people very well--personally; with the exception of a handful (and my hands are very small, so it is a very small handful), I can say at least one fact about each of them that a casual acquaintance would not know. I can speak of how good or bad they were in class and also in court, having supervised them through the clinical legal education program.

I can speak of how passionate they can get over trivial and non-trivial things. I have seen how intense they have gotten over issues. I have seen many of them in court, I have read their pleadings, I have corrected their work, I have graded them many times over. Yes, I can speak, from personal knowledge, of this batch and I choose not to write them off because I know better--than to write them off.

I only teach law at U.P. so I cannot speak, from personal knowledge, of passers from other law schools because I do not know better. And for that same reason, I choose not to write them off as unworthy or second rate simply because I also do not know better.

And that is, as De Quiros puts it, "the rub."

Blogger/lawyer chooses to write off an entire batch without knowing the ENTIRE BATCH of bar passers; s/he chooses to dismiss them without the benefit of having seen some or most of them in class or in court; s/he chooses to stigmatize the batch for something they had absolutely no hand in--the lowering of the average.

Would this batch have preferred not to have the grades lowered so that only 5% would have passed? I do not know; perhaps some would have, some wouldn't.

What I do know is that they had no hand in having the grade lowered and to stigmatize them for something the Court did, apparently motu propio, is uncalled for and is foul.

And to cast aspersions, by way of asking rhetorical questions--as blogger/lawyer does in his post, as to the supposed influence exerted by some powerful quarters is quite simply cheap. That is something gutter journalists do, in the absence of something significant to write--not one who has passed the bar and would evidently have such high standards that s/he would not hire anyone from this batch. As far as the new U.P. lawyers are concerned, it is blogger/lawyer's loss--not theirs.

I am not picking a fight with blogger/lawyer. Those who passed this year have already thrown down the gauntlet and they, more than anyone else, can speak for themselves quite eloquently and well.

I simply want to say, from the vantage point of one who passed the bar many years ago under very different conditions than this year, that it is sheer hubris and unmitigated arrogance for one to sit in judgment simply on the basis of the past and without knowing better.

Hegel (and Sting) remind us that the best lesson we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history; many times, however, when we live too much in the past and reflect too much on history, we also end up not learning anything about the present.

Weighing in on Brian Gorrell

You may recognize familiar names in this Newsbreak online article on the Brian Gorrell thingy.

Conspiracy theories and others

If I were Gloria, and I wanted to hold on to power absolutely until 2010 and shield me from the suits that will come my way in 2010, . . .

1. I would appoint Mercy Gutierrez, the gatekeeper, to the Supreme Court anytime before 2010 and appoint another equally loyal and inept classmate/friend/crony to be Ombudsman in her place; that way, I would have another vote in the Supreme Court and an Ombudsman with a 7-year term that would last beyond 2010.

2. I would do everything to cure/heal Cory Aquino of her cancer because I do not need another loooooong funeral march, in the event that Cory Aquino passes away, and I do not need another martyr that would create another genuine EDSA.

3. I would find a way to convince Chief Justice Reynato Puno to step down before May 2010--through gentle reminders, if possible, but through forceful assertion, if gentle reminders do not succeeed--and then bypass Tony Carpio, who would be the most senior Associate Justice by 2010. That way, the entire Court would be Gloria's.

4. I would make sure that the Opposition would be hopelessly divided by allowing Erap to run for President, before going to the Supreme Court to question his entitlement on the ground that the pardon extended to him is conditional and that the condition is that he does not run for election ever again. Before that, I would make sure that none of those seeking election as President would ever be united--by enticing JDV to run as President perhaps.

5. I would keep Dinky Soliman and her singing of "If we hold on together" as far away from my cabinet as possible.

6. I would make sure that I have another Arroyo in Congress, but this time in the Senate; Luli, are you there?

9-6

In a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court, just a few minutes ago (Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 3:25 thereabouts) granted the petition of Romulo Neri, which sought the invocation of executive privilege in relation to three questions posed by the Senate, in its investigation of the botched 329US$ ZTE-NBN deal. This means that Neri cannot be cited for contempt or arrested by the Senate if he refuses to answer the three questions, which the plurality of the Court now considers to be covered by executive privilege.

The three questions are: 1. whether Gloria Arroyo followed up the deal with Neri; 2. whether he was told to prioritize the ZTE-NBN project and 3. whether Gloria Arroyo told him to go ahead with the deal after he told her about the massive bribe offer.

The decision was penned by the 2nd to the newest appointee to the Court, Teresita De Castro (of Erap plunder fame or notoriety, depending on which side you're on) and was concurred in by the following Justices: Quisumbing, Corona, Chico-Nazario, Tinga, Velasco, Nachura, Reyes, and Brion (the most recent appointee). Of those who voted in favor, only Quisumbing's vote is surprising; the others are expected as they are all Gloria appointees.

The 6 who voted against are: Chief Justice Puno (with a 100-page dissent), Justices Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, and Azcuna.

There is a surprising lack of becoming modesty in Brion voting on a petition where he did not participate and where popular sentiment held that his appointment was precisely to forestall the effects of a Velasco inhibition. There is also an uncharacteristic lack of becoming modesty in De Castro writing for the majority, where her appointment was clearly seen as a reward for convicting Estrada.

This vote, coming on the heels of the 10-4 vote in the Chavez decision, shows just how much headway the Gloria appointees are making in controlling the court. If she lasts until 2010, Gloria Arroyo would have appointed all but one of the Justices (Puno; but she would have appointed Puno Chief Justice, so technically she could be considered to have appointed all the Justices).

How's that for separation of powers? Checks and balances, anyone?

Thanks, but no thanks.

1. Gloria throws out EO 464. Thanks, but no thanks.

There was nothing to throw out, as the Supreme Court had already removed practically everything there was to this putrid issuance from the dictator's arsenal. It should have been a non-issue except that, as dictators and their henchmen/women go, it was a convenient excuse to hide behind.

2. Supreme Court offers a compromise deal to Senate. Thanks, but no thanks.

After nine hours of orals, the Supreme Court Chief Justice offers a compromise--perceived by Malacanang to be "solomonic", which should already put you on guard--to the Senate: 1. Neri will testify at the Senate, 2. he will not be arrested anymore, 3. but the three questions he had invoked "executive privilege" against will not be asked anymore and will be considered asked, and 4. each and every time he invokes executive privilege, the issue will be tossed back to the Court.

My first reaction was that it was a "cop out" by the Court, after strong decisions on press freedom and showing strong resolve against EJK and ED with amparo and habeas data. Later on, after speaking with very reliable sources, it made sense--though I still didn't agree with the compromise; my sources told me that the CJ and Justice Carpio felt outvoted by the Gloria people in the Court and feared a loss had they insisted on a decision--so to avoid a loss, the CJ offered the compromise. One step backward, two steps forward--was it Lenin who said this, or Tommy Manotoc? Yes, it made sense but it still left me with a bad taste in the mouth.

If the Senate approved the deal, Gloria wins, hands down and the Senate loses, big time. The power of the Senate to summon witnesses would be severely impaired and the dictator gets away with silence on the three questions that directly place the ZTE deal at her doorstep.

I am glad that the Senate FINALLY acquired a collective spine (did that include you, Joker?) and some collective sense of identity and history and said, "thanks, but no thanks." I hope the SC addresses this issue and, despite the lifting of E0 464, rules that its invocation under those circumstances was not proper and that Neri SHOULD answer those 3 questions.

3. Let's resume our lives now that EO 464 is gone. THANKS, BUT NO THANKS.

The Bishops of my church should come out now with a stronger statement; clearly, the truth is being held hostage here and instead of setting us free, it is, instead, rendered an instrument of keeping us in bondage. Now that 464 is gone, what now? Perhaps, the answer should be, Gloria, gone.

It sounds greek to me, again

It's all the rage now, at least in law school. Everyone's talking about it--the photos in an anonymously-sent link of a crime being perpetrated in the name of brotherhood. Of course, I'm speaking of the hazing photos.

One anonymous commentor on my blog asked if I could do something about it. I am flattered and honored that s/he would think I could do anything about it.

My position on frats and frat violence is clear and unchanged. I do not intend to write about that here, now. Let me simply assure those who read this blog and know my position on fraternities and fraternity violence that, yes, something is being done about it by the officials with both mandate and power. While it may seem that nothing official is being done about it, I know, personally, that, yes, something is being done about it--it is just a matter of the proper time and place and forum.

In the meantime, for those identified and identifiable in the photographs, it is not too late to repent.

two from the good old 80s

Those who experienced martial law and read my blog will recognize these two songs; they may even have sung them and had lives changed because of them. They are not, by any means, the best anthems of protest (there are many) but they were, for a time, the songs of a generation who lived under the heavy onus of a dictatorship.

Many lives were changed because of the words of these two songs; I know mine was.

Sangandaan
(pete lacaba/ding achacoso)
hango sa "Sister Stella L." (1984)

walang komplikasyon sa buhay mo noon
kalooban mo'y panatag,
kalangitan ay maliwanag
ang daan ay tuwid at patag
sa buhay mo noon.

ngunit bawat pusong naglalakbay
dumarating sa sangandaan
ngayong narito ka,
kailangang magpasya
aling landas ang susundin ng puso?
saan ka liligaya?
saan mabibigo?
saan ka tutungo?

kay daling sumunod sa hangin at agos
aasa ka na ang dalangin
gagabay sa 'yong damdamin
ngunit saan ka dadalhin
ng hangin at agos?

alam mong bawat pusong nagmamahal
dumarating sa sangandaan
ngayong narito ka,
kailangang magpasya
aling landas ang susundin ng puso?
saan ka liligaya?
saan mabibigo?
saan ka tutungo?

Awit ng petiburgis
(rene agbayani)

Buhay na nagisnan puno ng ginhawa
Buhay na kumupkop,
hindi yata makakayang iwan
Buhay na kay hirap,
bagay na di ganap
Bukas o nakaraan, saan nga ba ang patutunguhan?

Koro:
May panahong magdudat’t magtanong
Ngayon ay panahon ng pagharap at pagsulong
Pagtatanong ay ‘wag lubayan
Tunggalian ay walang katapusan

Aking mga mata malinaw ang nakita
Luha ng kapatid dusa na di mapapatid
Diwa ay natalos, humayo at kumilos
Tawag ng pangangailangan ay di matatalikuran

At ang bisig ko’y handa na ngayon
At makakayang iwan ang noon

In these days of Jun Lozada and JDV3, there is a need for conscientization and politicization. In these times when people's choices are governed by "I'd rather not ask for resignation because I don't want Noli", there is a need to encourage people to take a long, hard look at the choices that face all of us.

Standing at our crossroads, each must make a choice and stand by it.

For my generation, our crossroads was highlighted by the heady days of the post-Aquino assassination and EDSA 1. These were two of the anthems of those days.

Perhaps the EDSA dos babies need to hear these words from these anthems--that we may make a choice and stand by it.

options

Gloria will not resign. . . willingly, that is. The shrewd trapo that she is, she will not leave the stage she took from Estrada in 2001 without options to protect her. . . and possibly her husband; I'm not really convinced yet that she wouldn't abandon Mike A if push comes to shove.

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

Many have been asking about options under the Constitution now that Atty. Lozano and that huge kennel at Commonwealth have totally made impeachment a travesty and a joke. Some that immediately come to mind, not necessarily in order of priority or doability:

1. Resignation (Art. VII, sec. 8)
2. Removal from office (Art. VII, sec. 8), possibly through, but not necessarily limited to, impeachment
3. Voluntary declaration by President of inability to discharge the functions of office (Art. VII, sec. 11)
4. Cabinet action through majority vote (Art. VII, sec. 11)

Section11 is what the Hyatt 10 tried and failed to do.

Sec. 11 provides: "

"Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.

Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call.

If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office."

Notably this was also what Erap tried to do before he left the Palace except that it was probably an afterthought.

A voluntary declaration that the President is unable to discharge his office under sec. 11 might be the best option for Gloria; on the other hand, if she refuses to do this, her cabinet might be encouraged to do this--similar to what the Hyatt 10 tried but failed to do.

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

What can Gloria be waiting for, many have asked-- a deal, perhaps.

A deal to shield her from any suits (again, Mike A might be incidental to the deal, she probably might just be looking to save herself.) might be what will convince her to just "cut and cut clean."

Its a difficult decision: kick her out but at the same time, not prosecute her. Hmmm, have to think about that.

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.

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.

Adjectives

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.

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.

Mendiola

Nakapanlulumo.
Ang pagkitil ng kalayaan sa
paanan ng tulay na ngayo'y
ipinangalan sa isang dakilang
mandirigma para sa kalayaan pero
noo'y kilala lamang sa isang salita--
Mendiola.

Nakakagalit!
Ang walang patumanggang karahasan
na sumalubong sa daan-daang
magbubukid na nagmartsa patungo
sa paanan ng tulay na noo'y kilala lamang
sa isang pangalan--Mendiola.

Nakakaiyak.
Ang daan-daang sugatan at ang
13 patay sa paanan ng tulay--
na syang sagisag at naging simbolo
ng lahat ng kalayaan na nakamit
matapos mapatumba
ang diktadura--ng Mendiola.

Nakakalimutan.
Enero 22, 1987.
13 patay, higit isandaan sugatan,
sa duguang kamay ng isang
pamahalaang itinayo at itinatag sa
pangako ng kalayaan at katarungan,
sa paanan ng tulay ng Mendiola.

Enero 22, 1987.
Masaker ng kalayaan at katarungan
sa paanan ng tulay ng Mendiola.

Deleting history

Seen on a shirt: "Itanong mo sa akin ano ang maganda sa Pilipinas?" (front) "Gloria, resign!" (back)
---------------
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo says now that there is no reason to celebrate EDSA Dos and orders that no celebrations be held because she wants to heal the hurts. Just like that. EDSA Dos officially enters the dustbin of history.

Never mind that it was actually the first successful coup d'etat in Philippine history.

Never mind that when it was happening, Gloria and her minions asked the people to flex their power to support her.

Never mind that it was because of EDSA Dos that she was catapulted to power.

Never mind all that, mind only that she now says it shouldn't be celebrated or remembered.

It is as if by saying that, she can delete history and make us forget.

But, no, we will not forget how Gloria came to power, on the wings of a coup; and, no, we will not forget how Gloria maintained power, on the wings of fraud.

Though you delete history, we will not forget and we will not let you forget.

Questions I find myself asking . . .

1. What do you call an ELEVATOR when it is going down?
2. What do you call an ESCALATOR when it is going down?
3. If you only have one leg, do you wear PANT or still pants?
4. If you only have one eye, do you wear A GLASS or still glasses?
5. If there is only one item, is it NEW or still news?

Wala lang, naisip ko lang.

Fr. Honti, S.J.

Good news travels fast, bad news even faster.

While at a meeting, I got texts trying to confirm if it was true that Fr. Eddie Hontiveros, S.J., Father of Philippine Liturgical Music, passed away today. I replied that I hadn't heard; since there was wifi at the place, I did what I usually do when I need news--google. I managed to confirm that, yes, Fr. Hontiveros had passed away. Here is the link to his obit.

I never got to know him personally but growing up, literally with his songs while serving at 6 am mass in high school and later on listening to his "classics" amidst the more contemporary Jesuit music, it seemed like I, and countless others who prayed to his music, knew him very well indeed. His songs had sing-ability, which counted for the great mass appeal and the easy recall; his lyrics, however, were also quite spectacular. His Filipino was very elegant and I can say I, literally, learned how to pray in Filipino because of Fr. Honti.

He will be missed but this much I know, his songs will continue to fill many a church and many a heart--bringing the faithful so much closer to God each time.

Kulang Kung Wala Sila

UP kicked off its centennial celebration on January 8 with a 100-torch relay (that's including Richard Gomez) led by a 100 year old engineer (who sounds less senile than a lot of younger alumni and who displays a great wit and sense of humor in thinking that he could hook up with his classmates; LOL), sky divers, 100 kwitis salute, bogas thundering, the lighting of 100 acacia trees and the lighting of the centennial cauldron (shades of HP and the Goblet of Fire, he he he). The night was capped by a concert led by Ryan Cayabyab and various bands and a 15 or so minute fireworks display (courtesy of Beta Epsilon).

Astig! Galing! Kewl! Pero, may kulang . . .

Since the centennial preparations kicked off, I'd been thinking about this (and apparently I wasn't alone)-- it would be a really great idea to have the most famous luntian at pula band play. Of course, anyone who has been to UP or has lived within the last twenty or so years knows that I'm referring to the 'Heads, the Eraserheads, to be exact--Ely, Marcus, Raimund and Buddy. The only hitch was that they had disbanded some time back and had gone on to individual pursuits (all of them with their own bands; some producing, all still writing music).

While we were waiting for the centennial cauldron to be lit, I was expressing that hope to the law school staff-- it would have been awesome had the boys been asked to play again, maybe for one last gig--the first and probably the last! It would have been similar to a Beatles reunion. But as the night wore on, it was not to be; I don't know if it was because no one from the centennial preparations team thought of it (or had even heard of the 'Heads) or maybe if they had thought of it, they couldn't get them together, or had lost their numbers in their rolodexes or what. But, hey, they got a 100 year old graduate to come and run the torch relay; they even got Richard Gomez to light a torch (how bogus is that?). Of course, they could get the boys back together again--for U.P., if not for anything else?

Jam is right--it would have been perfect as the kick off--for the 'Heads to sing their songs that are full of UP flavor; it would also have been a perfect tribute to a band that managed to blow the lid off the local band scene at that time and influence the local band scene for generations to come.

I remember watching them at Red Rocks (along Scout Tobias), later to become Club Dredd, when they were really struggling; barely able to play but already armed with the charm that was to become their signature. Ely's songs were already unmistakeable and the attitude was totally radical. It didn't matter then that they weren't the best musicians in the planet or that Ely wasn't the best singer, it mattered only that they were singing about things they knew in a manner that they knew about. That was what the 'Heads brought into the scene; and, of course, we (who were then following them) were proud to say, "UP 'yan!"

Listen to any of the local bands that came after them and catch the hooks of the "heads in their songs; watch the bands and see the attitude that these four put on.

The centennial tag line is "UP, ang galing mo!" Very apt indeed for the boys who simply wanted to play and sing their own songs, reflective of countless generations of iskolar ng bayan who simply forged ahead, fueled by their dreams of making a difference for their country and their people and, in the process, making an impact, influencing lives, thought and action by simply being who they were trained to be: UP graduates.

The centennial celebrations just kicked off, so there still is time.

Let me be the first to ask for it then in writing--BRING THE BOYS BACK!!! Let's have the Eraserheads reunite for one last gig (proceeds to go to endowment for the Narra residence hall restoration, he he he; Dan Calica, are you reading this? Popo Lotilla? Pete Abinales?)

Maybe Jam or others who know the 'Heads, wherever they are, can circulate this until it reaches them.

One more gig! Sa harap ni Oble--promise, ipasasara natin ang U Av at ipapasuspindi ng maaga ni Chancellor (kung sino man ang Chancellor ng Diliman sa pagtatapos ng centennial year) ang klase nang makakuha ng magandang pwesto--sabay sabay nating kantahin ang 'Pare Ko--kasama ang mura. At baka pwede nyo rin kantahin ang UP Naming Mahal--pero walang mura.