Free Speech, The Bishops, And The Justice Secretary
Written on Friday, November 28th, 2008 at 10:05 am | by Ding G. Gagelonia
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales was on nationwide radio at the crack of dawn today reacting to the latest call by two influential Catholic bishops for Filipinos to manifest their rejection of the Arroyo regime on November 30, National Heroes Day
Others interpret the remarks in the extreme, as agitation for a new people power revolution.
There are surely those with ‘people power fatigue’, with the thought that the 2010 election are drawing near, assuming the polls do take place.
Gonzales singled out the fact that the prelates even read out a new statement from a detained colonel Danilo Lim urging public action against the government of the day: “They ( Bishops Antonio Tobias and Deogracias Yniduez) are calling on people to use extra-legal efforts. “The State will defend itself. They are telling us the Constitution is written in stone “hanggang mamatay na tayong lahat (until we all die).”
The DOJ boss, a human rights lawyer in years long past, wears his hat as defender of the incumbent in such unmistakable terms that his critics alternately refer to him as “GMA’s attack dog” and “as combative a justice secretary as this country we have ever seen, one reminiscent of the Marcos era.”
To be fair, Secretary Gonzales exuded calmness as he issued his latest warning to those who might try to mimic the events in Thailand and there are indeed loud murmurs in Metro Manila’s coffee shops and hotel lobbies about “something afoot.”
The unsettled whispers are aggravated by recent bombings down south attributed to Moro rebels increased activities by communist rebels.
To this writer a particular aspect of the justice secretary’s statements stood out: “One problem is how certain people are abusing freedom of speech to agitate the people. There is a thin line between exercising free speech and inciting to rebellion. We hope what they want to happen will not take place.”
Here Mr. Raul Gonzales may be correct.
But in like perspective, the State should stop obfuscating and stone-walling calls for the truth to be revealed behind issues such as the ZTE-NBN deal, the fertilizer fund scam, enforced disappearances, and other concerns that all undermine the credibility, and legitimacy, of the government of the day..
The regime must also credibly disabuse widespread public belief that the push for charter change ultimately aims to scuttle the 2010 election extend the incumbent’s term beyond what the law allows.
Filipinos abroad may not directly feel the rising tensions here at home amd some may even be dismissive.
It will do well for them to consider what blood runs through their veins.
Filipino tayong lahat saan man tayo naroon at masarap man o hindi ang buhay natin.
(Originally posted @ At Midfield)
Tags: 2010 election, anti charter change, Catholic Church, people power- Barack Obama’s DNC Acceptance Speech
- Call For “Liberators”; Cautionary Words
- Expert damage
- Frontier Justice
- ABS-CBN Violated No Law
- House impeachment vote, a go for GMA to lead a failing state
- Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech Video November 5, 2008
- Minutes of the Justice Committee Hearing on GMA Impeachment
- Fitna, the Anti-Muslim Film
- The Speech That Brings Hope
Comments
75 Responses to “Free Speech, The Bishops, And The Justice Secretary”
Leave a Reply
Current Events, News, and Press
- Manny Villar Resigns, Juan Ponce Enrile is New Senate President
Senator Manny Villar has resigned as Senate President. Immediately, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was nominated then declared New Senate President. Read More...
- The Catholic-Muslim Joint Declaration
Three days of talks at the Vatican that included scholars from The Islamic and Catholic faith, finally concluded with a joint declaration. Here is the full text of The Catholic and Muslim Joint Declaration. Read More...
- Change.gov The Official Website of President-elect Barack Obama
To those who wish to dive deep into what President-elect Barack Obama has in store as his presidency nears, you can go visit Change.gov, his official website introducing the reader to his policies during his presidency. Read More...
- Obama assembles White House team
Barack Obama has started forming his administration by asking Rahm Emanuel, a former adviser to President Clinton, to be his chief-of-staff. Read More...
- Pimentel cautions colleagues against obstructing probe of Bolante
Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, (PDP-Laban) today cautioned his colleagues against blocking the reopening of the Senate's investigation into the fertilizer fund scam that could expose them to suspicion that they may be unwittingly covering up the scandal. Read More...
- Full Text of President-Elect Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech
Here is the full text of President-Elect Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech. Read More...
- Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech Video November 5, 2008
This is the full video of President Elect Barack Obama's Presidential Victory Speech. As November 4th gave way to November 5th, America heralded in a historic moment, by electing, for the first time in history, an African-American as President of The United States of America. Read More...
- A Global Market Meltdown
The world financial system is teetering on the "brink of systemic meltdown", the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned in Washington. Read More...
- Full Draft Copy of The Proposed Bailout Plan
This is the Full Draft Copy of the proposed bailout plan that was struck down just yesterday, and is estimated to cost The United States government, $700 billion or upwards to $1 trillion. Read More...
- Chavit Singson Is New Deputy National Security Adviser
MANILA, Philippines—After a yearlong absence from the political scene, former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson is back in the corridors of power. Read More...
Archive for Current Events »
- Manny Villar Resigns, Juan Ponce Enrile is New Senate President
-
Subscribe to Filipino Voices!
-
FULL TEXT
Hello po. Medyo off-topic na medyo hindi rin. We’d like to solicit FV support for the Blog Prayer Brigade for the Future 2010 President of the Philippines. Currently, there’s a good exchange of perspectives and show of support from bloggers at http://utoysaves.wordpress.com. Hope you can join us, for God and country.
That’s great. Do email our Editor-Not-Chief, Nick at tingog.com to give him a heads up
So Ding, are you taking a position on this matter? Or are you just on reporter mode here?
Palagay mo senor? Am sure you have that “solved.” It’s “simple” to you as always? No link to any of your past “brilliant” pieces. That’s not like you, bro. Merry Christmas
I’m not really in a position to speculate on what postion you take on this matter Ding, as I’m not in the business of reading minds.
But if you can’t be bothered to articulate this postion of yours for a genuinely curious person, well, that’s your prerogative of course.
Then again, life’s too short not to have an opinion, isn’t it?
Ok, Ben. My take on this is Mr. Gonzales does a disservice to his president and this country whenever he perorates in his usual arrogant and condescending tone. Methinks he betrays his and the administration’s regard for Filipinos, their own countrymen, as sheep or worse, rats, to be led to towards national penury. GMA like most of our presidents held so much promise when they were ‘enthroned’.
But they all succumbed to the adage that power corrupts, AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.
So our role in the news media, AND THOSE ENGAGED IN PUNDITRY OF THE NATIONALIST KIND must, I think, humbly, comfort the unjustly afflicted, and afflict the comfortably corrupt.
So there. Does these satisfy your parameters, given your backhanded and, I think, derisive reference to me as a ‘reporter’.
Thanks Ding.
Not to be a pain, but I’m still not entirely clear on where you stand.
Firstly, when you say “GMA like most of our presidents held so much promise when they were ‘enthroned’” this to me begs the question:
What will make the next president different then?
Second, when you, speaking for those who are “engaged in punditry of the nationalist kind” say that the goal here os to “comfort the unjustly afflicted”, what exactly is the nature of this comfort extended by these “nationalist” pundits?
Just further extending my curiosity a bit, sir.
Sorry to disappoint your ‘inquisitive’ nuancing of your comment re this post. This is as far as this writer will engage such an esteemed ‘webmaster such as yourself.
Sorry to hear that Ding. And here I was thinking that pertinent questions are given the time of day here.
Reminds me of a favourite letters I recieved from one of the visitors of my site:
Full letter here.
At last, one of those famous links.
Re your “pertinent questions are given the time of day here..”
Of course they are di ba naman bro. Note however the word “pertinent”. What I am demuring from are your pa-inosente query. Unawa ko ang layunin ng iyong tanon ‘tol.
Dude, and I thought being a “reporter” supposedly makes one objective.
You are allowing your perception of moi to colour your regard for what are really pertinent questions, and letting your speculation on my layunin’s get in the way what could be an interesting discussion.
Take out how you feel about the messenger and re-visit the questions. Then tell me if they are unfair questions.
It’s your prerogative to demur, mate. But that begs yet another question:
Why publish your opinions (if you have one, that is) in a facility that opens them to commentary (such as a blog) if you are not up to the task of stepping up to responding to pertinent challenges?
Funny that we’d egg our leaders to respond to us when we ourselves cannot respond to those who egg us.
Classy.
“you are not up to the task of stepping up to responding to pertinent challenges?”
Read back bro. I already gave you my take.
To recap:
“Mr. Gonzales does a disservice to his president and this country whenever he perorates in his usual arrogant and condescending tone. Methinks he betrays his and the administration’s regard for Filipinos, their own countrymen, as sheep or worse, rats, to be led to towards national penury. GMA like most of our presidents held so much promise when they were ‘enthroned’.
But they all succumbed to the adage that power corrupts, AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.”
Read back to this one as well, mate. I had a couple more.
Ding, if it’s any consolation to the two fighting bishops who have called for the rejection of the Arroyo regime through extra-constitutional means, if necessary, I wish to share the following excerpt from what I’ve posted in Pinoy-rin during President Estrada’s impeachment.
- - - - - - - - - -
The Impeachment provisions of the 1987 Constitution has assumed a graver dimension when the term of office of the (incumbent) president was fixed to a six year term without re election. With re election after a term of four years under the 1935 Constitution or with the process of withdrawal of confidence in the Prime Minister (the equivalent of the President under the 1935 Constitution) by the National Assembly under the 1973 Constitution, the political accountability of the President through the electoral process or the peoples’ representative was then better assured.
There has been a reasonable apprehension that the presidential term of six years without re election fixed by the 1987 Constitution could result in the country being stuck with a bad president or a president with bad programs or policies. But such is the risk (in electing a president) taken by the people who may not remove him during the term thus fixed except by impeachment. There is thus more cogent reason anchored on fundamental ground that when the conduct of the President constitutes “culpabale violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust,” impeachment as a constitutional remedy must be sought with greater zeal and exigency.
The Constitution does not leave to the whim of the Legislature this check and balance mechanism called impeachment. The duty to impeach is at the core of the governmental system established in the Constitution. It is not intended to be politicalized according to the will of the dominant legislative party. The impeachment process as an earnest obligation on the part of Congress is akin to the duty of the Supreme Court to say what the law is in appropriate cases brought before it. When the ground therefore for impeachment exists against a president, Congress is under solemn obligation to stand in for all the people and remove him whose continuation in office poses a serious injury to the Republic. In this context, when the people’s alter ego fails the people, the people have the right to use extra-constitutional means in self defense. This is the basis of People Power.
x x x
The purpose of impeaching a president is to override his election. It therefore assumes a political dimension beyond mere legality. As a legal process, the procedure and the grounds for impeachment as provided in the Constitution must be complied with. Otherwise, an impeachment is no more than a coup d’etat, albeit a constitutional one. The political legitimacy of an impeachment process thus rests in the justification of what in effect would be the annulment of the election of the impeached president. Hence, in order for such an impeachment to be both legitimate and politically correct, not only that the legal grounds for the impeachment must be proved, it must also be shown that the president no longer deserves the election he won.
Like any democratically elected president, President Estrada has been elected to lead the nation and serve as a symbol of national unity and stability. As such a symbol the people look up to him as the national embodiment to inspire confidence in the authority and legitimacy of the political system; he is also expected to marshal his influence within the system in order to initiate the public policies he promised he would do when elected president; and as chief executive, the people conferred in him the trust that he has the competence to supervise the conduct of the government and the economy, and in time of crisis, to reassure and calm the citizenry.
Since an impeachment is more of a political than a legal process, the prosecution has the burden of proving not only the guilt of President Estrada in any of the impeachment charges leveled against him but also, more importantly, the failure in any of his roles and responsibilities delineated above as the people’s elected leader. Such guilt and failure must be fairly ascertained and manifested to leave no room for doubt that the people, through their representatives in the legislature, has the right to overturn their own mandate before the presidential term of office ends.
It is likely then the Narvasa team will try to reduce the impeachment contest to a court trial where its expertise is well known. On the other hand, the prosecution, as a countervailing move, must be able to steer the process to accord it with the aura of an election challenge even within the confines of the impeachment proceedings. This is so because what will transpire in the hall of the Philippine Senate will be broadcast live to the nation as if it were the trial of the century. Merely showing, for example, that the President is guilty of “graft and corruption” as defined by statute may not be sufficient. After all the public perception is that none of his jurors or prosecutors is as clean as a saint. For the impeachment proceeding to succeed, or, at least, to serve as a catalyst for the civil society to react accordingly in the event of a decision on purely partisan lines, the prosecution must be able to show that the impeachable conduct of President Estrada is such as to make him simply “unviable” to continue serving as the leader of the nation and that his continuance in office poses a clear and present threat to the Republic.
Thanks sir Abe.
My worry is how the very impeachment process has been prostituted to suit the ends of a discredited regime that’s about to expire.
When such legal process is destroyed in much the same way that the credibility of the judiciary is damaged WHILE THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ARE USED TO INSTILL STATE FEAR and enforce disapperances, are certain segments of society not forced to consider extra-legal options. This is what can tear our our body politic apart, I submit.
@abe
great write up! i’d like to ask some clarifying questions:
“Merely showing, for example, that the President is guilty of “graft and corruption” as defined by statute may not be sufficient.”
… and you further say that it is both a political process and a legal one throughout the piece.
So my question is, isn’t the best, truest way to determine whether the people’s trust has been violated, is whether the president is guilty of graft, corruption, treason, and all the other impeachable offenses?
In fact, i’ll state my confusion in a stronger way: the legal way is the ONLY way to do so. The election assumes that the president is given the confidence of the people, conditional on the president NOT violating the law. How is it that representatives can decide, and disregard any intention of finding guilt or innocence, and just rule on/junk the impreachment ONLY because of POLITICAL reasons? OR how can they decide for the people that the person they voted for is no longer ‘viable’?
Isn’t this the foundational assumption of direct election?
Lastly, isn’t this how EDSA 2 started? that the senators at the time were NOT interested in the guilt or innocence of the charges. They were NOT allowed to show evidence for NO good reason, other than they political allies. Hence, the walkout, etc…
so i’m just not sure why we want to encourage the interpretation that impreachment is both legal and political. Its the political side that gets us into trouble. Should it not be legal as much as possible, and try to discourage politicalization everytime it appears?
But if we were in a parliamentary system, then sure, the PM position its 100% political, if only because PM’s aren’t directly elected, and they hold the position only as far as they hold the majority.
thanks!
BISHOPS, PRIEST, POLITICIANS, MEDIA, MILITARY, PNP, GOV`T OFFICIALS, NPA/CPP/NDF,MILITANTE….
parepareho lang yang mga yan..puro may pansariling interes..at puro pera lang ang nasa isip…KURAKOT IN THEIR OWN WAYS…
siguradong marami na naman taga san juan pupunta sa rally na yan…at samahan mo pa ng mga alipores ni binay na taga makati…
sayang..ang daming magagaling dito sa blog na to…pero di naman nagkakaintindihan…watak watak.. kaya wala din mangyayari hehehe
Abe, the above passage and specifically the phrase I reproduce in bold is the crux of what you assert.
So let me ask you (considering that Ding here, after having posted this blog seems disinclined to answer my child-like questions):
Give an example of what you would consider to be a “serious injury to the Republic”.
This goes back to what I demonstrated in an early FV blog article Who cares if Gloria is president after 2010? where I pose the question:
How big a factor is a President, really in terms of influencing the course of progress (or lack of it) in the Philippines?
And thus…
… puts a bit of perspective on the amount of attention we put into something that history has amply shown is UNLIKELY to make a whole world of difference to the Average Pinoy Schmoe.
I call it lack of people power imagination. Pathetic!
Isn’t it ironic.
The young people are using prayers while the top leaders of the men of cloth who teach these young people are advocating for exta-legal means.
it is a sobering thought for all filipinos that myanmar has sentenced a comedian to 59 years in prison for the “grave offense” of criticizing the government. i wouldn’t want that to happen even to a bishop.
The human rights lawyer in the Justice Secretary sees into the romanticism of the prelates and their memories of how highly-regarded they were in the immediate weeks after PeoplePower. [And I thought I read an MLQ3 sentence that PeoplePower is an instrument whose time has passed. If he didn’t write it, then he should have.]
one of those fears against the national police/military is that there is another Trillanes in their ranks ready to seek the quick path to a congressman- or senator-position by… uhhmmmm…. violating the laws of the country and the Constitution as he seeks justification-kuno by implementing-kjuno the will-kuno of the people as voiced by some prelate or blogger.
Abe’s words may be attractive - The purpose of impeaching a president is to override his election. — but Abe Margallo is simply flat out wrong.
The impeachment of a president as it is written in the USA constitution (and as copied into the Philippine Constitution) is to remove a sitting president who has lost the ability to lead because of an impeachable offense.
The 1/3-vote of lower house (one-third, not majority vote) is to demonstrate that maybe the sitting president has lost the confidence of enough elected representatives of the population. Then the Senate vote has much more the legalese imprimatur on it.
GABBY: So my question is, isn’t the best, truest way to determine whether the people’s trust has been violated, is whether the president is guilty of graft, corruption, treason, and all the other impeachable offenses?
ABE: Yes. In fact, I have suggested this many times that the President should opt to lower her guard and confront the accusations against her such as re the Hello Garci tapes where she had already confessed to a “lapse in judgment” and hence the burden of going forward shifted to her.
And also, if the tapes were really “spliced” so that the voice in the tape which sounded like hers was not really hers, to clear her name once and for all and proceed to govern the nation without that baggage, isn’t it more conformable to her claim of innocence if she waived for instance the admissibility defense and let the truth come out in the impeachment proceeding which, as you said, is “the best ant truest way to determine whether the people’s trust has been violated”?
GABBY:. . . the legal way is the ONLY way to do so. The election assumes that the president is given the confidence of the people, conditional on the president NOT violating the law. How is it that representatives can decide, and disregard any intention of finding guilt or innocence, and just rule on/junk the impeachment ONLY because of POLITICAL reasons? OR how can they decide for the people that the person they voted for is no longer ‘viable’?
Lastly, isn’t this how EDSA 2 started? that the senators at the time were NOT interested in the guilt or innocence of the charges. They were NOT allowed to show evidence for NO good reason, other than they (were) political allies. Hence, the walkout, etc…
so i’m just not sure why we want to encourage the interpretation that impeachment is both legal and political. It’s the political side that gets us into trouble? Should it not be legal as much as possible, and try to discourage politicalization everytime it appears?
Isn’t this the foundational assumption of direct election?
ABE: These questions are a bit confusing to me but I’ll try to answer them the best I can.
First, impeachment is strictly not a judicial process but apparently for administrative efficiency it tries to mimic well-ordered court proceedings and in fact congressional rules allow the supplementary application of Rules of Court to impeachment.
The capital punishment in impeachment is no higher than removal from office; and when it comes to elected impeachable public officials impeachment is seen as an “un-election process” and hence essentially political (although with only the people’s representatives voting).
In political decisions, the question that the decision-makers attempt to answer is: Is the choice made the best choice? This is the test of wisdom.
In a judicial decision, the question that judge or the jury answer is: Is it reasonable to adjudge the accused guilty of the offense charged (or does the evidence preponderate against the innocence of the person indicted)? This is the test of reasonableness.
I believe that in impeachment cases involving the president and the vice president, the jury (the Senate) should apply both tests although, to me, the controlling one is the test of wisdom. This is so because when it comes to the impeachment of a president, for example, not only that a sitting one is being un-elected if found guilty but a new president is also in effect being elected to assume the seat that’s vacated.
If the choice made by the people’s representatives is unwise, then they will be made directly responsible to the people when the next electoral reckoning involves them. Or if the choice made is not only unwise but perceived to be of great evil such that it poses as a clear and present danger to the State, then the people has the right to resort to “people power” to immediately remedy the evil.
JUWAN: sayang..ang daming magagaling dito sa blog na to…pero di naman nagkakaintindihan…watak watak.. kaya wala din mangyayari hehehe
ABE: I think FV is a discursive forum, as such we don’t always speak with one mind or voice. What’s important is we are able to communicate our ideas or concerns subject of course to probing eye of those who are not of like persuasion. It is however even more important if once in a while we also come to a consensus or two and act on them.
BENIGNo: WHO CARES IF GLORIA ARROYO IS STILL LEADER OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AFTER 2010?
As pointed out above,
1) President Arroyo (as President Estrada then) has been elected to lead the nation and serve as a symbol of national unity and stability. As such a symbol the people look up to her as the national embodiment to inspire confidence in the authority and legitimacy of the political system;
2) She is also expected to marshal her influence within the system in order to initiate the public policies she promised she would do when elected president; and
3) As chief executive, the people conferred in her the trust that she has the competence to supervise the conduct of the government and the economy, and in time of crisis, to reassure and calm the citizenry.
If President Arroyo has failed to perform the foregoing roles, she is a danger now to the State and she will continue to be such a threat if she remains to be the leader of the country after 2010.
BLACKSHAMA: I call it lack of people power imagination. Pathetic!
CAT: Isn’t it ironic. The young people are using prayers while the top leaders of the men of cloth who teach these young people are advocating for extra-legal means.
ABE: Would you guys consider the FV medium as a more imaginative exercise of People Power?
BENCARD: it is a sobering thought for all filipinos that myanmar has sentenced a comedian to 59 years in prison for the “grave offense” of criticizing the government. i wouldn’t want that to happen even to a bishop.
ABE: Bencard, you are not drawing a parallel between the Burma government and the Arroyo government, are you?
MIKE: The 1/3-vote of lower house (one-third, not majority vote) is to demonstrate that maybe the sitting president has lost the confidence of enough elected representatives of the population. Then the Senate vote has much more the legalese imprimatur on it.
ABE: Mike, very “attractive” words, but I’m sorry do they even make sense?
nagugulantang talaga ako sa galing ng mga pinagsasabi ninyo…ang gagaling nyo…ang lulupit ng mga post ninyo..sayang nga lang dahil
yun na lang yata ang magagawa ninyo…magpost dito, magtalo, magpatalinuhan, magpagalingan…malapit na ang 2010 election…sigurado ako pagtapos ng election andito pa din kayo..nagpapatalinuhan, nagtatalo, nagdedebate, nagdidiscusion…
ang pagkakaiba nga lang…di na si GMA ang pulutan at topic…ibang presidente na…pero Pangurakot, Pagnanakaw at Pandaraya pa din ang PHD nya…
AT yun ay dahil…kayong mga magagaling at matatalino…puro na lang blog ang ginawa nyo…d nyo naisasagawa ang mga sinasabi nyo.
sayang…wala na talaga pagasa ang mamayang pilipino…daming matatalino na pilipino…watak watak naman…di magkaisa…lahat magagaling…lahat leader…walang gustong follower…bwehehehe
no, abe, just reminding you and the likes of you that we are all so lucky that we have a governmental system that is so unlike that of myanmar. but if you guys have your way, who knows what your alternative “new order” has in store for us?
With a rubber stamp House and a potentially subservient SC, isn’t RP en route to becoming another Myanmar?
biro mo Juan D Bobo Naisip mo yang pinagdadadak dak mo inspite and despite ng kabobohan mo? Bwahahaha… Baka mahuli ka ng amo mo! Hehehehe… Isara mo na yang computer na gamit mo. BWAHAHAHAHA TANGA!!!!
@Abe
thanks! you say:
“First, impeachment is strictly not a judicial process but apparently for administrative efficiency it tries to mimic well-ordered court proceedings…
The capital punishment in impeachment is no higher than removal from office; and when it comes to elected impeachable public officials impeachment is seen as an “un-election process” and hence essentially political (although with only the people’s representatives voting).”
so in your view it IS political [or what you define as political]. i see. the judicial process is used for efficiency. But i dont think you mean just that coz later you say:
“In political decisions, the question that the decision-makers attempt to answer is: Is the choice made the best choice? This is the test of wisdom.
In a judicial decision, the question that judge or the jury answer is: Is it reasonable to adjudge the accused guilty of the offense charged (or does the evidence preponderate against the innocence of the person indicted)? This is the test of reasonableness.
I believe that in impeachment cases involving the president and the vice president, the jury (the Senate) should apply both tests although, to me, the controlling one is the test of wisdom. This is so because when it comes to the impeachment of a president, for example, not only that a sitting one is being un-elected if found guilty but a new president is also in effect being elected to assume the seat that’s vacated.”
Which i think is a succinct way of describing your views! thanks!
But my take home point of your comment is: the standard (of culpability) between legal and political is different. Would it be right to say that the political standard is the higher standard in which to pass? Wisdom is harder than reasonable ness…
1) i’d ask if this is a standard understand of the impeachment process? What books, websites have this interpretation. If you could mention some, i’d love to read it. Specifically, in these other interpretations of impeachment, is the standard also that of ‘best choice’/wisdom?, or is it mere, ‘did the president do what has charged, and do we have evidence of the kind needed to convict’? not being a political scientist, but having taken a course years ago, i always thought that elections are inviolate, and that they can be reversed only under certain definable conditions, and not for reasons of paternalism by the legislature. (Paternalism — i know better than you, i know what is wise, so i get to make the decisions)…
2) also, its interesting that you justified the test of wisdom, via the vice-president. I guess you mean that if the VP sucks more than the president, then the legislature should rethink impeachment? Again, the presumption of direct election is that a vice-president is supposed to be the successor. The VP already has the TRUST of the people as expressed in his/her winning the election. But in your sentence, you seem to again argue that the legislature can USURP that trust if it so decides. Again, this is weird to me. The legislature cant decide impeachment based on the mere identity of the vicepresident, or what it thinks of the VP.
… (1) and (2) assumes that wisdom, as you seem to define it, exists in practice, but …
3) It seems to me that the claim of wisdom is, in practice, easily captured by baser interests. There is a huge literature on politicians and SELF-INTEREST, and in this literature, a POLITICAL DECISION is not necessarily based the greater good (yet to be defined), but by allegiances and pay-outs.
In practice, the standard of wisdom is in fact more LAX than the standard of REASONABLENESS?
This is where i was coming from. While we would like our politicians to “RISE ABOVE” and be “WISE”, and be “STATESMEN” (all these caps terms yet undefined, but we kinda know what these mean…), in truth, we can’t help but be wary that their decisions are guided by baser interests. So i thought it would be better(wiser?) if we could at least enforce an objective (as opposed to subjective) standard of legality and evidence.
Abe, here is my question again:
Give an example of what you would consider to be a “serious injury to the Republic”.
I can’t find any such “injury” of consequence in any of the three points you cited above.
And if we can’t find such evidence of “injury”, how then do we answer this more fundamental question:
How big a factor is a President, really in terms of influencing the course of progress (or lack of it) in the Philippines?
Enlighten us please…
Abe… you are wrong. The Philippines is NOT en route to being a Myanmar.
Abe is correct. The Philippines IS en route to being a Myanmar.
There is only one solution: impeachment.
See you at Cafe Intermezzo
impeachment is a political process and not a legal one. it is an override of the political will and the machinery is put in motion by the members of a political branch, Congres.
no principle, morality, or dececency is involved. only party alliances, loyalty and political convenience or money.
what makes it look like an issue of “clear present and danger issue” to save the republic as posited by Abe is the ability of our politicians, aligned with equally corrupt mainstream media to comouflage their own moral purefaction as a clamor for honesty in governance and the demand of the poor for work and for food.
as if removing a corrupt official and replacing it with their own kind will address the issue of “morality and honesty” in the government service. our politicians and our judges have been screwing up the people all the time and you can only wonder in amazement how they can put up all this charade and to entertain our poor and hungry people with this cheap political act all in the name of “saving” the Republic..
abe, if going the route of myanmar, but under a benevolent, enlightened leader, is the only solution to philippines’ varied problems, maybe that would be worth considering as an alternative to a system that allows a chaotic society where the sitting leader is hounded 24/7 and undermined by selfish interests claiming to serve the “people”.
the problem is, where can we find such a leader? at least with gma, we already know the worst of what she is capable of, or do we?
Where can we find such a leader?
Eh sino pa ba? Di si Kuya M!!!
Are you ready? Let’s do it.
Edsa IV: A new Hope!!!
Our venue has been changed to Cafe Intermezzo
See you there.
First, we changed the Leaders. Seems like it didn’t work.
Next, let us change the System. Let’s see if this would work.
If this does not, let’s change the People.
Go Cha-Cha!
Pero nakita mo na ba ang kagandahan, katalasan, at katapangan ng sulat ni Kuya M?
Ang galing talaga niya sumulat. Kahit hindi mo maintidihan sa dinadaming pakembot-kembot at halo-halong styla, alam mong magaling kasi … madami!
Kulang na lang ay tapatan niya ito ng kilos.
Huwag ka mag-alala, alam natin ay hindi siya hanggang salita lang.
Malapit na po. Mga kapatid, siya na ata ang ating matagal nang hinihintay na tagapagligtas!
Pagusapan natin ito sa Cafe Intermezzo
Erstwhile lapdog JDV is also calling for a People Power ouster of GMA.
Pang-kontra kulam kina Catholic Bishops Tobias at Yniguez, are Iglesia Ni Cristo head Manalo, El-Shaddai head Bro. Mike Velarde, and the Couples for Christ who are still sympathetic with PGMA.
And GMA has still the support of Pinoy kamao Manny Pacquiao, VP Noli De Castro, Senators Bong Revilla and Lito Lapid, Gov. Vilma Santos, etc.
Now pray tell me Impeach GMA, how could you remove PGMA with the popular Usual Suspects behind her???
Let’s go Cha Cha!
Pinas as Myanmar under lacking-backbone Kuya M will not work.
Pinas as Myanmar disciplined under Ping Lacson — much more promising.
now Pinas led with “direct-line-to-the-Heavens” Manalo (as long as he is willing to do battle with the MILF) may be an interesting Myanmar-model. Question — will Pinoys of Visayas and Mindanao agree to be led by this particular leader with his comm-line to the heavens that does not “party-line” with the Vatican?
magaling magsulat si kuya M…unfortunately sa pagsusulat lang sya effective…wala din syang magagawang kabutihan para sa mamayang pilipino…
isa pa nakikipagkaibigan at nakikipolitika kabalikat ang mga kurakot at magnanakaw din na politiko…hindi ako magtataka kung bakit…pilit na binabangon ni MLQ3 ang kanyang apelyido..dugong politiko…dugong kurakot din sa katapusan…
people power? baka opposition power…pinangungunahan ng kurakot na politiko, hipocritong obispo, walang kwentang makaliwa, nakakabwiset na mga militante at mga bayarang taga eskwater…bwehehehehehe
Phil Manila,
Eto ang plano. Mag-blog. Mag-text. Magtipon sa Starbucks. Mag-rally. Manggulo lang ba. Pero kailangan laging tayong nakangiti sa kamera
At huwag kalimutan kumuha ng maraming letrato para sa ating mga blog para lalo tayong yumaman sa mga google kliks na yan.
Hindi natin pwedeng hintayin ang eleksyon kasi tanga ang mga tao. Malungkot pero ganun eh. Demokratiko kuno pero kapag natalo, siyempre may dahilan. Nadaya o kaya palpak ang konstitusyon.
Sa totoo lang, dapat mga bloggers na lang ang dapat boboto. Tayo lang kasi ang matalinong makakapili para sa congresso at senado.
Pagusapan natin ito sa Cafe Intermezzo
Pinas as Myanmar under Kuya M will be like the United States under Thomas Jefferson.
Kaya isipin mo: pinoy Jefferson tapos may blog pa! Ang galing ano.
Pagusapan natin ito sa Cafe Intermezzo
Juwan,
Huwag kang ganyan. Mahal ko si Kuya M.
Kung personalan na, di magsuntukan na lang tayo sa Cafe Intermezzo
@Impeach GMA,
Hindi pwedeng bloggers na lang and boboto Bro, may blog na rin sina Boy Abunda and Kris Aquino. Delikado tayo sa Wowowee crowd.
Puwede sama natin ang mag elite na may YM at Google Talk. Ayos di ba?
Sugod mga miron! Let’s do Cha-Cha!
Pinoys are too much of limpdicks to be “like Myanmar”. Even our so-called “revolutions” are mediocre.
Kuya Ben,
Ikaw, malapit ka na rin ma-impeach.
Kung gusto mo mag-appeal, punta ka sa meeting namin sa Cafe Intermezzo ha?
@ benign0 on November 29th, 2008 4:59 pm
i was moved to reply your question… To what EXTENT does the president affect outcomes?
corruption is waste, which can be re-allocated to other needs. Also, a lack of trust in an administration can create uncertainty, which affects markets, investment decisions. etc…
it can also affect lower level political decisions, which is now incentivized to act to ingratiate itself to the current administration, to the detriment of fulfiling its duties.
ITS NOT the most important thing, but yeah, when the president is bad, it can be a binding constraint..
¨Huwag kang ganyan. Mahal ko si Kuya M.
Kung personalan na, di magsuntukan na lang tayo sa Cafe Intermezzo
¨
typical blogger…matapang sa mga blogs..dahil hindi makikilala…
kung gusto mo talga makipagsuntukan magpakilala ka…kung trip mo magpagulpi para sa idol mong si kuya M mo…i doubt it kung si kuya M mo ay makikipagsuntukan para sayo bwhehehehe…
[…] way, trivializing the Filipino people’s earnest clamor for truth and justice and ignoring the continuing injury Gloria-Macapagal Arroyo has been inflicting with impunity on the failing state of the nation. Tags: […]
Fair enough.
But then how much of your money are you willing to bet that the Philippines will prosper under a GOOD president?
And, say, we do manage to find one good president amongst our lot of 90 million. How much can be done in six years?
Yeah, Lets go for Chacha.
not much, benigno, unless the “good” president becomes a dictator with a subservient legislature and judiciary, plus an obedient and meek media and a submissive, loyal and fanatic military as well as national police.
perhaps he/she can transform a good-size island into something like alcatraz where all the undesirables, misfits, addicts, and enemies of the government can be thrown into to fend for themselves and with no way out.
That hypothetical island you describe Bencard, sounds a bit like the history of a great nation down under as well as other colonies (now great nations in their own right) where misfits once journeyed to or were exiled to.
For now, it seems here that people like Abe who presume to lecture us about “democracy” probably themselves need to re-visit what democracy is REALLY all about; and that is LIVING WITH THE CHOICES OF THE MAJORITY.
This tale of the two Bens is interesting. One roots for dictatorship in the Philippines, the other sings paean to democracy and exhorts that we “(live) with the choices of the majority”; one thinks Gloria is the salvation of the nation and the other swears she is dispensable (not “a big factor”) to attain the same end. But “vibes sila” anyway, their common denominator, it seems, is contempt for the “schmoes” and the “misfits” of their own kind.
I was holding my breath as I read this comment, waiting for a point to be made.
Sadly it disappoints.
Oh well…
abe, i don’t “root” for dictatorship and never will. all i’m trying to say is that our country can never prosper without national discipline, respect for authority and the institutions, and knee-jerk hostility to whoever is at the helm. it seems that the libertarian aspects of democracy are insidiously being used to destroy the system and bring down the country in the process. as i always say, a strong people doesn’t need a “messiah”. a weak people needs a strong man/woman “dictator”.
ideally, democracy is about living with the choices of the majority. but the flaw in philippine electoral process and the”street politics” can override the popular sentiments of the majority and because of these flaws, you end up living with the choices of the raucous minority.
some say that election is not really about the process of allowing the majority to make their choice known. it is only giving them the semblance of being allowed to make that choice.
i don’t “root” for dictatorship and never will . . .
unless the “good” president becomes a dictator with a subservient legislature and judiciary, plus an obedient and meek media and a submissive, loyal and fanatic military as well as national police?
anyways, Bencard, national discipline is achievable in the Philippines if the people ultimately succeed in disciplining their leaders. We let the Marcoses off scot-free, the Estradas got a slap on their wrists and Erap is now thinking of a comeback. Isn’t it about time we think seriously of letting the gavel fall, and fall heavily on the Arroyos?
[…] that, Abe, is the answer to my question I repeat here and here that you seem utterly incapable of answering in a straightforward manner (which I repeat as follows […]
firstly, you should define the term “people”, abe. secondly, you should determine WHO would lead them to the promised land. a multitude of 90 million souls could not act on its own as one - they have different ideas as to how, when, why, and where to skin the cat. leaving them to their own devices would certainly lead to chaos and anarchy.
but isn’t it just the classic communist strategy (ruse) to take over after creating chaos and anarchy? to a communist and other totalitarian ideologies, a nation wracked with lawlessness, economic miseries, and failed institutions, is ripe for the picking.
Bencard, bringing up the communist bogey when running out of better ideas did not work for Mac Cain and Palin. It’s not gonna work for Arroyo either.
Abe,
i definitely agree that this time we need to make sure the arroyos are punished for their misdeeds.
the culture of impunity that we now see and disdain can be traced to our default - as a people and as a nation - to sufficiently punish the marcoses for their abuses while in power. imeldefic is still strutting around, feigning innocence. the marcoses and their cronies literally has gotten away with murder.
this is the model that the arroyos now (and the estradas before that) are emulating.
abe, forget arroyo, mccain or palin. it has nothing to do with any of them. i know you are the “expert” on that strategy i was talking about.
btw,the jury is still out, abe. heaven forbid, mccain and palin may have the last laugh.
Why, you are not dreaming of a run-off election of some sort, are you, Bencard?
[…] way, trivializing the Filipino people’s earnest clamor for truth and justice and ignoring the continuing injury Gloria-Macapagal Arroyo has been inflicting with impunity on the failing state of the […]
no abe, i was referring to the “change you can believe in” mantra. the drama has not even started but from the looks of things, it’s back to the past. let’s see how it plays out.