Weekend Fun 35: Miriam D. Santiago is Cute

Among the highlights of the (former CJ) Corona impeachment trial were the "cover thy ears" photos of Atty. Aguirre while Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago was speaking. Miriam is cute.

Meanwhile, more fun about wheelchair.

Quote: High government officials' favorite vehicles are SUVs. But when in deep trouble, they take... the wheelchair.

Happy weekend.
--------

See also:
Weekend fun 15: Political jokes, March 12, 2012
Weekend fun 18. Gloria Arroyo cartoons, June 11, 2011
Weekend fun 19: Sic o Clock News, June 19, 2011 
Weekend Fun 25: "I Will Survive" by Gloria Arroyo, January 08, 2012
Weekend Fun 26: Jokes in PH Elections, January 15, 2012
Weekend Fun 29: Corona Impeachment Cartoons, March 02, 2012
Weekend Fun 31: Filipino Shop Signs, March 17, 2012
Weekend Fun 34: Greece to Become a Social Network, May 19, 2012

Corona Trial 7: Public Distrust and Public Choice Theory

It's over for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Renato Corona. The impeachment move by the House of Representatives last December has been affirmed by the Senate yesterday in a 20-3 vote in favor of conviction.

In a number of facebook discourses among my friends, I advanced the position that the term "betrayal of public trust" by the CJ may not be appropriate and not correct after all. Some people, me included, never trusted the CJ (and many other high government officials) in the first place. So there was no betrayal of my trust, of our trust. Rather, there was only confirmation of my distrust, of public distrust, of the CJ.

While I have been following recently the impeachment trial, I have no hope or illusion that a conviction or acquittal of the CJ will result in the shrinking of government powers and expand individual freedom. What I only wished is that the Senate judgment will result in more transparency in government and hence, in less abuses, robbery and wastes in government. Of course between choosing conviction or acquittal, I wished that the CJ would be convicted, and I was not disappointed. I have observed from various sources how the shady character of the CJ would result in more rule of men, not more rule of law, culture in this country.

On the thesis that no major changes in government policy towards shrinking its powers over the individuals and ordinary citizens, I like this (second to the last) concluding paragraph on Public Choice theory by William F. Shughart II:

One key conclusion of public choice is that changing the identities of the people who hold public office will not produce major changes in policy outcomes. Electing better people will not, by itself, lead to much better government. Adopting the assumption that all individuals, be they voters, politicians, or bureaucrats, are motivated more by self-interest than by public interest evokes a Madisonian perspective on the problems of democratic governance. Like that founding father of the American constitutional republic, public choice recognizes that men are not angels and focuses on the importance of the institutional rules under which people pursue their own objectives. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself” (Federalist, no. 51).

(h/t  http://prudentinvestornewsletters.blogspot.com/)

Government and governors controlling the governed, administrators controlling the administered, is a big magnet for the shrewd and dictators among the people, to join government.

I hope that the next CJ of the highest court will have a deep appreciation of the dangers of BIG government and big powers that are currently on its hands, and more powers being invented and concocted to further regulate, restrict and prohibit more  actions by individuals unless there are explicit permits and registrations from the government
---------

See also:
Corona Trial 1: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice, December 13, 2011
Corona Trial 2: Impeachment for Beginners, December 14, 2011
Weekend Fun 29: Corona Impeachment Cartoons, March 02, 2012 
Corona Trial 6: Miscellaneous Opinions on the Trial, May 28, 2012

Corona Trial 6: Miscellaneous Opinions on the Trial

Later today or tomorrow, the Senators will vote whether to convict or acquit the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I am posting some comments below from some of my friends (all from UP), posted in their facebook walls. Entertaining and educational at the same time.  Here they go.

(1) From my engineer-economist friend, Ms. C.

This is not meant to be my definitive comment on the Impeachment Case, cause I think we, as a nation should abide with what the Senate decides. Follow the rule of law, and the consitution. If you don't agree with the verdict, don't vote for the senators who voted against your interest.

But this is an illustration of how NOT to be a text spammer, and how SMS is not the best means to spread propaganda, as the result may be the opposite of what you intended.

An Unknown number (UNK) sends me the following SMS:

UNK: Walang humpay na pagyurak sa dangal at pagwasak sa pagkatao ni CJ Corona ay gawain ng isang taong may sakit sa UTAK. Diktador PNOY dapat ang kalusin!! Pls pass.

ME: Sino ito? I happen to think that Corona should be impeached! Kaya tumigil kayo sa spam texting.

UNK (at dito uminit ang ulo ko): Wag kna kase magtext.

ME (simula ito ng mahabang diatribe kasi para akong si Hulk kapag nagalit, but instead of turning green, eh writing skills ko ang nati-trigger): Hoy! wala kang karapatang magsabi niyan, ikaw kaya nauna. Tapos kung may text back sa iyo na kumokontra, galit ka?! The CJ should be above reproach at hindi ninyo dapat defense na lahat ng nasa public service defective ang SALN. Cleaning the government needs to start somewhere.

ME (hindi pa din nasiyahan): Ang lakas ng loob ninyong mag text campaign tapos if the person does not comply with your "pls pass" at bagkus, kumokontra sa inyo, galit kayo? Punyeta kayong lahat. Eh kung ipa-trace ko kung kaninong number ito? Sino ba ang pumopondo sa inyo? Kung madami silang ninakaw na pera isoli na lang nila kamo!!!

Ang point ko lang, is if you want to get PR points, you should have a ready reply, something diplomatic along the lines of "I'm sorry that you don't have the same opinion, but thanks for your feedback" would have been much better.

Sasabihin nila Diktador si PNOY pero bawal mag-express ng dissenting opinion? Pag hindi ka agree sa kanila "Wag kna kase magtext."?! Sana makaabot ito sa PR machinery ng defense.

(2) From Atty. Ted.

FROM WHERE I SIT: The prosecution has its task cut out for them; in its closing argument, it should convince enough of the undecided Senators to vote for conviction and not simply abstain because an abstention is equivalent to a vote to acquit if one or enough abstentions result in a failure to get 16 votes. All the respondent needs is 8 votes and he retains the office.

The path of least resistance for a Senator, who is unconvinced of guilt but may not want to antagonize the administration, is to abstain; so too for a Senator, who is unconvinced of innocence but may not want to antagonize the Chief Justice or the Vice President, who is perceived to be sympathetic to the Chief Justice.

The number, for historical purposes, is 16 and 8. If the Chief Justice gets a total of 8 votes, whether to acquit or to abstain, he wins. If he gets less than 8 votes to acquit but gets enough abstentions to prevent 16 votes for conviction, he also wins.

(3) From a famous professional PR manager Malou:

For those wanting to follow the numbers. Here they are:

1. Re-elect
Legarda, Escudero, Honasan, Pimentel, Trillanes, A. Cayetano

2. End of term
Arroyo, Angara, Villar, Lacson, Pangilinan, Santiago

3. LP
Drilon, Guingona, Recto, Osmena, Pangilinan

4. Leadership positions
JPE, Estrada, Sotto

5. Non-lawyers -12
Estrada, Sotto, Legarda, Honasan, Trillanes, Revilla, Lapid, Recto, Osmena, Villar, Lacson, Marcos

6. Lawyers -11
JPE, Santiago, Arroyo, Angara, Drilon, Pangilinan, Guingona, Pimentel, A Cayetano, P. Cayetano, Pimentel....

Manner of voting on Tuesday, May 29, is alphabetical in the ff order: Angara, Arroyo, AP Cayetano, P. Cayetano, Defensor-Santiago, Drilon, Estrada, Escudero, Guingona III, Honasan II, Lacson, Lapid, Legarda, Marcos Jr., Osmeña III, Pangilinan, Pimentel III, Recto, Revilla Jr., Sotto III, Antonio Trillanes IV and Villar. JPE, presiding officer votes last.

Why is this impt: the 15th vote to convict once achieved will tilt the scale. So do your analysis from this order....

After 41 days, my sense is there are 3 hard votes for acquittal: Santiago, Arroyo and Marcos. There are 5 hard votes for conviction, and they are all LP: Drilon, Guingona, Recto, Pangilinan and Osmena. There is a swing bloc composed of the leadership positions: JPE, Estrada, Sotto, Honasan, I see Revilla voting in this bloc bec of JPE. Then you have to make 2 columns: leaning towards A and leaning towards C. Watch their body language today during the closing and the kind of questions they will ask.

(4) From Atty. Marvic. (posted yesterday)

Not evidence per se but triggers a presumption, i.e. if a public officer's income is not commensurate with his emoluments, he has the burden to explain...

Public officials: Avoid scrutiny anti graft law, "comingle" peso accounts w/ relatives, convert most to dollar accounts: sound legal advice?

(5) From Atty. Harry (posted last Friday)

With Corona's admission of $2.4Million undeclared in his SALN, he has has assured himself of a conviction. Who will be next CJ? Hope P Noy considers a genuine intellectual this time around. Probaly from the academe?

(6) From Atty. Jojo (posted last Wednesday)

After the senate adjourned and as Corona was wheeled out slowly out of the session hall, notice that not one senator even attempted to touch the Chief Justice of the country with a ten foot pole, and instead was avoided like a leper. At that point, Renato C. Corona was no longer the Chief Justice insofar as the senators were concerned. The midnight appointee was never Chief Justice insofar as I am concerned.
---------

Am not in the mood to make any commentary now on this issue. Will do it tomorrow. I have posted my earlier comments on this subject though:

Corona Trial 3: Impeachment, the Senate and the Supreme Court, May 20, 2012
Corona Trial 4: Walkout at the Senate, May 22, 2012
Corona Trial 5: Walk out from the Senate, Walk in to the Hospital, May 23, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 10: Impeachment, the Senate and Rule of Law, May 27, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 10: Impeachment, the Senate and Rule of Law

This is my article last Thursday in TV5's news portal,
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/32759/fat-free-economics-impeachment-the-senate-and-rule-of-law
--------

Justice is a higher order than national defense and the economy. In the Third Republic of the Philippines, the raison d'etre of the state is to render "no injustice to anyone.”

This is one of the key arguments made by a fellow UP School of Economics alumni, Dr. Armando “Mandy” Armas Jr., in his new book Impeachment Quagmire: Is the JPE Senate Court Legitimate?

I think Mandy is rewording the concept of the rule of law here, and I agree with his definition of the rationale for government existence: to cause no injustice to anyone, promulgate the rule of law, and by extension, protect private property rights and the citizen’s civil rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom from aggression.

Mandy further wrote: “As the palladium of democracy, impeachment trials are allegedly characterized by the tyranny of judges, Roman orgy of publicity, and the opium of religion. Are senators qualified to be judges in a court of law?”

Orgy of publicity, true. Opium of religion, not sure of this. And yes, senators are qualified to be judges in a court of law. The Philippine Constitution has given them such qualification.

An impeachment trial is mainly a political, not judicial, exercise. Once impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, an official does not go to prison. He is simply removed from office. So the impeachment trial is only a vote whether the official can stay or not in their job; in the present case, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

To bring an impeached, then convicted, official to prison, one has to bring the case to a regular court and go through the regular judicial processes like presenting various evidence to prove that the impeached official has violated certain criminal laws.

Here the judge is not an elected official who gets their mandate through political popularity, but someone who has been appointed by virtue of their knowledge of the laws and the Constitution, and their supposed impartiality from political pressures and biases.

So have the judge-senators acted with tyranny? No, or not yet, as the trial is ongoing.

This impeachment trial has wide economic consequences. Many business cases - or criminal cases with business implications - are decided with finality at the Supreme Court. If the people have trust in the objectiveness and impartiality of the High Tribunal, especially of the Chief Justice, then they will obey its decision with little or zero objection. And society and businesses can go on with little instability and uncertainty.

But if the people have little or no trust in the Supreme Court, then actors and players endlessly question its decisions, eroding society and the economy.

Economic transactions are anchored on trust. A person buys a vehicle from a motor shop at a particular price on the assumption that what are stated as the vehicle’s capacity and properties are true. If after the sale, the vehicle easily breaks down, trust is broken and the client will directly complain to the seller. If the response is unfavorable, the client can go to court to get proper compensation.

If the courts - from the lower to the higher courts - are perceived to be corrupt and impartial, some people may resort to non-judicial processes to get even, like property sabotage of the motor shop, or even inflict physical harm on the shop owner and its officers. And this will create another round of economic uncertainties from the micro to the macro levels.

While the impeachment trial is sometimes billed as a trial for good governance, there is reason to consider that this is also a big fight between the leaders of two branches of a “big” government, the President and the Chief Justice, respectively.

There is too much political and economic power in the hands of the government and its three branches - the power to impose and implement various regulations, prohibitions and taxation in the lives of the people. It is that big power, and the discretionary power whether to fully apply or exempt certain laws on certain people, that attract many of the shrewdest, the most clever among us to be in government, in any or all of the three branches.

The Senate as a political and not judicial institution - and the senators as elected not appointed officials - have a big stake in promulgating the rule of law and ensuring economic stability in the country.

A society and government that promulgates the rule of law will deter the shrewd and opportunistic from joining the government. Or deter the good guys there from becoming bad guys later. This is because of a greater certainty of discovery of a crime and punishment of the violators.

If existing institutions are doing their job well, then there is no need to keep expanding the government. We will ultimately have a lean, minimal and trustworthy government. A government that expands, not restricts, individual freedom; and a government that gives more personal responsibility to people in running their lives.
--------

See also:
Corona Trial 1: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice, December 13, 2011
Corona Trial 2: Impeachment for Beginners, December 14, 2011
Weekend Fun 29: Corona Impeachment Cartoons, March 02, 2012 
Corona Trial 3: Impeachment, the Senate and the Supreme Court, May 20, 2012
Corona Trial 4: Walkout at the Senate, May 22, 2012
Corona Trial 5: Walk out from the Senate, Walk in to the Hospital, May 23, 2012

Corona Trial 5: Walk out from the Senate, Walk in to the Hospital

Here's a guest post from a fellow UP alumni, Jack. He wrote this last night, or a few hours after the Corona walkout drama at the senate. Good humor and nice insights.

No Reason Why Not to Like Corona

by Jack
22 May 2012

I like the points Corona made. I learned so much today from him and his testimony. Some parts confused me a bit so I may need good old Gary O to enlighten us on our confusion.

Points that proved interesting in his "Opening (and Maybe already his Closing) Statement:

1. He does have dollar accounts.

2. He has had it since the 1960s and just kept adding. He said the reason why they became quite substantial is because there have been numerous devaluations. Before, it was only P2 to 1$US. Today, it is P43 to $1 US. (I got a bit confused here and he lost me somewhere. If you had $10,000 in your bank account in 1962 when it was P2 to $1 US, how much would you have in 2011 when it is now P43.00 to $1US.

I thought you would still have only S10,000 plus the accumulated interest right? I think the CJ thought that mathematically, because of the devaluations, the dollar amount would also balloon. Maybe I failed some of my Eco subjects. Tere, help! UPSEAA Economists, help us in understanding this please. )

3. I found it also a great revelation that Dollar Accounts, basing on CJ's testimony SHOULD NOT be declared in the SALN. Why? Because he says this is covered by the bank secrecy law. I thought that the SALN meant you had to add all your cash whether it is in dollars, renminbi, yen, pesos rupee, zlotys or whatever. total that and put its equivalent peso value in the Assets column of the SALN. But then, I could be wrong kasi retired na ako from the Department of Agriculture many many years ago. Maybe they changed the rules somewhere.

3a. I found his reasons for not declaring it also interesting. Declaring such dollar accounts would be a VIOLATION of the Foreign Currency Secrecy Law so being the Chief Justice, he did not WANT TO BREAK THE LAW. (Don't you just love it!) Interestingly, when he entered government, he didn't declare it. Sayang, if he did so nobody would be asking him anything now.

3b. His second reason was even more interesting. He didn't declare it because everyone doesn't declare it. Just to prove this point, he challenged all 188 congressmen who signed the impeachment complaint and Senator Drilon to sign their own similar waivers. simultaneously with him. Or else, he said, I am not a fool and not being a fool, no waivers from them, no waivers from me. I love it. Its like games we used to play as kids. If caught in a bind, just stick out your tongue and say to everyone.... belat! Or could we say he even turned Biblical as he seemed to be paraphrasing John 8:7 from the Bible "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

4, As early as 4 pm, his strategy was unfolding as clear as day. Just ramble on with his "opening (and maybe even closing) statement", let things drag on and delay and delay and delay so no one can ask questions. I think what many pundits expected him to do was after three hours of rambling statements, say Whew!, that was hard on my health. Could we just postpone till tomorrow, then rush to the hospital and the next day wear a neck brace and sit on a wheel chair and says, oops. I can't go and testify! What no one expected was that he would walk out slowly, premeditatedly, actually still looking really healthy, try to rush to his vehicle and then when stopped by the Sgt. at Arms' people, suddenly develop low sugar levels and return in a wheelchair looking like he got the short end of the stick from Claudine Barreto and Raymart Santiago.

5. Re Basa Guidote, in one breath, he says it is a family feud and yes, he did admit that his wife and his daughter managed to get ownership of the corporation for P28,000 which he says is much more that the original incorporation value of P21,000 (even though the value of the corporation is P34 million). Again somewhere, I got lost here. He says that Carla, his daughter is the owner of Basa Guidote. But, the funds are in Renato Corona's peso accounts. In one breath, he says, he and his daughter are different entities because if they were the same, then the sale of Cristina to Carla does not count and is a fraudulent sale. Then in the next breath, he admits they are in his peso account. Also, shouldn't the right entry have been Assets: Cash in SALN 37 million, Liabilities in SALN 34 million.

5. He showed he had balls. No one can turn his back on the Senate President and the impeachment court. Everyone cowers in fear. But, the CJ did it. Am not sure though if he was ready for JPE's quick reply to lockdown the building and prevent his departure.

6. Tomorrow is another day. Like i said from the very beginning of all these posts, no one wants to convict an honest man. CJ still has tomorrow to pop up. We hope he does. Like everyone of the 90 million Pinoys who want Jessica Sanchez to win tomorrow, we want to know the truth and listen to his answers to the questions. But then on the other hand, we cannot be sure if the Senate President's threats are exactly what the Defense wants. Maybe the defense thinks its okay to have his testimony stricken out. Anyway, he had already said it and maybe, this will give enough reasons for their allies in the Senate to say.... aha! There is reasonable doubt. ACQUIT!

Seriously though, I hope his advisers do convince him to come back to the Senate and instead of a walk-out do a walk-in. The nation wants answers. Everyone is willing to give him a chance to speak out and sort it out.
------

Corona Trial 4: Walkout at the Senate

(Note: original title of this paper was "Rule of Law 16: CJ Corona Appearance and Trial at the Senate")

I was hooked on twitter this afternoon, on the appearance for the first time of Chief Justice Corona at his impeachment trial at the Senate. Sooooo many tweets. Anyway, here are my own tweets.

Nonoy Oplas ‏@Noysky

@likhanews5 @interaksyon Walang katulong si Corona, tama yon, minsan naghugas ako ng pinggan sa house nila, P100/hr bayad nila sa akin :-)

Nonoy Oplas ‏@Noysky

@I_amHolohttps #CoronaTrial Mahirap si Corona, kapitbahay ko sa kabilang apartment sa brgy san antonio makati, P10k/mo lang rental namin

Defense camp: Boss CJ, di umubra iyak, change gear tayo, ratatat counter-arguments naman @CJonTrial

@likhanews5 @interaksyon Suggested news headline: CJ is Christ. He is poor, he cries, and he has Corona.

@likhanews5 @interaksyon Corona opening speech 1 day long. Dean M.Leonen says other cases, accused cant speak but through answers to Qs.

@likhanews5 #CJontrial If you're a CJ, no need to steal even P1. You can sell a SC decision to highest bidder and earn millions.

@levenezu He didnt practice in front of mirror, he's following Lady Gaga's song Poker Face, do poker & gambling on pub sympathy #CJonTrial

@likhanews5 @interaksyon I think CJ watched Lady Gaga's concert last night, he liked d song Judas-as, he now refers to LRA, PNoy, prosec.

Boo Chanco ‏@boochanco

kadali palang magtago ng fruits of corruption basta ma-convert lang sa dollars confidential na.

Retweeted by Nonoy Oplas

Cesar Purisima ‏@CVP1960

I am a diabetic myself, if my sugar is low, I am disoriented and will not be able to walk the way CJ did

Retweeted by Nonoy Oplas

Nonoy Oplas ‏@Noysky

@likhanews5 @interaksyon Everyone in govt on trial, great! Many people there dont want to be tried, we abolish many agencies & bureaucrats.

@interaksyon @likhanews5 Headline, "CJ gaya-gaya: drama ni Lady Gaga, powerpoint ni Conchita, wheelchair ni Gloria, low blood ni Purisima::)

Cesar Purisima ‏@CVP1960

Telling the truth should not be stressful; it's when you say things other than the truth when you get stressed

Retweeted by Nonoy Oplas

Nonoy Oplas ‏@Noysky

Corona's theme song: "I want to break free" Prosecution's song: "Ma-ma-ma-My Corona" Enrile's Song: "I want it all:"

More songs by Corona at the Senate: "Breakthrough", "Dont stop me now", "Drowse", "It's a hard life", "I go crazy" (all by The Queen)

Enrile's songs for Corona (all from d Queen): Action this day, Bring back that Leroy Brown, Don't lose your head, Don't try suicide.

Corona's songs how to escape fr d Senate, all fr Queen: Bicycle race, Coming soon, Dragon attack, Escape from the swamp, Flash to the rescue

Defense' songs for Corona, all fr Queen: Hang on in there, Im going slightly mad, Keep yourself alive, Loser in the end, The show must go on

Mrs. Corona's songs to CJ, fr the Queen: Fun it, Lost opportunity, Play the game, These are the days of our lives, Who needs you? You and I.
-------

See also:
Corona Trial 1: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice, December 13, 2011
Corona Trial 2: Impeachment for Beginners, December 14, 2011
Weekend Fun 29: Corona Impeachment Cartoons, March 02, 2012 
Corona Trial 3: Impeachment, the Senate and the Supreme Court, May 20, 2012

Corona Trial 3: Impeachment, the Senate and the Supreme Court

I personally believe that Chief Justice (CJ) Corona is corrupt, he should have resigned early on. Or he should have not accepted in the first place, the offer of being a CJ during the last few weeks of the Gloria government. But government being an institution of coercion, is full of hypocrisy, both the accused and the accusers have dirt in their hands. Nonetheless, the impeachment proceedings are going along the rule of law, the law as stipulated in the 1987 constitution.

If he is not corrupt, he should have volunteered to face the impeachment court even on Day 1 of the Senate trial. If someone will accuse me of being a theft or corrupt or what have you, I will challenge that person to a public debate or trial not a month or a week from now, but right there and then. People who are evasive and most likely guilty of corruption, would buy time, employ all forms of legal technicalities to delay or even duck personal appearance, showing cowardice in a highly charged impeachment trial. He was forced to announce an appearance only after the damaging testimony of the Ombudsman.

The discovery of his huge dollar accounts that were not reflected in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) is now a big proof of his dishonesty. Private citizens have the right to privacy like keeping huge dollar accounts, true. But public officials are not private citizens. No one put a gun on their head to join government, they entered the service on their own, voluntarily. Thus, the law on transparency of public officials should apply to them, ALL of them, from local to national government officials and personnel.

If one is already rich and has joined the government, then one should declare those wealth, say a billion pesos networth. After his term and the networth is slightly bigger than the original amount, no one can accuse that official of enriching himself while in government, because the public is aware that he was already rich before joining the government.

Thus, even if Corona has only US$ 1,000 in his foreign currency accounts, he still should have declared it in his SALN. By hiding it, is additional proof that he indeed cheated on his SALN. A cheater on small things can be a cheater on big things, and he is the CJ of the Supreme Court, the last bastion in society to promulgate the rule of law.

Private intrusion of public officials' lives is limited to what are provided in existing laws. Like the law on mandatory declaration of SALN each year. If someone will demand that the SALN of official X is questionable for whatever reason or purpose, then such SALN should be readily available, no presumption of guilt yet.

If one is rich and does not want his/her wealth to become a public commodity someday, then he/she should not join the government. If there is low supply of qualified people to head certain bureaucracies for fear of such public scrutiny, then well and good, we can start abolishing some agencies and we also start reducing if not abolishing certain taxes that finance those agencies.

Meanwhile, I like this article by Peter Wallace....

http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/05/04/its-all-about-morality/

It’s all about morality

Posted May 4th, 2012 by Peter Wallace & filed under Opinion.

I was at the Supreme Court before Holy Week and was horrified to see huge “campaign” banners proclaiming SC personnel’s support for Corona. It looked like campaign headquarters, not a nation’s Supreme Court. These are people who are supposed to take no sides, to be completely dispassionate and make no judgments outside what the court decides. It may be that it’s not only Corona who doesn’t have the moral character for the position, but the whole court. Is it why there are close to 8,000 pending cases in that court? Is it why cases in the courts under its control can linger longer than the sentence that would be imposed IF people incarcerated in jails awaiting trial are found guilty? Is it why the alleged (I must say that according to the lawyers) murderers of 57 people can be in a court for two years and four months with no progress on the trial at all? Yet a former president, a friend of the court, can get an inconsequential, in comparison, a temporary restraining order issued in hours.

It seems Corona was right on one thing, this is not an attack against him, as a person, but the Judiciary as a whole. Given this disgraceful exhibition on the front of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines, the court as a whole should indeed be under investigation. This is partisan politics of the worst kind. If Corona is found guilty simple logic says they should go too. Or don’t court employers do Logic 101, let alone courses on morality, decency and polite social behavior?

When a man can accept an appointment with glaringly obvious political motives from a leader who will no longer be there, and nine of 15 Supreme Court justices can agree it’s OK, then the moral fabric of Philippine society is indeed in tatters.

It’s time for a complete shakeup of the Philippine court system in its entirety, not just removal of one man. Let’s hope this is the catalyst for that.

The Dalai Lama said “there is no religion higher than truth”. Corona and his lawyers might want to reflect on this. They should be wanting to expose the truth, not hide through obfuscation as has been their want to date. The Dalai Lama added, “What really is important to me is your behavior in front of your peers, family, work, community, and in front of the world”. And Corona might want to add “in front of his god”. Does he have the clear conscience God will expect?

The acceptance of a midnight appointment was behavior unbecoming of a Chief Justice of a nation. For that reason alone, he is unsuitable. An honorable man would have politely declined and left it to the incoming leader to make the choice. He failed to meet the high moral standards demanded of a Chief Justice. If he were an honorable man, as he claims, he would save the nation from all this divisiveness and dissension, and resign. That he doesn’t is another reason he’s unsuitable.

The nine 9 justices who declared the midnight appointment as constitutional should also be impeached. Better yet, they should resign in shame. They have brought shame to this society dismissing morality so cavalierly, so loosely. They should have spent the Lenten break reflecting on what Christ taught about the absolute importance of morality in society.

I’ve read an argument that public opinion doesn’t matter, and that the senators should ignore it in their judgment of Corona. But it does matter, the people must have faith and confidence in their court system, and particularly in the Supreme Court. More particularly in the head of that court. If the people no longer trust him he cannot function and he brings the whole court into question. Whatever the Senate decides he can no longer lead the court.

Corona must resign for the stability of the Judiciary. The very fact that he already hasn’t given all the controversy is itself reason he’s unsuited for the position. His ambition (evident in his acceptance of a midnight appointment) overrides his conduct as a gentleman. He may be as innocent as hell (a carefully chosen word) but no legal chicanery to claim him so will be accepted. This is a reality his lawyers might want to ponder.

Speaking of legal chicanery, how can the defense claim that it will prove Corona’s wealth was not ill-gotten (a newspaper report) when it was the defense that blocked investigation into the source of his wealth at the beginning of the trial because it “wasn’t in the articles of impeachment”. It wasn’t because its existence wasn’t known at the time the articles were prepared. Once uncovered, of course the source should be investigated as it’s very, very relevant to his honesty, or otherwise. His dollar accounts must be opened. But it doesn’t matter how much is in them, they weren’t listed at all in his SALN. That alone makes him guilty.

The President seems hell-bent in reforming the judicial system. I support that, as well as his single-minded focus on Corona as a start of this reform. Someone has to do it.

This is not a legal case. It is a test of the moral fiber of the nation.
----------

See also:
Corona Trial 1: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice, December 13, 2011
Corona Trial 2: Impeachment for Beginners, December 14, 2011
Weekend Fun 29: Corona Impeachment Cartoons, March 02, 2012


Rule of Law 12: Gloria Arroyo, Travel Abroad and the SC, November 16, 2011

Weekend Fun 29: Corona Impeachment Cartoons

The impeachment trial of Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona at the Senate is almost a month now, but I have not watched any of the live proceedings on tv. Sometimes I catch them on the evening news in tv. I get updated via online news and facebook :-)

Below are some of the cartoons I got from emails, or from the web. They are funny enough, I don't need to make additional captions. I did not make any of them, I just mixed them up in one frame, my only "value-added". Enjoy!

And happy weekend.
--------

See also:
Weekend fun 12: Marcos corruption, February 25, 2011 
Weekend fun 15: Political jokes, March 12, 2011
Weekend fun 18. Gloria Arroyo cartoons, June 11, 2011
Weekend fun 19: Sic o Clock News, June 19, 2011 
Weekend Fun 25: "I Will Survive" by Gloria Arroyo, January 08, 2012
Weekend Fun 28: Men and Women, January 28, 2012

Weekend Fun 25: "I Will Survive" by Gloria Arroyo

Now the Department of Tourism's tag line for the country is "It's More Fun in the Philippines". Yes, lots of fun here, even if life may be hard for many people, but Filipinos just love to smile somehow.

A lawyer-friend sent me this song below, left column, to the tune of "I will survive" by Gloria Gaynor. I thought that many people have already read and saw it. So I slightly revised it and made my own composition, right column, hehehe.

Enjoy, happy weekend.

Version 1: author unknown Congresswoman GMA: First I was afraid Now, I’m petrified Kept thinking I could never live without SC by my side But then I spent so many nights thinking I did nothing wrong I think I’m strong I know I can carry on With painful back and lack of space I did feel bad to see you there with all that joy upon your face My lawyer’s one stupid lot I should have fired, oh that’s easy If I had known for just one second he would bet his balls for me! The People: Go on now go walk out the door just disappear now you don’t have power anymore weren’t you the one who cheated for Team Unity you’re in big trouble you think we’ll just let you flee? Congresswoman GMA: Oh no, not I I will survive oh as long as Titong’s there for me I know I will stay alive I’ve got all my life to live I’ve got all my cash to give and I’ll survive I will survive Hey hey It took all the clout I had not to fall apart kept trying hard to fight PNoy, De Lima, and Mupas and I spent oh so many nights praying hard just for myself I’ll never cry I will hold my head up high Soon you’ll see me somebody new Won’t be that neck-braced little person looking frail in front of you and so I fight that goddamn panel And just expect me to be free ‘coz my lawyers have been saying the High Court’s gonna favor me The People: Go on now go walk out the door just disappear now ’cause you’re not feared here anymore weren’t you the one who called and said “Hello Garci!” you then said sorry but that lacked sincerity! Congresswoman GMA: Oh no, not I I will survive oh as long as I have friend Rene I know I will stay alive I’ve got all my life to live I’ve got all my wealth to give and I’ll survive I will survive Oh…

Version 2: by Nonoy Oplas Gloria’s Song First I wasn’t afraid Nor was petrified Just thinking I could live with Supreme Court by my side And then I spent so many nights Thinking Corona can’t be wrong We are strong We know we can carry on But they got him with impeachment I just felt bad my fellow legislators Signed the impeachment complaint With Belmonte and Niel Tupas crack the whip like JDV did for me If I had known for just one second my allies can’t protect me. Go now go, egg-log Topacio Bring in Mendoza and the firm protect Corona and me-me Weren’t you the one who risked his balls before I flee You’re out of trouble You keep your balls and my millions. Oh no, not us We will survive Bong Revilla, Lito Lapid, Joker Arroyo and others They will acquit CJ Corona And Corona will acquit me and I’ll survive We will survive Hey hey It took all the shamelessness appoint Corona as CJ kept trying hard to deflect the critics PNoy, De Lima, and LP and I spent oh so many nights acting hard just for my neck I’ll never beg I will hold my head up high Soon you’ll see me somebody new Won’t be that neck-braced little woman grimacing and acting on tv and we will fight the prosecutors Quimbo Tanada and Tupas And just expect CJ to be free ‘coz my lawyers have been saying the High Court’s gonna favor me Go now go, egg-log Topacio Bring in Mendoza and the firm protect Corona and me-me Weren’t you the one who risked his balls before I flee You’re out of trouble You keep your balls and my millions. Oh no, not us We will survive Bong Revilla, Bong bong Marcos, Lito Lapid, and others They will acquit CJ Corona And Corona will acquit me and I’ll survive We will survive Hey hey Oh…

See also:
Weekend fun 18. Gloria Arroyo cartoons, June 11, 2011
Crime and Rule of Men 10: Gloria Arroyo Cases and the SC's TRO Against her Travel, November 16, 2011
Rule of Law 5: Impeachment for Beginners, December 14, 2011

Corona Trial 2: Impeachment for Beginners

(Note: the original title of this paper was "Rule of Law 14: Impeachment for Beginners")

Here is a good reading material for people who want to understand about impeachment -- removing a high official in the Executive or Judiciary branches of government via Constitutional and legal process, not by street demonstrations and "people power revolution." I got this from facebook and it has been forwarded and shared by several dozen people already via facebook Notes and other blogs.

The author is a friend in the university way back in the 80s. Atty. Theodore "Ted" Te is a small (he's probably less than 5 feet tall) and boyish looking lawyer with a huge brain; he's frank and articulate. In my post yesterday, Rule of Law 4: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice, Ted wrote,"betrayal of public trust is another question (betrayal of my trust? no, I never trusted him at all, nothing to betray)", and that's what I meant of Ted being frank.

The subject of impeachment is the Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona; the one who instigated the impeachment -- through his partymates and political allies in the House of Representatives is the President of the country, Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino; and the ultimate judge will be the Senate, to be headed by the Senate President, Juan Ponce Enrile.

This is an interesting photo. From left: CJ Corona, Senate President Enrile, and President Aquino. In the hierarchy of political leadership in the country, they are ranked numbers 5, 3 and 1, respectively. Numbers 2 and 4 are the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Ted explains here the following:
1. the process of impeachment,
2. the options for the accused, in this case, CJ Corona,
3. implications for the accusers, in this case the House of Representatives and indirectly, President Aquino,
4. the eight (8) charges hurled against the accused,
5. the burdens (evidence and tactics) for the accusers, and
6. pursuing accountability and rule of law.

That is why I consider Ted's paper a brief but good reading material for non-lawyers like me and many other citizens.

On a side note, I checked wikipedia's definition of "rule of law" just a few minutes ago and I was disappointed. Wiki (or the last person who edited and defined the term) wrote,

Rule of law is a legal maxim that suggests that governmental decisions be made by applying known principles.

For me this is wrong. Rule of law applies not only to government but also to non-government contracts and decisions. An example: I borrowed XX thousand pesos from a friend with a promise that I will pay him the full amount within one month, with or without interest. A month has passed and I did not pay him, partially or fully, I broke the law or contract with my friend. I can talk to him and ask for an extension in payment timetable, or he can pressure me through various means (peer and friends' pressure, going to court, etc.) so that I will pay as stipulated in our contract.

Now to Ted's paper.
-----------

Hell to the Chief

By Theodore Te
December 14, 2011

In the movie “Gladiator,” Maximus, before leading the armies of Marcus Aurelius to battle, looks to Quintus, his adjutant and gives a simple order, “at my signal, unleash hell.”

On Monday, Dec. 5, 2011, the President gave the signal—when he publicly shamed the Chief Justice raising issues that went to the legality of his appointment as well as the nature of his character at a National Criminal Justice Summit—and his loyal army unleashed hell on the Chief Justice.

One week after, in a stunning demonstration of “all deliberate speed,” 188 members of the House of Representatives, summoned by the Speaker, literally lined up to sign an impeachment complaint which, for many of them, they had yet to read, let alone comprehend.

Corona Trial 1: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice

(Note: original title of this paper was "Rule of Law 13: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice")

I am not a lawyer but being an advocate of the rule of law (the law applies to all, no exception; the law applies equally to unequal people) and highly detesting the rule of men (the law and prohibitions exempt the rulers, apply only to ordinary mortals and enemies of the rulers), I got interested in following the conflict between the heads of two big institutions in the Philippine government. They are the President of the country and head of the Executive Branch, President Noynoy Aquino, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and head of the Judiciary Branch, CJ Renato Corona.

While there was a conflict between the two personalities before, things erupted when the SC granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the travel ban imposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) who wanted to go abroad for "medical treatment" even if she was properly and efficiently treated at St. Luke's Hospital here in Manila. The main issue or fear of the DOJ and the PNoy Aquino government, is that GMA will not come back once they go out of the country knowing the multiple political and electoral scandals that they got involved, all unresolved.

There are many other recent SC decisions that the PNoy government said were mainly favorable to GMA or were hurtful to the current administration.

Also, the issue of "midnight appointment" of CJ Renato Corona, appointed only about 1 or 2 weeks before the term of GMA expired by end-June 2010, when the rules -- I think it's stated in the Constitution, or in certain laws -- say that such and similar appointments should be done within two months (or more) before the end of term of the departing President. This is one of the political baggages that CJ Corona has to contend with while he is sitting at the SC.

I have several friends in facebook, friends while I was still at the University of the Philippines (UP) way back in the 80s, who are bright minds in the legal profession now. I turn to them to get bright legal opinions on issues like this. Such free legal opinions, interactive, thanks to facebook (and twitter too) :-)

1. Marvic Leonen, Dean, UP College of Law:

A. Tweets:

the power of finality given to the SC justices is different from the idea of infallibility. Impeachment is a consti process proving this.

there is a difference between an institution and its incumbent. incumbents must account: do their acts benefit their institution?

B. Facebook:

Imoeachment is a process that allows accountability. When it is used against an incumbent, it should never be mistaken as an affront against the institution where he belongs. Rather, it should be viewed as a way of strengthening that institution. We weaken public institutions whenever we suffer in silence, keep our genuine criticisms private and non-threatening to those in power. Inaction against abuse by incumbents of their power as judges or justices reconstitutes wrongs as rights.

The ability of our courts to determine what is law does not certainly make it the weakest branch of government. Because it has the capacity to officially declare what is legal, determine which hierarchies survive, and suggest what modes of reasoning can be privileged by our legal order; it may well be our most dangerous branch of government.

The legitimacy of a court is usually fostered by the idea that it is a collective body, i.e. that wise men and women check each other's idiosyncrasies. However, when the process of selection of justices become flawed or imbued with too much politics, this assumption fails. Hence the need for external processes to come in, like impeachment.

I like Marvic's opinion here. What was impeached by the House of Representatives (HOR) yesterday where 188 of 284 members signed the impeachment complaint was the head of the SC, not the SC itself. It was the person, not the institution. Besides, HOR impeachment is only part 1 of the 2-steps process. The next battleground will be the decision of the Senate whether they will uphold the decision of the HOR or not.

This is indeed a very divisive act but I think it's worth the effort. The impeachment proceeding vs the SC CJ, perhaps the first in the Philippines, would be a good lesson for those wanting to change the Constitution and correct the current practice that ALL members of the SC including the Chief Justice, are appointed by the President. To me, this already defeats the "Judiciary independece from the Executive" principle.

2. Atty. Theodore "Ted" Te:, faculty member, UP College of Law:

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the CJ can only be removed by impeachment and not by "parinig." He's not the resigning type, if he were, he'd have done it before at the height of the "name and shame" before and after his midnight appointment. I have read the complaint and many of the issues raised in the impeachment complaint are real and are serious wrongs. I seriously believe that the CJ failed to exercise leadership and seriously damaged the Court during the plagiarism investigation--whether that constitutes betrayal of public trust is another question (betrayal of my trust? no, I never trusted him at all, nothing to betray) and one that is addressed to the Senators, 3/4 of them.

My questions go to process, timing and agenda. An impeachment trial should bring enough evidence to convince enough senators to remove not just any public officer but the Chief Justice, head of a separate branch of government; while not proof beyond reasonable doubt, it should be substantial enough to convince presumably independent-minded senators to convict on at least one count. I hope that this complaint is not based on the premise that the CJ will resign to avoid the embarrassment of a trial, like Gutierrez. There's too much riding on this to be working on that premise. Because ultimately, if the complaint is not proven and the CJ is not removed, then the admin will have further weakened an already diluted impeachment mechanism (cf. Oliver Lozano and the mad rush to file preclusive impeachment complaints v. Gloria).

Why now? Before the last session dates of SC? So that no appeal can be made? Doing exactly what it is accusing the SC of doing in the Gloria TRO? If the cases are strong enough to convict, they should be strong enough to withstand parliamentary debate. Its like watching kids quarrel--you sucker punched me, so I'll sucker punch you back. And what's the ultimate agenda? Transform an antagonistic SC into a pliable and "friendly" SC? So, Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. If that is so, then there's really no difference. Ultimately, this goes back to the "original sin of omission or failure"--they did not prepare the cases against Gloria well ahead of time and so they now need to scramble to prevent what appears to be a junking of the charges hastily filed by the COMELEC-DOJ panel. If this is what the admin is trying to head off, then it will be no better than what Marcos did to the SC.

Dang, I like Ted's opinion too. The PNoy government simply made a big mistake of not filing a single case against GMA since it assumed power in June 30, 2010, until the SC TRO on GMA travel ban was issued, then the current administration scrambled on various political and legal measures.

Back to the rule of law. The law applies to all, no one is exempted and no one can grant exemption. Impeachment is in the Philippine Constitution. The impeachment trial in the Senate next year will be more transparent and more accountable, compared to press releases or acerbic political sound bites issued by the Executive, and sometimes by the Judiciary. The HOR will present evidences and proof to their impeachment case, the SC'S CJ will provide evidences and proof negating the complaints filed by the House, and the Senate must be as objective as possible, not 100 percent of course as legislators belong to political parties and those parties have taken a stand already, explicit or implicit, on the impeachment case.

Supporters of GMA, like two of her sons who are Congressmen, can equally file an impeachment complaint against President Aquino. That is possible but not viable since the ruling political party and its allied parties are affiliated with the President.

This is a big fight between two leaders of two branches of a BIG government. There is danger that both or all three branches will suffer more credibility problems with the people, us ordinary mortals. But by making the process as transparent as possible, any or all of the three branches can gain credibility.

There is too much political and economic power in the hands of the government and its three branches -- the power to regulate and impose various prohibitions and taxation in the lives of the people. It is that big power to regulate and impose prohibitions and restrictions, that attract many of the most shrewd, most clever among us to be in government, in any or all of the three branches.

I believe that a society that really promulgates the rule of law will ultimately have a very lean, minimal and limited government. A government that expands, not restricts, individual freedom. Like strictly imposing the laws against killing, murder, robbery, rape, extortion, land grabbing, kidnapping, and other crimes against persons and their private properties. This way, the government rewards the industrious and hard working (by removing many or all restrictions to entrepreneurship) while it penalizes the lazy, the envious and the criminals.
-----

See also: 
Rule of Law 8: Purpose and Supremacy of the Law, June 15, 2010
Rule of Law 9: Laws, Prohibitions and Corruption, June 30, 2010
Rule of Law 10: On Wang-wang and Government Laws, July 04, 2010
Rule of Law 11: RoL Index, October 15, 2010
Rule of Law 12: Gloria Arroyo, Travel Abroad and the SC, November 16, 2011