DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
4/4/2011
What is a country that has an elected senator of the land who absconds and flees from the law, evades a warrant of arrest issued by the courts, abandons duties to which he was sworn into office, and apparently exits and re-enters the country without passing through the requisite legal procedures, all while waiting for a more friendly dispensation to pave the way for the dismissal of his case?
Then, what kind of a public official is one who, upon re-emerging, keeps mum on his disappearance and evasion of the international police dragnet, as well as the detailed methods, avenues, and persons that abetted his escape from the long arm of the law? The country is, after all, entitled to know just how certain high profile fugitives are aided in such a spectacular manner. But no; just as there is zero cooperation from this official, his fellow senators even accept and defend his “right against self-incrimination.”
On this supposedly constitutional expert senator’s legal opinion, law professor and constitutionalist Alan Paguia proffers a contrary view. First of all, he says Ping Lacson is not an ordinary person. As a public official, Lacson has special duties and responsibilities to the public; and wherever public interest and welfare is involved, these duties are paramount. Moreover, a public official does not have the luxury of invoking what Sen. Miriam Santiago claims for this senator as a right. I tend to agree.
It really sounds self-serving when senators defend their fellow members’ dissolute acts. Fortunately, such actions are eliciting scorn from the public. Take for example this blog entry by third2eyeblind: “With money and power you can hide from the law, surface only when the heat blows over. It was just like that, nothing happened. Comedians, really, all these government people.”
Comedians, yes, but funny they aren’t. When they help in covering up for persons or forces that challenge the majesty of the law, laws that all the rest of us have to fear and obey but which they flaunt, they pose a menace to the whole of society.
Worse, those who help such fugitives beat even transnational laws, wield powers that are over and above, as well as beneath the radar of, the formal state. These powers come with an extensive web of assets and operators in and around the unlighted corridors of both national and transnational bureaucracies. As such, this is no ordinary travel agency.
Who has such powerful transnational influence and networks if not the intelligence services or Hades of the underworld, from Her Majesty’s secret service, Mossad, the CIA, or China’s Guojia Anquan Bu, to the international drugs, human trafficking, or smuggling mafias and syndicates?
The situation reminds me of a story that fascinated me in my youth, the tale of The Devil and Daniel Webster. It tells of Mr. Stone, an American farmer beleaguered by hard times, who sold his soul to the Prince of Darkness for better prospects. When, seven years later as agreed, the Devil came to collect on the farmer’s debt, the latter balked on giving his soul and sought out American statesman Daniel Webster to accept his case. Webster acceded then argued, “Mr. Stone is an American citizen, and no American citizen may be forced into the service of a foreign prince,” demanding a trial as is the right of every American. By his eloquence, Webster successfully extricated the farmer from his dilemma. While we can’t really know if Lacson did indeed make a deal with the Devil in exchange for shelter and refuge, the fact that he now wouldn’t divulge any details leads people to suspect that he must have.
As the court Lacson faces is the court of the people, Miriam Santiago can’t be his Daniel Webster. Furthermore, Lacson’s silence, like his flight from the law, is another admission of guilt — a guilt that he tries to cover up with innuendoes that he never backs up.
With dark clouds of suspicion hanging over him, how can Lacson function as a member of the highest lawmaking body of the land? Similarly, how can the people repose their trust in a legislature that harbors such shifty and dubious character (this, especially after legislators barefacedly deny them any truth and transparency)?
Why, the question should also be addressed to an even higher office, the Office of the President: Why receive Lacson without first demanding the whole truth, which is nothing but his primary obligation to the nation?
It is clear that under the present dispensation, the mantra of “This is not a priority” applies to everything that the people hold with utmost importance — truth and justice. Even the truth in the last elections, upon which the present government stands, has not been fully established as 12 percent of the “Hocus PCOS” machines have actually not been read or all the mandated manual auditing completed. The truth in the Luneta hostage massacre is also being waylaid today as this government portrays the Deputy Ombudsman as the most guilty just so that it can cover up for one of its own — the darling city mayor of the Yellow family.
What is a country with leaders that do not adhere to the rule of law and dishonor the people’s aspirations for truth and justice? No doubt, a lawless country! If the Philippines were to be saved, this lawlessness should not prevail even a moment longer.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; TNT with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “Dacer Family’s struggle for justice” with Cezar Mancao and Attys. Ferdinand Topacio and Demetrio Custodio; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus select radio and GNN shows)
Monday, April 4, 2011
The truth is in the contradictions
CRITIC'S CRITIC
Mentong Laurel
03/28-04/3/2011
The hottest headline the past week has been the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, with her top critic being “Hocus PCOS” President P-Noy Aquino.
Although the digital president did not write a newspaper column lambasting his latest pet peeve, he’s been slugging at the Arroyo-appointed Ombudsman covertly and overtly with increasing frequency. Last March 24, in a speech made at Cagayan de Oro, P-Noy said: “As the Senate prepares to try the Ombudsman, I urge you to support this and other efforts to fight corruption.”
Covertly, P-Noy mobilized the money of the state, namely P20 million of the Road User’s Tax, to lobby with congressmen for the impeach-Merci vote. As the covert move was headlined in the mosquito press, now every Filipino knows how P-Noywould use every low down, unprincipled means to get his way -- pretty much the way Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did.
The question is: Can one use unprincipled means to achieve a principle, in this case, the fight against corruption? Didn’t P-Noy just exacerbate Congress’ already endemic corruption by teaching everyone that money, not principled persuasion, still triumphs?
Is P-Noy’s guiding motto, “Daang matuwid,” true at all? Clearly, the contradiction between his actions and thisprinciple of the straight and narrow reveals the true character
and intent of his claimed advocacy as not being a seriousfight against corruption.
Supplier Rico J
The blatant contradiction that anybody can see, and continues to be on practically every informed Filipinos’ lips, is the appointmentof confirmed rogues to the top echelons of his government.
The prime example is Mr. Rico Puno, alias “Rico J,” undersecretary of the DILG, in charge of the nation’s 114,000 police force and budget of P47 billion. He was an arms and supplies vendor to the PNP before his appointment to the department in July 2010.
Rico J is also known amongst the military and the AFP suppliers’ community as the front man in military deals for a former congressman from Tarlac who, in his three terms,
had zero number of bills filed and laws passed.
Rico J is best known for his admission in September 2010, during the Archbishop Oscar Cruz exposés on jueteng, of receiving bribe offers from representatives of jueteng lords
and failing to make any move to have those people charged for attempted bribery.
Senate Estopped
While P-Noy succeeded in getting Congress to impeach Merceditas Gutierrez before the solons’ Holy Week break, it remains to be seen if the ouster will be completed by the Senate when it reconvenes. Pundits and experts, such as the only credible law commentator Prof. Alan Paguia, are saying that the acquittal of Gutierrez is imminent.
Paguia cites 14 senators who have been on record with comments on the Ombudsman’s case and, therefore, estopped from voting on the issues.
That these senators, including chief impeachment hatchet man TG Guingona, who should be well versed in the rules of Congress, should be making these missteps early in the process raises questions: Why this apparent contradiction between the call for ousting the Ombudsman and the actions that would put them in estoppel? Are they deliberately estopping themselves so there won’t be enough votes to convict the accused Ombudsman, thereby stopping the pursuit of the greater prey--Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo--for her alleged crimes? Why does this track seem oh-so familiar, reminding us of the stillborn Davide Truth Commission?
These contradictions lead us to reaffirm our belief that whatwe are seeing is just the continuity of the corrupt system. It is a system that is unable and unwilling to reform itself and, as such, will never indict anybody else in it by letting its principals (such as Gloria Arroyo) ever face true judgment. As we have asserted from the very beginning, this present administration is an Aquinorroyo regime flying the Yellow banner on its 25th year.
Looking for Consistency
The many columnists and commentators harping on the issue, from pro- and anti-Merci impeachment fences, may all be simply role-playing in a moromoro or zarzuela to distract from the essential truth: It’s all a stage show, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing in terms of real change. Even if by some twist of the law the estopped senators are allowed to vote and Merci is convicted, does that change anything in the country while the Rico J’s of the land are ensconced in power? No way, Jose.
In a contradictory and schizoid society, consistency in word and deed would be a revolutionary act and nothing revolutionary can come from a corrupt political and electoral system.
Looking for consistency in leadership is to look for revolutionary leadership, found in such leading lights as Oliver Cromwell of England to Mao Test-Tung of China, who both decapitated the old ruling class and system. Cromwell did so with King Charles and Mao Test-Tung with the Confucian tradition.
Speaking of revolution and the decapitation of ancient ruling classes, one can say that Moammar Gaddafi’s nondismantlement of Libya ’s old tribalist society has led to his failure of building a nation-state out of the Frankenstein cobbled together from Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan (and all their 140 tribes and clans) by the Italian colonizers in 1934.
Alienated?
This discussion on Gaddafi brings me to another Critics’ Critic favorite, Conrado de Quiros of the Inquirer. In his March 22 column, “Tale of two interventions,” he pontificates on
justifications for the attack on Libya, saying, “The Libyan civil war began as an uprising by the Libyan people following similar uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt .” (Actually, the latter two were in capital cities, reflecting national and popular support; whereas in Libya , it was in Benghazi , reflecting actually only regional and factional initiatives.)
De Quiros then said that Gaddafi was “determined to fight on despite his alienation from his own people and those of the world.” Yeah, right. Weeks into the conflict, popular support for “alienated” Gaddafi has only enabled his successful military and political counter-offensive. What’s more: The African Union is calling for a fact-finding mission instead of precipitate war while the BRICS ( Brazil , Russia , India , China , and South Africa ) abstained from the UN resolution and condemned the attack on Libya . Is that alienation by any stretch?
De Quiros’ third salvo is that “…the strikes on Libya pay service to the truth.” What truth? That the monarchist loyalists funded by Western powerskindled the insurrection (just as
what’s being done in Mindanao)? Or that Western-led disinformation of Gaddafi using jets to mow down unarmed protestorsproved to be a lie by Russian satellite monitoring? Or, that the US-NATO coalition can’t even decide on the true objective for the attack, leading Germany to withdraw all participation, with France and Italy denying “regimechange” as trumpeted by Obama? Or that US-NATO bombs kill Libyan civilians to supposedly “protect civilians,” leading Turkey and the Arab League to protest?
De Quiros’ position is the height of hypocrisy and misinformation, justifying Big Power interference, as well as cynical, murderous, and unjust war on sovereign nations.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; TNT with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and watch or listen to our select radio and GNN shows)
Mentong Laurel
03/28-04/3/2011
The hottest headline the past week has been the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, with her top critic being “Hocus PCOS” President P-Noy Aquino.
Although the digital president did not write a newspaper column lambasting his latest pet peeve, he’s been slugging at the Arroyo-appointed Ombudsman covertly and overtly with increasing frequency. Last March 24, in a speech made at Cagayan de Oro, P-Noy said: “As the Senate prepares to try the Ombudsman, I urge you to support this and other efforts to fight corruption.”
Covertly, P-Noy mobilized the money of the state, namely P20 million of the Road User’s Tax, to lobby with congressmen for the impeach-Merci vote. As the covert move was headlined in the mosquito press, now every Filipino knows how P-Noywould use every low down, unprincipled means to get his way -- pretty much the way Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did.
The question is: Can one use unprincipled means to achieve a principle, in this case, the fight against corruption? Didn’t P-Noy just exacerbate Congress’ already endemic corruption by teaching everyone that money, not principled persuasion, still triumphs?
Is P-Noy’s guiding motto, “Daang matuwid,” true at all? Clearly, the contradiction between his actions and thisprinciple of the straight and narrow reveals the true character
and intent of his claimed advocacy as not being a seriousfight against corruption.
Supplier Rico J
The blatant contradiction that anybody can see, and continues to be on practically every informed Filipinos’ lips, is the appointmentof confirmed rogues to the top echelons of his government.
The prime example is Mr. Rico Puno, alias “Rico J,” undersecretary of the DILG, in charge of the nation’s 114,000 police force and budget of P47 billion. He was an arms and supplies vendor to the PNP before his appointment to the department in July 2010.
Rico J is also known amongst the military and the AFP suppliers’ community as the front man in military deals for a former congressman from Tarlac who, in his three terms,
had zero number of bills filed and laws passed.
Rico J is best known for his admission in September 2010, during the Archbishop Oscar Cruz exposés on jueteng, of receiving bribe offers from representatives of jueteng lords
and failing to make any move to have those people charged for attempted bribery.
Senate Estopped
While P-Noy succeeded in getting Congress to impeach Merceditas Gutierrez before the solons’ Holy Week break, it remains to be seen if the ouster will be completed by the Senate when it reconvenes. Pundits and experts, such as the only credible law commentator Prof. Alan Paguia, are saying that the acquittal of Gutierrez is imminent.
Paguia cites 14 senators who have been on record with comments on the Ombudsman’s case and, therefore, estopped from voting on the issues.
That these senators, including chief impeachment hatchet man TG Guingona, who should be well versed in the rules of Congress, should be making these missteps early in the process raises questions: Why this apparent contradiction between the call for ousting the Ombudsman and the actions that would put them in estoppel? Are they deliberately estopping themselves so there won’t be enough votes to convict the accused Ombudsman, thereby stopping the pursuit of the greater prey--Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo--for her alleged crimes? Why does this track seem oh-so familiar, reminding us of the stillborn Davide Truth Commission?
These contradictions lead us to reaffirm our belief that whatwe are seeing is just the continuity of the corrupt system. It is a system that is unable and unwilling to reform itself and, as such, will never indict anybody else in it by letting its principals (such as Gloria Arroyo) ever face true judgment. As we have asserted from the very beginning, this present administration is an Aquinorroyo regime flying the Yellow banner on its 25th year.
Looking for Consistency
The many columnists and commentators harping on the issue, from pro- and anti-Merci impeachment fences, may all be simply role-playing in a moromoro or zarzuela to distract from the essential truth: It’s all a stage show, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing in terms of real change. Even if by some twist of the law the estopped senators are allowed to vote and Merci is convicted, does that change anything in the country while the Rico J’s of the land are ensconced in power? No way, Jose.
In a contradictory and schizoid society, consistency in word and deed would be a revolutionary act and nothing revolutionary can come from a corrupt political and electoral system.
Looking for consistency in leadership is to look for revolutionary leadership, found in such leading lights as Oliver Cromwell of England to Mao Test-Tung of China, who both decapitated the old ruling class and system. Cromwell did so with King Charles and Mao Test-Tung with the Confucian tradition.
Speaking of revolution and the decapitation of ancient ruling classes, one can say that Moammar Gaddafi’s nondismantlement of Libya ’s old tribalist society has led to his failure of building a nation-state out of the Frankenstein cobbled together from Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan (and all their 140 tribes and clans) by the Italian colonizers in 1934.
Alienated?
This discussion on Gaddafi brings me to another Critics’ Critic favorite, Conrado de Quiros of the Inquirer. In his March 22 column, “Tale of two interventions,” he pontificates on
justifications for the attack on Libya, saying, “The Libyan civil war began as an uprising by the Libyan people following similar uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt .” (Actually, the latter two were in capital cities, reflecting national and popular support; whereas in Libya , it was in Benghazi , reflecting actually only regional and factional initiatives.)
De Quiros then said that Gaddafi was “determined to fight on despite his alienation from his own people and those of the world.” Yeah, right. Weeks into the conflict, popular support for “alienated” Gaddafi has only enabled his successful military and political counter-offensive. What’s more: The African Union is calling for a fact-finding mission instead of precipitate war while the BRICS ( Brazil , Russia , India , China , and South Africa ) abstained from the UN resolution and condemned the attack on Libya . Is that alienation by any stretch?
De Quiros’ third salvo is that “…the strikes on Libya pay service to the truth.” What truth? That the monarchist loyalists funded by Western powerskindled the insurrection (just as
what’s being done in Mindanao)? Or that Western-led disinformation of Gaddafi using jets to mow down unarmed protestorsproved to be a lie by Russian satellite monitoring? Or, that the US-NATO coalition can’t even decide on the true objective for the attack, leading Germany to withdraw all participation, with France and Italy denying “regimechange” as trumpeted by Obama? Or that US-NATO bombs kill Libyan civilians to supposedly “protect civilians,” leading Turkey and the Arab League to protest?
De Quiros’ position is the height of hypocrisy and misinformation, justifying Big Power interference, as well as cynical, murderous, and unjust war on sovereign nations.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; TNT with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and watch or listen to our select radio and GNN shows)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
