Criticism of Marcos: An evaluation

CRITIC'S CRITIC
Mentong Laurel
4/4-10/2011



A new wave of anti-Marcos propaganda is afoot. Such attacks seem to spring up so serendipitously during EDSA I celebrations, Martial Law Day (September 21),or on Ninoy Aquino’s August 21 date with fate. This time, the “milestone” of EDSA I’s 25th anniversary, preceded by a somewhat deliberately timed US court decision in mid- January to release $7.5 million to alleged “Marcos human rights victims,” may well have been an added trigger.

Seeing that the money was only distributed last month due to our tradpol Congress’ “Filipino time,” contrary to some US reports that it would be released by mid-February, the hoopla understandably had the effect of extending EDSA I celebrations and revived past controversies involving Marcos, including the issue of his burial.

Act of Reconciliation
Just the same, former Marcos Agriculture secretary and now congressman, Sonny Escudero, led a resolution in late March for the transfer of the former leader’s remains to the military heroes’ memorial. Stating that “Allowing the burial of Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani will not only be an acknowledgment of the way he led a life as a Filipino patriot, but it will also be a magnanimous act of reconciliation,” the resolution gained overwhelming support among his fellow solons--193 at one count -- eventually swelling to over 200.

However, as it was in the past, the controversy seemed to have divided the nation more than it united.

As expected, the usual anti-Marcos elements from the Left and the Yellows raised vehement objections. Some quarters thus sought to resolve these irreconcilable positions through a referendum. And if it can be considered such, a referendum of sorts did transpire with an SWS survey finding that 50 percent of Filipinos already want a hero’s burial for Marcos.

Stigmatized
Suddenly, as this momentum for the hero’s burial gathered steam, from nowhere came this news: “Marcos’ Aussie daughter axed from TV show.”

But isn’t it an injustice that Analisa Josefa Hegyesi, an acknowledged child of Marcos from a relationship with a former model, was removed from an Australian reality show simply because she admitted to being Marcos’ daughter?

Since the news cited confirmation from Marcos confidante Roquito Ablan, I queried former Marcos spokesman Lito Gorospe, who likewise confirmed it.

Still, I absolutely do not think much of this as I know enough of the histories of obsessive achievers’ hormonal urges, from Chinese emperors to Indian moguls, from Catherine the Great down to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mao Tsetung, John F. Kennedy, François Mitterrand, Bill Clinton, and most recently, Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi.

Many leaders are known for their great deeds, with their proclivities raised only when the need to stigmatize them arises.

Most Loved Leaders
But Marcos’ romantic adventures with Dovie Beams, among others, or even supposedly early on with Carmen Soriano, are known to many Filipinos. And yet, he still managed to maintain such high esteem from the people after all this time, as refl ected in the latest surveys.

An even more amorous president, Joseph E. Estrada, who, despite his string of lady loves, rose from a town mayor and scaled the ladder of political success until reaching the highest office -- almost replicating it in the last elections after six years and six months of unjust imprisonment, were it not for “Hocus PCOS.”

In a February 2010 Pulse Asia survey, Marcos and Estrada were still voted as the second and third most loved presidents, despite years of calumnies heaped upon them by the Yellow and Westerncontrolled mainstream media.

Furthermore, leftists such as Karapatan and anti-Marcos pols such as the young Erin Tañada or an old porker such as Edcel Lagman constantly lambast Marcos as massively corrupt, a plunderer, human rights violator, murderer, dictator, among other things.

Dismally Worse
But why are such criticisms (and critics) of Marcos still not convincing half the Philippine population?

That’s because the people recall many good things under Marcos: Cheap and abundant rice enough even for export; cheap power and water; bridges and roads built all over; doubledecker buses in the capital; an LRT that was affordable; an insurgency problem that was licked, with the NPA, MNLF, and MILF vanquished; as well as our nation’s opened ties to China and Russia.

Conversely, the people are also convinced of how dismally worse Cory Aquino and the Yellows did in governance.

Since EDSA I, living standards crashed; corruption and cronyism among the Yellow pols and oligarchs, and even taxes, rose; jobs became scarce; power and water climbed beyond the masses’ reach; the poor multiplied; the middle class shrank; while the super rich became richer.

Divide and Rule
As for the Left, people saw through their Plaza Miranda bombing op, their self-decimating purges, Operation Missing Link, Cadena de Amor, etc. How then can they be self-righteous? Similarly, the Marcos critics that overflow in mainstream media -- in ABS-CBN, GMA-7, TV5, Inquirer, Philippine Star, and on mainstream radio -- all omit one aspect in their critiques: Why the US and Western media are so attuned to the anti- Marcos line as well.

One lesson in geopolitics that has made Western imperial hegemony survive to this day has been the art of “divide and rule.”

In fact, the imperial powers are now even more effective than during the time of British deep penetration agent Lt. Col. Thomas Edward, a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia, who pitted Arabs against fellow Arabs to break up the Ottoman Empire and establish puppet kingdoms that rule as oppressive autocrats up to the present time.


It’s Time to Move On
These days the Western powers profoundly use media, including social media, to pry open fault lines in targeted nations.

In the Philippines, they regularly stoke the anti-Marcos fault line, as if always ready to set off a Magnitude 9 political earthquake and tsunami.

Thus far, the most sensible position that has been expressed in the Marcos burial debate comes from Senator Antonio Trillanes IV: “To be consistent (with the rule that soldiers are buried at the Libingan), we should allow the former president to be buried there…

It’s time we move on. Let us get it over and done with so we can unite and move forward.”

Inconsequential Now
In contrast, Edcel Lagman, like the antiquated Ford flop he’s named after, could only quibble with disjointed comparisons between the self-confessed somnambulist Angelo Reyes (he who “walked into corruption”) and the late President Marcos who was never convicted of any charge.

Like most anti-Marcos critics, Lagman is shallow and petty, and equally useless for enlightenment -- only useful for destabilization.

Yet, as the people have already acknowledged Marcos as a hero in their hearts, I now find the insistence for his transfer to the Libingan inconsequential.

Still, if the Marcos family wants vindication and closure, and the majority of Filipinos concur, then we should unite once and for all.

(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 “NFA Privatization: Food Suicide?;” visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and watch or listen to our select radio and GNN shows)

May the President dismiss a Deputy Ombudsman?

Alan F. Paguia
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
April 5, 2011

May the President dismiss a Deputy Ombudsman? Yes, for the following reasons:

1. Under the Constitution:

“The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.” (Sec. 2, Art. XI)

The first sentence refers to public officers who may be removed from office only by impeachment. The second sentence refers to those who may be removed as provided by law, but not by impeachment. Clearly, the Deputy Ombudsman is covered by the second sentence. Therefore, he may be removed in the ordinary course of law.

2. “The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur” (Sec. 9, ibid). Generally the power to appoint carries the power to remove from office. The exception is with respect to public officers who are removable only by impeachment. Hence, a Deputy Ombudsman may be removed from office by the President after due process of law.


3. Under the Ombudsman Act of 1989, a Deputy Ombudsman “may be removed from office by the President for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman and after due process” (par. 2, Sec. 8, RA 6770). Thus, the presidential power to discipline or dismiss a Deputy Ombudsman is recognized by express provision of law, upon the authority of no less than the Legislative Department.

4. Under the Administrative Code of 1987:

“No formal investigation is necessary and the respondent may be immediately removed or dismissed if any of the following circumstances is present:


(1) When the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong;


(2) When the respondent is a recidivist or has been repeatedly charged and there is reasonable ground to believe that he is guilty of the present charge; and


(3) When the respondent is notoriously undesirable.


Resort to summary proceedings by the disciplining authority shall be done with utmost objectivity and impartiality to the end that no injustice is committed: Provided, That removal or dismissal, except those by the President himself or upon his order, may be appealed to the Commission.” (Sec. 50, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title, I, BOOK V, E.O. 292)

In other words, under any of the grounds cited by the law, the removal or dismissal from office by the President is FINAL, EXECUTORY, and NOT APPEALABLE to the Civil Service Commission. At best, the respondent’s only remedy is to claim grave abuse of discretion and file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. In the latter case, the dismissal remains FINAL and EXECUTORY, unless the Court rules otherwise or issues a temporary restraining or status quo ante order or preliminary injunction.

Talk News TV with Herman Tiu Laurel

TOPIC: ARMM Hocus PCOS
Guests: Maricor Akol, President of Philippine National I.T. Standards Foundation and Mano Alcuaz, Systems Consult President


[PART 1]

[PART 2]