DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
4/8/2011
“Charity begins at home,” an old proverb goes; but I don’t think it applies to the current officials of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). Instead, the new managers from the Yellows are apparently making a clean sweep of the agency’s name literally. In a 56-page exposé, former PCSO chairman Manoling Morato reveals: “From the lobby pa lang, katakot-takot na ang harangan. ‘Yan ang instruction ni Margie (Juico, the new PCSO chairman) and her sons and brothers. They call the shots too. People are afraid of them; and rightly so…”
I wouldn’t take Morato’s word for it had I not known that Juico’s husband, Philip, allegedly has been going around brokering talents for PCSO advertising proposals. It also helped that a former PCSO insider told us that the husband-and-wife team is reportedly brokering for the Ayalas’ takeover of the prime 6.9-hectare lot of Quezon Institute (QI) along E. Rodriguez Ave. that was quickly vacated when Juico transferred the agency’s offices to the PICC last year.
This transfer to the CCP Complex on Roxas Blvd., where there are no direct jeepney or bus rides to the agency’s doorstep, severely limits the access of PCSO’s supposed clientele, the poor and infirm. At its former QI location, rides from Quiapo, Cubao, Caloocan, San Juan, Makati, Marikina, Pasig, and the provinces are easily taken to bring these beneficiaries right up to PCSO’s gates. Besides, since the lease on the QI property is for a good 50 years, it still has 37 years left for which either a penalty has to be paid or it may try to sublease — which is likely where the brokering of the real estate deal comes into the picture.
The QI property was leased by PCSO in 1995, edging out the LRT proposal which would have used it for a train station. Since it was already deemed a perfect site for a commercial center and transport hub back then, it’s no wonder that Ayala and other real estate developers have been eying this property for over a decade now. And since the Ayalas and the Juicos are known to belong to one Yellow family, hands down, it will probably go to the Ayalas this time.
We should also stress that the PCSO leases QI from the Philippine Tuberculosis Society Inc. (PTSI) for P24 million a year with a 5-percent annual increase proviso. This augments the PTSI’s P9-million endowment from various sources, of which its most notable project is the continued operation of the Quezon Institute hospital. It was precisely because of this and PTSI’s other functions that President Manuel Quezon established the PCSO. However, with Juico’s plan, this historical connection among the three will be merely thrown into the dustbin and, from my perspective, another 6.9-hectare green, oxygen breathing lung for Metro Manila will be converted into yet another choking, concrete rat maze.
As Juico is planning to transfer PCSO to Makati, the classic lagaring Hapon where she will likely buy or lease from Ayala or even use it as a pretext for swapping the E. Rodriguez property may set in. Juico claims she is in a hurry to get out of QI because it is already an old and unsafe structure. Really now.
The structures at the QI area were built in 1938 and designed by National Artist, Architect Juan Nakpil. Through the many earthquakes Metro Manila has experienced over the century, it is such old structures that have withstood the test of time. Note the resilience of the University of Santo Tomas main building, Malacañang Palace, the Post Office beside the Pasig River, and many others.
The trouble is, there are elements eyeing big real estate deals that are attempting to deliberately weaken them, such as those in Morato’s report where some contractors were made to dig holes on the QI’s beams and posts; and recently, under Juico, where electrical wirings were pulled out, fuse boxes stripped, toilet bowls and faucets removed, glass partitions and panels cannibalized, and water pumps dug out. Was it all to ensure that the PCSO would not be able to return if so ordered by the courts or any other authority?
The only charity known is one that is given to her extended parasitic Yellow family, such as a PR man who has grabbed the chance to position himself anew to benefit from government’s info and advertising budgets — a privilege the PR man enjoyed without limit during a previous administration.
Morato says that during his term as chairman, he did not avail of any PR firm because the PCSO had its own PR department. But, since PR firms get commissions of anywhere from 15 percent to 40 percent for contracts signed, we can assume it’ll be on the high side for the PR man and his “sponsor.”
Morato’s lengthy exposé includes many other issues, such as the conspiracy to transfer all PCSO funds to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Juico’s “spoiled milk” case at the Ombudsman filed by the late former DSWD Secretary Mita Pardo de Tavera, and others — but we’ll reserve these for future columns.
Looking at the situation, it’s now clear why Aquino III placed the PCSO directly under the Office of the President from where it used to be. It’s part of a sinister plot to take over the property, which had been preconceived by the Yellows from the very beginning. It shows the heartless, cynical, and predatory hypocrisy of this “elite” class of old families and oligarchs that rip off even the most vulnerable, needy and desperate of our public at every turn. This sweepstakes office under the Yellows should therefore be called Philippine Charity “Sweeped-stakes.”
(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 “The Grain Drain: NFA Privatization” with the NFA union; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus select radio and GNN shows)
Friday, April 8, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
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)
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
