Manning, Assange and Suu Kyi

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

6/29/2012

On April 5, 2010 WikiLeaks released a classified US military video of three air strikes from a US Apache helicopter last July 12, 2007 in New Baghdad, Iraq. Eighteen people were killed, including two journalists working for Reuters, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen, while two children were wounded in an incoming private van that was going to rescue one of the reporters before it was fired upon. We know of the children because the video that showed US ground troops arriving at the area--recorded by the gunsight camera on the Apache helicopter, Crazyhorse 18--had a soldier "running as he (carried) one of the children wounded in the attack on the van."

Thanks to YouTube, millions of global citizens laid witness to those gruesome events. But had it not been for Private Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old intelligence analyst with the US Army in Baghdad who allegedly passed on the material to WikiLeaks, the world might still have not had any inkling of the atrocities that transpired on that fateful day.

Manning was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of passing classified materials to the whistleblower Web site, then charged with communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source and aiding the enemy--all of which could result in lifetime imprisonment.

Meanwhile, the other figure in this controversy, Julian Paul Assange (aged 42 today), is an Australian computer programmer, Internet political activist, publisher, and journalist, best known as the founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, a Web site that publishes information from whistleblowers everywhere.

A hacker-activist in his youth, Assange has garnered numerous awards and nominations, including the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, the 2010 Readers' Choice for Time's Person of the Year, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal, the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, and a nod for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. Fearing the accolades were a build-up for another "useful idiot," I kept quiet about him; now, I'm convinced he is genuine.

In 2010, a European arrest warrant was issued for Assange on what appeared to be trumped-up charges of rape and sexual assault. He was later arrested in the UK and freed on bail after 10 days. On May 30 of this year, Assange lost his Supreme Court appeal to prevent extradition to Sweden. Then on June 19, Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought political asylum on the basis of political persecution. Ecuador granted him temporary protection pending deliberations by the Ecuadorean parliament.

Just before his asylum bid and while serving house arrest in the UK, Assange had around half a dozen episodes of his own talk show beamed over Russia Today (seen here on Destiny Cable Channel 86). Every episode and interview I had the chance to follow was always interesting and in-depth; the last one with Imran Khan of Pakistan was no exception as it exposed the US as well as the Pakistani ruling class' corrupt politics.

The work and sacrifice of these two heroes, at a time when US imperialism is at its apogee, highlights the power of truth and modern information or--to borrow from another Internet dissident Alex Jones--the "Information War." This "Infowar" is one that will rouse the world against the US war industry and its controlled war-coddling mainstream media all over the world.

Indeed, these are the people who deserve all the international peace and democracy awards (except for the debased Nobel Peace Prize after it was bestowed to a mother-and-child killer in the White House, now infamous for his unmanned drone terrorism all over the world).

Sadly, there is no clamor yet in the Philippines for the kind of heroism of these two whistleblower-warriors for truth and global transparency. This is perhaps because a lot of column inches are being devoted to certain darlings of Western "human rights" advocates such as Aung San Suu Kyi.

Our Tribune colleague, Ken Fuller, wrote in "A rendezvous with disappointment" a good assessment of Suu Kyi and with apologies I summarize: "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew in and… met Aung Sang Suu Kyi for talks … Then, on April 13, following the NLD (Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy) by-election victories, in came UK Prime Minister David Cameron … What is happening here… is that Western leaders… are now hurrying to secure a place at the head of the line … Surely Aung San Suu Kyi would not allow them to pillage her country? … (But as) we get to socio-economic questions… what will the economy look like? Will Myanmar attempt to industrialize? What will be the balance between public and private, local and foreign enterprise? … voters were told that the NLD would 'focus on seeking necessary international assistance for development of the nation,' and that 'it is required to make a shift to market economy with a right balance between freedom, stability and social justice, based on the rule of law.' So, there will be a market economy. But that is not all. 'It is required to closely cooperate with the International Monetary Fund…'"

Last week in Oslo, Suu Kyi personally received the Nobel Peace honor bestowed on her 21 years ago, getting "two standing ovations as she gave her long-delayed acceptance speech." Before the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the King and Queen of Norway, and about 600 dignitaries, "The 66-year-old champion of political freedom praised the power of her 1991 Nobel honor both for saving her from the depths of personal despair and shining an enduring spotlight on injustices in distant Burma."

But I wonder, notwithstanding the fact that Myanmar has never invaded other lands, what has Suu Kyi really said and done about Western imperialism and its heinous cruelties all over the world? Hasn't she merely epitomized the hypocrisy of the West by serving as "human rights" leverage against struggling Asian and African nations?

Indeed, placing her side-by-side with the heroic Manning and Assange only reveals who the real glove-puppet of the West is.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m., this week on "The Oust PiNoy Movement" with Mon Pedrosa; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)

Debasing the CJ post

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

6/25/2012

From the noisy media circus atmospherics the past two weeks surrounding the scramble of Cabinet-member wannabes and outsiders for the Judiciary's top post, to the buzz on whether or not these nominees' Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) interviews should be televised, down to the paparazzi fervor with which these prospective candidates are being introduced to the public, all efforts in finding a replacement for ousted Chief Justice (CJ) Renato Corona ultimately bring up one question: Isn't this a debasement, a trivialization, of what in the past was considered a rarefied post, along with the essential attributes of detachment and transcendence that the candidates — not just for the Supreme Court (SC) but for the Judiciary as a whole — are supposed to possess?

Thus, it was with a sense of disbelief that I witnessed the likes of the country's chief tax collector showing off her wares in a cable news interview and of law deans and professors parading themselves to catch media attention, like in a burlesque show. It really is a sad spectacle; and sadder still when you think of how low it speaks of the ruling powers' regard for the Judiciary.

One CJ qualification raised by Malacañang spokesman Edwin Lacierda, in obvious support of 51-year-old Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Chief Kim Henares, was on the matter of age. He told Palace reporters that since "age is not a factor," a CJ candidate does not have to be old. What did he mean by that?
First of all, being 40 is not necessarily "young" to the younger set. Despite that, 50 can now be the "new 40" and 60 the "new 50." Moreover, someone who is 60 can even conceivably be 40 in many respects since it is now widely believed that the mind determines the age. Therefore, someone at age 51 who is crabby, myopic, tyrannical and oppressive can really be an 81-year-old Mubarak in mental state. Got that, Lacierda?

Well, perhaps to buttress his argument, Lacierda also cited the case of US Federal Supreme Court CJ John Roberts, who, upon assuming his post at age 50, serves as an example of a young person appointed to the zenith of the Judiciary. What he failed to note, however, was whether or not this young appointee indeed had a sterling record of public service to begin with.

Objections were already raised about Roberts' pro-right, anti-abortion leanings that allegedly triggered some violence by extremist groups prior to his appointment. Then, in his five years at the helm, a number of major, yet unsettling, changes came about under his leadership, which led retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to lament, among other things, Roberts' reversal of her major contribution to US jurisprudence of imposing spending limits on political campaigns.
So besides the 40-year-old age requirement for Philippine CJs, should there be any room for petty ageism? Moreover, given the importance of the CJ's position, have we ever had any in-depth, ideological, or jurisprudential discussion on issues relating to the CJ's appointment?

Sadly, it has always been the case of the Chief Executive and his spokesmen, the Legislature, and the media being at the forefront of providing leading, albeit shallow and mediocre, questions in whatever discussions, with politicians, media, relatives, friends of JBC members, or law fraternities holding sway on a personal or parochial basis.

Such a debased (or debasing) process of naming, vetting and appointing the next CJ clearly creates worse conditions for any nominee, as he will no longer be unaffected; will likely feel obliged to respond to private and public parties to which he may feel indebted; or will fear chastisement if he displeases one or the other source of support for his appointment.

We must therefore take a second look at the serendipitous findings of lawyers Alan Paguia and Homobono Adaza in reviewing Article VIII Section 9 on the Judiciary: That there is no constitutional basis for the nomination by the JBC and the President's appointment of the CJ.

Given the fundamental principles upon which our nation's democratic system is supposedly founded (namely, the separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances, the independence of the Judiciary) and taking heed of the caveat from an old adage that says "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," we must end the practice of appointing a CJ from outside the SC once and for all in order to enhance the high court's independence and detachment and for it to focus purely on the interpretation and execution of the Constitution and all its laws.

It is for this reason that Paguia, Adaza, Jojo Borja, myself, and several others will be filing a petition before the SC this Thursday on the issue.
Our thanks thus go to citizens Ric Palompon of Manila, Editha of Batangas, Bonifacio from the South, Romeo Lopez, Olive of Bulacan, Mrs. Villanueva of Mandaluyong, Mrs. Borja of Iligan, and Glen of QC for sending in donations for the filing fee and photocopying. To the few donors who have not sent in their names, we wish to thank them as well. Because of your generosity, I believe we will have enough by the date of filing. Mabuhay to all the conscientious and pro-active citizens who are continuing to support our cause!

(Tune in to 1098AM, dwAD, Sulo ng Pilipino/Radyo OpinYon, Monday-Wednesday-Friday, 5 to 6 p.m.; watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m.; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)

RP democracy's chance

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
6/18/2012

How often in my four decades of active involvement as a citizen in our nation's politics have I heard people and the media complain about the subservience of the Supreme Court (SC) to the President?

 

I remember as far back as the early years of the authoritarian rule of President Ferdinand Marcos how his chosen Chief Justice (CJ) Enrique Fernando, who served in that post in the most crucial years of 1979 to 1985, was lambasted by newspapers and activists alike.  Fernando's association with Marcos was so blackened that even his basic gentleman's gesture of holding up an umbrella to shade then First Lady Imelda Marcos was seen as a proof of his obsequiousness.

 

Indeed, since the time of CJ Fernando to this day, the same suspicion about every Philippine Chief Justice has lingered; and so it will be the same for a BSA III-appointed CJ.

 

Despite the noise for the likes of Henares, De Lima et al., PeNoy will certainly choose a neutral sounding name to dispel any notion of a "beholden CJ."  But who is he kidding?

 

Last week this space floated the idea of the 15 members of the SC choosing among themselves their "primus inter pares" as CJ, an idea that stemmed from Alan Paguia's comprehensive review of Art. VIII Sec. 9 of the Constitution, including his review of the "residual powers" of the President which evinced no constitutional basis for the appointment of the CJ by the Chief Executive.

 

These findings have been confirmed by Bono Adaza who has also come out strongly for ending the traditional but wrong practice of the President appointing the CJ.

 

Paguia likewise assured me that the 1986 Constitutional Commission's transcript reveals no discussion that can support the appointment of the CJ by the President.  It was Adaza who supplied the possible answer to the mystery of the constitutional provision that seems so serendipitous for those seeking greater independence for the nation's high court.

 

As assemblyman from Misamis, Adaza had one of the closest collegial relations with former SC Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma at the Batasan Pambansa.  He noted during our discussion of the issue on my GNN program that Muñoz-Palma was always obsessed with the SC's independence and was one of those who pushed doggedly for the independence of the budget of the Judiciary.

 

Muñoz-Palma later became chairperson of the 1986 Constitutional Commission where, Adaza believes, the former SC Justice personally influenced the formulation of Art. VIII Sec. 9 that leaves out any role of the Executive and Legislative branches of government in the selection of the chief magistrate--unlike the US Constitution which gives its President and Senate the power to nominate, and the latter to confirm, that country's Chief Justice.

 

In the Philippine Constitution, the role of the President and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) ends with the nomination and appointment of the "Members of the Supreme Court."  And that logically makes the CJ selection process open to election by members of the SC.

 

As the democratic principles and aspirations upon which our government is established are founded on the "separation of powers" of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government, as well as the "system of checks-and-balances," the two Houses of Congress elect their respective leadership--the Senate President by the senators and the Speaker of the House by the district and party-list representatives.

 

It therefore stands to reason that the highest body of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court, should also choose its leadership from among itself--a process that will undeniably enhance its independence.

 

Especially in the Filipino cultural context where "utang na loob" is rubbed in so deeply, the final CJ selection process that is free of any influence by the Executive and limited to the wisdom and consensus of the justices themselves will undoubtedly strengthen that august body's autonomy.

 

This autonomy of the highest court of the land is extra-critical in these crucial times for the Philippines, with issues such as the BangsoMoro "substate" and the burgeoning restoration of US military and nuclear presence looming over the horizon.

 

Fortunately, not a single person I have talked to on this proposed change of practice fails to be convinced after some clarification. It is, therefore, the right thing to do; and if, as Paguia stresses, Aquino III wishes to go down in history as a transcendent statesman, he would yield to this correct and constitutional application of the said proviso and leave the SC members to decide the matter by themselves.

 

However, given the realities and our experience with the manifest dictatorial intentions of the present government that is, moreover, backed by the US Embassy, it is left to us citizens and the people the struggle to institute the right practice of the selection of the CJ and to provide the SC members the basis for taking the right action, with the hope that they, being given a chance to correct a wrong, will have the courage to pursue this just course for the Judiciary.

 

In the next week or so, both Adaza and Paguia--with some citizens and taxpayers, God willing--may file a petition to question and/or stop the appointment of a Chief Justice by the President.  Since both lawyers have on their own shouldered the filing costs of many public interest cases in the past, I thought it only fair that from hereon we should seek the participation of the public in enabling our volunteer legal eagles to keep up the fight.

 

Any petition filed before the Supreme Court already requires a P6,000 fee, plus P1,000 for photocopying.  Thus, I am collecting donations for this next petition.

 

For your convenience or to make arrangements for pick-up of donations, please text me at 0917-8658664.  We will record all donations and acknowledge them on our radio program, TV show, and through this column.  Remember: Any amount is welcome.

 

(Tune in to 1098AM, dwAD, Sulo ng Pilipino/Radyo OpinYon, Monday-Wednesday-Friday, 5 to 6 p.m.; watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m.; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)