What exactly are we, the people, entitled to know about the President’s state of health whenever he or she goes for a medical check or is actually sick? This need not be extensively debated. The Constitution says it; it is not contingent upon public curiosity or presidential discretion or taste.
Section 12 of Article VII provides: “In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health. The Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall not be denied access to the President during such illness.”
“In case of serious illness” is the operative clause. At anytime the healthiest president could undergo some medical tests or actually get sick. He or she is not mandated by law to keep the nation posted on any minor ailment. In actual practice, however, a medical bulletin is normally issued to keep the public informed through the press. If any procedure was performed, there is usually a brief statement about it and then the usual words about the President having been given a clean bill of health.
When is a president’s illness deemed serious? If and when there is a fair chance of dying or developing some longterm complications or being permanently disabled. If the President suffers a stroke or heart attack, or tests positive for cancer and is consequently confined, physically incapacitated and no longer able to perform nomal bodily functions, then even a mere layman would know his or her illness is serious.
When that happens, Sec. 12 begins to operate. The public must be told about the true state of the President’s health. No one may bar the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Defense, the National Security Adviser and the AFP Chief of Staff from having access to the President, just in case any member of his family or circle of close friends should want to hide the gravity of his or her serious illness from the public and his or her immediate successor, the Vice President.
In the final years of President Ferdinand Marcos, the Cabinet and the public remained in the dark amid thick rumors that the strongman had fallen seriously ill and had secretly undergone a kidney transplant. As columnist for a morning daily at the time, having resigned from the Cabinet where I had served as information minister for ten years, I learned about the transplant and wrote about it. Sources close to Marcos confirmed this much later, after his fall from power in 1986, but not while he was in office.
The framers of the 1987 Constitution obviously had that situation in mind when they introduced the previously quoted Sec. 12. Under Sec. 11 (same Article) they also provided that “whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of his office as Acting President.”
Such is the grave implication of serious presidential illness to the stability of the Constitution that it may not, at any time, be kept hidden from the public. The following questions may now be asked:
1. Is Mrs. Arroyo suffering from any serious sickness which Malacanang has tried to hide or is trying to hide from the Cabinet or the public?
2. Is she bedridden or incapacitated?
3. Were the tests conducted on her at the Asian Hospital related to any major complaint, and have the results been kept secret?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then we must hold her accountable to the public. It appears, however, the answer is in the negative. The heat of the controversy seems to focus rather on the report that as a much younger woman, Mrs. Arroyo had a breast implant performed on herself in the eighties. The old technology had begun to falter, and repair had to be done. It was as simple as that. It was a simple cosmetic procedure to correct something that by no stretch of the imagination could be called a disease.
Mrs. Arroyo’s spokesmen were stupid enough to try to dispute the mercilessly detailed scoop by our columnist-friend Jarius Bondoc, thereby adding to the frenzy of the text-messaging that had gone around the world. No real national interest or national security issue has been clarified by the sharp focus on this incident. But many of us seem convinced they could change the status quo just by talking to death about the hair growth that had reportedly been shaved off the presidential groin and armpits.
This kind of stuff diminishes us. We have to rise from the morass. As critics and political adversaries, it may be easy enough for us to exploit details that attack Arroyo’s feminine self-esteem rather than her politics. But our duty to Christian charity advises us against it; noblesse oblige. Our duty, it seems to me, is to elevate the public debate by segregating the serious health issue from this “woman thing” which we do not begrudge other women we truly admire and everybody else. As someone who has tried since 2001 to make Mrs. Arroyo accountable for the worst degradations in our politics I would not want it said that where I had failed to dent her political armor with fundamental questions about constitutional legitimacy and moral integrity, I finally succeeded by talking simply about her ruptured silicon and armpits.
I would not know how to defend myself from that.
Reactions to http//:franciscotatad.blogspot.com
8 July 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Will the U.S. intervene in the 2010 elections?
At the US July Fourth reception on July 2 Ambassador Kristie Kenney was asked pointblank if her government would be “concerned” over a “postponement” of the 2010 Philippine elections. The question contained a hypothesis rather than a fact, and a potential headline written into it. Mrs. Kenney answered “yes” and that gave Philippine Star a brilliant scoop which it proudly bannered the next day---“US: No to ‘no-el’,” (the last word, for “no elections”).
This was fully congruent with Kenney’s prepared text where she said, “one of the values that we share with our American friends is a fierce commitment to electoral democracy and the institution of suffrage.” Elections are a good way of renewing democracy, she added. Over the years various U.S. institutions have made it a point to observe the periodic conduct or misconduct of Philippine elections.
But the subject here was “postponement” of elections. Given the unanswered questions at the Commission on Elections about automated voting, the move in Congress to propose a shift to parliamentary government, and the various scenarios being dreamed up by various parties for 2010, a postponement of the elections could not, in principle, be completely ruled out. Even without those problems a postponement remains a possibility, no matter how remote. What would happen, for example, if and when a major natural calamity should occur on election day and people are no longer able to venture outside their homes? Certainly no elections could be held; they would be automatically postponed.
So it is possible. But probable? That’s another story altogether. “Possibility” has never been the same as “probability.” And despite fears of a possible failure of elections, no one has actually proposed or is proposing a postponement. So its possibility is purely speculative and hypothetical as of now, and it was a purely hypothetical question that was put to Kenney. A diplomat of lesser spunk would probably have declined: “I’m sorry, I don’t answer hypothetical questions.” But Kenney obviously thought it best to send a clear signal to those who may be planning mischief to do away with the 2010 elections.
Now we have it in black and white. The US would be “concerned” if the elections were postponed, and there are various ways of making such concern felt by the parties involved. It is a warning to all ---not just to the Arroyo administration but to everyone else who may be planning to supplant the elections with their own schemes. No doubt Kenney’s words have a positive impact on the thinking of many Filipinos. They may now feel a little more confident that the elections would be held as scheduled, despite the absence of any prospect for real change or any truly worthy candidates for the highest office. But we cannot misread her words to mean the U.S. will “intervene to ensure clean and free elections.” The U.S. will react accordingly if we mess up our electoral process, but they will not tell us how to conduct our sovereign business.
How would all this affect those who want to see parliamentary elections rather than presidential ones in 2010? They do not want the elections postponed; they simply want the form of government changed. Of course the idea is strongly opposed by many, this writer included, and we are convinced we are right. But what happens if and when, despite our strongest opposition, the Supreme Court ultimately upholds what we believe is an unconstitutional way of proposing constitutional amendments, and the people do not rise in protest but remain apathetic?
Once more, this is hypothetical, it may or may not happen at all. But having already answered one hypothetical question, could not the ambassador tell us now how Washington would react to it? Of course, we would respect her silence if she decides she has already said enough or more than enough on the subject.
I am a great Kenney fan, particularly for her public diplomacy skills. You see her wholesome face in public billboards in Palawan, Visayas and Mindanao, and she is not much less visible than my friend Sen. Dick Gordon in highly publicized humanitarian operations. But something about her non-verbal idiom, as recorded by the Star, invites careful decoding.
In the four-column center photo below the Star’s July 3 headline, Kenney is flanked by the Air Force Chief Lt. Gen. Oscar Rabena and Navy commander Vice Admiral Ferdinand Golez. She is sparkling in her evening dress, and the flag officers are resplendent in their gala uniforms. But Kenney’s left hand is shown resting gently on Vice Admiral Golez’s strong right shoulder. What was it doing there?
Not having gone to a finishing school for diplomats, most readers will not know what to make of it. I have tried to understand international diplomacy most of my life, and I do not know what it means. Could the good ambassador or the Department of Foreign Affairs please enlighten us on it? It feels good to be able to think that if things fell apart, we could always rely on the US to help us pick up the pieces. But as a 111-year-old republic, we should by now be able to stand on our own instead of expecting our former colonial master to sort out our sovereign affairs for us. Even the U.S. may have no need for such subservience.
This was fully congruent with Kenney’s prepared text where she said, “one of the values that we share with our American friends is a fierce commitment to electoral democracy and the institution of suffrage.” Elections are a good way of renewing democracy, she added. Over the years various U.S. institutions have made it a point to observe the periodic conduct or misconduct of Philippine elections.
But the subject here was “postponement” of elections. Given the unanswered questions at the Commission on Elections about automated voting, the move in Congress to propose a shift to parliamentary government, and the various scenarios being dreamed up by various parties for 2010, a postponement of the elections could not, in principle, be completely ruled out. Even without those problems a postponement remains a possibility, no matter how remote. What would happen, for example, if and when a major natural calamity should occur on election day and people are no longer able to venture outside their homes? Certainly no elections could be held; they would be automatically postponed.
So it is possible. But probable? That’s another story altogether. “Possibility” has never been the same as “probability.” And despite fears of a possible failure of elections, no one has actually proposed or is proposing a postponement. So its possibility is purely speculative and hypothetical as of now, and it was a purely hypothetical question that was put to Kenney. A diplomat of lesser spunk would probably have declined: “I’m sorry, I don’t answer hypothetical questions.” But Kenney obviously thought it best to send a clear signal to those who may be planning mischief to do away with the 2010 elections.
Now we have it in black and white. The US would be “concerned” if the elections were postponed, and there are various ways of making such concern felt by the parties involved. It is a warning to all ---not just to the Arroyo administration but to everyone else who may be planning to supplant the elections with their own schemes. No doubt Kenney’s words have a positive impact on the thinking of many Filipinos. They may now feel a little more confident that the elections would be held as scheduled, despite the absence of any prospect for real change or any truly worthy candidates for the highest office. But we cannot misread her words to mean the U.S. will “intervene to ensure clean and free elections.” The U.S. will react accordingly if we mess up our electoral process, but they will not tell us how to conduct our sovereign business.
How would all this affect those who want to see parliamentary elections rather than presidential ones in 2010? They do not want the elections postponed; they simply want the form of government changed. Of course the idea is strongly opposed by many, this writer included, and we are convinced we are right. But what happens if and when, despite our strongest opposition, the Supreme Court ultimately upholds what we believe is an unconstitutional way of proposing constitutional amendments, and the people do not rise in protest but remain apathetic?
Once more, this is hypothetical, it may or may not happen at all. But having already answered one hypothetical question, could not the ambassador tell us now how Washington would react to it? Of course, we would respect her silence if she decides she has already said enough or more than enough on the subject.
I am a great Kenney fan, particularly for her public diplomacy skills. You see her wholesome face in public billboards in Palawan, Visayas and Mindanao, and she is not much less visible than my friend Sen. Dick Gordon in highly publicized humanitarian operations. But something about her non-verbal idiom, as recorded by the Star, invites careful decoding.
In the four-column center photo below the Star’s July 3 headline, Kenney is flanked by the Air Force Chief Lt. Gen. Oscar Rabena and Navy commander Vice Admiral Ferdinand Golez. She is sparkling in her evening dress, and the flag officers are resplendent in their gala uniforms. But Kenney’s left hand is shown resting gently on Vice Admiral Golez’s strong right shoulder. What was it doing there?
Not having gone to a finishing school for diplomats, most readers will not know what to make of it. I have tried to understand international diplomacy most of my life, and I do not know what it means. Could the good ambassador or the Department of Foreign Affairs please enlighten us on it? It feels good to be able to think that if things fell apart, we could always rely on the US to help us pick up the pieces. But as a 111-year-old republic, we should by now be able to stand on our own instead of expecting our former colonial master to sort out our sovereign affairs for us. Even the U.S. may have no need for such subservience.
Labels:
kenney
Friday, July 3, 2009
The jewels of Imelda Marcos
Imelda Romualdez Marcos is now eighty years old. She has lost little of her charm; the political rubbishing she has received since her husband Ferdinand fell from power and died has failed to dent her self-confidence. She still thinks of doing things for the poor as though she had never left her job in human settlements. She has learned to look beyond her critics and believes she has found peace. Watch her move inside a shopping mall or wet market, and you’ll see people reaching out to touch her. Watch those who have set themselves above her: no one at all seems to mind them. Not even the New York Times minds talking about her in lieu of her country or its government.
While court cases have piled up against the Marcos estate (of which Imelda is the executor), none of them has moved, purportedly for lack of evidence. In the only celebrated case that ever went to trial in New York City in 1990, the now legendary Rudolph Giuliani did his best to convict the accused, and she literally spat blood in open court, but after a seemingly interminable trial, Imelda won an acquittal that stunned her critics and supporters alike. Her biggest and toughest battle, however, has always been in the media where the cruelest caricature and cliches about her persist. Negative press opinion terrifies state prosecutors, judges and justices from confessing openly that sufficient evidence does not exist against her in any of her cases, and that, however terrible or unacceptable it may appear, the law seems to favor her side.
Nothing illustrates this better than the case of her jewelry which the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) had carted away when Marcos fell in 1986 and those seized by the US government when the Marcoses arrived in Hawaii and subsequently turned over to the PCGG by the US government. Who owns these jewelry is a question of law rather than of political opinion, but the PCGG seems inclined to act on the basis of what the editorials and columnists would say rather than on the basis of what the law actually says.
When Cory Aquino proclaimed a revolutionary government in 1986, she could have confiscated all the Marcos properties and declared them forfeit to the state. This is what successful revolutions usually do. But she never did. Instead, she decreed that all questionable Marcos assets be simply sequestered or frozen until they were declared by a competent court to have been ill-gotten. Thus any question about the ultimate ownership of any sequestered asset must be resolved according to a specific constitutional process.
Under the Constitution, the PCGG had 18 months from February 7, 1987, or until August 7, 1989, to sequester and freeze assets believed to have been ill-gotten, upon a showing of a prima facie case. If the assets had been sequestered or frozen before February 7, 1987, judicial action to declare them ill-gotten and forfeit to the state should have taken place within six months from that date. If the assets had been sequestered or frozen after that date, such action should have been commenced within six months from the sequestration or freezing of the same. If no such action had been commenced during the said period, the sequestration or freeze order was deemed automatically lifted.
No court has pronounced the Imelda jewelry ill-gotten. Neither has any forfeiture proceeding been initiated anywhere during the prescribed period. Thus Imelda’s ownership of the jewels stands uncontested, no matter how we may feel about it. No less than the irrepressible Secretary Raul Gonzales has said as much, before he was shifted from the Department of Justice to the Malacanang legal office. If the PCGG could show no legal basis for holding on to the jewels, it should return them to their rightful owner, he said. Why then does the PCGG tenaciously cling on to them despite such authoritative prodding, and the owner’s own repeated demands for their immediate return? One can only speculate.
The PCGG is apparently scared to do what is legally right but which the old enemies of Marcos may not be prepared to accept. After all, it took many of them a long time to accept the fact that the communists, as Marcos had said from the very start, rather than Marcos himself, as the victims had claimed, had thrown the grenade at Plaza Miranda that nearly wiped out the entire opposition in 1971. They were not prepared to see that Marcos was innocent of the heinous crime which they had led themselves and the rest of the nation to believe had been his handiwork. Something similar could be happening here, again.
Having made the world believe that everything the Marcoses had was ill-gotten, the PCGG does not have what it takes to admit it has no right to the jewels. They have apparently calculated that regardless of what the law says, the people are not likely to march for Imelda if her rights were violated, whereas the PCGG commissioners could be in real trouble if they fail to consider the sentiments of the old enemies of Marcos. So it would be safer to be constitutionally wrong but politically correct. But no society endures which sacrifices the law to personal vendetta or political correctness.
While court cases have piled up against the Marcos estate (of which Imelda is the executor), none of them has moved, purportedly for lack of evidence. In the only celebrated case that ever went to trial in New York City in 1990, the now legendary Rudolph Giuliani did his best to convict the accused, and she literally spat blood in open court, but after a seemingly interminable trial, Imelda won an acquittal that stunned her critics and supporters alike. Her biggest and toughest battle, however, has always been in the media where the cruelest caricature and cliches about her persist. Negative press opinion terrifies state prosecutors, judges and justices from confessing openly that sufficient evidence does not exist against her in any of her cases, and that, however terrible or unacceptable it may appear, the law seems to favor her side.
Nothing illustrates this better than the case of her jewelry which the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) had carted away when Marcos fell in 1986 and those seized by the US government when the Marcoses arrived in Hawaii and subsequently turned over to the PCGG by the US government. Who owns these jewelry is a question of law rather than of political opinion, but the PCGG seems inclined to act on the basis of what the editorials and columnists would say rather than on the basis of what the law actually says.
When Cory Aquino proclaimed a revolutionary government in 1986, she could have confiscated all the Marcos properties and declared them forfeit to the state. This is what successful revolutions usually do. But she never did. Instead, she decreed that all questionable Marcos assets be simply sequestered or frozen until they were declared by a competent court to have been ill-gotten. Thus any question about the ultimate ownership of any sequestered asset must be resolved according to a specific constitutional process.
Under the Constitution, the PCGG had 18 months from February 7, 1987, or until August 7, 1989, to sequester and freeze assets believed to have been ill-gotten, upon a showing of a prima facie case. If the assets had been sequestered or frozen before February 7, 1987, judicial action to declare them ill-gotten and forfeit to the state should have taken place within six months from that date. If the assets had been sequestered or frozen after that date, such action should have been commenced within six months from the sequestration or freezing of the same. If no such action had been commenced during the said period, the sequestration or freeze order was deemed automatically lifted.
No court has pronounced the Imelda jewelry ill-gotten. Neither has any forfeiture proceeding been initiated anywhere during the prescribed period. Thus Imelda’s ownership of the jewels stands uncontested, no matter how we may feel about it. No less than the irrepressible Secretary Raul Gonzales has said as much, before he was shifted from the Department of Justice to the Malacanang legal office. If the PCGG could show no legal basis for holding on to the jewels, it should return them to their rightful owner, he said. Why then does the PCGG tenaciously cling on to them despite such authoritative prodding, and the owner’s own repeated demands for their immediate return? One can only speculate.
The PCGG is apparently scared to do what is legally right but which the old enemies of Marcos may not be prepared to accept. After all, it took many of them a long time to accept the fact that the communists, as Marcos had said from the very start, rather than Marcos himself, as the victims had claimed, had thrown the grenade at Plaza Miranda that nearly wiped out the entire opposition in 1971. They were not prepared to see that Marcos was innocent of the heinous crime which they had led themselves and the rest of the nation to believe had been his handiwork. Something similar could be happening here, again.
Having made the world believe that everything the Marcoses had was ill-gotten, the PCGG does not have what it takes to admit it has no right to the jewels. They have apparently calculated that regardless of what the law says, the people are not likely to march for Imelda if her rights were violated, whereas the PCGG commissioners could be in real trouble if they fail to consider the sentiments of the old enemies of Marcos. So it would be safer to be constitutionally wrong but politically correct. But no society endures which sacrifices the law to personal vendetta or political correctness.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Prime Minister, anyone?
One reason, it is said, why Ferdinand Marcos stayed in power far beyond his unprecedented second term was because he had seen how badly our former presidents and especially former first ladies were treated by the snooty rich and he would have none of it. Now, one question being put to our prematurely campaigning presidential aspirants in some inane TV forum is, “If elected, will you send Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to jail?”
That is no incentive for the outgoing and termed-out president to think of riding into the sunset or writing her memoirs. One current text message fires its own bullet: “Amend the Constitution now and allow two terms for the President: the first one in office, the second in jail.” Mrs. Arroyo has to think of life after Malacanang, and that’s what we are seeing right now.
It would be a violent trampling of the Constitution if Mrs. Arroyo tried by any means to extend her term as president. She knows it will not fly, so she won’t do it. But nothing prevents her seeking a change in the Constitution to allow her to stay on. The Russians and some Latin Americans have done it, so Mrs. Arroyo’s allies in the House of Representatives are eager to have a constitutional shift to parliamentary government where she could----not necessarily would---- become prime minister (PM).
There are several steps. 1) The House proposes the appropriate constitutional amendments without the Senate; 2) the Supreme Court (SC) rules that the procedure, if and when questioned, is constitutional and correct; 3) a plebiscite is held and the people ratify the proposed amendments; 4) parliamentary elections are held in which Mrs. Arroyo is elected Member of Parliament (MP); and 6) Mrs. Arroyo is elected PM by her peers.
The plan could miscarry if: 1) the House excludes the Senate from the process and the SC says no, it cannot be done; or 2) the SC says it is all right but the people rise in protest and throws out the entire government, including all the justices; or 3) the process goes all the way up to a plebiscite but the people reject the proposed shift, and their votes are counted and reported accurately by the Commission on Elections (Comelec); or 4) their votes are misreported and they rise in revolt.
The parliamentary scenario is repugnant to many, not necessarily because of what is being proposed but rather because of its timing. Not now, says the sign in many places. They do not want Mrs. Arroyo to benefit from it, that’s all. “Kami naman,” they say. Despite her reputed unpopularity, however, Mrs. Arroyo remains the strongest political player who is in a position to dictate her terms. She has survived all challenges and left no real challengers standing except for a few showbiz-oriented characters who are busier posing for their TV ads than having a real impact on our people’s lives.
She will stay in power if she can, and we will just have to stop her if we can. As the process is constitutional, we will have to use constitutional means. That means meeting the parliamentary proponents in open debate on the floor of the House, in the media, and ultimately in court. Should we fail, we could either submit gracefully or take up active resistance. But the result of the latter is not predictable and the consequence of failure incalculable and usually more than unpleasant. And what if the people do not respond at all?
Should the initiative prosper and the people accept it, we will have to elect MPs, one for each district. Mrs. Arroyo could then run in Pampanga, Pangasinan, Quezon City or Iligan. If Pampanga, which is our best bet, Governor Ed Panlilio, the priest-turned-politician who now wants to become president also, will have a rare opportunity to frustrate her bid, if he is truly as popular in Pampanga as he appears to be in some unorthodox small circles in Metro Manila. That would cut her off the prime ministership, without necessarily making the giant-killer a prime ministerial candidate.
Should Panlilio fail to stop her, she surely becomes material for PM. But only if her party wins most of the seats, or failing that, if her party coalesces with other parties to form the majority bloc. Becoming PM then is not a given and cannot be assumed as such. It will be up for grabs, and Mrs. Arroyo will have to fight for it. Others could contest the prime ministership.
For example, Danding Cojuangco of NPC, who missed the presidency in 1992, could become an MP and seek the PMship. So could former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, without having to worry about the legality of his becoming head of government again. So could former President Fidel V. Ramos, if he’s still strong with Lakas. So could Manny Villar, Mar Roxas, Makati Mayor Jojo Binay, MMDA’s Bayani Fernando and everyone else who wants to become president. Even Smart’s Manny Pangilinan and former Speaker Jose de Venecia could also join the fun. They could all coalesce just to deny Mrs. Arroyo the PMship, if they want.
The only real problem is that these are politicians divided by a common ambition, and they seem to have carved their political motto upon stone: “Divided we stand, united we fall.”
That is no incentive for the outgoing and termed-out president to think of riding into the sunset or writing her memoirs. One current text message fires its own bullet: “Amend the Constitution now and allow two terms for the President: the first one in office, the second in jail.” Mrs. Arroyo has to think of life after Malacanang, and that’s what we are seeing right now.
It would be a violent trampling of the Constitution if Mrs. Arroyo tried by any means to extend her term as president. She knows it will not fly, so she won’t do it. But nothing prevents her seeking a change in the Constitution to allow her to stay on. The Russians and some Latin Americans have done it, so Mrs. Arroyo’s allies in the House of Representatives are eager to have a constitutional shift to parliamentary government where she could----not necessarily would---- become prime minister (PM).
There are several steps. 1) The House proposes the appropriate constitutional amendments without the Senate; 2) the Supreme Court (SC) rules that the procedure, if and when questioned, is constitutional and correct; 3) a plebiscite is held and the people ratify the proposed amendments; 4) parliamentary elections are held in which Mrs. Arroyo is elected Member of Parliament (MP); and 6) Mrs. Arroyo is elected PM by her peers.
The plan could miscarry if: 1) the House excludes the Senate from the process and the SC says no, it cannot be done; or 2) the SC says it is all right but the people rise in protest and throws out the entire government, including all the justices; or 3) the process goes all the way up to a plebiscite but the people reject the proposed shift, and their votes are counted and reported accurately by the Commission on Elections (Comelec); or 4) their votes are misreported and they rise in revolt.
The parliamentary scenario is repugnant to many, not necessarily because of what is being proposed but rather because of its timing. Not now, says the sign in many places. They do not want Mrs. Arroyo to benefit from it, that’s all. “Kami naman,” they say. Despite her reputed unpopularity, however, Mrs. Arroyo remains the strongest political player who is in a position to dictate her terms. She has survived all challenges and left no real challengers standing except for a few showbiz-oriented characters who are busier posing for their TV ads than having a real impact on our people’s lives.
She will stay in power if she can, and we will just have to stop her if we can. As the process is constitutional, we will have to use constitutional means. That means meeting the parliamentary proponents in open debate on the floor of the House, in the media, and ultimately in court. Should we fail, we could either submit gracefully or take up active resistance. But the result of the latter is not predictable and the consequence of failure incalculable and usually more than unpleasant. And what if the people do not respond at all?
Should the initiative prosper and the people accept it, we will have to elect MPs, one for each district. Mrs. Arroyo could then run in Pampanga, Pangasinan, Quezon City or Iligan. If Pampanga, which is our best bet, Governor Ed Panlilio, the priest-turned-politician who now wants to become president also, will have a rare opportunity to frustrate her bid, if he is truly as popular in Pampanga as he appears to be in some unorthodox small circles in Metro Manila. That would cut her off the prime ministership, without necessarily making the giant-killer a prime ministerial candidate.
Should Panlilio fail to stop her, she surely becomes material for PM. But only if her party wins most of the seats, or failing that, if her party coalesces with other parties to form the majority bloc. Becoming PM then is not a given and cannot be assumed as such. It will be up for grabs, and Mrs. Arroyo will have to fight for it. Others could contest the prime ministership.
For example, Danding Cojuangco of NPC, who missed the presidency in 1992, could become an MP and seek the PMship. So could former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, without having to worry about the legality of his becoming head of government again. So could former President Fidel V. Ramos, if he’s still strong with Lakas. So could Manny Villar, Mar Roxas, Makati Mayor Jojo Binay, MMDA’s Bayani Fernando and everyone else who wants to become president. Even Smart’s Manny Pangilinan and former Speaker Jose de Venecia could also join the fun. They could all coalesce just to deny Mrs. Arroyo the PMship, if they want.
The only real problem is that these are politicians divided by a common ambition, and they seem to have carved their political motto upon stone: “Divided we stand, united we fall.”
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Will you march for the senators and “presidentiables?”
We hold an unbroken record of losing our battles to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, but there is still no sign we have learned our lessons well. We call her names, crack all sorts of nasty jokes against her, denounce her as evil, but she has outplayed all her adversaries and she could very well do it again.
The latest row is about House Resolution 1109 “calling on members of Congress to convene for the purpose of proposing amendments to or revisions of the Constitution.” This has produced a rally in Makati, screaming news headlines and fiery broadcasts, editorials and commentaries, but very little understanding of the real situation on the ground.
The resolution has all the virtues of a beginner’s piece in English composition, but it is not criminal at all. It is suspiciously devious, but it contains no constitutional proposal at all. It does not say the House of Representatives alone will propose constitutional changes without the Senate, even though that could be the congressmen’s intention. The protest anticipates the offense.
HR 1109 recalls that under the 1935 Constitution, “the Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately may propose amendments.” Under the 1987 Constitution, however, “any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members.”
This means that while the Congress previously could not propose any constitutional amendment unless the two Houses first assembled in joint session, it can do so now, without the two Houses sitting together. There is no need for HR 1109 at all. The only thing needed is for every proposal to be supported by at least three-fourths of all the members of Congress, which is bicameral.
This means 18 of the 24 senators and 201 of the 268 congressmen, or a total of 219 lawmakers out of the 292 total membership of the two chambers. Now some congressmen theorize that if the House could muster all of the 219 votes from among themselves alone, then there would be no need to involve the Senate at all.
That view appeals to some, but overlooks one thing. Even if all 268 congressmen should support an amendment, that would represent the vote of one House only, i.e., one-half of the Congress, and not the entire. If the two Houses sit together and vote as one, that’s another story altogether. But since the Constitution does not require them to sit in joint session, they have to vote as they sit where they sit, which means separately. Should they decide to sit together for reasons of convenience, they would still have to vote separately as though they were not sitting together.
As of now, the House has done nothing to create a justiciable issue which the Supreme Court (SC) may be asked to rule upon. My fear, however, is that should the House proceed in that direction, there could be any number of decent people who would not mind the SC upholding its position just because they believe the Senate, which cannot seem to enforce its own rules on almost anything now, and has the most number of prematurely campaigning “presidentiables,” has become a major part of the problem and may have lost its reason for being.
The senators who are promoting themselves to become the “opposition’s” bet in 2010 are the very same ones who destroyed the opposition in 2007. That is their undisputed achievement. They were part of the farce where three political parties ran senatorial candidates in the two opposing camps. The NPC had Tito Sotto and Tessie Oreta in the administration and Loren Legarda, Francis Escudero, Sonny Osmena and Nikki Coseteng in the opposition. Manny Villar’s NP had Ralph Recto in the administration, and Villar and Alan Peter Cayetano in the opposition. Mar Roxas’s LP had Mike Defensor in the administration and Noynoy Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan in the opposition. (Kiko later declared himself independent.)
We had not seen anything as gross and as unprincipled before, but not a single one of them said it was wrong. That was the first death of the opposition.
After the election, Villar confected an alliance with the administration senators in order to become Senate president, thereby reducing the numerically superior opposition into a minority. That was the second death of the opposition. Now Villar, Escudero, Legarda and Roxas want to be seen as the luminous knights of the “opposition”? It ought to be a capital offense for any politician to presume they can fool all the people all the time.
The conflict today is no longer between the administration and the bogus “opposition.” They are all in it together, divided only by their common ambition to continue Mrs. Arroyo’s program. Not one of them wants to dismantle the status quo, not one wants the system changed. The real conflict now is between the sitting national politicians and the Filipino people. The people are the real opposition now ---opposition to the administration and the bogus “opposition.” Many of our people would still take to the streets if needed, but not likely for the preservation of the Senate and its sex video-viewing members or for the glory of any of the “presidentiables.”
The latest row is about House Resolution 1109 “calling on members of Congress to convene for the purpose of proposing amendments to or revisions of the Constitution.” This has produced a rally in Makati, screaming news headlines and fiery broadcasts, editorials and commentaries, but very little understanding of the real situation on the ground.
The resolution has all the virtues of a beginner’s piece in English composition, but it is not criminal at all. It is suspiciously devious, but it contains no constitutional proposal at all. It does not say the House of Representatives alone will propose constitutional changes without the Senate, even though that could be the congressmen’s intention. The protest anticipates the offense.
HR 1109 recalls that under the 1935 Constitution, “the Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately may propose amendments.” Under the 1987 Constitution, however, “any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members.”
This means that while the Congress previously could not propose any constitutional amendment unless the two Houses first assembled in joint session, it can do so now, without the two Houses sitting together. There is no need for HR 1109 at all. The only thing needed is for every proposal to be supported by at least three-fourths of all the members of Congress, which is bicameral.
This means 18 of the 24 senators and 201 of the 268 congressmen, or a total of 219 lawmakers out of the 292 total membership of the two chambers. Now some congressmen theorize that if the House could muster all of the 219 votes from among themselves alone, then there would be no need to involve the Senate at all.
That view appeals to some, but overlooks one thing. Even if all 268 congressmen should support an amendment, that would represent the vote of one House only, i.e., one-half of the Congress, and not the entire. If the two Houses sit together and vote as one, that’s another story altogether. But since the Constitution does not require them to sit in joint session, they have to vote as they sit where they sit, which means separately. Should they decide to sit together for reasons of convenience, they would still have to vote separately as though they were not sitting together.
As of now, the House has done nothing to create a justiciable issue which the Supreme Court (SC) may be asked to rule upon. My fear, however, is that should the House proceed in that direction, there could be any number of decent people who would not mind the SC upholding its position just because they believe the Senate, which cannot seem to enforce its own rules on almost anything now, and has the most number of prematurely campaigning “presidentiables,” has become a major part of the problem and may have lost its reason for being.
The senators who are promoting themselves to become the “opposition’s” bet in 2010 are the very same ones who destroyed the opposition in 2007. That is their undisputed achievement. They were part of the farce where three political parties ran senatorial candidates in the two opposing camps. The NPC had Tito Sotto and Tessie Oreta in the administration and Loren Legarda, Francis Escudero, Sonny Osmena and Nikki Coseteng in the opposition. Manny Villar’s NP had Ralph Recto in the administration, and Villar and Alan Peter Cayetano in the opposition. Mar Roxas’s LP had Mike Defensor in the administration and Noynoy Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan in the opposition. (Kiko later declared himself independent.)
We had not seen anything as gross and as unprincipled before, but not a single one of them said it was wrong. That was the first death of the opposition.
After the election, Villar confected an alliance with the administration senators in order to become Senate president, thereby reducing the numerically superior opposition into a minority. That was the second death of the opposition. Now Villar, Escudero, Legarda and Roxas want to be seen as the luminous knights of the “opposition”? It ought to be a capital offense for any politician to presume they can fool all the people all the time.
The conflict today is no longer between the administration and the bogus “opposition.” They are all in it together, divided only by their common ambition to continue Mrs. Arroyo’s program. Not one of them wants to dismantle the status quo, not one wants the system changed. The real conflict now is between the sitting national politicians and the Filipino people. The people are the real opposition now ---opposition to the administration and the bogus “opposition.” Many of our people would still take to the streets if needed, but not likely for the preservation of the Senate and its sex video-viewing members or for the glory of any of the “presidentiables.”
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Pimentel bill and our naked “presidentiables”
A Senate bill authored by Senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr. Ramon Revilla Jr. and Francis Escudero on “the right of reply” has divided defenders of press freedom into two opposing camps, ironically on how best to serve that freedom. It has raised such a storm that Escudero, Mar Roxas and Loren Legarda----all with presidential ambitions----have been compelled to announce their “withdrawal of support” from the bill after supporting it all the way up to third reading. Malacanang’s own spokesmen have contributed their own kneejerk by presumptuously committing the President to veto the bill.
The bill was first introduced by Pimentel as Senate Bill No. 1178---“An Act Granting the Right of Reply and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof.” The Committee on Public Information and Mass Media chaired by Revilla Jr. and the Committee on Justice and Human Rights by Escudero came up with S.B. 2150, a substitute bill of the same title, with Revilla Jr. and Escudero joining Pimentel as co-authors. Under Committee Report (CR) 43, they asked the Senate to pass the bill.
The Senate has approved the bill, and the House of Representatives is now working on its own. If the House bill passes, a bicamercal conference committee will have to reconcile the two bills. The final version will be ratified by both Houses; then it goes to the Prsident for signature.
Some opponents of the measure have tried to hype the three senators’ so-called “withdrawal” to show the bill is bad news. The purported “withdrawal,” however, has no value whatsoever. It is pure moonshine--- cheap political posturing. It is like withdrawing money from a bank after you have closed your account. Let me explain.
Escudero, as co-author, is partly responsible for crafting S.B. 2150 and CR 43, which asked the Senate to approve the bill. Without SB 2150 and CR 43, we would not be having this discussion at all. Nothing in the Senate rules allows him to disown his report or his vote on the bill.
The same with Roxas and Legarda. Although not co-authors, they voted for the bill, and their votes can no longer be withdrawn. What “withdrawal” then are they talking about? Legarda’s unctuous quote about choosing an “untrammelled press” over a press “dictated to” by state authority is a false proposition; it is sheer pompous nonsense.
The saucy propaganda by the three senators is a clear attempt to exploit the ignorance of the ignorant, if they can. They assume the people know nothing about the first rule on voting and will swallow their cheap posturing, hook, line and sinker. They are more afraid of losing the media for their presidential ambitions than of anything toxic in the bill. So they want to assure the media that, regardless of their having voted for the bill, they too are now against it. Routine demagoguery and opportunism. But the people are not such damn fools. They see how truly naked these “presidentiables” are.
Simply put, the bill seeks to guarantee the right of every person, natural or juridical, to reply to any accusation or criticism in any media of communication. The media have always recognized this right; in fact, one of the canons of responsible journalism provides that no one shall be accused of any wrongdoing without being given the chance to present his side. Responsible media organizations that try to live by this canon cannot be terrified by a law that would compel the irresponsible to be faithful to the norm.
But both responsible and irresponsible media are obviously intimidated by the boundless implications of a law that would require them to provide equal space and time to every individual who feels unjustly accused or maligned in print or on the air. Without adequate standards in the law, there is reason to be concerned. What happens, for instance, when a newspaper says it stands by its story about an official’s wrongdoing even while printing the official’s denial of the same? Is it obliged to print the succeeding denial? At what point is the right of reply fully satisfied? This has to be in the bill.
Since Pimentel and his critics share the same passion for press freedom, can they not work together through the House bill, which is still on the floor, and the bicameral conference committee when it is finally convened, to make sure that the focus is on the right of private citizens, who are not normally quoted by media, rather than on the right of public officials and personalities, who are? Can the bill not provide that the media’s prompt publication of an individual’s reply to any published accusation against him would sufficiently bar him from filing a libel complaint on the same incident against the same media organization or practitioner?
Shouldn’t all of us aim for a law that seeks to promote a sound media environment that encourages public officials and citizens alike to reply to attacks and criticisms in the media in the most civilized manner and not to take out a contract on “offending” journalists and broadcasters?
The bill was first introduced by Pimentel as Senate Bill No. 1178---“An Act Granting the Right of Reply and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof.” The Committee on Public Information and Mass Media chaired by Revilla Jr. and the Committee on Justice and Human Rights by Escudero came up with S.B. 2150, a substitute bill of the same title, with Revilla Jr. and Escudero joining Pimentel as co-authors. Under Committee Report (CR) 43, they asked the Senate to pass the bill.
The Senate has approved the bill, and the House of Representatives is now working on its own. If the House bill passes, a bicamercal conference committee will have to reconcile the two bills. The final version will be ratified by both Houses; then it goes to the Prsident for signature.
Some opponents of the measure have tried to hype the three senators’ so-called “withdrawal” to show the bill is bad news. The purported “withdrawal,” however, has no value whatsoever. It is pure moonshine--- cheap political posturing. It is like withdrawing money from a bank after you have closed your account. Let me explain.
Escudero, as co-author, is partly responsible for crafting S.B. 2150 and CR 43, which asked the Senate to approve the bill. Without SB 2150 and CR 43, we would not be having this discussion at all. Nothing in the Senate rules allows him to disown his report or his vote on the bill.
The same with Roxas and Legarda. Although not co-authors, they voted for the bill, and their votes can no longer be withdrawn. What “withdrawal” then are they talking about? Legarda’s unctuous quote about choosing an “untrammelled press” over a press “dictated to” by state authority is a false proposition; it is sheer pompous nonsense.
The saucy propaganda by the three senators is a clear attempt to exploit the ignorance of the ignorant, if they can. They assume the people know nothing about the first rule on voting and will swallow their cheap posturing, hook, line and sinker. They are more afraid of losing the media for their presidential ambitions than of anything toxic in the bill. So they want to assure the media that, regardless of their having voted for the bill, they too are now against it. Routine demagoguery and opportunism. But the people are not such damn fools. They see how truly naked these “presidentiables” are.
Simply put, the bill seeks to guarantee the right of every person, natural or juridical, to reply to any accusation or criticism in any media of communication. The media have always recognized this right; in fact, one of the canons of responsible journalism provides that no one shall be accused of any wrongdoing without being given the chance to present his side. Responsible media organizations that try to live by this canon cannot be terrified by a law that would compel the irresponsible to be faithful to the norm.
But both responsible and irresponsible media are obviously intimidated by the boundless implications of a law that would require them to provide equal space and time to every individual who feels unjustly accused or maligned in print or on the air. Without adequate standards in the law, there is reason to be concerned. What happens, for instance, when a newspaper says it stands by its story about an official’s wrongdoing even while printing the official’s denial of the same? Is it obliged to print the succeeding denial? At what point is the right of reply fully satisfied? This has to be in the bill.
Since Pimentel and his critics share the same passion for press freedom, can they not work together through the House bill, which is still on the floor, and the bicameral conference committee when it is finally convened, to make sure that the focus is on the right of private citizens, who are not normally quoted by media, rather than on the right of public officials and personalities, who are? Can the bill not provide that the media’s prompt publication of an individual’s reply to any published accusation against him would sufficiently bar him from filing a libel complaint on the same incident against the same media organization or practitioner?
Shouldn’t all of us aim for a law that seeks to promote a sound media environment that encourages public officials and citizens alike to reply to attacks and criticisms in the media in the most civilized manner and not to take out a contract on “offending” journalists and broadcasters?
Monday, February 23, 2009
The rising cost of a spoiled American breakfast
President Arroyo’s latest attempt to meet US President Barack Obama has cost the nation a lot---not only in terms of money but above all in terms of national honor, dignity and self-respect. Now it threatens to exact its own pound of flesh from the US government itself. Suddenly some of our senators are talking of junking the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement.
It all started on the wrong foot. First Mrs. Arroyo flew to Davos apparently hoping to bump into Obama at the World Economic Forum. He did not attend. Then she flew to Washington, D.C. after stopping in Italy, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to see Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast. She had no better luck.
No one had the good sense to advise Mrs. Arroyo that Obama was not going to Davos, and that even if their eyes should meet at the Washington breakfast, there was no way of arranging a “photo opportunity” on the spot. If a Mother Teresa had strayed into the breakfast, then Obama might have sought her out.
As a rule no president travels 10,000 miles one-way to attend a prayer breakfast where he or she has no speaking part. The Fellowship, which sponsors the annual event, knew this. Thus they invited US-based guests from 170 countries but not a single foreign head of state. Of the 8,000 locals and foreigners invited, however, only 3,000 chose to attend the $425-per head “event.”
The annual prayer breakfast is held on the first Thursday of February at the huge ballroom of the Washington Hilton. I know the place, having attended the Catholic Prayer Breakfast there at least twice, with then President George W. Bush as honored guest. From what I saw, the arrangements did not promise any possibility of a “photo op.”
The guest of honor sits in a recessed area, fenced off waist-high from the rest of the hall where the other guests sit in round tables of 10 to 12. He enters the room through a private backdoor minutes before he speaks and leaves through the same door immediately thereafter. He never mixes with the guests.
At the Catholic breakfast there last April, my wife and I sat one table away from President Bush, with Sen. John McCain, Sen. Sam Brownback, two bishops one Dominican provincial, and Cathy Ruse, the wife of the program-host Austin Ruse. People lined up to be photographed with McCain, and we had an abundant eye-to-eye contact with Bush. But nobody tried to approach the President, and he did not extend his hand across the divide. He left soon after his speech. The same thing must have happened with Obama. Mrs. Arroyo could have been seated next to Obama’s table, but he could not have reached out to shake hands, even if he had noticed her presence.
There is no need to explain that Mrs. Arroyo failed to get her “photo op” because Obama arrived late and had to rush out. The simple truth is that no meeting took place because no meeting had been arranged. Presidents do not bump into each other because they went to the same restaurant.
Now, is it purely coincidental that after this terrible fiasco some senators should suddenly start suggesting the scrapping of the VFA? Some are even beginning to look bigger than themselves just for pointing out that under the counterpart agreement a Filipino soldier who commits a crime in the US shall be detained not at the Philippine embassy but “in penal institutions in the United States suitable for the custody level of prisoners.” Do they know if the embassy has any extra space at all even for just one such detainee? Or the funds and security personnel for that purpose?
The VFA is certainly a flawed agreement. The apparently “permanent” presence of the US forces and the current conflict on criminal jurisdiction over the convicted Corporal Smith have shown this. While we have agreed to host short US military visits, what has happened since is that as one military exercise ends another begins, thereby creating an apparently “permanent” US presence. It seems a neat way of circumventing the Constitution which provides that no foreign troops, bases or facilities shall be allowed in the country except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and recognized as such by the contracting parties.
We should confront these issues. But never for reasons that are suspect. That the senators have suddenly become audible on the VFA right after Mrs. Arroyo’s latest fiasco, and the omission of the Philippines from Hilary Clinton’s itinerary on her first Asian visit as US Secretary of State makes this unusual burst of energy rather suspect.
The VFA is not a stand-alone agreement. It is but an implementing agreement of our 1951 Mutal Defense Treaty. Its abrogation will only scrap the agreed rules under which American troops come for joint exercises but not our duty to host such visits under the agreed terms of our “mutual defense.” Not all those who are now talking about the VFA apparently appreciate this. This is where the danger lies.
20 February 2009
It all started on the wrong foot. First Mrs. Arroyo flew to Davos apparently hoping to bump into Obama at the World Economic Forum. He did not attend. Then she flew to Washington, D.C. after stopping in Italy, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to see Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast. She had no better luck.
No one had the good sense to advise Mrs. Arroyo that Obama was not going to Davos, and that even if their eyes should meet at the Washington breakfast, there was no way of arranging a “photo opportunity” on the spot. If a Mother Teresa had strayed into the breakfast, then Obama might have sought her out.
As a rule no president travels 10,000 miles one-way to attend a prayer breakfast where he or she has no speaking part. The Fellowship, which sponsors the annual event, knew this. Thus they invited US-based guests from 170 countries but not a single foreign head of state. Of the 8,000 locals and foreigners invited, however, only 3,000 chose to attend the $425-per head “event.”
The annual prayer breakfast is held on the first Thursday of February at the huge ballroom of the Washington Hilton. I know the place, having attended the Catholic Prayer Breakfast there at least twice, with then President George W. Bush as honored guest. From what I saw, the arrangements did not promise any possibility of a “photo op.”
The guest of honor sits in a recessed area, fenced off waist-high from the rest of the hall where the other guests sit in round tables of 10 to 12. He enters the room through a private backdoor minutes before he speaks and leaves through the same door immediately thereafter. He never mixes with the guests.
At the Catholic breakfast there last April, my wife and I sat one table away from President Bush, with Sen. John McCain, Sen. Sam Brownback, two bishops one Dominican provincial, and Cathy Ruse, the wife of the program-host Austin Ruse. People lined up to be photographed with McCain, and we had an abundant eye-to-eye contact with Bush. But nobody tried to approach the President, and he did not extend his hand across the divide. He left soon after his speech. The same thing must have happened with Obama. Mrs. Arroyo could have been seated next to Obama’s table, but he could not have reached out to shake hands, even if he had noticed her presence.
There is no need to explain that Mrs. Arroyo failed to get her “photo op” because Obama arrived late and had to rush out. The simple truth is that no meeting took place because no meeting had been arranged. Presidents do not bump into each other because they went to the same restaurant.
Now, is it purely coincidental that after this terrible fiasco some senators should suddenly start suggesting the scrapping of the VFA? Some are even beginning to look bigger than themselves just for pointing out that under the counterpart agreement a Filipino soldier who commits a crime in the US shall be detained not at the Philippine embassy but “in penal institutions in the United States suitable for the custody level of prisoners.” Do they know if the embassy has any extra space at all even for just one such detainee? Or the funds and security personnel for that purpose?
The VFA is certainly a flawed agreement. The apparently “permanent” presence of the US forces and the current conflict on criminal jurisdiction over the convicted Corporal Smith have shown this. While we have agreed to host short US military visits, what has happened since is that as one military exercise ends another begins, thereby creating an apparently “permanent” US presence. It seems a neat way of circumventing the Constitution which provides that no foreign troops, bases or facilities shall be allowed in the country except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and recognized as such by the contracting parties.
We should confront these issues. But never for reasons that are suspect. That the senators have suddenly become audible on the VFA right after Mrs. Arroyo’s latest fiasco, and the omission of the Philippines from Hilary Clinton’s itinerary on her first Asian visit as US Secretary of State makes this unusual burst of energy rather suspect.
The VFA is not a stand-alone agreement. It is but an implementing agreement of our 1951 Mutal Defense Treaty. Its abrogation will only scrap the agreed rules under which American troops come for joint exercises but not our duty to host such visits under the agreed terms of our “mutual defense.” Not all those who are now talking about the VFA apparently appreciate this. This is where the danger lies.
20 February 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
THE HIDDEN LIFE OF AMARGO RAZ
A novel by Francisco Tatad
(A synopsis)
The future has arrived. A neat line is drawn between the apostate countries and those that have kept the faith. China has become a world power, and America, although diminished, leads the Club of Twenty-One. The apostate population has aged and shrunk, replaced by machines here and there, but abortion and euthanasia have become the law and custom all over the apostate world.
In the Republic of Admana Arch, the Empressident rules without a constitution and a parliament. She speaks to the public through state media, and has blocked all other information networks, including the Internet. She is the toast of the Club of Twenty-One.
In thirty years, she has rid the country of unwanted children and seniors, closed the sexual divide between men and women, put men and machines on equal status on the shop-floor. She has outlawed marriage among the poor, except those of the same sex, and heterosexuals who are completely sterile or past childbearing.
Unauthorized pregnancies are automatically aborted, and everyone is put to sleep at seventy-five, with some notable exceptions. To ensure controlled growth of the population, a number of pre-selected eighteen year-old virgins are annually sent to fertility camps to mate in darkness for the purpose of producing state children. They are quickly segregated and sterilized thereafter. If the mating is fruitful, the woman reports back to camp during her pregnancy until she gives birth. Upon birth, the child is taken to a special camp to be raised by the state. The state child is sterilized upon reaching puberty, unless preselected for mating duties later.
In this post-New Age world, where the culture of death appears to have won, Filipino Catholic writer Francisco Tatad sets The Hidden Life of Amargo Raz, his maiden international socio-political novel on the fight between good and evil. In Admana’s capital city of Esperanza, a group of young illegals lives a hidden existence under a doctor-priest named Fr. Eleazar Pascal. They call themselves Brothers and practice a new form of non-violence.
They attack state targets without inflcting violence, just to show they could have killed or maimed, but chose not to, out of a higher principle. They are led by the young Amargo Raz and Jasper Tzu and three other young chiefs from the five different sections of the city. Raz begins his story as a state infant abandoned by a half-crazed state driver on a beach and grows up in the care of the priest. They are eventually joined by the leader of an armed band,Tonio, whom they help dodge state troops in hot pursuit.
Away from Esperanza, the Commonwealth of Islamic States has banned all terrorist activities by Moslems and called for strict adherence to the rule of law in settling grievances and disputes. At the same time, it now calls on the apostates through the United Nations to stop the killing of the unborn and the elderly, or else face an Islamic-led multinational force to compel them to do so. Russia, China and India, the Club’s breakaway members, support this call. But the expanded Security Council rejects it, and mobilization instantly begins.
The apostate countries are tired of war, and their governments’ refusal to heed the Islamic call triggers massive protests and finally revolution in the apostate capitals. The Empressident, however, offers to fight on the side of the apostates in exhange for oil, arms and food for her troops. Tonio and the chiefs sense the danger and decide to strike first. But their fight becomes merely a byplay in the global confrontation between the apostates and the Islamic-led forces. As the revolutionary tide sweeps the apostate capitals and the Islamic armies prepare to strike, the major tv networks begin a countdown on the end of the world. The only hope for peace appears to be the intervention of the Pope.
Amid such high international drama, several lives intersect in their individual search for meaning: The Empressident who will do anything to please the Club of Twenty-One and keep herself in power; Tonio, whose consuming passion is to kill the tyrant, and find Felicity, who has borne him a state child, which had been abducted from camp at birth and is now believed to be a grownup rebel; Felicity, who serves the tyrant faithfully until she gets arrested on suspicion of hiding Tonio and the missing state child; Ahimsya, who bolts out of camp to escape a sexually deranged governess and falls into the company of the Brothers; Tzu, a tough young illegal who has a solution for everything but tries to kill himself when he loses Ahimsya to Amar; Archbishop Sylvan Diaz whose search for martyrdom ends up in a Curial post at the Vatican; Amar, whose painful search for his roots throws him into a role he had not sought and ends up protecting the tyrant from his own men; Fr. Eleazar, who has seen everything from the very beginning.
Although set in the future, where the American president is a black woman, the British lady prime minister Chinese looking, and the German lady chancellor of Jewish descent, The Hidden Life of Amargo Raz could be the first novel to confront head-on the recent decision of the first African-American president of the United States to export support for abortion to the developing world. It is serious literary stuff with the excitement of a modern thriller.
This was first introduced in this blog under the working title, Sinners of the Earth. Arrangements for the publication of the novel are underway, and updates will be posted on this blog as appropriate.
http//:franciscotatad.blogspot.com
Updated 12 February 2009
(A synopsis)
The future has arrived. A neat line is drawn between the apostate countries and those that have kept the faith. China has become a world power, and America, although diminished, leads the Club of Twenty-One. The apostate population has aged and shrunk, replaced by machines here and there, but abortion and euthanasia have become the law and custom all over the apostate world.
In the Republic of Admana Arch, the Empressident rules without a constitution and a parliament. She speaks to the public through state media, and has blocked all other information networks, including the Internet. She is the toast of the Club of Twenty-One.
In thirty years, she has rid the country of unwanted children and seniors, closed the sexual divide between men and women, put men and machines on equal status on the shop-floor. She has outlawed marriage among the poor, except those of the same sex, and heterosexuals who are completely sterile or past childbearing.
Unauthorized pregnancies are automatically aborted, and everyone is put to sleep at seventy-five, with some notable exceptions. To ensure controlled growth of the population, a number of pre-selected eighteen year-old virgins are annually sent to fertility camps to mate in darkness for the purpose of producing state children. They are quickly segregated and sterilized thereafter. If the mating is fruitful, the woman reports back to camp during her pregnancy until she gives birth. Upon birth, the child is taken to a special camp to be raised by the state. The state child is sterilized upon reaching puberty, unless preselected for mating duties later.
In this post-New Age world, where the culture of death appears to have won, Filipino Catholic writer Francisco Tatad sets The Hidden Life of Amargo Raz, his maiden international socio-political novel on the fight between good and evil. In Admana’s capital city of Esperanza, a group of young illegals lives a hidden existence under a doctor-priest named Fr. Eleazar Pascal. They call themselves Brothers and practice a new form of non-violence.
They attack state targets without inflcting violence, just to show they could have killed or maimed, but chose not to, out of a higher principle. They are led by the young Amargo Raz and Jasper Tzu and three other young chiefs from the five different sections of the city. Raz begins his story as a state infant abandoned by a half-crazed state driver on a beach and grows up in the care of the priest. They are eventually joined by the leader of an armed band,Tonio, whom they help dodge state troops in hot pursuit.
Away from Esperanza, the Commonwealth of Islamic States has banned all terrorist activities by Moslems and called for strict adherence to the rule of law in settling grievances and disputes. At the same time, it now calls on the apostates through the United Nations to stop the killing of the unborn and the elderly, or else face an Islamic-led multinational force to compel them to do so. Russia, China and India, the Club’s breakaway members, support this call. But the expanded Security Council rejects it, and mobilization instantly begins.
The apostate countries are tired of war, and their governments’ refusal to heed the Islamic call triggers massive protests and finally revolution in the apostate capitals. The Empressident, however, offers to fight on the side of the apostates in exhange for oil, arms and food for her troops. Tonio and the chiefs sense the danger and decide to strike first. But their fight becomes merely a byplay in the global confrontation between the apostates and the Islamic-led forces. As the revolutionary tide sweeps the apostate capitals and the Islamic armies prepare to strike, the major tv networks begin a countdown on the end of the world. The only hope for peace appears to be the intervention of the Pope.
Amid such high international drama, several lives intersect in their individual search for meaning: The Empressident who will do anything to please the Club of Twenty-One and keep herself in power; Tonio, whose consuming passion is to kill the tyrant, and find Felicity, who has borne him a state child, which had been abducted from camp at birth and is now believed to be a grownup rebel; Felicity, who serves the tyrant faithfully until she gets arrested on suspicion of hiding Tonio and the missing state child; Ahimsya, who bolts out of camp to escape a sexually deranged governess and falls into the company of the Brothers; Tzu, a tough young illegal who has a solution for everything but tries to kill himself when he loses Ahimsya to Amar; Archbishop Sylvan Diaz whose search for martyrdom ends up in a Curial post at the Vatican; Amar, whose painful search for his roots throws him into a role he had not sought and ends up protecting the tyrant from his own men; Fr. Eleazar, who has seen everything from the very beginning.
Although set in the future, where the American president is a black woman, the British lady prime minister Chinese looking, and the German lady chancellor of Jewish descent, The Hidden Life of Amargo Raz could be the first novel to confront head-on the recent decision of the first African-American president of the United States to export support for abortion to the developing world. It is serious literary stuff with the excitement of a modern thriller.
This was first introduced in this blog under the working title, Sinners of the Earth. Arrangements for the publication of the novel are underway, and updates will be posted on this blog as appropriate.
http//:franciscotatad.blogspot.com
Updated 12 February 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
