-------------------------------
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Maguindanao, Trillanes and other Senate woes
Maguindanao, Trillanes and other Senate woes
By Francisco S. Tatad
At noon of June 30, twelve newly elected senators will begin their six-year term of office. But unless the responsible parties act now, only eleven senators will be sworn in that day. This should not happen at all.
All eyes are now on Maguindanao. Its votes will decide the fight for twelfth place between Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III of “Genuine Opposition” and Rep. Juan Miguel Zubiri of Team Unity.
Both are from Mindanao, and running for the Senate for the first time. Zubiri has served three successful terms as congressman of the third district of Bukidnon, while Koko has failed in his maiden political bid. This happened in 2001, when he ran for mayor of Cagayan de Oro, while his father Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr was Senate President.
As of now, Koko leads Zubiri by a little over 100,000 votes in the national count, minus Maguindanao. But in Cagayan de Oro itself, Zubiri placed third, while Pimentel landed sixth only. In the 21 municipalities of Maguindanao, the certificates of canvass (CoCs) show 186,518 votes for Zubiri, and 58,622 votes for Pimentel. The 127,896 margin should put Zubiri ahead of Pimentel by at least 16,000 votes.
Pimentel has asked the Supreme Court to restrain the Commission on Elections from canvassing the Maguindanao CoCs. But the Court has declined to do so. It simply scheduled oral arguments on June 28, which is cutting it too close to June 30. So not having been ordered to stop, the Comelec has proceeded to canvass the CoCs.
Were the Maguindanao CoCs to be excluded, a new election would have to be called in the area, to decide who would be the twelfth senator. Otherwise, the whole of Maguindanao would be completely disenfranchised as far as the senatorial race is concerned.
But how would that affect the local officials who would have assumed office by then? Would the Court split the May 14 ballot in Maguindanao, and declare the votes for the local candidates are valid but not the votes for the senators?
That would create a nasty constitutional and political situation which would not be easy to resolve. It appears that the best remedy for Pimentel, should he finally lose, is to do what Fernando Poe, Jr. did, after losing the 2004 presidential elections, which millions believed he had won.
Even if Koko should finally lose, he would still be serving the Senate, and even better, by saving it from a second political dynasty, after the Cayetanos. Were he to make it, the Senate would have two Pimentels, and bearing the same names too. This would present a daily problem to the presiding officer, and no one would be obliged to take us seriously anymore.
As of now, the Senate has to contend with two Cayetanos. Not all the voters saw this anomaly before the elections. Many, if not most, of those who had voted for Rep. Alan Cayetano were those who genuinely admired his showmanship in the failed impeachment debates and his uncanny ability to get the goat of the First Gentleman, Mr. Mike Arroyo. Many were not aware there was already a Senator Pia Cayetano. But now they know.
What is to be done then? Since more people seem to be aware of Alan’s political prowess than that of his sister Pia, there should be no harm in Pia resigning motu proprio or going on a permanent leave of absence without pay. This would require character, but there is nothing to prevent those who voted for her in 2004 to ask her to consider it seriously.
What to do with Senator Antonio Trillanes IV is the Senate’s next problem. He and former Senator Gregorio Honasan ran for the Senate while under detention for their alleged role in the aborted 2003 Oakwood Mutiny. Honasan had been granted bail before the election, and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales has now moved for the dropping of the charges against him on the ground of weak evidence.
But the administration seems resolved to keep Trillanes in jail even while the Senate is in session. This may be constitutionally debatable, and it may not be the wisest move for the administration. It could make Trillanes bigger than himself and the administration more unpopular than it needs to be.
Time will tell whether the people acted wisely or foolishly in making Trillanes senator. But his election does remove any risk of flight from the court’s jurisdiction. The state would, therefore, be well advised to grant him bail so that he could perform his official duties well. This is the only way people will know if they did right or not in sending him to this formerly august chamber. It would also soften the image of the administration.
Now, despite the numerical superiority of the opposition, they will not necessarily be united in electing the next Senate President. Conflicting ambitions for 2010 will tend to divide its members. What is likely to emerge is a coalition president, who can play with everyone. It will be the old values-free politics as usual.
How the Senate will conduct its inquiries in aid of legislation remains an all-important question. Some senators-elect have already announced their desire to ride high on their investigations. The chairmanship of the Blue Ribbon committee will be critical.
At one time, then Senate president Neptali Gonzales had suggested the possibility of abolishing the Blue Ribbon committee on the ground that it tended to divert the work of the senators from legislative work to police-type investigations. Senator Ernesto Maceda objected, saying it would render the Senate powerless vis-à-vis the President. Not only did the committee stay, other committees became equally aggressive in conducting inquiries that tended to look more like criminal proceedings.
The Senate would regain much of its lost dignity and prestige, if its committees conducted their inquiries in aid of legislation in the most suitable manner, without arrogant and uncouth members browbeating invited guests and making a mockery of basic human civility and correct parliamentary usage, and if it began to debate more ideas, not just exposes, in committee and on the floor.
By Francisco S. Tatad
At noon of June 30, twelve newly elected senators will begin their six-year term of office. But unless the responsible parties act now, only eleven senators will be sworn in that day. This should not happen at all.
All eyes are now on Maguindanao. Its votes will decide the fight for twelfth place between Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III of “Genuine Opposition” and Rep. Juan Miguel Zubiri of Team Unity.
Both are from Mindanao, and running for the Senate for the first time. Zubiri has served three successful terms as congressman of the third district of Bukidnon, while Koko has failed in his maiden political bid. This happened in 2001, when he ran for mayor of Cagayan de Oro, while his father Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr was Senate President.
As of now, Koko leads Zubiri by a little over 100,000 votes in the national count, minus Maguindanao. But in Cagayan de Oro itself, Zubiri placed third, while Pimentel landed sixth only. In the 21 municipalities of Maguindanao, the certificates of canvass (CoCs) show 186,518 votes for Zubiri, and 58,622 votes for Pimentel. The 127,896 margin should put Zubiri ahead of Pimentel by at least 16,000 votes.
Pimentel has asked the Supreme Court to restrain the Commission on Elections from canvassing the Maguindanao CoCs. But the Court has declined to do so. It simply scheduled oral arguments on June 28, which is cutting it too close to June 30. So not having been ordered to stop, the Comelec has proceeded to canvass the CoCs.
Were the Maguindanao CoCs to be excluded, a new election would have to be called in the area, to decide who would be the twelfth senator. Otherwise, the whole of Maguindanao would be completely disenfranchised as far as the senatorial race is concerned.
But how would that affect the local officials who would have assumed office by then? Would the Court split the May 14 ballot in Maguindanao, and declare the votes for the local candidates are valid but not the votes for the senators?
That would create a nasty constitutional and political situation which would not be easy to resolve. It appears that the best remedy for Pimentel, should he finally lose, is to do what Fernando Poe, Jr. did, after losing the 2004 presidential elections, which millions believed he had won.
Even if Koko should finally lose, he would still be serving the Senate, and even better, by saving it from a second political dynasty, after the Cayetanos. Were he to make it, the Senate would have two Pimentels, and bearing the same names too. This would present a daily problem to the presiding officer, and no one would be obliged to take us seriously anymore.
As of now, the Senate has to contend with two Cayetanos. Not all the voters saw this anomaly before the elections. Many, if not most, of those who had voted for Rep. Alan Cayetano were those who genuinely admired his showmanship in the failed impeachment debates and his uncanny ability to get the goat of the First Gentleman, Mr. Mike Arroyo. Many were not aware there was already a Senator Pia Cayetano. But now they know.
What is to be done then? Since more people seem to be aware of Alan’s political prowess than that of his sister Pia, there should be no harm in Pia resigning motu proprio or going on a permanent leave of absence without pay. This would require character, but there is nothing to prevent those who voted for her in 2004 to ask her to consider it seriously.
What to do with Senator Antonio Trillanes IV is the Senate’s next problem. He and former Senator Gregorio Honasan ran for the Senate while under detention for their alleged role in the aborted 2003 Oakwood Mutiny. Honasan had been granted bail before the election, and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales has now moved for the dropping of the charges against him on the ground of weak evidence.
But the administration seems resolved to keep Trillanes in jail even while the Senate is in session. This may be constitutionally debatable, and it may not be the wisest move for the administration. It could make Trillanes bigger than himself and the administration more unpopular than it needs to be.
Time will tell whether the people acted wisely or foolishly in making Trillanes senator. But his election does remove any risk of flight from the court’s jurisdiction. The state would, therefore, be well advised to grant him bail so that he could perform his official duties well. This is the only way people will know if they did right or not in sending him to this formerly august chamber. It would also soften the image of the administration.
Now, despite the numerical superiority of the opposition, they will not necessarily be united in electing the next Senate President. Conflicting ambitions for 2010 will tend to divide its members. What is likely to emerge is a coalition president, who can play with everyone. It will be the old values-free politics as usual.
How the Senate will conduct its inquiries in aid of legislation remains an all-important question. Some senators-elect have already announced their desire to ride high on their investigations. The chairmanship of the Blue Ribbon committee will be critical.
At one time, then Senate president Neptali Gonzales had suggested the possibility of abolishing the Blue Ribbon committee on the ground that it tended to divert the work of the senators from legislative work to police-type investigations. Senator Ernesto Maceda objected, saying it would render the Senate powerless vis-à-vis the President. Not only did the committee stay, other committees became equally aggressive in conducting inquiries that tended to look more like criminal proceedings.
The Senate would regain much of its lost dignity and prestige, if its committees conducted their inquiries in aid of legislation in the most suitable manner, without arrogant and uncouth members browbeating invited guests and making a mockery of basic human civility and correct parliamentary usage, and if it began to debate more ideas, not just exposes, in committee and on the floor.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
How Do We Rebuild The Senate?
How Do We Rebuild The Senate?
Francisco S. Tatad
Over a hundred persons were killed, and they broke the rules every step of the way, and we say we had a relatively peaceful and honest election. A full 25 million out of 45 million registered voters did not vote for a single senator, and we hear the "winners" say they had all received a "resounding mandate." A "landslide," the topnotchers say, and they now expect us to treat them as the first licensed timber for the 2010 presidential race.
In how many other countries do we hear such Newspeak? We must stop kidding ourselves.
We did not have clean and honest elections. The political assassinations drenched the originally non-violent process in senseless blood, and the shameless buying and selling of votes turned the whole country into a veritable whorehouse. This barangay sign tells it all: "No money, no vote!"
In Muslim Mindanao, where one suspects the recurring electoral anomalies are really part of the lingering Moro rebellion, the vote-buying was wholesale as usual, and the most scandalous cases involved senatorial candidates on both sides, and not just the tailenders.
Former Commission on Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, who was at the center of the 2004 electoral storm, did not operate in this election. But there was no shortage of alter egos and clones. Corrupt election officers operated on their own for local clients, without need of direction from central headquarters. But a new election mafia, controlled by the country's most pervasive corruptors, had reportedly privatized the special operations for senators, in a sinister plot to control the next presidential elections and own the next President of the Philippines.
For all the victory parties then, there were no real winners. Those who had high hopes for democracy and decency were the biggest losers. The system no longer works, except that our national politicians and so many among our people do not at all seem to realize it.
In this election, we posed three simple questions:
1. Is it right or wrong for a political party to run candidates on both sides---two with Team Unity and four with Genuine Opposition, or a total of six candidates, on the part of NPC; and one with TU and two with GO, or a total of three each, on the part of LP and NP? Isn't this the most loathsome example of " pamamangka sa dalawang ilog?"
2. Is it right or wrong for a senatorial candidate to spend hundreds of millions of pesos, which he or she may not even have the legal capacity to earn, just to land a job that pays an annual salary of less than one million pesos?
3. Is it right or wrong for anyone to run for the Senate while his father, brother, sister, uncle or aunt is sitting there until 2010?
None of the candidates cared to answer. Most of the voters did not care about the morals, motives, or manners of the candidates either. The majority did not vote for any senator; the minority that did, voted mostly for GO candidates, believing they represented the people's cause. The voters will learn many things yet in six years.
Of GO's two dynasty candidates, Alan Cayetano had an unsurprisingly easy time, while Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III was, as we write, still sweating it out for the twelfth place.
To a great extent, Alan owes his election to his running battle with the First Gentleman, Mike Arroyo, which made him an opposition symbol in the eyes of many voters. Not every voter understood the dynasty issue, and many of those who did must have thought that if Alan had a sister sitting in the Senate, they should have heard about it. They had not.
In the case of "Koko" Pimentel, so many seemed to have the impression that "Koko" was but another name for his father, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino "Nene" Pimentel Jr., and that he was just running for reelection.
Should Koko finally make it, we shall see the Senate exactly as we had said it would look like ----an absurd assembly of 24 members (minus Sen. Fred Lim, who has just been elected Mayor of Manila), with four members coming from two nuclear families.
Should Nene become Senate President, the Pimentel-Cayetano position on political dynasties would then rule. Forget the Constitution, forget basic morality, forget plain aesthetics. In another election, they might be able to convert the entire chamber into the private family estates of just a few families.
Keeping Manny Villar as Senate President or choosing a dark horse would be one way of preventing such anomaly. Villar is not entirely guiltless on the dynasty issue; his wife Cynthia sits in the House of Representatives. But at least he does not have a son or daughter sitting with him in the Senate. If the contest were strictly limited to Villar and Pimentel, it is Villar, rather than Pimentel, whose presidency could lend greater dignity to the Senate.
But it will take more than that for the Senate to regain its lost honor and dignity. Its members must have a clear understanding of that honor and dignity, and must have the will and the ability to do what is needed to regain it. That may not be easy.
The last time I sat at the Senate gallery was when Villar took over the Senate presidency. Senate President Franklin Drilon had called the session to order, announced his resignation, and relinquished the chair to a presiding officer, Senator Juan Flavier, the Senate President Pro Tempore.
The chair noted Drilon's letter of resignation, but neither he nor the Majority Floor Leader Francis Pangilinan asked the body to act on the same. So the resignation was never formally accepted by the Senate. The chair then called for the election of a new Senate President. Villar was nominated, several senators seconded, the nomination was closed, then Pangilinan moved that the new Senate President be elected by acclamation. No objections were heard.
The chair then intoned, "As many as those in favor of the nomination, will they please say aye. And as many as those against, will they please say nay." That was a call to divide the house by a voice vote, not a call to elect by acclamation the unopposed candidate.
Thus, in one short ceremonial session, with all the players reading from a prepared script, they still managed to commit two unnecessarily inept errors. That would have been unthinkable, and unacceptable, in the earlier years. But things have changed. Just the kind of unparliamentary language that often goes into the Senate record and the total absence of ideas being debated on the floor tell us to what depths the institution had sunk and what kind of work needs to be done to rebuild it.
The Senate has a duty, among other things, to teach the nation what it does not know. This includes, and is not limited to, correct parliamentary usage. In a society shot through with corruption, the Senate must concern itself not just with the corruption of others, but above all with the corruption within Congress, involving its own members. In a society crying for change, it must be prepared to lead the move for sweeping and fundamental change, first by provoking change within itself and among its members.
Francisco S. Tatad
Over a hundred persons were killed, and they broke the rules every step of the way, and we say we had a relatively peaceful and honest election. A full 25 million out of 45 million registered voters did not vote for a single senator, and we hear the "winners" say they had all received a "resounding mandate." A "landslide," the topnotchers say, and they now expect us to treat them as the first licensed timber for the 2010 presidential race.
In how many other countries do we hear such Newspeak? We must stop kidding ourselves.
We did not have clean and honest elections. The political assassinations drenched the originally non-violent process in senseless blood, and the shameless buying and selling of votes turned the whole country into a veritable whorehouse. This barangay sign tells it all: "No money, no vote!"
In Muslim Mindanao, where one suspects the recurring electoral anomalies are really part of the lingering Moro rebellion, the vote-buying was wholesale as usual, and the most scandalous cases involved senatorial candidates on both sides, and not just the tailenders.
Former Commission on Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, who was at the center of the 2004 electoral storm, did not operate in this election. But there was no shortage of alter egos and clones. Corrupt election officers operated on their own for local clients, without need of direction from central headquarters. But a new election mafia, controlled by the country's most pervasive corruptors, had reportedly privatized the special operations for senators, in a sinister plot to control the next presidential elections and own the next President of the Philippines.
For all the victory parties then, there were no real winners. Those who had high hopes for democracy and decency were the biggest losers. The system no longer works, except that our national politicians and so many among our people do not at all seem to realize it.
In this election, we posed three simple questions:
1. Is it right or wrong for a political party to run candidates on both sides---two with Team Unity and four with Genuine Opposition, or a total of six candidates, on the part of NPC; and one with TU and two with GO, or a total of three each, on the part of LP and NP? Isn't this the most loathsome example of " pamamangka sa dalawang ilog?"
2. Is it right or wrong for a senatorial candidate to spend hundreds of millions of pesos, which he or she may not even have the legal capacity to earn, just to land a job that pays an annual salary of less than one million pesos?
3. Is it right or wrong for anyone to run for the Senate while his father, brother, sister, uncle or aunt is sitting there until 2010?
None of the candidates cared to answer. Most of the voters did not care about the morals, motives, or manners of the candidates either. The majority did not vote for any senator; the minority that did, voted mostly for GO candidates, believing they represented the people's cause. The voters will learn many things yet in six years.
Of GO's two dynasty candidates, Alan Cayetano had an unsurprisingly easy time, while Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III was, as we write, still sweating it out for the twelfth place.
To a great extent, Alan owes his election to his running battle with the First Gentleman, Mike Arroyo, which made him an opposition symbol in the eyes of many voters. Not every voter understood the dynasty issue, and many of those who did must have thought that if Alan had a sister sitting in the Senate, they should have heard about it. They had not.
In the case of "Koko" Pimentel, so many seemed to have the impression that "Koko" was but another name for his father, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino "Nene" Pimentel Jr., and that he was just running for reelection.
Should Koko finally make it, we shall see the Senate exactly as we had said it would look like ----an absurd assembly of 24 members (minus Sen. Fred Lim, who has just been elected Mayor of Manila), with four members coming from two nuclear families.
Should Nene become Senate President, the Pimentel-Cayetano position on political dynasties would then rule. Forget the Constitution, forget basic morality, forget plain aesthetics. In another election, they might be able to convert the entire chamber into the private family estates of just a few families.
Keeping Manny Villar as Senate President or choosing a dark horse would be one way of preventing such anomaly. Villar is not entirely guiltless on the dynasty issue; his wife Cynthia sits in the House of Representatives. But at least he does not have a son or daughter sitting with him in the Senate. If the contest were strictly limited to Villar and Pimentel, it is Villar, rather than Pimentel, whose presidency could lend greater dignity to the Senate.
But it will take more than that for the Senate to regain its lost honor and dignity. Its members must have a clear understanding of that honor and dignity, and must have the will and the ability to do what is needed to regain it. That may not be easy.
The last time I sat at the Senate gallery was when Villar took over the Senate presidency. Senate President Franklin Drilon had called the session to order, announced his resignation, and relinquished the chair to a presiding officer, Senator Juan Flavier, the Senate President Pro Tempore.
The chair noted Drilon's letter of resignation, but neither he nor the Majority Floor Leader Francis Pangilinan asked the body to act on the same. So the resignation was never formally accepted by the Senate. The chair then called for the election of a new Senate President. Villar was nominated, several senators seconded, the nomination was closed, then Pangilinan moved that the new Senate President be elected by acclamation. No objections were heard.
The chair then intoned, "As many as those in favor of the nomination, will they please say aye. And as many as those against, will they please say nay." That was a call to divide the house by a voice vote, not a call to elect by acclamation the unopposed candidate.
Thus, in one short ceremonial session, with all the players reading from a prepared script, they still managed to commit two unnecessarily inept errors. That would have been unthinkable, and unacceptable, in the earlier years. But things have changed. Just the kind of unparliamentary language that often goes into the Senate record and the total absence of ideas being debated on the floor tell us to what depths the institution had sunk and what kind of work needs to be done to rebuild it.
The Senate has a duty, among other things, to teach the nation what it does not know. This includes, and is not limited to, correct parliamentary usage. In a society shot through with corruption, the Senate must concern itself not just with the corruption of others, but above all with the corruption within Congress, involving its own members. In a society crying for change, it must be prepared to lead the move for sweeping and fundamental change, first by provoking change within itself and among its members.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Can the Senate still make a difference?
Analysis
Can the Senate still make a difference?
By Francisco S. Tatad
The euphoria is contagious, and so many are ecstatic about the victory of most of the "Genuine Opposition" (GO) senatorial candidates. But success often breeds the wildest expectations, and these could rise and multiply, beyond the winners' limited capabilities. Time will tell.
For now, we need to examine some of the more troubling aspects of the elections. Not necessarily the cheating, which consumes everyone in anger and shame, but the voters' real participation, which may not be getting enough attention. We need to know how many really voted and how many did not, and how many voted without voting for any of the senators.
In polling over 18 million votes, the topnotcher took 40 percent of the country's 45 million registered voters. As her name was on almost every ballot counted, then her votes nearly equal the number of voters who had voted. With less than two million votes still out in Muslim Mindanao, 20 million appears to be the total number of those who had voted. That's less than 50 percent of the number of registered voters ---quite a drop in voters' interest in the senatorial race.
On television, a GO senatorial candidate, citing privately compiled data, has suggested that the voting turnout was no bigger than the number of votes polled by the senatorial topnotcher, although in some places, the topnotcher's votes appeared to be inexplicably bigger than the number of voters who had voted.
On the other hand, a senior officer of the Commission on Elections says that about 70 percent of the voters had voted, but that many voters did not vote for senators at all.
If the first theory is correct, then the election had failed to meet the first requirement of a genuinely democratic process. The principle of majority rule requires the participation of at least a simple majority --- 50 percent plus one ---- of all the voters. At least 22,500,001 voters should have voted in order to bind the 45 million voters and the rest of the nation. But if only a minority had voted, then the validity of the process is open to question.
This is not good for the Senate at all. For although senators are not impeachable, they are subject to resignation calls from the public like any other elected officials. Should any group decide to exploit this situation, the presidency may no longer be the only besieged and unstable institution.
If, on the other hand, the second theory is correct, then it means at least 31.5 million of the 45 million voters had voted; 13.5 million did not vote at all. But of the 31.5 million voters, 11.5 million did not vote for the senators at all.
Whichever theory holds, the net result is the same: 25 million of the 45 million voters did not vote for senators. This amounts to a successful, though undeclared, boycott of the senatorial polls. Nobody had called for such a boycott. The only thing that came close to a call was a solitary newspaper ad before election day, quoting this writer's speech to the Pasig Rotary Club in mid-April, which noted the candidates' refusal to take a principled stand on the simplest moral issue, and concluded: "None of them deserve our vote."
The silent boycott had one message for all: reform or perish. The meaning is flexible. Some could use it to restate their demand for regime change. Either by impeachment or by other means.
Since 2005, the opposition had tried to impeach President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo twice. In both instances, the opposition did not have the numbers. But the smartest performers on the floor played to the gallery and the tv audience and became instant celebrities, while those whose task it was to kill the complaint made a killing of their own. This did not bring any opposition leader --- not even the long-detained and undisputed leader, former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada--- an inch closer to replacing the incumbent.
Unless the opposition now controls at least one-third of all the members of the House of Representatives ----the required number to bring the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, they might find it more useful to proceed against the most sinning Comelec commissioner instead. If they are joined by some administration congressmen, then they might succeed in removing at least one venal commissioner, and probably force the first election reforms before the 2010 presidential contest.
But whatever the opposition does, the senators should try not to talk crazy about impeaching anybody at all. Under the Constitution, the House has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. And the Senate has the sole power to try and decide all such cases. The senator's role is to render "impartial justice" in case of an impeachment trial. It would be totally unforgivable it any of the senators today simply imitated the deplorable conduct of at least eight senators in 2000-2001 who publicly demanded Estrada's resignation even as they sat as senator-judges at his impeachment trial.
There are a few urgent things the senators can do though. They could initiate a few anti-poverty and anti-corruption reforms, electoral reforms, and constitutional reforms before the next presidential elections.
- The automatic appropriations law for the repayment of foreign loans must now be repealed. This law has led to grossly irresponsible over-borrowing, which has saddled the country with a humungous foreign debt, which reduces the country's productive capacity to nothing.
- The "pork barrel", which has become the most notorious source of syndicated official corruption, must now be scrapped through a shift to line-item budgeting. No lump sum appropriations should be left at the complete discretion of politicians and their confederates.
- The electoral system must be overhauled. The voters' list must be permanently cleaned up, the cheating syndicates destroyed, the voting computerized, the election inspectors restored, the cost and physical risk of running for public office brought down, as close as possible, to zero level.
- The constitutional ban on dynasties must now be given teeth. Henceforth, no person should be elected Senator while another person within the first to the third degree of consanguinity or affinity is serving as senator. And no two or more persons within the first to the third degree of consanguinity or affinity should be elected simultaneously as officials of the state and of any political subdivision, or as officials the same region, province, city, or municipality. Whenever two or more persons, so related to each other, aspire for elective office, the person who has previously served or sought election; or who is seeking the highest position, if all of them have previously served or sought election; or who is the most senior in age, if all are seeking the same position, or are newcomers, shall qualify for election.
- Senators who run for President or Vice President in the middle of their term should resign their position, instead of being allowed to continue as senator after losing their bid for higher office. Unless this is mandated by law, there will be a riot of ambitious and morally unfit senators, whose term expires in 2013, running for the two highest offices in 2010.
We must have constitutional reform as well. The senators should now agree – before it becomes a Jose de Venecia show all over again ---- that any substantial constitutional change should be proposed by the people's delegates in a constitutional convention (concon). Only if non-controversial, and of a limited scope and number, should Congress propose the amendments.
For instance, a proposal to shift from presidential to parliamentary government, or from unitary to federal system, must go through a concon. However, simple amendments to improve the presidential system may be proposed by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members, pursuant to Article XVII, Section 1 (1).
The 1935 Constitution requires the two houses to sit in joint session when proposing amendments. The present Constitution does not. It is all up to them. But to keep the amendments under control, the two houses should sit as they sit, instead of meeting in joint session. A bicameral conference committee could then harmonize any disagreeing texts later.
The proposals could include the following:
1. A vote for the President is a vote for the Vice President.
(This is to avoid electing a President from one party and a Vice President from another, as has happened here a few times before.)
2. The President shall be elected by a majority of all the votes cast by qualified voters in a national election.
(Where there are more than two candidates, and no one has polled a majority vote, the two leading candidates will have a "run-off"---a second balloting, as we saw recently in France.)
3. The Vice President shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless he has to break a tie.
(This will lend stability to the office of Senate President, and allow a clear distinction between the majority and the minority in the chamber. )
4. The Senate shall be composed of such number of regional senators as may be determined by law. They shall be elected by the qualified voters of the regions.
5. No person shall be elected President for more than one term; Vice President for more than two terms; Senator for more than four terms; member of the House of Representatives for more than five terms; or to any local government position for more than six terms.
(This is to make some sense of the present "term limits.")
6. All political parties which have candidates for at least forty percent of all positions in a national election shall have the right to appoint election inspectors whose services shall be paid for by the state.
(This will restore the election inspectors system under the 1935 Constitution, and hopefully help make elections cleaner.)
Just because De Venecia has now entered the scene, there will be every attempt to bring in Malacanang as well. Mrs. Arroyo would do well to listen to the servant-leader of El Shaddai, her special adviser. Don't jump into the water. The Constitution assigns no role to the President in amending or revising the Constitution. Last year's two-headed fiasco should not be repeated at all.
Despite De Venecia and company, constitutional reform is now unavoidable. As the election has shown, nothing seems to work anymore. If we are to survive, we must straighten what is bent, and fix what is 'broke', as quickly as possible. It is here where the Senate, for all its warts and weaknesses, could yet hope, if it but tries, to make a difference.
Monday, May 7, 2007
None Of Them Deserve Our Vote
NONE OF THEM DESERVE OUR VOTE
By Francisco S. Tatad
And here’s why:
- In 2006, the administration tried to abolish the Senate. Had they succeeded, all incumbent and future senators would have been “abolished.”
- Now reelectionist senators Ed Angara, Joker Arroyo and Ralph Recto are running on the same Team Unity (TU) ticket with Malacanang’s Mike Defensor, Butch Pichay, Chavit Singson and Miguel Zubiri, like long lost brothers.
- Former Senators Tito Sotto and Tessie Aquino Oreta, who once called Mrs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo a “bogus” President, are also running on the same ticket as Mrs. Arroyo’s candidates.
None of them can seem to find anything wrong with it. They can’t seem to imagine that decent people are simply outraged by it.
- The “Genuine Opposition” (GO) candidates are not any better either. Except for a couple or so, they were never oppositionist at all. They simply know the people are oppositionist, and they want to cash in on that sentiment. They never sought electoral reform as a precondition for participation in the elections; now, they are demanding absolute honesty from thoroughly dishonest men and a thoroughly dishonest process. They can’t seem to understand that in order for us to have an honest election, we must first have honest and morally upright candidates.
- The candidates have been very careful not to really offend the President they are supposed to oppose. More than that, none of them have taken a principled stand on the simplest moral issues affecting themselves or their friends.
- None of them have said it is wrong for Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, Alan Peter Cayetano, and Mike Defensor to be running for the Senate while Koko’s father (Nene), Alan Peter’s sister (Pia), and Mike’s aunt (Miriam) are sitting there until 2010.
- None of them have said it is wrong for senatorial candidates to spend tens or hundreds of millions of pesos, whether ill-gotten or ill-sourced, just to land a position that carries an annual salary of less than one million pesos.
- None of them have bothered to ask, where is all that money coming from? Who will own those candidates, whether or not they get elected? How will they rip off the government in case they win, just to recover their expenses?
- None of them have said it is wrong to have twelve senatorial candidates running against each other on the TU and GO tickets, but coming from the same parties. They do not even seem bothered by the fact that the press has said absolutely nothing about it, and that the voters may not even have heard that:
- The NPC has Oreta and Sotto in TU, and Loren Legarda, Francis Escudero, John Osmena and Nikki Coseteng in GO. A total of six candidates.
- The NP has Recto in TU, and Senate President Manuel Villar and Cayetano in GO. Three candidates.
- The LP has Defensor in TU, and Noynoy Aquino and Sen. Francis Pangilinan in GO, although the latter has opted to do a solo. Three candidates.
Nothing like this has happened before, no matter how rotten our politics. It plunges our politics into the deepest rotten pit. The candidates themselves do not mind lying in the sewer, provided it does not affect their unearned ratings in all the manipulative “surveys”. But we have no reason to put up with it. We cannot and must not let them get away with it.
- A war has been thrust upon us. A war between the people and the politicians. Despite the fact that we may know or even like some of the candidates personally, they have failed in their basic duty as candidates, and we have no moral duty to get any one of them elected.
- Our duty is not to help the opposition get rid of the administration or vice versa. Our duty is to get rid of both. We must replace an entire class of political opportunists.
I do not advocate a boycott. Every voter has to vote.
- But I will propose that instead of filling up our ballot, we leave it blank or cross it with an “x”. Or write the names of the three Kapatiran senatorial candidates instead. This will be our way of saying, none of the TU-GO candidates deserve our vote.
- We may not be able to prevent 12 undesirables from being “elected.” But if the number of protest votes is significant, then none of them would be able to claim a real mandate.
- If on the other hand the number of protest votes exceeds the votes of those “elected,” then it means the majority of the electorate has rejected the candidates and the process has failed. We could then begin to consider the next steps.
May God be with us. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!
The foregoing are excerpts from a recent speech delivered before the Rotary Club of
--Courtesy of Philippine Democratic Caucus
Is Democracy Picking Up?
Special report on the
Is democracy picking up?
Francisco S. Tatad
At the invitation of the Emir of the State of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, conveyed thru the Qatari ambassador in Manila, Abdulla Ahmed Al-Muttawa, I attended the 7th Doha forum on democracy, development and free trade on April 23-25, 2007. This was the seventh annual round of what undoubtedly is the most focused and fascinating discussion on these issues at this time anywhere in the world.
The Emir opened the forum, followed by President Taria Halonen of
Non--Arab participation stretched around the globe, from Asia to Africa, through
Covered live by Al Jazeera,
The sentiment was strong. But the question was whether democracy should be imposed from outside, and whether or not those calling for it were credible enough. Jack Straw said no two democracies had ever gone to war against each other. To which Moussa quickly replied: “But have you not seen so many democracies attacking other countries? You cannot use democracy as an excuse to attack and rule others.”
In the most pungent remark at the forum, an Arab university professor said that while the
A Canada-based Iraqi professor said democracy could not take root in a region where people were being “slaughtered” in its name.
Recalling the Allied Powers’ role in postwar
If the Middle East is so highly penetrated, it’s because its geopolitical importance makes intervention inevitable, an Islamist scholar from
In a globalizing world, democracy has ceased to be a “Western thing.” It is now the common patrimony of mankind. But in a region rich in history and culture, and ruled for ages through hereditary succession, the transfer of political power through regular elections, which is basic to a democracy, is not an easy or simple question. This does not exempt certain forms of government from governing well.
The Arabs alone will decide how fast and in what direction they will go. But a great deal will depend on how they perceive the performance of the practicing democracies. The pace could pick up if the region sees the democracies becoming irrevocably linked to the promotion and defense of human dignity and human rights, the genuine search for peace, the just sharing of knowledge and resources, and the determined effort to make the dialogue of nations, cultures, and civilizations produce the desired results. Yet it could slacken if the democracies become identified with the moral corruption of society or the arrogant use of power.
I am confident that, at the very least, some variant will take root in the
Indeed, it worries me no end when a country that had first sought to establish a democratic government upon its revolution against Spain in 1898, lost it to the next colonial master, but regained it 48 years later, and became known since then as the “showcase of democracy” in the Third World is now beginning to look like a failed state.
*************
Sunday, April 8, 2007
‘We have no compelling reason to vote for any senatorial candidate’
An open letter to our young voters
By Francisco S. Tatad
ON May 14, 2007, we shall be electing twelve senators, 274 or so regular and party-list members of the House of Representatives, and close to 18,000 local government officials. I am not a candidate, neither am I working for any. But I am terrified by what I see. I am particularly concerned about the senatorial election.
The media generally describe the senatorial campaign as a circus. But then they take to it as though their actual job was to bring in the crowd. They complain that none of the candidates are discussing the issues --- not even corruption and the rule of law, the supposed cheating in the 2004 presidential elections, the spate of political killings that has now gone up to the United Nations and the United States Congress, the rise of narco-politics and its deadly impact on society itself, the unabated brain drain and the frightening hordes of unprocessed visitors from the “northeast,” the virtually open-ended foreign military presence in Mindanao and elsewhere without any clear treaty arrangements, the disappearance of basic industry and the virtual integration of the national economy into the Chinese market, the rising specter of “balkanization” in the South. Then the media proceed to rave about popular incompetents who, for no sane reason, are said to be leading the “surveys.”
Our society rests largely on Christian moral values, and partly on Islamic ones. But our government is officially rated by some as the most corrupt in the world. Our politicians, with some notable exceptions, are generally corrupt. Politics has become the most, if not the only, lucrative business for our dynastic political class. Do we have at least one senatorial candidate who takes objective morality seriously, recognizes it as the basis of law and good governance, and lives his life according to genuine Christian ---or Islamic, as the case may be ---moral values?
Who among the candidates will not put their personal interests above all others and everything else? Who among them are not yet involved in large-scale bribery and graft, or in syndicated crime such as drug trafficking, illegal gambling, smuggling, and similar operations? Who among them have not already amassed unreported and untaxed wealth far beyond what they could legally own and justify? Who among them will not mind throwing away tens or hundreds of millions of pesos, ill-gotten or ill-sourced, just to win a position that carries a measly annual salary of less than one million pesos? Is there at least one candidate who would rather lose than bribe, steal, cheat, or kill just to “win” the election and lose his soul?
Sadly, not even the all-knowing media seem to have the energy or time to waste on these questions. So we have to ask and answer them ourselves, whatever our limitations. We need to know the candidates as best we can, so that we do not end up falling for their manufactured image, which is often the very opposite of their actual personalities. We need to see through each of the little games they play so that we do not fall prey to their designs or to our own lack of malice.
Serious contradictions confound this exercise.
First of all, this is one election the Arroyo administration had tried so hard to avoid. They tried to abolish the Senate but failed. In so doing, they gave up whatever right or reason they had to participate in the senatorial elections. Nonetheless, they are fielding senatorial candidates. So senators who would have been “abolished” are now sleeping in the same bed with those who had tried to “abolish” them. And those who used to call Mrs. Arroyo “bogus president” are sleeping there too with those who used to snap at them for “destabilizing” her presidency.
What do they say to each other now? And what have they to say to our people, especially the youth?
The “Genuine Opposition” (how imaginative can they get!) is not much better off either. In picking its candidates from outside parties it opened the door to some of President Arroyo’s favorite “pets” who now saw her official backing as a “kiss of death” but who would not mind maintaining an independent arrangement with her provided it is not exposed to the public. In the process, GO shut out from its ticket the real oppositionists who had built and fed the fire under Mrs. Arroyo’s seat these past three to six years. At least nine of GO’s 12 candidates are plain power-seekers who had played an active role either in ousting then President Joseph “Erap” Estrada in 2001 or in depriving Fernando Poe Jr of his presidential landslide in 2004.
GO compounded its error by indulging the misplaced ambition of two young politicians ---Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel Jr. and Alan Peter Cayetano ---the son and brother respectively of incumbent senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr., and Pia Cayetano --- who want to set up their political dynasties in our exceptionally small Senate of 24 members. What the administration had failed to do last year, GO will now try to accomplish through this royal option to turn the Senate into the family estate of the Pimentels and the Cayetanos.
Both camps are stained by the dynasty issue, although in different degrees. TU is fielding Mike Defensor while Miriam Defensor Santiago, who may or may not disown any kinship, sits in the Senate until 2010. TU is also fielding Teresa Oreta Aquino while Beningo “Noynoy” Aquino III, her late brother’s son, is running under GO. And Tito Sotto is running under TU, while Francis Pangilinan, the son-in-law of Mrs. Sotto’s older sister, is a guest candidate of GO. It gets messier the longer you look at it.
What is their argument? That neither the Ten Commandments nor the statutes passed by Congress forbid it. They agree that the Constitution prohibits political dynasties. But they insist that until a coercive statute exists, the Constitution should be ignored, and no father-and-son or brother-and-sister team should be barred from bonding in the Senate. So you may know something about China’s dynasties from 221 B.C. to 1911, or America’s dynasties from Thomas Jefferson to George W. Bush; but until the Philippine Congress defines it, you may not say you know what a “dynasty” is. It is tantamount to saying that nobody in the United States knew what sex meant until President Bill Clinton defined it, after engaging in some sexual perversity with Monica Lewinsky inside the Oval Office.
Like Team Unity (TU), GO has nothing to say to our people either.
Unprincipled party-switching completely abolished the distinction between administration and opposition. The opposition’s casual acceptance of this, and the Senate dynasty issue had prompted me to resign from the Governing Board of the United Opposition (UNO) before it became known as GO, but nobody else has protested since. Obviously, the administration needed some turncoats to be able to complete a 12-man ticket, but certainly not the opposition.
Unless the GO leaders are more naïve than we thought, the only logical explanation here is that somebody had probably sold out. Who struck the deal with whom, and in exchange for what, we dare not guess. But the immediate result was this amorphous mass of political opportunists who could easily be lumped together under one political umbrella fittingly called “Partido Oportunista ng Pilipinas.”
For the first time in our history, we have a supposedly grand opposition coalition whose biggest party member, PMP, is headed by the “undisputed opposition leader” himself (Erap), but does not have a single senatorial candidate. In contrast, some walk-in one-man parties have candidates, and at least three political parties not organic to GO have a total of eight senatorial candidates on the ticket. These three parties straddle and have open doors to the two opposite camps. They have a total of 12 senatorial bets on both sides.
The biggest of the three is the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC). It accounts for six of the candidates. Two candidates— Oreta and Sotto --- are with TU; four – Nikki Coseteng, Francis Escudero, Loren Legarda and John Osmena – are with GO. Party boss Danding Cojuangco, however, is with Mrs. Arroyo, while former NPC president Ernesto Maceda is with GO. You need not guess whose music will play, and who will dance the dance.
The Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Liberal Party (LP) account for the other six. The NP has one candidate in TU –Sen. Ralph Recto, and two in GO – Senate President Manuel Villar and Cayetano. The LP has one in TU – Defensor, and two in GO – Noynoy Aquino and Pangilinan, although the latter has opted to do a solo.
Both LP and NP are parties that have risen from the dead to nourish the ambitions of their two richest members ---Villar for the NP, and Sen. Mar Roxas, for the LP. Both of them are eyeing the 2010 presidency. Whatever their merits or prospects, this disreputable conduct on the part of their parties could cost them the chance of getting anything for their money in the next---if there is a next---presidential election.
Never before has our politics sunk so low. The parties and candidates are no longer trying to outsmart each other; they are simply trying to cut deals among themselves ---and to hell with everybody else! The contest between and among parties and candidates is no more; the war between the people and the politicians is on. This is a war we, the people, cannot afford to lose. It will not do for us, therefore, to simply replace the administration with the opposition; we must get rid of both.
Is it doable? It won’t be easy, but it can be done. Whenever a government project is put up for public bidding, no contract is awarded if there are no qualified bidders. In a literary or art competition, no one gets the prize if no entry is truly deserving. Yet in a senatorial election, 12 senators are always “elected”, even if no one deserves it. This should change.
We could begin by simply refusing to fill up our ballots. In the novel Seeing by the Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago, the people cast blank ballot papers to express their discontent. We could do something similar this time. Of course, the official cheaters could always fill any blank ballot, so we should try to be smarter. We should simply cross our ballots, and make sure they are counted right.
This is no guarantee that no single senator will be “elected.” The candidates will presumably vote for themselves, along with their campaigners, relatives, and close associates. So the Commission on Elections will have to proclaim 12 “elected” senators, even if none of them obtain more than a few hundred votes. But none of them –and this is precisely the point we want to make--should be able to claim a popular mandate. This should be the first step.
No doubt, some of the senatorial candidates are personally less sinning than the others. Only a few are openly amoral and adulterous; only a few are rumored to be involved in money laundering, drug trafficking, smuggling, gambling, and other illegal activities. Not all of them have been using their current or previous position to obtain fat government contracts and other favors for their proxies and associates. Among the suspects, not all their perfidies have been exposed; not all the skeletons they have buried have been unearthed.
Nonetheless, not one of them has found the courage to speak up and make a clear, principled stand against the perversities which the two opposite camps have inflicted upon the nation and the entire electoral process. Everyone simply wants to “win,” no matter what it takes; their only concern is “winning,” regardless of the means, and the cost and consequence to everybody else. We must reject this.
They have simply lost any moral claim on our people’s votes. There is no compelling reason nor sufficient moral basis for us to put even the least undeserving of them with any enthusiasm in the Senate. We owe it to ourselves as a people, particularly the young, to whom the future belongs, to declare categorically, once and for all, that our political conmen have long overtaxed our patience, and that it is time for them to vacate.
(This piece may be freely reproduced for public use, without seeking the author’s written permission. Readers’ comments are welcome.)
By Francisco S. Tatad
ON May 14, 2007, we shall be electing twelve senators, 274 or so regular and party-list members of the House of Representatives, and close to 18,000 local government officials. I am not a candidate, neither am I working for any. But I am terrified by what I see. I am particularly concerned about the senatorial election.
The media generally describe the senatorial campaign as a circus. But then they take to it as though their actual job was to bring in the crowd. They complain that none of the candidates are discussing the issues --- not even corruption and the rule of law, the supposed cheating in the 2004 presidential elections, the spate of political killings that has now gone up to the United Nations and the United States Congress, the rise of narco-politics and its deadly impact on society itself, the unabated brain drain and the frightening hordes of unprocessed visitors from the “northeast,” the virtually open-ended foreign military presence in Mindanao and elsewhere without any clear treaty arrangements, the disappearance of basic industry and the virtual integration of the national economy into the Chinese market, the rising specter of “balkanization” in the South. Then the media proceed to rave about popular incompetents who, for no sane reason, are said to be leading the “surveys.”
Our society rests largely on Christian moral values, and partly on Islamic ones. But our government is officially rated by some as the most corrupt in the world. Our politicians, with some notable exceptions, are generally corrupt. Politics has become the most, if not the only, lucrative business for our dynastic political class. Do we have at least one senatorial candidate who takes objective morality seriously, recognizes it as the basis of law and good governance, and lives his life according to genuine Christian ---or Islamic, as the case may be ---moral values?
Who among the candidates will not put their personal interests above all others and everything else? Who among them are not yet involved in large-scale bribery and graft, or in syndicated crime such as drug trafficking, illegal gambling, smuggling, and similar operations? Who among them have not already amassed unreported and untaxed wealth far beyond what they could legally own and justify? Who among them will not mind throwing away tens or hundreds of millions of pesos, ill-gotten or ill-sourced, just to win a position that carries a measly annual salary of less than one million pesos? Is there at least one candidate who would rather lose than bribe, steal, cheat, or kill just to “win” the election and lose his soul?
Sadly, not even the all-knowing media seem to have the energy or time to waste on these questions. So we have to ask and answer them ourselves, whatever our limitations. We need to know the candidates as best we can, so that we do not end up falling for their manufactured image, which is often the very opposite of their actual personalities. We need to see through each of the little games they play so that we do not fall prey to their designs or to our own lack of malice.
Serious contradictions confound this exercise.
First of all, this is one election the Arroyo administration had tried so hard to avoid. They tried to abolish the Senate but failed. In so doing, they gave up whatever right or reason they had to participate in the senatorial elections. Nonetheless, they are fielding senatorial candidates. So senators who would have been “abolished” are now sleeping in the same bed with those who had tried to “abolish” them. And those who used to call Mrs. Arroyo “bogus president” are sleeping there too with those who used to snap at them for “destabilizing” her presidency.
What do they say to each other now? And what have they to say to our people, especially the youth?
The “Genuine Opposition” (how imaginative can they get!) is not much better off either. In picking its candidates from outside parties it opened the door to some of President Arroyo’s favorite “pets” who now saw her official backing as a “kiss of death” but who would not mind maintaining an independent arrangement with her provided it is not exposed to the public. In the process, GO shut out from its ticket the real oppositionists who had built and fed the fire under Mrs. Arroyo’s seat these past three to six years. At least nine of GO’s 12 candidates are plain power-seekers who had played an active role either in ousting then President Joseph “Erap” Estrada in 2001 or in depriving Fernando Poe Jr of his presidential landslide in 2004.
GO compounded its error by indulging the misplaced ambition of two young politicians ---Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel Jr. and Alan Peter Cayetano ---the son and brother respectively of incumbent senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr., and Pia Cayetano --- who want to set up their political dynasties in our exceptionally small Senate of 24 members. What the administration had failed to do last year, GO will now try to accomplish through this royal option to turn the Senate into the family estate of the Pimentels and the Cayetanos.
Both camps are stained by the dynasty issue, although in different degrees. TU is fielding Mike Defensor while Miriam Defensor Santiago, who may or may not disown any kinship, sits in the Senate until 2010. TU is also fielding Teresa Oreta Aquino while Beningo “Noynoy” Aquino III, her late brother’s son, is running under GO. And Tito Sotto is running under TU, while Francis Pangilinan, the son-in-law of Mrs. Sotto’s older sister, is a guest candidate of GO. It gets messier the longer you look at it.
What is their argument? That neither the Ten Commandments nor the statutes passed by Congress forbid it. They agree that the Constitution prohibits political dynasties. But they insist that until a coercive statute exists, the Constitution should be ignored, and no father-and-son or brother-and-sister team should be barred from bonding in the Senate. So you may know something about China’s dynasties from 221 B.C. to 1911, or America’s dynasties from Thomas Jefferson to George W. Bush; but until the Philippine Congress defines it, you may not say you know what a “dynasty” is. It is tantamount to saying that nobody in the United States knew what sex meant until President Bill Clinton defined it, after engaging in some sexual perversity with Monica Lewinsky inside the Oval Office.
Like Team Unity (TU), GO has nothing to say to our people either.
Unprincipled party-switching completely abolished the distinction between administration and opposition. The opposition’s casual acceptance of this, and the Senate dynasty issue had prompted me to resign from the Governing Board of the United Opposition (UNO) before it became known as GO, but nobody else has protested since. Obviously, the administration needed some turncoats to be able to complete a 12-man ticket, but certainly not the opposition.
Unless the GO leaders are more naïve than we thought, the only logical explanation here is that somebody had probably sold out. Who struck the deal with whom, and in exchange for what, we dare not guess. But the immediate result was this amorphous mass of political opportunists who could easily be lumped together under one political umbrella fittingly called “Partido Oportunista ng Pilipinas.”
For the first time in our history, we have a supposedly grand opposition coalition whose biggest party member, PMP, is headed by the “undisputed opposition leader” himself (Erap), but does not have a single senatorial candidate. In contrast, some walk-in one-man parties have candidates, and at least three political parties not organic to GO have a total of eight senatorial candidates on the ticket. These three parties straddle and have open doors to the two opposite camps. They have a total of 12 senatorial bets on both sides.
The biggest of the three is the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC). It accounts for six of the candidates. Two candidates— Oreta and Sotto --- are with TU; four – Nikki Coseteng, Francis Escudero, Loren Legarda and John Osmena – are with GO. Party boss Danding Cojuangco, however, is with Mrs. Arroyo, while former NPC president Ernesto Maceda is with GO. You need not guess whose music will play, and who will dance the dance.
The Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Liberal Party (LP) account for the other six. The NP has one candidate in TU –Sen. Ralph Recto, and two in GO – Senate President Manuel Villar and Cayetano. The LP has one in TU – Defensor, and two in GO – Noynoy Aquino and Pangilinan, although the latter has opted to do a solo.
Both LP and NP are parties that have risen from the dead to nourish the ambitions of their two richest members ---Villar for the NP, and Sen. Mar Roxas, for the LP. Both of them are eyeing the 2010 presidency. Whatever their merits or prospects, this disreputable conduct on the part of their parties could cost them the chance of getting anything for their money in the next---if there is a next---presidential election.
Never before has our politics sunk so low. The parties and candidates are no longer trying to outsmart each other; they are simply trying to cut deals among themselves ---and to hell with everybody else! The contest between and among parties and candidates is no more; the war between the people and the politicians is on. This is a war we, the people, cannot afford to lose. It will not do for us, therefore, to simply replace the administration with the opposition; we must get rid of both.
Is it doable? It won’t be easy, but it can be done. Whenever a government project is put up for public bidding, no contract is awarded if there are no qualified bidders. In a literary or art competition, no one gets the prize if no entry is truly deserving. Yet in a senatorial election, 12 senators are always “elected”, even if no one deserves it. This should change.
We could begin by simply refusing to fill up our ballots. In the novel Seeing by the Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago, the people cast blank ballot papers to express their discontent. We could do something similar this time. Of course, the official cheaters could always fill any blank ballot, so we should try to be smarter. We should simply cross our ballots, and make sure they are counted right.
This is no guarantee that no single senator will be “elected.” The candidates will presumably vote for themselves, along with their campaigners, relatives, and close associates. So the Commission on Elections will have to proclaim 12 “elected” senators, even if none of them obtain more than a few hundred votes. But none of them –and this is precisely the point we want to make--should be able to claim a popular mandate. This should be the first step.
No doubt, some of the senatorial candidates are personally less sinning than the others. Only a few are openly amoral and adulterous; only a few are rumored to be involved in money laundering, drug trafficking, smuggling, gambling, and other illegal activities. Not all of them have been using their current or previous position to obtain fat government contracts and other favors for their proxies and associates. Among the suspects, not all their perfidies have been exposed; not all the skeletons they have buried have been unearthed.
Nonetheless, not one of them has found the courage to speak up and make a clear, principled stand against the perversities which the two opposite camps have inflicted upon the nation and the entire electoral process. Everyone simply wants to “win,” no matter what it takes; their only concern is “winning,” regardless of the means, and the cost and consequence to everybody else. We must reject this.
They have simply lost any moral claim on our people’s votes. There is no compelling reason nor sufficient moral basis for us to put even the least undeserving of them with any enthusiasm in the Senate. We owe it to ourselves as a people, particularly the young, to whom the future belongs, to declare categorically, once and for all, that our political conmen have long overtaxed our patience, and that it is time for them to vacate.
(This piece may be freely reproduced for public use, without seeking the author’s written permission. Readers’ comments are welcome.)
Monday, March 5, 2007
They Are Not Fit To Write Our Laws
The fielding of Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III and Alan Peter Cayetano as senatorial candidates only means that the "Genuine Opposition" does not mind creating simultaneous dynasties in our exceptionally small Senate, in violation of the Constitution and the rules of decency and fairness. This is sad.
"Koko" is the son of Senate Minority Leader Aquilino "Nene" Pimentel Jr., and routinely mistaken by many for his father; and Alan is the brother of Senator Pia Cayetano, from whom we have not heard much. Both Nene and Pia will be in the Senate until 2010. Should the duo win, the Pimentels will have a larger presence in the Senate than the whole of Muslim Mindanao, and the Cayetanos will claim a privilege denied to all those who had ever sat there, not to mention the 18 million families that make up the 90- million Filipino population.
To our standing objection, the candidates have replied, "there is no law against it." This non-biodegradable nonsense has since been made the stuff of their sloganeering. Some candidates have repeated it, without realizing that in so doing, they were putting themselves in the same position as the dynasty candidates.
The Cayetano-Pimentel position is immoral, unconstitutional, and in extremely bad taste. It cannot be made the starting point of a respectable senatorial career. Good taste alone should have deterred them, but it is not just a question of good taste. It is a question of law ---moral law and constitutional law.
Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution provides: "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." For those who have no desire to play games with the law, there is more than enough law in this provision. But for those who want to put their personal interests above everything else, there will never be enough law, even if an enabling law existed.
It is retrograde and perverse for anyone who wants to sit in the Senate to argue that since there is no enabling law, what the Constitution says should be ignored. A trial lawyer might be forgiven such statement, but not someone who wants to write the nation's laws.
The absence of a law does not justify behavior that would be surely prohibited, if the law existed. Laws are enacted so that, even without law, the people will conduct themselves in such a manner as though there was a law that prescribed it. St. Paul's letter to the Romans (2:14-15) says: "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness…"
Far from diminishing the constitutional mandate, therefore, the failure of Congress to enact the enabling law only sharpens the obligation of those who sit or want to sit in Congress to respect that mandate, rather than exploit the absence of an enabling law for their own personal advantage.
Adjective law defines what is justiciable, but the idea of what is right and what is wrong always precedes any enactment.. The good of society can only be secured by men and women who will act not only according to what is written in statute but above all according to what is written upon their hearts. Otherwise, our politics will remain no better than a pigsty, often unfit even for pigs.
These candidates take us for morons when they suggest ---for this is what they do ---- that they want to become senators so they could write the law that would in future prohibit people like themselves from becoming senators.
So much has been said about the candidates' supposed intelligence. If true, that can never be concealed. But moral character defines a man much more than any display of intelligence. A man of intelligence will know the difference between right and wrong, but it takes a man of character to say No to something apparently desirable but morally wrong. An intelligent man without character has nothing to say to anybody, least of all to the nation.
One who aspires to sit in the Senate must first be a man of character, whatever his level of intelligence. He should be able to argue against his self-interest and his appetite for power, pleasure or personal aggrandizement. He must be able to control his concupiscence, especially if he is truly intelligent.
Because GO failed to do its duty, the dynasty candidates now say, "let the people decide." Of course. If the process is clean, the people will decide. But one who really wants to serve the people must only propose to them that which is morally desirable. He must not propose anything immoral in the hope that the people are ignorant enough or angry enough not to know or to care about the difference. Demagogues and charlatans do that, but not men of real worth and substance.
"Koko" is the son of Senate Minority Leader Aquilino "Nene" Pimentel Jr., and routinely mistaken by many for his father; and Alan is the brother of Senator Pia Cayetano, from whom we have not heard much. Both Nene and Pia will be in the Senate until 2010. Should the duo win, the Pimentels will have a larger presence in the Senate than the whole of Muslim Mindanao, and the Cayetanos will claim a privilege denied to all those who had ever sat there, not to mention the 18 million families that make up the 90- million Filipino population.
To our standing objection, the candidates have replied, "there is no law against it." This non-biodegradable nonsense has since been made the stuff of their sloganeering. Some candidates have repeated it, without realizing that in so doing, they were putting themselves in the same position as the dynasty candidates.
The Cayetano-Pimentel position is immoral, unconstitutional, and in extremely bad taste. It cannot be made the starting point of a respectable senatorial career. Good taste alone should have deterred them, but it is not just a question of good taste. It is a question of law ---moral law and constitutional law.
Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution provides: "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." For those who have no desire to play games with the law, there is more than enough law in this provision. But for those who want to put their personal interests above everything else, there will never be enough law, even if an enabling law existed.
It is retrograde and perverse for anyone who wants to sit in the Senate to argue that since there is no enabling law, what the Constitution says should be ignored. A trial lawyer might be forgiven such statement, but not someone who wants to write the nation's laws.
The absence of a law does not justify behavior that would be surely prohibited, if the law existed. Laws are enacted so that, even without law, the people will conduct themselves in such a manner as though there was a law that prescribed it. St. Paul's letter to the Romans (2:14-15) says: "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness…"
Far from diminishing the constitutional mandate, therefore, the failure of Congress to enact the enabling law only sharpens the obligation of those who sit or want to sit in Congress to respect that mandate, rather than exploit the absence of an enabling law for their own personal advantage.
Adjective law defines what is justiciable, but the idea of what is right and what is wrong always precedes any enactment.. The good of society can only be secured by men and women who will act not only according to what is written in statute but above all according to what is written upon their hearts. Otherwise, our politics will remain no better than a pigsty, often unfit even for pigs.
These candidates take us for morons when they suggest ---for this is what they do ---- that they want to become senators so they could write the law that would in future prohibit people like themselves from becoming senators.
So much has been said about the candidates' supposed intelligence. If true, that can never be concealed. But moral character defines a man much more than any display of intelligence. A man of intelligence will know the difference between right and wrong, but it takes a man of character to say No to something apparently desirable but morally wrong. An intelligent man without character has nothing to say to anybody, least of all to the nation.
One who aspires to sit in the Senate must first be a man of character, whatever his level of intelligence. He should be able to argue against his self-interest and his appetite for power, pleasure or personal aggrandizement. He must be able to control his concupiscence, especially if he is truly intelligent.
Because GO failed to do its duty, the dynasty candidates now say, "let the people decide." Of course. If the process is clean, the people will decide. But one who really wants to serve the people must only propose to them that which is morally desirable. He must not propose anything immoral in the hope that the people are ignorant enough or angry enough not to know or to care about the difference. Demagogues and charlatans do that, but not men of real worth and substance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)