NBI Seized An ABS-CBN Shutdown Protester For Tweeting P50 Million Reward...

Kapag House Speaker, Hindi Pwedeng Kahit Ano Na (Cayetano) Lang

Huwag naman sanang gawing parking space o palubag loob ang pagiging House Speaker.

Si Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, sumubog bilang Vice President. Hindi umubra at para naman hindi sumama ang loob, ginawang Foreign Affairs Secretary ni Pangulong Duterte.

Sana nakuntento na, kaso hindi.

Nitong nagdaang eleksyon, tumakbo bilang congressman ng unang distrito ng Taguig kasabay ang asawang si Lani na tumakbo naman sa second district din ng Taguig.

Ayokong sabihing gahaman, pero... Ano ba ang tawag sa walang kabusugan?

Siya, kayo na magbigay ng description dyan.

Hindi biro ang pagiging House Speaker. Kasing importante ito ng pagiging Pangulo, Senate President at Chief Justice.

Ang House of Representatives ang direktang representasyon ng mga mamamayan at sa panahong ito, mas kailangan natin ang lider sa House of Representatives na mapapagkaisa ang iba't ibang mga boses na mamamayan.

Ngayong nabuksan na ang isipan ng mga mamamayan sa katotohanan na pwede naman tayong magkaruon ng federal na pamahalaan at hindi naman talaga kailangang naka-sentro sa Amerika ang foreign policy ng bansa.

Kumbaga, nagising na ang bansa sa tatlumpong taong Aquino regime kung saan sarado ang isipan sa tunay na pagbabago at mga bagong kaisipan.

Ang tanong na lang, eh, bilang isang bansa, where do we go from here?

Malalamang lamang natin yan kung may kakayanan ang House Speaker sa pamunuan at pagkaisahin ang mga congressman ng mga iba't ibang distrito ng bansa.

Ang problema kay Cayetano, heto iyong tipong taong tinitiis pero hindi nire-respeto at tinitingala.

Paano mo ba naman titingalain ang isang taong alam mong balatkayong makabayan pero halatang makasarili talaga ang lahat ng hangarin?

Sa katunayan, may isang mambabatas na taga Mindanao na nanggagaliting sinabi na hindi talaga uubra si Cayetano bilang House Speaker.

Nangilid ang luha ni dating ARMM Gov. Hataman matapos
ipahiya ni Senator Alan Peter Cayetano.

Ayon sa mambabatas, paano ba magkakaruon ng pagkakaisa ang Kamara De Represetante kung ang ilang mga Mindanaon na mambabatas eh tiyak na galit kay Cayetano dahil sa paninindigan nito laban sa Bangsamoro Basic Law?

Huwag naman sanang mataga ng kris sa baba si Cayetano kung iniisip niyang masusuhulan ang mga hinamak niyang dangal ng mga lider ng Mindanao.

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao Gov. Mujiv Hataman became emotional at a Senate hearing on Thursday after Senate Majority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano admonished the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) for using arms, violence and sometimes even resorting to “terrorist acts.” Video by Cathy Miranda and Ryan Leagogo/INQUIRER.net

Maalala natin na pinahiya ni Cayetano ang dating ARMM Governor Mujiv Hataman matapos mapatay ang tinatawag na SAF 44 sa Mamasapano, Maguindanao.
 


May mga kwento nga na sobrang galit ng mga Mindanaon, nagsunog ang mga tao ng effigy ni Cayetano sa Marawi.

Ayon sa Mindanaon na dating mambabatas, “He hates the idea of a regional power like BARMM. The only reason why he kept silent was because he is AFRAID of President Duterte”

“Alan Cayetano is only for Alan Cayetano, he will not represent Mindanao or even Visayas or even Luzon. He will not be fit to be a House Speaker as he will only find ways to protect himself and his friends in Congress,”

Todo-todo Panggigipit ng mga Villafuerte sa mga opisyal ng Camsur

Talagang tinatarantando nila Camsur governor Migz Villafuerte at ang ama nitong si Lray Villafuerte ang mga kapwa nilang opisyal sa probinya nila.

Naghahari-harian at nagyayabang ang mag-ama na kung umasta eh hawak nila sa leeg ang lahat ng tao sa kanilang probinsya. 

Isa lamang sa mga issue laban sa mga madalas maakusahan
ng korapsyon na mga Villafuerte.

Puro pang-aalipusta at pananakot ang ginagawa ng mag-amang tig-isa lang ang badudels kapag hindi umaayon sa kanila ang mga taga Camsur.

Lahat ng mga di kanya dito sa camsur na suspend.

Kabilang dito si Libmanan Mayor Bernard Brioso, ang pinuno ng bayan kung saan sinasabi ni Lray Villafuerte na dun siya nakatira. Malamang kumulot ang kilay ni Lray dahil nabistong hindi siya tumitira sa bahay daw niya sa Libmanan na nilagay niya sa kanyang Certificate of Candidacy. Malamang mabasura ang COC ng mapilantik na si Lray.

Bukod kay Mayor Brioso, nadamay din si Mayor Evelyn Fuentebella of Sangay, Mayor Tom Bongalonta of Pili, at Mayor Nelson Bueza of Garchitorena.

At marami pa silang Mayor na tinatakot lalo na sa mga naglakas loob na lumipat sa Andaya dahil di na nila masikmura ang pinagagawa sa kanila ng mga Villafuerte lalo na si Migz Villafuerte na sunod sunoran sa ama na si Lray. 

Si Rene Magtuto na tatakbo ding party-list congressman sa Bicol Saro at si Nonoy Magtuto na tatakbong congressman din ay kasama din sa pagbabalak ng mga masama laban sa kanilang mga kalaban. 

Cyber-Activism and the Revival of the Suggestion Box

I've been away from this blog for quite sometime now, after spending weeks settling in a new address and struggling with the crappy/inexplicably intermittent Smartbro signal near Marikina River.

Another thing that I am struggling with right now is not to be a "log in the dark", as Dean Jorge Bocobo had once described me on Twitter -- either because my tweets were too subtle or his wit couldn't catch my drift. 

DJB is the sort who is fun to tangle with and if he ever thinks of getting out of retirement (having been formerly employed by Westinghouse or some other big name company), he could probably give Carlos Celdran a run for his money by doing Metro Manila Taxi Tours.  

His mind twisting commentaries on life, nature, politics, and whatever else crops up on Twitter or Facebook or the Blogosphere can seem to make the entire world disappear.  There were times, when we were debating the RH Bill, that I nearly sipped my ashtray and mashed a cigarette butt in my coffee.  Then again, what would a tour be if you can't see the sights in relative peace disturbed only by one or two colorful  anecdotes about the place?

Don't get me wrong here, I like DJB and messing with him (trolling him, to be exact) has actually helped me a lot in re-examining quite a few ideas which include charter change, the RH Bill and anti-poor eugenics as I like to call it.

Discussing things with people like DJB over the internet in the manner that I have done, regardless of the online platform we tangle in, can generate a lot of noise for a topic or issue.  But I have yet to see how it can actually affect things in the real, off-line world.

Without doubt, online conversations and even online movements can influence policy and decision makers in corporations and government bodies. My doubt stems from whether or not the ideas proposed or promoted online per se are really the reason behind a policy change or decision.

Stuff like the RH Bill (reproductive health subsidies, population control, population management, eugenics, etcetera) or charter change have been around for decades already.  No doubt, policy makers have been familiar with these ideas for a long time and like old jokes told to young ears, these ideas have found some sort of "revival" -- like an old brand of soap repackaged in another form.  Maybe what happens, really, is that aging policy makers or newly minted ones probably brush off the dust from these ideas and re-work it in a way that will appeal to a lot of people.

Fashion designers, movie producers, writers, painters, politicians, and chess players are all probably in on the same racket of re-working old ideas to display it before naive or innocent minds.

There are really no new ideas, just old ideas and new people.

Going back to policy/decision makers and their encounter with online noise, I have yet to come across a corporate or government executive, who cites Twitter or Facebook noise as a major reason for a policy change or decision.  At most, maybe, policy/decision makers may treat online noise as an indicator (significant or otherwise) or as RAW intelligence.

Yesterday, though, I found it really odd that a member of the Philippine Judicial and Bar Council posed a question to Supreme Court Chief Justice candidate Katrina Legarda which purportedly came from a Twitter user.  In a way, it was a poorly executed attempt to demonstrate that the JBC hearing for the selection of the new Chief Justice was accessible and transparent -- it had a feel of those rigged radio contests that DJ Mo Twister has been accused of doing.

Which brings me, perhaps, how policy/decision makers may view Facebook or Twitter -- it's just another way to demonstrate responsiveness to their stakeholders in the hopes of increasing repeat sales or retaining more customers.  

And this one is an old, old routine that dates back to the time when the "suggestion box" gained popularity. Here's an excerpt from a PDF Document "Idea Management and the Suggestion Box" by Mark Turrel.

The first recorded suggestion program was implemented in 1770 by the British Navy. They realized the need for a process for listening to every individual in the organization -- without fear of reprisal.  At that time, the mere mention of an idea that contradicted a captain's or admiral's opinion was likely to be punished by hanging. 

The first physical box to collect ideas appeared at William Denny and Brothers shipyward in Scotland in 1880.   It was intended to collect ideas from all employees and to pay a 'fair' reward for each implementable idea.  This approach of the suggestion scheme, as it is still known in the United Kingdom today, spready rapidly through the country following government reports on the project's success. 

In 1892 NCR become the first US company to implement a company-wide suggestion program.  The concept was the "hundred-headed brain", developed by John Patterson, their infamous CEO.  He realized early in his business career that employees had valuable ideas but that management structures tended to prevent these ideas from spreading through the company.  Employees complainted that there was no point giving ideas to their supervisors as the best ideas were stolen, and the worst ideas used as a pretext for their dismissal. 

Suggestion boxes became popular in the manufacturing sector in WWII and the post war years.  They became part of the total quality movement and an integral part of cost, safety, and quality improvement initiatives over the following fifty years.  They are still the mainstray of corporate suggestion programs, be they physical boxes or virtual boxes on company intranet websites.

Perhaps, from the perspective of a company president/CEO/COO or government executive, what really matters is whether the online noise contributes to his company's bottom line or extends his political career.

Thing is, while the naive and innocent (with most Facebook and Twitter users being in the 17 to 24 year old range) feel as if they are contributing to "better management" or "better governance", they may be at times just contributing to company or political hype.

So, if you are wondering why Facebook is free or why Twitter continues to exist despite having somewhat of a contentious revenue issue... Think no more.

Or if you do think about it some more, keep it to yourself until you can put a patent on it or copyright it.

Former RCBC Securities President Jerome Tan Dies in Subic

(Source: http://business.inquirer.net/67563/biz-buzz-shedding-old-skin)


Subic accident

Former RCBC Securities president Jerome Tan passed away last weekend after he drowned in Zambales.

According to word that reached Biz Buzz, Tan and his friend were trying out a new yacht last Saturday in Subic and decided to visit Grande Island, just at the mouth of the bay. They anchored the boat off the island and jumped into the water to swim to the shore but soon found themselves overpowered by the strong undertow that waters off Zambales are known for.

Despite being “very fit” and a “good swimmer”—as attested to by his good friends, who invariably described him as a “nice guy”—Tan was apparently overcome by the current. Only his friend made it to the island, and the banker was later found with a very weak pulse. Tan expired soon after.

Tan resigned from the brokerage firm about two months ago amid troubles concerning the supposedly rogue trades executed by the firm’s rainmaker (who has since made herself scarce). According to his friends, Tan was advised early this year by a geomancer to “stay away from salt water.”—Daxim L. Lucas

King of Comedy Dolphy... Going Any Time

I sure hope it isn't true that Dolphy is near deaths door.

For the last couple of days, Dolphy "The King of Comedy" Quizon had fallen ill and was reportedly in critical condition.

There was word coming from his son Eric Quizon that the Dolphy's health was improving.

But just now, friends in movie and entertainment circles say that Dolphy is nearing death and may go any time soon.

What This Country Needs...

Baihana: Proudly Filipina, Singing for Global Harmony

After Manny Pacquiao's loss to Timothy Bradley and Jessica Sanchez' loss to Philip Philips and then hearing her sing the Start Spangled Banner, suddenly I get word of a Filipina vocal trio making waves on the global scene.

Fast rising vocal trio Baihana interprets the official score of Emirates’ Harmony in the country and serves as the nation’s primary campaign representative. The three ladies used pure vocals to interpret Emirate's score or jingle because the Filipino voice is what is known worldwide in contrast to other musicians representing their countries who used traditional instruments.

The fantastic Baihana trio of Krina Cayabyab, Mel Torre, and Anna Achacoso combines three part vocal harmonies with feminine humor, era jazz music and wit.  Baihana is a derivative of the Cebuano word which means babae in Tagalog and girl in English. The ladies’ musical influences are the Andrew Sisters, the Chordettes, and many other famous 1950s and 1960s jazz vocal groups. The trio is managed by The Thirdline Inc.

Here's Krina, Mel, and Anna singing the Emirate's score.

The three women are lending their voices to Emirate's global brand platform "Hello Tomorrow".

In a write up, Emirates country manager describes Baihana:

Gigie Baroa, Emirates Philippines Country Manager noted that with Baihana’s exceptional vocal prowess, outstanding showmanship, charming wit and enchanting choral harmonies, the group is a living testament to the reputation of Filipinos as world class artists.

“Filipinos are renowned all over the world for their fabulous contributions to the music industry,” Baroa said. “World-class talents such as Miss Saigon star Lea Salonga, Black Eyed Peas member Apl D Ap, Journey frontman Arnel Pineda, international singer Charice, ‘Asia’s Queen of Songs’ Pilita Corrales, ‘Anak’ singer-songwriter Freddie Aguilar, ‘Asia’s Nightingale’ Lani Misalucha, to name a few, had given prestige to the Philippines because of their heartfelt songs and excellent skills.”

“Dubbed as ‘The Future of Original Pilipino Music,’ Baihana truly embodies Emirates latest brand campaign – Global Harmony,” Baroa added. “A perfect fit for Emirates Airline as a lifestyle brand; the group is fresh, unified, enjoyable, youthful, vibrant, talented, and world-class.

The airline company invites the world to interact with its brand platform through www.emiratesharmony.com and  the carrier aims to strike a chord with music fans around the world by asking them to help create the ultimate musical mash up.  Music fans and followers of the carrier can contribute their own versions of the Emirate's jingle, possibly snagging some global attention when it is featured on the site.

 http://www.emiratesharmony.com/

The airline’s Harmony campaign invites participants to interact with a specially-commissioned musical composition, which has been recorded by professional musicians playing traditional instruments from around the world, such as the harp, Taiko drum, bass guitar, saxophone, Shekere, Oudht and Indian Flute.

Those who go on the Emirates Harmony site can choose to either upload pre-recorded video or record their contribution via webcam.

More about the girls...

Krina is the daughter of “The Maestro” Ryan Cayabyab and is the creative force behind Baihana. She does most of the group’s vocal and musical arrangements. She composes the music of their original songs, while her group mates, Mel and Anna, usually provide the lyrics. Her composition “Isaw,” won first place in the novelty category of the 2010 FILSCAP Song Writing Festival; a shimmering testimony to Krina’s musical lineage.

Funny girl Mel Torre’s voice is the group’s cornerstone of Baihana’s intricate vocal harmonies. As the group’s alto (Anna and Krina are sopranos), it’s easy to differentiate Mel’s low-husky voice even within the three-part harmonies of Baihana’s vocal arrangements. Her stunningly versatile vocal solos are sturdy and soulful; it is easy to think that she can hold her own against the country’s best soloists. She also sings alto in her choir group, Anima and then shifts to the blues with remarkable ease - as the substitute vocalist for the Blue Rats.

Cute and witty Anna Achacoso, is the granddaughter of the illustrious singer-actress Armida Siguion-Reyna. Anna sings most of the tough second voice parts in the melodies of the group’s songs. Her voice unites Mel's low range vocals and Krina's high range parts to form Baihana’s trademark sound.

CJ Corona's Coviction

So much has already been said about the conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona on Second Article of Impeachment and I doubt there is anything more that I can add to the hundreds of thousands or millions of words that have filled the internet by now.

After all, what is my opinion worth?

As I've probably said before, I basically see myself as a kibitzer in what I perceive to be a power game between political juggernauts.

Despite grounding the main accusation on "betrayal of public trust", I don't think all of the people involved in the "trial" could be accused and found guilty of scrupulously following a principled path.

Which, then, makes me think... What would be the reason to celebrate or grieve over?

Impeachment Court Hands Down Guilty Verdict on Chief Justice Renato Corona, 20 to 3

The senate sitting as an impeachment court voted to convict Chief Justice Renato Corona on the basis of the Second Article of Impeachment or for the culpable violation of the Philippine Constitution for his failure to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

Senator Bongbong Marcos, Senator Joker Arroyo, and Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago were the only ones who voted to acquit Chief Justice Corona.

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was the last to give an explanation for his verdict to convict Corona and here it is in its entirety:

The vote of the Senate President 

HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE 

On Article II of the Articles of Impeachment against Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona

In the entire course of this impeachment trial, I have faced many difficult challenges to my own and the Court's collective wisdom, our sense of justice and fairness, the delicate balancing act we must perform to ensure that we do not stray from the strictures of the Constitution, the law and our rules.

This trial began and unfolded against the backdrop of a highly charged and emotional atmosphere, acrimonious debate in and outside the confines of this Court, and a deep political fissure which threatened the stability of our democratic institutions.

But the impact of the many events that transpired since December 12 last year to this very day, taken altogether, cannot compare to the sense of heaviness that I feel at this very moment.

The culmination of this national drama is at hand, and the time has come for me to render judgment on the person before whom I took my Oath of Office as a Senator of the Republic...no less than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona.

The Respondent Chief Justice and his family understandably feel deeply hurt, pained and aggrieved.

As a lawyer, I must confess that I was personally frustrated by the loose and hasty crafting and preparation that characterized the presentation of the charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment. It seemed that the case was being built up only after the charges were actually filed. The repeated recourse to this Court's compulsory processes to obtain evidence which normally should have formed the factual basis of the charges in the first place further burdened and, at times, taxed the patience of this Court.

We have witnessed with disdain the indiscriminate, deliberate and illegal machinations of some parties who have been less than forthright with this Court in presenting dubiously procured and misleading documents which were spread to the media obviously to influence this Court's and the public's opinion.

The letter of the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority which contained, as an attachment, a list of 45 properties supposedly owned by the Respondent Chief Justice, was fed to the media even before we could begin the actual trial of this case.

Even before the Hon. Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio Morales, was called to testify before this Court, her letter to the Chief Justice requiring him to explain in 72 hours an alleged aggregate amount of US$10M in several dollar accounts was leaked to the media right before the resumption of this trial last May 7.

We have sternly cautioned against unethical and unprofessional conduct, the penchant to engage in trial by publicity, to use the media to disseminate and advance so called "information" or "evidence", to provoke and disrespect this Court and its members, and to irresponsibly hurl disparaging insinuations and accusations.

We have tried to impress upon everyone who may be similarly motivated and inclined to test our will that this Court means serious business and would not succumb to nor allow such underhanded tactics and gimmickry to deter us from our task.

Prudence and justice dictate that in determining the guilt or innocence of the Chief Justice, we must try our best to confine ourselves to the pieces of testimonial and documentary evidence that have been presented to this Court, to pass upon their relevance, and to measure and weigh their value in the light of the charges before us.

After all the accusations levelled against the Chief Justice - eight (8) charges in all comprising the Articles of Impeachment - the Prosecution chose to present evidence only on three Articles (Articles II, III and VII), and abruptly rested its case.

I have always believed that of these three, the case for the Prosecution and the Defense will rise or fall on Article II, which is the subject of this vote.

This Court, at one point, had extensive discussions and differences of opinion, to be sure, regarding the charge contained in Paragraph 2.4 of Article II that the Chief Justice was "suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits".

We ruled to disallow the introduction of evidence in support of Par. 2.4 which, to this day, I strongly maintain was an invalid charge, it being based on mere "suspicion", on so-called "reports", rather than on factual allegations.

The Defense and the Chief Justice himself somehow revived this issue of the nature of his assets by introducing evidence to prove that his income and assets were legitimate, and by testimony to show how he and his wife had saved and invested these savings in foreign currency over so many decades.

I wish to reiterate, for the record, that the Chief Justice does not stand accused of having amassed any ill-gotten wealth before this Impeachment Court.

Paragraph 2.2 of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment accuses the Respondent Chief Justice of failing to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth as required by the Constitution.

I submit that the Chief Justice had justifiable and legal grounds to rely on the Supreme Court's procedural and policy guidelines governing such disclosures as embodied in a Resolution promulgated way back in 1989 when the Respondent was not yet a Member of the Supreme Court.

Under the said guidelines, the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, who is the repository of the SALN's submitted by all the Members of the Supreme Court, may furnish copies of the SALN's in his or her custody to any person upon request, and upon showing that there is a legitimate reason for the same.

The Constitution, in Article XI, Sec. 17, states that "in the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and offices of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law".

R.A. 6713, known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, recognizes the public's right to information on the assets, liabilities, net worth, financial and business interests of public servants. But it likewise declares it unlawful for any person "to obtain or use the same for purposes contrary to morals or public policy or for any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public".

Whether the said guidelines violate the letter and spirit of R.A. 6713 and the principle of public accountability is not for this Court to pass upon. I grant that the Chief Justice believed in good faith that after periodically filing his sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court were sufficient to allow the Clerk of Court to comply with the Constitution and the law.

We cannot ignore the fact that the failure or refusal, particularly of public officials in high government positions, to provide the public or the media with copies of the SALN's, continues to be a raging issue to this day. In fact, some, if not most of the members of the Prosecution panel itself, the Members of the Supreme Court, members of Congress and other high officials of the government have been challenged by media organizations to make their SALN's available to the public and to the media.

Paragraph 2.3 of Article II further accuses the Respondent Chief Justice, based on "reports", of not including some properties in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

The Prosecution, based on the list it procured from the LRA, claims that the Chief Justice owned and failed to fully disclose in his SALN 45 real estate assets. Based on the evidence, I am convinced that the Defense has presented credible evidence to refute this charge and to explain the exclusion in the Respondent Chief Justice's SALN's of certain properties which have either been sold or legally transferred, properties which are actually owned by his children and/or third parties, and properties which were never owned by the Respondent in the first place.

I am likewise convinced that the Defense has sufficiently established that there was no ill intention on the part of the Respondent to understate or misrepresent the value of his real properties.

Proceeding now to the most significant charge involving the non-disclosure of the Respondent Chief Justice's cash assets, the Ombudsman, at the instance of the Defense, testified with a presentation of a report from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), showing 82 bank accounts allegedly belonging to the Respondent.

She further testified that based on her analysis of the report, aided by the Commission on Audit, the Chief Justice had cash assets in the examined bank accounts of anywhere from US$10 Million to US$ 12 Million.

Even if we grant the existence of these 82 accounts, the amount of deposits corresponding to each of these could not just easily, fairly or logically be summed up to arrive at exactly how much cash assets or deposits, in actuality and in totality, the Respondent Chief Justice had or has at any given point in time.

Hence, the Ombudsman's reference to a "transactional balance" of about US$12 Million should not mislead this Court in its appreciation of the facts.

Regrettably, both the Prosecution and the Defense panels decided not to present the concerned bank officers or the AMLC to ascertain the veracity of the data allegedly provided by the AMLC to the Office of the Ombudsman, despite the Respondent's submission to this Court of a written waiver to cause the opening of all his bank accounts. Laudable as this belated act on the part of the Respondent Chief Justice may be, it would have served him better if he had just presented bank documents as evidence to either confirm or refute the documents showing his bank transactions as presented by the Ombudsman. It has not escaped this Presiding Officer that initially, last May 22nd to be exact, before he walked out of the halls of this Court, the Chief Justice signed the said waiver in open court but made the release of the same conditional, that is, after all the 188 signatories to the Articles of Impeachment and Senator-Judge Franklin Drilon have signed a similar waiver. It was only during the hearing last May 25 that the Chief Justice decided to submit the waiver to the Court without any conditions.

Moreover, even as the Chief Justice had full access to his own bank accounts and all the opportunity to introduce evidence to disprove the data, findings and analysis presented by the Ombudsman or the report of the AMLC, the Defense did not introduce any such evidence.

As it is, the Impeachment Court could only rely on the documents supplied by the Ombudsman which show the Respondent's bank transactions but which do not show the actual bank balances of Respondent's bank accounts.

Instead, the Defense presented the Chief Justice himself as its last witness and pleaded for the Court's permission to allow the Respondent to deliver an "opening statement".

This Court, out of courtesy to the Chief Justice, decided to extend its understanding and to exercise liberality in granting the request.

The long narration, where the Chief Justice touched on a wide range of issues, assertions of facts, accusations, opinions and personal sentiments, which the Respondent said he found necessary to narrate in order to clear his and his family's name, was later adopted by the Defense as the direct testimony of the Respondent. The Prosecution, on the other hand, waived its right to cross-examine the Chief Justice, provided the Defense would not conduct any further direct examination.

Nevertheless, the Respondent Chief Justice testified and admitted, in answer to questions from a member of this Court, that he had around P80 Million in 3 Peso accounts and US$2.4 Million in 4 US Dollar accounts, but that he had purposely not declared these assets for 2 reasons: (1) That his Peso accounts represented "co-mingled funds", and (2) That he was not required to report or declare his foreign currency deposits in his SALN because they were absolutely confidential under R.A. 6426.

I disagree on both counts.

If, indeed, any of the Respondent's cash deposits were co-mingled with the funds belonging to other parties such as the Basa Guidote Enterprises, Inc. (BGEI) or his children, the Respondent was still duty bound to declare these deposits in his SALN, they being admittedly under his name.

The evidence is devoid of any indication that the Chief Justice was holding these funds in trust for or that they were actually beneficially owned by any one other than himself or his wife.

Assuming that any part of such deposits in truth belonged to third parties, the Respondent could have indicated such third-party funds as corresponding liabilities in his SALN. That would have reflected his real net worth.

With all due respect, I believe that the Respondent Chief Justice's reliance on the absolute confidentiality accorded to foreign currency deposits under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426 is grossly misplaced.

The Constitution, in Article XI, Sec. 17, provides that "A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and net worth. x x x "

Are we now to say that this Constitutional command is limited to a public official's assets or deposits in local currency? If so, would we not be saying, in effect, that the Constitution allows something less than a full, honest and complete disclosure?

It bears noting that the prescribed form of the SALN quite simply requires public officers and employees to declare their assets, real and personal, the latter to include cash and bank deposits, bonds, etc. It does not require the public officer or employee to indicate whether or not he or she has foreign currency notes or deposits. Neither does it require details such as account numbers, account names, bank identity nor any branch address. All that it requires is a declaration of the total amount of the funds deposited in any bank account or accounts maintained by the public official or employee concerned.

Surely, the Chief Justice knows the equivalent value in local currency of his foreign currency deposits to be able to declare the same as part of his assets, especially since the aggregate amount of these foreign currency deposits, by his own account, amounts to US$2.4 Million.

The non-disclosure of these deposits, in both local and foreign currency, would naturally result in a corresponding distortion of the Chief Justice's real net worth.

Consistent with the position taken by this Court in the case filed by the Philippine Savings Bank before the Supreme Court last February, pursuant to which the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, I maintain that the Constitutional principle of public accountability overrides the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits.

The provisions of R.A. 6426 cannot be interpreted as an exception to the unequivocal command and tenor of Article XI, Sec. 17, of the 1987 Constitution, and I regret that the Highest Magistrate of the land, no less, would think otherwise.

Section 8 of R.A. 6426 provides that except with the written permission of the depositor, "in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative or any other entity whether public or private."

The so-called conflict of laws between R.A. Nos. 6713 and 6426 is more illusory than real. Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426 merely prohibits the examination, inquiry or looking into a foreign currency deposit account by an entity or person other than the depositor himself. But there is nothing in R.A. No. 6426 which prohibits the depositor from making a declaration on his own of such foreign currency funds, especially in this case where the Constitution mandates the depositor who is a public officer to declare all assets under oath.

Some have raised the question: Why should the Chief Justice be held accountable for an offense which many, if not most others in Government are guilty of, perhaps even more than he is? They say that hardly anyone declares his true net worth anyway.

Here lies what many have posited as a moral dilemma. I believe it is our duty to resolve this "dilemma" in favor of upholding the law and sound public policy. If we were to agree with the Respondent that he was correct in not disclosing the value of his foreign currency deposits because they are absolutely confidential, can we ever expect any SALN to be filed by public officials from hereon to be more accurate and true than they are today?

I am not oblivious to the possible political repercussions of the final verdict we are called upon to render today. I am deeply concerned that the people may just so easily ignore, forget, if not completely miss out, the hard lessons we all must learn from this episode, instead of grow and mature as citizens of a democratic nation.

Those whose intentions and motivations may be farthest from the lofty ideals of truth and justice are wont to feast upon this man's downfall should this Court render a guilty verdict.

I am equally aware of the tremendous pressure weighing heavily upon all the members of this Court as we had to come to a decision on this case, one way or the other.

But to render a just verdict according to my best lights and my own conscience is a sacred duty that I have sworn to perform.

As one who has been through many personal upheavals through all of my 88 years, I, too, have been judged, often unfairly and harshly. But I have constantly held that those who face the judgment of imperfect and fallible mortals like us have recourse to the judgment of history, and, ultimately, of God.

And so, with full trust that the Almighty will see us through the aftermath of this chapter in our nation's history, I vote to hold the Chief Justice, Renato C. Corona, GUILTY as charged under Article II, Par. 2.3, and that his deliberate act of excluding substantial assets from his sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth constitutes a culpable violation of the Constitution.

Live feed CJ Renato Corona Testifies

Here's streaming video of Chief Justice Renato Corona, he's supposed to testify today.

 
Streaming by Ustream

Filipino TV Crew Goes to Scarborough Shoal, gets shooed away by Chinese vessels. What's the point?

Okay, is there any point at all to bringing a Filipino TV crew to an territory that is under bitter protest?

What were you guys expecting from the Chinese? What do you expect the Philippines Government to do? What do you think your fellow Filipinos would feel?

Satanic Lady Gaga Holds Concert In Manila Tomorrow

Driving over to my house in Manila, I caught the tail end of Atty. Romeo Macalintal saying that he and a few other people would protest the holding of Lady Gaga's concert at the SM Area tomorrow.

Apparently, Atty. Macalintal is of the opinion that some of Lady Gaga's songs are Satanic in nature and he even quoted the lyrics of "Judas".

Thankfully, Atty. Macalintal didn't go into the whole ordeal of back-masking Judas because it was just too damned early to hear an old man talk about sexual perversion.

I don't know whether he had too much Dan Brown or too much Hash Brownies (oh you know what I am talking about!), but I really doubt that after listening to Judas people in the Philippines will turn into Satanistic perverts.

And if they act in any kind of perverted way, I'd suppose they were perverts long before Lady Gaga even came up with the song.

Of course, I am not discounting the fact that the sexual imagery in Lady Gaga's video will drive RH Bill advocates into a frenzy over the fact that perhaps getting exposed to more Lady Gaga music LIVE may send millions of Filipinos into an orgiastic population balloon bursting marathon of procreation.

But, I guess, that's just about as evil as it gets.

The thing is, I have probably listened to almost all the so called Satanic music and guess what? Only stupid people live out the lyrics of their favorite rebellious music.

Netizens Ask Nike To Drop Pacquiao as Endorser for Opposing Gay Marriage

Eight Division World Boxing Champion Manny Pacquiao's opposition to gay marriage may hit him where it may hurt a little and it's not in a place below the belt.

Netizens are signing a petition initiated by Gay Marriage USA via Change.org, which asks Nike to "say 'no' to hate speech" by withdrawing its sponsorship of Pacquiao whom the brand has supported since 2008.

"Following [U.S. President Barack] Obama's recent announcement of support for marriage equality, Pacquiao quoted Bible excerpts to state that homosexuals should be put to death: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads," the petition read. 

Pacquiao was initially quoted as saying marriage "should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old."

But in a report on Abs-cbnnews.com, Pacquiao said he is against same-sex marriage but not against gays. 

He also denied citing Leviticus 20:13, which says: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

This isn't the first time that Pacquiao figured prominently in a negative way online, a couple of months back he got into a row with followers on Twitter which, if I remember correctly, had to do with his opposition to the RH Bill -- another cause supported by the Philippine gay community.

In any case, my view on the whole matter is basically that our job as Christians is not the judge each other but to love each other.  Each must account for his or her own action and square up with The Creator on his own accord.

Bertrand Russel's "My Ten Commandments"

I came across this and found it quite appropriate to re-here after a series of posts exposing someone's deception.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote his own personal set of ten commandments. They were published under the title "My Ten Commandments" in Everyman magazine in 1930.
They ran as follows: -

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worthwhile to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that is happiness.

Making the Philippines Better for All Its Citizens (Happy Mothers Day, Ma.)

The past couple of days weren't an absolute waste of time, even if most of my free time was spent unmasking another act of deception foisted by one misguided soul and being somewhat amused by the childish rants that erupted afterwards.

The thing is, some people believe that the only way for things to improve in this country is for massive and widespread changes to take place because everything about it is so effing wrong.

I still believe that a lot of things are wrong with this country, but unlike when I was in high school or college, I have become increasingly aware that all the wrong things in this country cannot be changed for the better by a change in leadership, government, economic policies, etcetera.

As I've grown somewhat disenchanted with the idea of panaceas for a dysfunctional society, I've also come to appreciate the simple nugget of wisdom that my mother would often tell me whenever I'd get too engrossed in one revolutionary solution or another.

She had a thousand and one ways of saying it, but the best one I remember is this:

"Nasa may katawan ang pagbabago."

-- Linda Farol

Being 80 years old, I think she can probably attest to the fact that sweeping political and economic changes won't do shit for people who expect food to land in mouths.

She also says that an improved economy won't make an unskilled laborer or peon (as she is fond of saying) won't make enough money to have a decent life and it will always take government intervention to give him that.

Moreover, she says that laws guaranteeing worker rights won't guarantee having jobs and they're useless if you're unemployed.  The best way to have security of tenure is to be indispensable to the company and the best way to secure an upward career path is to be the best at what you do.

She also says that a change in political leadership just boils down to some politician getting a promoted and it  won't mean diddly squat to you -- the ordinary citizen -- unless you're either a relative of the politician, crony, or an indispensable member of his staff.

These remarkable insights into the economy, legislation, and politics have been proven true, time and again.

Especially, if you consider that my mom is an ordinary housewife who devoted the best years of her life to taking care of her children.  

She didn't study political science, philosophy, or any of the "sciences".  If her family hadn't suffered a major reversal during World War II, I think she would have finished a college degree in nursing or education and perhaps, we (her children) wouldn't have been born.

She chose to get married in her twenties and raise a family instead.

Still wanting to be mentally active in a practical way, she taught herself how to fix car engines, embroidery, crocheting, dress making, pig and chicken raising, dog training, baking, cooking, basic carpentry, basic masonry, electrical installation, vegetable raising, how to run a business, and a whole other range of skills that helped add income or spare expenses.

Come to think of it, I don't think there is any kind of practical skill that my mother doesn't have some level of proficiency in.  (Oh, well, she can't hard code HTML or even work a keyboard, for that matter.  But she's my mother and its mother's day, so I'll look that over -- just this once.)

To her, the accumulation of knowledge and skills that has practical use and can either earn money or save money is the best way to improve one's station in life.

I've often over-looked her formula for improving her life and the lives of people who have come into her life because it seemed corny.

But, corny as it seemed to me when I was an angst driven young man, I now look back at her corny formula for improving people's lives and I have to say, she's right.

Her formula for self improvement is simple:

1. Learn.

2. Earn.

3. Save.

4. Invest.

Nope. Not Econ lib, federalism, or parliamentary shift.

Who'd Pay to Troll You?

I should be shaking in my boots right now, but I am too busy rolling on the floor laughing out loud.

The leader of the small Facebook group who dreams of converting the entire Philippines to his "vision" for a CoRRECTED Philippines has accused yours truly of being paid to troll him.

Really?! I am soooo shocked.

Like, someone actually thought it would be worth any sum of money to annoy you?  Like who? (The voices in your head don't count.)

Locsin on whether articles of CoRRECT Philippines convinced him to support Parliamentary Shift

Not wanting to let the members of a small Facebook group down, I decided to tweet out an article where the leader of the small Facebook group claims that former Makati Representative Teddy Locsin Jr. was convinced to support parliamentary shift because of their articles.

The leader says:

He (Locsin) got exposed to the numerous literature (articles and videos) that CoRRECT had created and got passed around, and thanks to the buzz that we created in making it a very important issue to look into, he not only took a second look, he also looked into the merits of why the parliamentary system is superior to the presidential system.

Locsin answered:

@paulfarol Not meaning to deride their efforts but I only read stuff written by white people, like Lind, Dahl, Bagheot, Macaulay, Burke.

— Teddy Locsin Jr. (@teddyboylocsin) May 9, 2012

CoRRECT Philippines Claims to Have Convinced Teddyboy Locsin to Support a Shift to Parliamentary Form of Government

A leader of a small Facebook Group is claiming that his group's efforts had convinced former congressman and columnist Teddy Boy Locsin to support moves calling for the country to shift to a parliamentary form of government.

In the comment section of an updated on Get Real Philippines Community, the leader of the pro-parliamentary shift Facebook Group speculates that Teddy Boy Locsin had read articles he had written and this was what convinced Locsin to support his movement.

He, moreover, claims to have popularized a white paper supporting a parliamentary shift written by former Congressman now Budget Secretary Florencio Abad.

I am reposting parts of his comment below: 

He (Locsin) got exposed to the numerous literature (articles and videos) that CoRRECT had created and got passed around, and thanks to the buzz that we created in making it a very important issue to look into, he not only took a second look, he also looked into the merits of why the parliamentary system is superior to the presidential system.  

----

It's starts off with creating a buzz. GRP-AP created it in 2010 when the Constitutional Reform articles started coming out. Then in January 2011, CoRRECT as a brand got launched. 

From creating a buzz and creating a comprehensive repository from which people could do their own research that is SPECIFIC TO THE PHILIPPINE SITUATION vis-a-vis the diff. aspects of Constitutional Reform, especially the much-maligned proposal to shift to the parliamentary system, numerous formerly anti-parliamentary/anti-Constitutional Reform people - including Locsin - ended up making the shift. 

Back then, in the 1990's and in the mid 2000's, there was no CoRRECT. There was no solid Citizens' Movement that sought to spread the word and enlighten the Public on what Constitutional Reform was and teach people about what the Parliamentary System is and how it works. 

Starting in 2011, CoRRECT served that purpose. (And we even ended up getting the goat of people like Esposo) 

It's easy to see why Locsin would suddenly learn about it and then agree with it NOW, as opposed to back in the old days when our solid efforts to "spread the word among ordinary educated people" had not yet existed.

He further claims, he popularized Abad's white paper proposing a shift to the parliamentary form of government:

In fact, our sites "revived" and "popularized" many old literature produced by some pro-parliamentary advocates that did not see wide distribution before. Remember how Butch Abad wrote an article that explained the superiority of the parliamentary system? Before pre-split GRP-AP first featured that on AP, that whitepaper (in PDF format) he wrote was very poorly disseminated among only a few people. It was in fact our efforts in putting it on the spotlight that did in fact help create that buzz.  

Again, it's worth looking into why Locsin got swayed to oppose it before, but only recently expressed support for it, and it is simple: Back in the old days, there was no GRP-AP-CoRRECT initiative that existed to counteract the black propaganda thrown against the Constitutional Reform initiatives. Today, there is, and that makes all the difference.

Quite curious and wishing to end all speculation, I asked Teddy Boy Locsin point blank about what made him choose to support the move to shift to a parliamentary form of government.

This was his answer to me on twitter:

His response, if I am reading it correctly, is that he chose to support parliamentary shift because he believes there is no longer a threat of a single party dictatorship.

No references to CoRRECT Philippines or any of its articles.

Facebook Soldiers: Why CoRRECT is WRONG

First, let me start by saying that, in general and broad term terms, the idea of pushing for a Parliamentary Shift, Economic Liberalization, and Federalism are all very good ideas that are worth discussing.

A large amount of literature has been published regarding these three ideas, where some of the country's best minds articulated the merits of having a parliamentary system of government, an economy that is more open to foreign investment, and a Federal government which would allow provinces to organize themselves into states.

In fact, the ideas of Parliamentary Shift, Economic Liberalization, and Federalism has some of the biggest names in Philippine politics behind it.  

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and House Speaker Sonny Belmonte have, in fact, said that they fully supported amending the constition's economic provisions.  

In one column, the proposed changes in the economic provisions of the constitution was discussed.  Here's an excerpt:

I once called the restrictive economic provisions as the “original sin” of our economic development policies. They constitute the main reason for the country’s limited access to foreign direct investment capital that the country has sorely needed since independence. 

These policies not only served to limit the inflow of foreign capital into the country. They also set the tone for the nurturing of a narrow economic nationalism as a dominant component and thinking about practical economic policies in the country for years. The end result is that the growth of output and of productivity in the country had also suffered immensely.

In 2010, Enrile and Belmonte agreed not to entertain discussions on proposals for revising political provisions in the constitution.  (Although, recently, Enrile came out with several statements proposing the re-establishment of Senatorial Districts.)

But despite the good that these ideas represent, their adoption and implementation in the real world of Philippine politics and economics have been thwarted by and large for many reasons.

In the X number of times that Constitutional amendments have been discussed formally in Congress as well as in the Senate, the stumbling block has always been amending provisions which have to do with the terms of office -- specifically that of the President.

Even during the Ramos Administration, when it seemed the country was flying high under his leadership and there was at least some reason to want to give President Fidel Ramos another term, there was great opposition to changing the Constitution to allow the sitting President to seek another term.

During the Estrada years, the move to amend the constitution was less visible but discussions continued and to some extent, these discussions were even backed by President Joseph Estrada.

It was during the latter part of the Arroyo Administration's term that the idea for amending the constitution resurfaced again and was opposed.  Again, the main object centered around giving a term extension to the sitting President.

What escaped the public eye back then was all the behind the scene work focused on coming up with amendments to the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

A friend who was somewhat involved in coming up with the amendments related to me that most of the proposed amendments, at the beginning, were actually economic in nature and there was a prevailing agreement that no proposals for changing the constitution's political provisions would be entertained.

The focus on proposing amending the Constitution's economic provisions stem from the idea that the country's biggest problem is poverty and that amendments to the Constitution should focus on lifting the restrictions that were perceived to be holding back the country's economic growth

Also, by focusing narrowly on changing the constitution's economic provisions, they believed proposals on this merit would be more widely accepted and supported.

The only contention against changing the economic provisions of the Constitution would perhaps be provided by protectionist groups.  These groups would probably argue against opening the economy fully to foreign investment because it would lead to the drowning out of Philippine businesses.

This is a valid concern which can lead to serious opposition, but, it is also something that can be addressed more easily with the right policies -- emanating not from the Constitution itself, but from the Senate and House of Representatives.

Now, one small group on Facebook seems bent on pushing for Parliamentary Shift, Economic Liberalization, and Federalism in a manner which is somewhat disconcerting -- to say the least.

I don't know if it is at all an "intelligent" or "subtle" or "enlightened" way of pushing for very good ideas, but declaring war on one of the more popular pages on Facebook will actually help make the group's chosen "advocacies" to prosper.

Tangina This is actually about 10,000 times larger than the smaller Facebook group that is declaring war on it and despite the fact that I believe principles should win over popularity, I really haven't seen it work out well in a street brawl for people siding with principle.

The Facebook soldiers, egged on by their leader by capslocking TULTA MUNILLE in what appears to be a message exchange on FB that was reposted in another group, might be setting themselves up for miserable failure and might even be damaging all the good work already done to push for changes in the Philippine constitution.

I've been told that the small facebook group thinks that charter change is being thwarted by some conspiracy organized by members of the country's political and economic elite as well as the communists.

This is something that I find a bit laughable because, the fact is, members of the political and economic elite have as much to gain from changes in the constitution or even more.

In any case, what people are really opposing or find repugnant -- as far as this group is concerned -- is not the proposed changes in the constitution itself, but the manner in which this group undertakes its campaign.

First, there is the bit of deception when it comes to their stated purpose.  While its leader says their group is espousing Economic Liberalization and Federalism, what he is really pushing for is a shift to a Parliamentary form of government.  

This was revealed in a conversation on FB I had with their leader, wherein I confronted him with the fact the Enrile and Belmonte both said they wouldn't go for amending political provisions in the constitution.  Their leader insisted, based on old article already rendered MOOT by recent pronouncements, that Enrile -- in his heart of hearts -- was still going to push for a parliamentary form of government.  I pointed out that he was speculating on Enrile's future action and that's when he lost his marbles.

It was plain to see that all he was really interested in was having a parliamentary form of government and he would have none of economic liberalization or federalism if it didn't include a shift away from the current presidential form.

So, in the end, instead of getting economic liberalization (which would help boost the country's economy for millions) or federalism (which could actually end the conflict in Mindanao), he'd rather just have a parliamentary form of government.  The first two, in his mind, are optional and he has put it out there as some scheme to merely attract people.

But attracting people who can really help is not the leaders' forte.

(More to follow)