How Gloria cheated the 2004 elections

Here is a document originally posted in Manolo Quezon's blog. It purportedly shows how Gloria Macapagal Arroyo cheated in the 2004 elections and is said to have been created by the supporters of FPJ. It is a powerpoint presentation with 108 slides, so you really don't have a lot to read but the presentation is quite easy to understand.

I guess you'd have to make your own judgement on whether to believe the document or not.

But one thing is clear to me and I believe it, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo cheated in the 2004 elections. It was her voice on the Hello Garci tapes and she asked Virgilio Garcillano to pad her votes by 1 million. THAT IS THE TRUTH!

In the next elections, we ought to make sure that cheating doesn't happen in 2010. There are more than 80,000 precincts to watch over and even with automated elections, there are still a lot of ways whereby cheating can be done.

LET US NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO STEAL OUR VOTES AGAIN!

2004 Election Fraud - Full Presentation 22 Oct 05

Presidential boob job

When a friend asked me about what I knew about the President's boob job, I thought he was referring either Secretary Cerge Remonde or any of the administration congressmen.

But seriously, I think the issue with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's breast implants and the health related concerns is a rather low blow.

But I don't think it is as nasty as the rumors that she is a nymphomaniac or that several men were allegedly her sex partners. Some people even spent time and money on making x-rated videos.

None of these tactics did damage to her politically.

The problem is that engaging in such tactics makes the perpetrator look bad. It tends to suggest the person using the tactic possesses a gutter level mentality. This is the reason why, perhaps, those who engage in these tactics (if they are politicians) usually churn this filth out using blind items or white papers.

With that said, here's a picture of Angel Locsin's twin peaks.

National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales proposes revolutionary government

National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales proposed that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo be part of a military-backed transition government that would reform the electoral system and amend the Constitution—all before the 2010 elections.

He said the “revolutionary” government could be patterned after the one established by former President Corazon Aquino as soon as see assumed the presidency following the 1986 People Power revolt.

Gonzales further said that President Arroyo should be part of the revolutionary government which should also include the leadership of the two houses of Congress, the judiciary, and the Church.

Gonzales, who also heads the Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP), said discussing his proposed revolutionary government was better than speculating on whether Arroyo would seek a House seat or whether her allies would succeed in fiddling with the Charter.

To which, as my good friend LPGD would say, "Bobo ka ba?" (Are you stupid?)

Isn't this already the case? Gloria is backed by the military and so much so that she's giving promotions left and right to those who supported her usurpation of the Presidency in 2001. She is already ruling with impunity through the stamp pad that is the House of Representatives. And as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, she appointed almost all the Supreme Court Justices.

I realize that by picking on this I may have already fallen into a trap which is meant to stir up and confuse people even more.

Do you realize how stupid Gonzales' suggestion is?

First, a revolutionary government assumes that there is a revolution. A revolution usually entails replacing the status quo with a new order.

This is the first time I've heard of someone proposing a revolution to MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO. Perhaps what Gonzales really wants President Arroyo to do is to suspend all rights and privileges under the Philippine Constitution, and in fact, install a dictatorship.

Then again, Gonzales may be admitting that this is really Gloria's intent.

Just as much as I hate the idea of the military fomenting a revolt (for whatever reason), I hate the idea of Gloria perpetuating herself beyond her term which ends in 2010.

Revolution is a right and a duty of every citizen of this country whenever the government persists in its abuses and what the form of these abuses grow so vile that there is no other recourse but to revolt.

If there is anything that we have to consider, it is this passage from the American Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

How much more abuse do we need to suffer? How much longer?

We can wait for 2010, but we cannot wait forever.

Against Gloria Forever

I don't give my friend LPGD (who writes Better Philippines) enough credit for the kind of analysis I find myself driven to write these days. In fact, I have to credit him for re-igniting my interest in blogging and teaching me the pleasures of growing my nose hairs extra long.

LPGD is one sharp wit when it comes to dissecting issues and we rarely come out with exactly the same views on anything. I am only too glad that he seems to agree with me on this one, because it's really impossible to defeat him in any argument.

With that said, allow me to post here a comment he wrote on the entree on "Joining the June 10 Anti-Con Ass rally to speak FOR Charter Change."

in my own blog. i posted a "no to con-ass" button. i must admit when i did that i wasn't really thinking about con-ass i was thinking about the possibility of "gloria forever". i guess what i'm saying is my fear of "gloria forever" got the best of me and under that state of blind fear i proceeded to post that "no to con-ass" button.

the truth is i am also for charter change though am not really sure which mode is better. all i know is that this con-ass mode smells shitty because most congressmen are allied with the president.

in any case, i agree tomorrow's anti-con-ass rally will just turn out to be an anti-gloria rally and anyone with political ambitions will just use it to gain media mileage for their own campaigns.

i wouldn't mind it if the rally turns out to be an anti-gloria rally. i will, however, be upset if i see mar roxas or any other political figure seeking election or re-election taking the stage.

the organizers of this rally should consider banning any politican from getting up onstage. and those politicians should just refrain from participating. incumbent lawmakers like roxas and even rissa baraquel should not attend that gathering. if they want to voice out their objections to "con-ass" or "gloria forever" they should just do so in the house of representatives and the senate.

i guess i should take down that "no to con-ass" button from my blog and replace it with another button that more acurately shows my true feelings.

i am against "gloria forever."

Free Jun Lozada? Jail Arroyo and Arroyo, Abalos and Neri!

NBN ZTE whistleblower Jun Lozada is in jail for perjury charges filed by former Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor.

And perversely enough, those implicated in what amounts to economic plunder in the senate Blue Ribbon investigation on the NBN ZTE deal remain at-large. They probably watched the whole drama of the Lozada arrest unfold in their comfortable houses or offices or wherever they may have been. Then again, perhaps they completely ignored it.

I have no idea where resigned Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos and Former NEDA Chief Romulo Neri were when the Lozada arrest was taking place.

Then again, I knew where Michael Defensor was at around 2:00 PM yesterday. He was at Annabel's giving a press conference to explain why Lozada had to be arrested. Of course, the law is on his side on this one as Lozada's arrest was ordered by a Manila Court. It wasn't as if Defensor himself drove to Lozada's hiding place in La Salle Greenhills campus in Mandaluyong City, armed with his 9 MM, and escorted by his loyal bodyguards. (Which I think he actually did once, but that's another case and it happened in Tagaytay.)

At the press conference, Defensor said that all that Lozada needed to do to regain his freedom is to retract his statement that Defensor forced him to lie that he was kidnapped when he arrived from Hong Kong in February 2008.

There is a bit of ad miserecordiam, an appeal to the heart, as Defensor further explains that he was doing this for his children.

I remember one early evening after Defensor appeared at the NBN ZTE hearing at the Senate, Julie Tactacan-Defensor began shouting at Leah Navarro at the Senate building's entrance. Julie was quite livid, telling Leah "Why are you lying? Pati mga anak ko dinamay niyo." Or something to that effect.

I have a wife who is just as fierce, if not fiercer than Julie. And, believe me, I understand that an angry wife is more than enough reason to go to start a war. Their fury will negate all commands and appeals coming from bosses and friends.

Fearing repercussions of the case on the administration, two Cabinet officials called him up to convince him to drop the case against Lozada, Defensor said.

“Cerge Remonde called me up last Saturday, and Gabby Claudio called me up on Sunday. Cerge again called on Monday evening. They asked me to withdraw the case, because the Lozada issue was dead but is being revived,” Defensor told reporters

But, perhaps, Defensor's struggle to clear his name is insignificant when compared to the still unresolved question of whether or not there was any truth behind Lozada's more damning statements of massive corruption that reaches all the way to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Lozada's more damning statement is the allegation that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo together with First Gentleman Mike Arroyo conspired with high ranking officials of the government to enter into an allegedly overpriced NBN-ZTE deal worth $329 Million. Lozada said that bribe money for signing the deal reaching billions of pesos already changed hands.

Defensor is, perhaps, just a bit player in the whole mess and what he is doing is motivated by self-interest -- but, really, who can blame him.

Vote for a VET

Just today, I read that the administration is supporting Gilbert Teodoro as its Presidential bet for 2010.

Surveys have Noli De Castro in the lead followed by others like Loren Legarda, Chiz Escudero and Erap.

It seems powerful and moneyed forces are trying to make up our minds for us.

Perhaps, apart from values, our choice of who we will vote for as President reflects how we see our country and the situation we are in.

When we vote, we are not voting just for ourselves, we are voting for someone who will do what is right for the common good. We are in dire straits.

In two or three years, we will begin to feel the real effect of the global financial crisis.

Corruption is everywhere. Crime is being perpetrated in broad daylight. Both the corrupt and the criminal are unafraid of law enforcers and judges. They know they can get away with it and this makes them bolder, more brazen.

Disasters. We get hit by 20 typhoons, at the very least, every year. Yet every year, we see nothing being done to stop the cycle of disaster and poverty. The same people who got hit by a typhoons last year are the same people who will get hit by typhoons this year. Those whose possessions got swept away by floods will the same ones whose possession will get swept away by floods this year. Fire? Where else but in the Philippines does the declaration of a Fire Month result in more fires than in any other time of the year.

Our people are either unemployed or trying to make ends meet with a job they are overqualified for. But that's nothing new and what is new is the ends to which desperation brings our countrymen. Afghanistan. Iraq. Name a place where there is a very high risk of getting killed, you'll find Filipinos working there.

Our education system is in shambles and it has been that way since time immemorial.

And those who are tired of this ought not to get sick as well. If you're poor, just waiting for treatment and medicines will bring you closer to the grave.

So, who do you vote for as President given these circumstances?

Young guns like Chiz Escudero and Gilbert Teodoro?

TV personalities like Noli De Castro and Loren Legarda? How about Manny Villar?

How about Mar Roxas or former President Joseph Estrada?

Or are you going to think and look for someone who has actual experience in lifing people out of desparate situations?

Do you think you need someone who has a track record for following through every commitment he has made?

Do you think we need someone with a clear vision for what ought to be done for this country at a time of crisis?

His name is Dick Gordon.

He turned Olongapo from Sin City to Model City.

He turned Subic from wasteland into a haven for tourism and investment.

He turned Philippine tourism from a lackluster department to the brightest beacon in the economy, with 2 million foreign tourists coming to the Philippines in 2003 from a low of just 900,000 in 2000.

As Senator, he authored, pushed for the enactment, and implementation of RA 9369 or the amended AUTOMATION LAW. This is the reason why we will have automated elections in 2010, no more hello garci. He now heads the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

In his committee report on the P732 Million Fertilizer Fund Scam he implicated President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, recommended plunder charges against Bolante and others, and filed 7 bills to plug up loop holes in the laws exploited by the group he referred to as a pack of wolves.

If you want the country to get through these dire straits, look for someone who knows how to navigate treacherous waters and who knows where to go.

In 2010, don't look for a good candidate. Look for a good leader. That's Dick Gordon.

Making change happen since 1971.

Is the Right of Reply Bill (RORB) a threat to press freedom in the Philippines? (Part 1)

(The writer is a journalist of the other sort in the court of last resort.)

While news media organizations were busy covering and putting out reports on various stories about corruption in government, a bill that journalists say may curtail press freedom was making its way towards becoming a law.

I was in the middle of writing a press statement regarding the 23rd EDSA People Power Uprising when Senator Aquilino Pimentel took the floor of the Senate's Session Hall to issue his clarifications regarding the Right to/of Reply Bill.  

My first reactions was, "What!?"

I was rather suprised to learn just then that such a bill had apparently been in existence for quite some time and was already on third and final reading.  At this stage, if there is any need to reconcile anything, a bicmeral meeting will be held and once things are resolved, the bill will be sent for signing into law by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Before we enter into what will certainly be an interesting debate, it is best to look at the proposed law first.

Senate Bill 1178 was first filed Filed on July 4, 2007 and has nine sections.  

Section 1 defines the right to reply; sections 2 to 6 prescribe the manner in which replies to adverse reports or opinions will be carried out; section 7 prescribes a penalties for violating the right to reply; section 8 states that other legal courses of action may be undertaken together with actions prescribed in the Right to Reply bill; and 9 states its effectivity.

Now, here are the sections in detail and a short comment on each:

SECTION 1. Right of reply. -All persons natural or juridical who are accused direcily or indirectly of committing, having committed or of intending to commit any crime or offense defined by law or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private life shall have the right to reply to the charges published or printed in newspapers, magazines, newsletters or publications circulated commercially or for free, or criticisms aired or broadcast over radio, television, websites, or through any electronic device.

This section reflects what is already stated in the Philippine Press Institute's Journalist Code of Ethics:

(Paragraph 1)

I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essentialfacts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.  I recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.

(Paragraph 4)

I shall refrain from writing reports which will adversely affect a private reputation unless the public interest justifies it. At the same time, I shall fight vigorously for public access to information, as provided for in the Constitution.

(Paragraph 7)

I shall not, in any manner, ridicule, cast aspersions on, or degrade any person by reasonof sex, creed, religious belief, political conviction, cultural and ethnic origin.

(Paragraph 8)

I shall presume persons accused of crime of being innocent until proven otherwise. Ishall exercise caution in publishing names of minors and women involved in criminalcases so that theymay not unjustly lose their standing in society.

This is also found in KBP Broadcast Code:

Sec. 6. NEWS INTERVIEWS

6.a. Interviews must be presented in the proper context. Replies of interviewees to questions must not be edited or editorialized in a way that would distort their intended meaning. (S)

Article 4. PERSONAL ATTACKS

Sec. 1. Personal attacks, that is, attacks on the honesty, integrity, or personal qualities of an identified person, institution or group1, on matters that have

no bearing on the public interest are prohibited. (G)

Sec. 2. Programs intended to malign, unfairly criticize or attack a person, natural or juridical, are prohibited.(G)

Sec. 3. Personal attacks against fellow broadcasters are prohibited. (G)

Sec. 4. When personal attacks against any person, institution or group are aired, that person, institution or group shall be given a fair opportunity to reply immediately in the same program, if possible, or at the earliest opportunity. If not, the opportunity to reply should be given in any other program under similar conditions. (G)

Article 5. CORRECTING MISTAKES

When a mistake has been broadcast, it must be acknowledged and rectified as soon as possible by stating the mistake and making the correction. (S)

Article 9. PUBLIC COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES

Sec.1. Complaints, criticisms, or grievances aired against persons, institutions or group, whether public or private, shall be limited to issues which have a

bearing on the public interest. ( S )

Sec.2. The identity of persons or organizations who are allowed to air complaints, criticisms, or grievances must be verified before they are allowed to go on the air. (L)

Sec. 3. Persons, institutions or groups who are the subject of complaints, criticisms, or grievances aired on a station must be given immediate opportunity to reply within the same program, if possible, or at the earliest opportunity. If not, the opportunity to reply should be given in any other program under similar conditions. ( G )

The following sections of the Right to/of Reply Bill stipulate how this will be done:

SECTION 2. Where reply published. -- The reply of the person so accused or criticized shall be published in the same space of the newspapers, magazine, newsletter or station or aired over the same program on radio, television, website, or through any electronic device.

SECTION 3. When published. -- It shall be published or broadcast not later than one day after the reply shall have been delivered to the editorial office of the publication concerned or to the station that carried the broadcast being replied to.

SECTION 4. Length of Reply. - The reply shall not be longer than the accusation or criticism as published or broadcast.

SECTION 5. Free of Charge. - The publication or broadcasting of the reply shall free of charge, payment or fees.

SECTION 6. Editing Reply. -- The reply shall be published or broadcast except for libelous allegations.

Penalties for violating the Right to Reply are prescribed under section 7:

SECTION 7. Penalties - The editor-in-chief and the publisher or station manager and owner of the broadcast medium who fails or refuses to publish or broadcast the reply as mandated in the preceding section shall be fined in an amount not exceeding P10,000 for the first offense; P20,000 for the second offense; and P30,000 and imprisonment for not more than 30 days for the third offense.

Instead of letting news media organizations or associations of news media organizations ensure conformity to their ethical guidelines (or suggestions, as they are sometimes referred to), Senate Bill 1178 will make it a legal obligation for news media organizations to print or air the side of the subject of an adverse opinion or report.

More crucially, punishment will be meted out on those who do not print or air the side of the subject of an adverse opinion or report.

Various media organizations have put out their objection to the enactment of the the Right to Reply Bill and this will be the subject of my next entry.

The Inquirer dissects Cayetano's tirade against Gordon's Blue Ribbon Report on the Fertilizer Fund Scam

"I love the Inquirer, I hate the Inquirer, but I read the Inquirer."

 

In its Editorial today, the Philippine Daily Inquirer virtually defends Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Chairman from the snide and sneering attacks of Senator Alan Peter Cayetano.  

 

The young Senator, also known as Scrappy Doo (the knephew of Scooby Doo and friend of Senator Villar aka Mr. Itik), had been harping to the press that Gordon's Blue Ribbon Committee Report virtually absolved President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.  

 

The PETULANT ranting seems misplaced since investigations into the NBN ZTE as Blue Ribbon Chairman didn't produce a report -- full, partial, preliminary or final.  In one of the many hearings (12, I think), he had the chance to make former NEDA Secretary General Romulo Neri squeal his guts out about what he knew regarding the deal but for some reason cut the questioning short.  Then after the last hearing, nothing.

 

The PETULANT rants of Cayetano betrays the fact, also, that he did not read the report before he opened his mouth.

 

The Inquirer dissects Cayetano's loose, rabid, slobbering rants.  (Does anyone have a rolled up newspaper I can borrow?  A young dog needs to be taught a few tricks.)

 

Editorial
A pack of wolves 

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:45:00 02/26/2009

 

We share the sense of frustration that Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano gave vent to on Tuesday, when he criticized the Senate blue ribbon committee’s final report that he said “prematurely absolved” President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of direct involvement in the P728-million fertilizer fund scam. [Read story] But we also share the sense of resolve and even the sense of difficult achievement that animated the report, signed by at least 11 senators and released by committee chair Sen. Richard Gordon last Monday.

 

“The public, for a long time, has demanded closure to this issue. We have done our part. Now, let the prosecution arm of government do theirs,” Gordon said.

 

There, in three short sentences, we have a succinct summing-up of the second Senate inquiry into the notorious scam perpetrated by the business-savvy former agriculture undersecretary, Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante. And there, too, in those same sentences, we find the beginnings of an answer to the three plaintive questions Cayetano raised on Tuesday. “Why was the hearing stopped, why is there now a committee report, and why was the President prematurely absolved?”

 

To belabor the obvious: The Senate is not a court; indeed, it isn’t even a prosecutorial service. It conducts investigations strictly in aid of legislation. What that responsibility means is that proof of criminal wrongdoing on the part, say, of a public official need not be ascertained “beyond a reasonable doubt,” for the Senate (and in its turn the House of Representatives) to pass legislation that prevents the same crime from being committed by the same or other public officials. The Gordon report includes several substantial recommendations for remedial legislation.

 

To be sure, the first Senate inquiry into the electioneering scandal that is the fertilizer scam, conducted by the agriculture and the blue ribbon committees of the 13th Congress, found that the President should ultimately be held accountable for it. The second inquiry reaches almost the same conclusion: “While the Committee found no evidence directly linking the President to the fertilizer scam, the acts of the former Undersecretary of the DA, Mr. Jocelyn Isada Bolante ... are deemed acts of the President since they acted within the scope of their authorities given to them by then Secretary Luis Lorenzo Jr. Since there was no reprobation or disapproval coming from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regarding their actions, it can easily be inferred that the President acquiesced [in] such acts.”

 

Do we need more confirmation that the President did not only authorize the fertilizer fund scam but — the best proof available — directly benefited from it, during the May 2004 elections? The only way to get additional confirmation is for operators like Bolante to confess the President’s own involvement; unfortunately, there is no Chavit Singson in this sordid scandal. As Sen. Panfilo Lacson told reporters, “that’s as far as the evidence could reach.”

 

Cayetano, who said he would be signing a minority report with three other senators, said it was “difficult to believe that only an undersecretary could manipulate P728 million.” The Gordon report asserts the exact same point: “Does anyone really believe that Bolante et al. would have been able to malverse such a gargantuan amount and continue to evade all sorts of liability without the acquiescence of Malacañang?”

 

The majority report’s moral certainty is shared by many people; in the absence of other witnesses, and in view of other, equally pressing matters, the blue ribbon committee did right in putting closure to the scandal. It recommended either continued investigation by the Department of Justice or the Office of Ombudsman of, or the outright filing of plunder and other charges against, the wily Bolante; it pushed for similar action against nine others implicated in the scam, described as a pack of wolves; it condemned Executive officials and agencies, including former Budget Secretary Emilia Boncodin, for being remiss in their duties; it even asked for the resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez for “gross inaction.”

 

The report’s executive summary ends on a dire note: “We dread to see again the unleashing of packs of wolves feasting upon already scarce resources of government. In all probability, there were other wolf packs involved in the disposition of the remaining P535 million in fertilizer funds that have yet to be traced.” But at least, and for a second time, a start has been made.

 

Is there a Vision for a Better Philippines?

My friend at Better Philippines has put up a call to reject motherhood vision statements.

He says:

Personally, I have a problem with these so-called ‘visions” especially those from politicians. Free education, better health-care, reformed governance yada yada yada. We’ve heard it all before. If that’s going to be their vision then this country is in for more trouble. If you still don’t know it yet, the problem with such “visions” is that they’re nothing more than platitudes unsupported by any specific plan for realisation.

Of course, he knows I'm rooting for Dick Gordon as a Presidential Candidate in 2010 and I welcome this call for the challenge it represents.  I don't think I can satisfactorily refute Better Philippines, but I'll try anyway.

I agree that Vision Statements are 'diyes sentimos ang dosena' (dime a dozen) and if that's all a candidacy is good for, his or her candidacy will be done for even before the election season opens.  After all, Vision Statements merely point to what one intends to accomplish and what makes it worthy of any consideration is whether the one advocating the vision has any experience or track record in realizing visions of any sort.

Anybody can advocate a Vision Statement and you don't need to go to a workshop/seminar to craft a vision statement.  Heck, I had dozens of visions while communicating with the porcelain seat after eating a batch of not-so-fresh oysters. 

I think the problem with Vision Statements, really, is the credibility of those espousing or advocating it.

Bloggers with opinions on how to solve perennial problems such as crime and traffic might find themselves in the same boat with politicians who lack credibility when it comes to a vision of a better Philippines.

For example, Better Philippines advocates the following in response to the shoot out (or should it be called summary execution?) in Quezon City.

In line with this blog’s thrust of providing both constructive criticism and possible solutions, may I suggest a number of radical steps that may help improve the PNP.

Keep all police officers over the age of 40 away from field duty. Ask them to retire, dismiss them or assign them to office duties instead. Just keep them off the streets.

(What would be the basis for proposing this?  Does it say that those under 40 are less capable of doing wrong?  How many young patrolmen have we seen in the news being implicated in crimes?  I'd say, age would be a poor determinant and would rather go for REAL performance assessments, the basis of which would be used to dismiss or retire ineffective police officers.)

(Moreover, if at all, the so-called Quezon City Shootout really puts to question the judgement of younger police officers.  Those involved in the shootout/rubout were PO1's and PO2's.  Were they under 40?  I'd guess yes.  So, where does that lead us now, Better Philippines?)

Replace the guns of police officers over the age of 40 with nightsticks or any other non-lethal weapon.

(Yeah, we can arm them with luffa or patola. Again, what is the basis of disarming policemen over 40?  Are they more trigger happy than their younger counterparts?  I've heard that police in some territories of Canada do not carry weapons at all and perhaps this is more of a testament of how less prone their population is to violent behavior.)

Impose a higher educational requirement for would-be policemen.

(Higher educational attainment for policemen is always desireable.  Not only can they catch criminals while citing chapter and verse of the laws violated, they can also patrol the University Belt and be available as tutors on various subjects.  But just how educated do you have to be in order to be a good policeman?  Do you have to be a CPA?  Then again, consider the case of Philippine National Police comptroller Eliseo de la Paz who allegedly tried to smuggle out Euros out of Russia.  I am not saying that well-educated policemen who can quote Shakespeare or Balagtas aren't going to be more effective, I am just saying that perhaps what we are looking for is better training and better performance reviews of our police officers.)

Require all police officers to undergo behavior modification.

(Okay, this is a good one.  But then again, shouldn't we be weeding out those with behavior problems BEFORE they get into service and not spend money modifying the behavior of those the PNP has hired?   The question which bears asking at this point is whether or not bad behavior is acquired after they become policemen.)

Dismiss all discourteous and arrogant police officers.

(Will Better Philippines one day blog about how he actually filed a complaint against an arrogant cop and pursued the case till the police officer got the boot?  I'd be all praises because it really takes a lot of guts, time and effort to do this.  A mutual friend whom we both went to college with did such a thing and while he was successful at getting the erring police officer booted from service, now has to contend with almost daily threats to his life.  How many more of us are willing to do this?)

Dismiss all police officers that have vices. Make having vices grounds for automatic dismissal.

(Smoking, hard drinking, drug using, womanizing, and gambling cops should be a thing of the past.  In fact, there are already laws as well as rules of conduct that prohibit policemen for engaging in vices.  Strict monitoring and stricter enforcement are the solutions.  That'll be up to the ordinary citizen to do.  Are you up for it?)

Require all police personnel to attend daily mass or any other equivalent religious ceremony.

(President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and the First Gentleman attend mass religiously.  So does Mayor Antonio Sanchez.  What's the point?  There is none.  People who go to mass are just as likely to do wrong.  Perhaps the most you can expect is that they will feel guilty for whatever wrong they've done, but then again, that may be too much to hope for too.) 

(Next up, Gordon's Vision for a Better Philippines and why I think he'll make it happen.)

President Gloria and Senator can have the Obama photo op, but Senator Gordon will hopefully score one for Filipino WWII Veterans

There is much ado about Senator Francis Escudero and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo wanting to have a photo op with recently inaugurated US President Barack Obama.

Well and good, for what ever it is worth. I wish them happiness in this endeavor.

But here's something to think about and it didn't land BIGTIME in the news.

Senator Richard Gordon authored and passed a bill allowing Filipino World War II Veterans to receive pension from the United States Government. This paved the way for legislation in the United States that would grant Filipino WW II vets not only pensions but recognition for their heroism and valor.

Barack Obama, then Senator, was among those who supported the US legislation -- which would not have been possible with Gordon's counterpart legislation in the Philippines.

The passage of the law was stalled until recently, news from the Los Angeles Times says that part of the $800 Billion Stimulus Package Law will include pensions for Filipino World War II Veterans.

Gordon went to the US several times in 2007 and 2008 to talk with US congressmen sponsoring the US bill last year and right now, there is a chance that the US bill giving veterans due recognition and pensions will finally push through.

Okay lang na walang photo-op with Obama, basta matulungan lang ang mga tumatanda nating mga WW II veterans na ilang panahon na lang ay baka pumanaw na rin. At least in their waning years, kinilala rin ang KABAYANIHAN nila.

My Uncle was a USAFFE and he already thanked Senator Gordon for helping with the passage of the US Veterans Law.

Here is the article from Los Angeles times:

Stimulus bill may include benefits for Filipino veterans.

The Senate's proposed version of the economic legislation includes one-time payments for World War II veterans from the Philippines, $15,000 for U.S. citizens and $9,000 for noncitizens.

By Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times
February 4, 2009

Reporting from Washington — After a decades-long struggle, Filipino veterans of World War II finally may be granted U.S. military benefits thanks to, of all things, the economic stimulus legislation.

A $198-million provision of the proposed Senate stimulus bill would authorize one-time payments of $15,000 to Filipino veterans who are U.S. citizens -- many of whom live in California -- and $9,000 for noncitizens, including those in the Philippines.

The provision is a small part of the overall $885-billion bill, but it has drawn criticism. North Carolina Sen. Richard M. Burr, top Republican on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, "finds it difficult to see how spending money in the Philippines will help stimulate the American economy," a spokesman said.

The veterans, many of whom are in their 80s and 90s, have fought hard for the benefits: In 1997 in Los Angeles' MacArthur Park -- named after Gen. Douglas MacArthur -- a group of protesters chained themselves to a statue of their former commander.

"We think this [stimulus bill] is the best chance for us to get this benefit approved," said Franco Arcebal of Los Angeles, a vice president of the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans. "We're only about 15,000 left now. I'm 85, one of the youngest."

The payments were added to the legislation by Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the appropriations committee and one of three remaining World War II veterans in the Senate.

"It's a matter of honor and the good name of the United States," Inouye said outside the Senate chamber Tuesday. He noted that in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the benefits, but Congress reneged on the pledge in 1946.

As for whether the veterans' payments belonged in the stimulus package, Inouye said, "I'm looking for any vehicle that will carry this forward."

Congress last year approved appropriation of the Filipino veterans' benefits, but authorization is needed before the money can be paid.

There is no provision for the veterans in the House bill. If the item survives in the Senate, it will be the subject of negotiations to reconcile differences in the two chambers' bills.

The veterans' measure is among a spate of bills aimed at rewarding the sacrifices of World War II veterans -- who are dying at a rate of about 850 a day -- and healing wounds lingering from the war era.

Other bills include the Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act to provide payments to members of the merchant marine, sponsored by Rep. Bob Filner (D-Chula Vista), and a measure sponsored by Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles) to create a commission to investigate the government's actions in the World War II internment and deportation of Latin Americans of Japanese descent.

Among the critics of including benefits for the Filipino veterans in the stimulus package is Rep. Steve Buyer of Indiana, the top Republican on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

"I do not question the valor and courage of the Philippine army, which fought alongside U.S. forces to defeat Japan in World War II, and I am not opposed to discussing ways to compensate these veterans. However, to do so and say it under the guise of stimulating the American economy is a complete falsehood and is the lowest form of partisan politics."

Arcebal called the payments a "small token to recognize our service."

Even if the benefits do not make it into the stimulus bill, this could be the year that the veterans achieve victory.

Several of their longtime champions are now in key positions in Congress: Filner and Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) chair the House and Senate veterans affairs committees, respectively, in addition to Inouye chairing the appropriations committee.

And President Obama, during the presidential campaign, expressed support for granting benefits to the Filipino veterans.

"If the Senate decides that this isn't the appropriate time or place, we're optimistic that we'll find the right vehicle in the future," said Rep. Michael M. Honda (D-San Jose), chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Copyright 2009 Los Angeles Times

Obama keeps his Blackberry or What Philippine President Gloria Arroyo can learn from Obama about transparency

It must have been a poor joke that fell flat, got stomped on and kicked around.

Philippine Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita was said to remarked that US President Barack Obama might have a thing or two to learn from President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Ermita said in an article found on gmanew.tv:

"First of all, our President is ahead of Obama and probably, I would think that if there's anything to be learned, it should be President Obama learning from President Arroyo. And wouldn't we be proud to say that the Philippines continues to be an 'island of calm' because of the present crunches?" he said, when asked by media what lesson Arroyo could learn from Obama.

He said the President could even be a model or the "proper conduct under pressure."

Arroyo had managed to quell all attempts to oust her from power – via impeachment, “people power" uprising or coup plots – despite her very poor popularity rating.

After Arroyo’s allies in the House of Representatives defeated the fourth impeachment attempt against her late last year, it became clear that Arroyo would be able to finish her term until the end of June 2010.

Ermita said Arroyo and her abilities especially in managing the economy and in insulating the Philippines from the full brunt of the economic global crisis had been recognized. And while the US maybe a big country and have the wherewithal to overcome the crisis "being a leader of a nation, President Arroyo has more experience than President Obama."

I don't want to waste my time refuting all that Ermita had said right now because this is not what the post is about.

It is about one word: Transparency.

US President Barack Obama has effectively dealt with the issue of transparency first raised as he insisted on keeping his Blackberry. The second instance that transparency was dealt with was his memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act.

All throughout her term, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has managed to escape attempts at impeachment by simply keeping quiet and blocking all access to all information that would incriminate her.

The 'Hello Garci' scandal which brought up the issue of her direct involvement in wholesale electoral fraud in the 2004 elections was effectively silenced on the grounds that the actual recording of her cellphone conversation with Comelec Official Virgilio Garciliano came from an illegal wiretap.

Then came the NBN ZTE deal which, for some reason, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee under Senator Alan Peter Cayetano stopped investigating. So far, Cayetano has yet to produce a committee report on the investigation which would be expected to recommend the filing of charges against officials involved in the deal, including President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo used measures such as Executive Order 464 to prevent her cabinet members and other government officials from disclosing what they may know about the 'Hello Garci' scandal.

Another measure that she deployed was that of Executive Privilege which functioned as a blanket justification by cabinet officials such as former National Economic Development Authority Secretary General Romulo Neri for refusing to disclose details regarding the NBN ZTE Deal.

The 'Hello Garci' controversy, which has also been referred to Gloria Gate (an allusion to the Watergate scandal which similarly centers around tape recordings of US President Richard Nixon), should have produced legislation similar to what was done with the Presidential Records Act.

In 1978, after Watergate, the Presidential Records Act mandated that presidential records would become property of the U.S. government when the president leaves office. They would be transferred to the federal archives, then become available to the public after no more than 12 years.

This law, if I am not mistaken, basically means that all communication by the US President is recorded and makes it illegal for the US President to conceal any communication.

I think, if my understanding is right, having a law like this would have made it easier to obtain evidence against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

In a press release, Senator Ramon 'Bong' Revilla expressed assurance that he will continue to push for the passage of the Freedom of Access to Information Bill even though he is no longer the chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Information and Mass Media.

"Rest assured that I will exert all possible efforts in support of the Freedom of Access to Information Bill. Transparency of government records is vital in exposing scandals and criminal acts of government officials. It will greatly help to eradicate corruption," Revilla said.

He appealed to newly-installed Senate Committee on Public Information and Mass Media Chairman Allan Peter Cayetano to start the public hearings on the much-awaited Freedom of Access to Information Bill as soon as possible.

One bill filed by Senator Manuel Villar, SB 1578, basically asserts "Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution which provides: “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. The State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”

Likewise, Article III, Section 7 also states: “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis far policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”

However, the law itself imposes a list of restrictions on to what information can or cannot be accessed in Section 4. This basically, still, just gives the President various justifications to conceal information which can be easily twisted to suit whatever purpose.

There is no mention of any requirement being imposed on the President to have all his or her communications recorded or any prohibition against not recording communications.

The Presidential Records Act of the United States, from my understanding, orders that all communications by the Office of the President be recorded and made available according to certain prescribed procedures.

In the case of the Hello Garci scandal, the illegally recorded conversations between the President and Virgilio Garcillano cannot be used as evidence. But supposing that we had a law like the Presidential Records Act and all the President's conversations were being recorded officially, then it would not be necessary to divulge the existence of the illegal wiretap and just subpoena the President's official records (of course, this assumes that other causes can be found to initiate an investigative procedure which would make the subpoena necessary).

In the case of the NBN ZTE probe, if the law filed by Senator Villar were improved to state that if evidence were found that a transaction in government were anomalous, all records of all officials pertaining to that transaction would be divulged.

In relation to this, I hope Senator Panfilo Lacson makes good with a commitment to amend the Bank Secrecy law to make the bank records of all public officials exempt from secrecy.

Obama fights to hold on to his Blackberry while Senator Gordon raves about his Nokia E90

It's just about two days before President Elect Barack Obama takes over from President George W. Bush and even in the Philippines, most of the people I know are anticipating the live coverage.

Just about everything about Obama right now draws attention, if only to provide an inkling of what kind of Presidency the United States will be having. On one hand, some reports say that Obama will be facing a 'perfect storm of crises' when he steps in as President. Then there are news items that make the President Elect a bit more endearing, such as a report that says he is fighting to keep his personal Blackberry.

Here's an excerpt from a report on the Philippine Daily Inquirer's site:

Interviewed by CNN Friday, Obama said the smartphone was among the tools that he would use to stay in touch with real Americans and avoid becoming trapped inside the presidential "bubble."

"I think we're going to be able to hang on to one of these. My working assumption, and this is not new, is that anything I write on an email could end up being on CNN," he said.

Why is this a big deal?

Perhaps not a lot of Filipinos are aware of the implications of the Watergate Scandal which caused President Nixon to resign. One of the implications or results of this controversy was that it prompted the creation of a law that requires that records be kept of every communication made by the White House -- including those of the President.

Here's another excerpt from that report:

Obama did not divulge just how he will overcome legal constraints, given the requirement of the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act of 1978 to keep a record of every White House communication.

A page from www.archives.gov describes the Watergate Presidential Records Act of 1978:

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2207, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981.

The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records.

Specifically, the Presidential Records Act:

• Defines and states public ownership of the records.Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.

• Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal.

• Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records.

• Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years.

• The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a thirty-day notice period to the former and current Presidents.

• Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as Presidential records. Amendments Executive Order 12667

Our own experience with the so-called Gloria-gate or the 'Hello Garci' controversy has not produced similar legislation or even caused Philippine media organizations to push strongly for a Freedom of Information Act.

The Hello Garci controversy stems from a taped conversation between a woman who sounded very much like President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a man whom she referred to as Garci (gar-see) whom others said was a shorted version or nick name for Comelec official Garcillano.

The illegally taped cellphone call purportedly between the President and the Comelec Official happened at a time when the 2004 election votes across the country were being counted. One exchange in that conversation had the woman asking for assurance that she would win by a margin of 1 million votes. If it was President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, then it would have been proof -- inadmissable as it may have been -- that she had led the whole sale manipulation of votes that eventually led her to win over contender Fernando Poe Jr. by a margin of 1 million votes.

All the Filipino people can show for it is a message from President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo saying 'I AM SORRY' which sounded insincere and rehearsed. Moreover, she was not definite about what she was saying sorry for and could not therefore, make any commitment to perform amends for it. There was no contrition on her part.

After the Hello Garci controversy, the Senators who investigated it should have speedily drafted a law that would require the President (and even those in her family, including First Gentleman Mike Arroyo) to keep records of every phone conversation and all manner of communication she makes.

Perhaps, in so doing, we could have prevented another scandal -- the NBN ZTE deal. Or at least, would have evidence that would lead to the conviction of economic plunderers.

Going back to Obama's Inauguration, the masa (masses) or at least a larger number of them, will probably wonder what the big fuss is all about but certainly the crowd (politicians, their staff, and reporters) at the Philippine Senate will either be leaving early from work or staying on over to catch the live coverage on cable.

I just saw HBO Asia's ad announcing that it will be showing Obama's Inauguration at 7:30 PM on January 21. My wife and I have already marked it down on our calendars.

I don't know if my boss, Senator Richard Gordon, will be able to hold everything off to watch the tube for about an hour or more. The Senate will be in session this week, apart from that there is still more work at the Blue Ribbon Committee where he is hearing the case of the P732 Million Fertilizer Fund Scam and then there is the case of the 3 abducted workers of the International Committee of the Red Cross. (It is just simply amazing just how much work he can pile on his shoulders and still make time for other engagements.)

One more comparison I'd like to make between Gordon and Obama is that both people are connected to their constituents through technology. He is actually one of the very, very few public officials you can send a text message to or even call in the middle of the night if you are in trouble.

Being directly in touch with your Senator is a great thing.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Puno as Philippine President?

Thank God he nixed it.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno turned down an offer to be a Presidential Candidate in 2010 and said that he would be content to be the catalyst for the creation of a "moral force" movement to help solve the country's problems rather than seek the presidency in next year’s elections.

Yesterday, Senator Panfilo Lacson was on DZMM saying that he would gladly step aside and abandon any Presidential ambition he had if Puno would run for the Presidency in 2010.

Puno, thanked Lacson for his endorsement but said:

"I don't want to be pretentious. I will be happy if I will just be a catalyst of this movement. I am willing to be one of the foot soldiers. But perhaps it may not be appropriate to take leadership while I am in the government acting as Chief Justice."

Fine, except for his use of the word 'pretentious' instead of the more correct 'presumptious'.

Nevertheless, what he said may be indicative of the Supreme Court Chief Justice's view of what will be best for the national interest. Perhaps he knows that it takes more than morality to lead a country as morality can always be questioned. Also, if you want strict morality in government, you'd be in the same basket as Islamic fundamentalist states -- think Afghanistan before the US invasion.

Perhaps, also, he saw through the political gimmick pawned and pumped through the media by Senator Lacson. After all, it was Lacson who donned the image of Mr. Clean when he ran against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo after refusing to relinquish his Presidential bid in favor of supporting actor Fernando Poe Jr. The ploy (if it is a ploy) would have been aimed at making people remember what Lacson stands for -- anti-corruption, an end to criminality, etcetera.

This comes at the beginning of the year before the 2010 elections when Presidential Candidates (declared and undeclared) are now all trying to place themselves in the minds of people.

If the SWS survey results on choices for Presidential Candidates are to be believed, Lacson is fifth (with 14 percent drafting him as they choice for President) from pole position which is currently owned by Vice President Noli De Castro. Coming in second and third were Senators Loren Legarda and Manny Villar with 28 percent and 27 percent, respectively, followed by Senators Francis Escudero (19 percent), former President Joseph Estrada (11 percent), and Sen. Mar Roxas (10 percent).

Going back to Puno and the idea of a moral Presidency, Cory Aquino was the moral choice in governance, but the years that followed her rise to power proved that mere morality will not cure all that ails our government. It takes so much more.

We've had moral choices offered to us too in the 2004 elections. When Lacson ran in 2004, there were other moral choices including Raul Roco and Eddie Villanueva. The immoral choice was Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the popular choice was Fernando Poe Jr., and the insane choice was Eddie Gil.

But were these choices really choices? Did they represent real options and real directions for governance?

I am not saying that morality has no place in politics, the romantic ideal of a benevolent and powerful leader still appeals to me. However, morality ALONE does not make for effective political leadership.

If you asked me, I'd rather go for a candidate with a track record for being a builder of new beginnings rather than one with an image of a destroyer or preserver of a status quo. I'd go for a candidate with a clear plan, a vision, for the country's future.

That's Dick Gordon.

Sure, he isn't in the surveys and the Pedestrian Observer may chide me -- as he or she already has for comparing Gordon with Obama.

Was it a story in the Bible or a often quoted phrase that says he who can be trusted with a portion, can be trusted with the whole.

Gordon began his political career as a Constitutional Convention delegate in 1971, the youngest ever to be elected. He had no political backing (which should have come from his mother, Amelia Gordon) and no funds, but he won and became the youngest delegate.

He didn't run for his own sake. He was actually part of the generation that led the First Quarter Storm and in the Con-Con, he opposed a term extension for then President Ferdinand Marcos. This was apart from introducing the idea of the Philippines sharing control over the US Naval base in Subic, which in those times was considered visionary.

He became Mayor of Olongapo and everybody knows about how his small town became a model for city governance. If New York City had Rudolf Giulliani, the Philippines had Richard 'Dick' Gordon in the very real sense of transforming a filthy and crime infested town into a model city that had color code jeepneys, effective neighborhood anti-crime patrols, a garbage collection and segregation system that was the first in the country, a good samaritan program where all the rich citizens of Olongapo generously gave to the needy, and other city programs that were emulated all over the country.

He became Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority Chairman. When he was put in charge of Subic, it was a wasteland with almost nothing in it. After a couple of years of hard work with no guarantees, he turned the former Naval base into what then President Ramos called a new engine for growth and a magnet for investment in industry and tourism.

He became Tourism Secretary with no promotion budget and all sorts of negative news about the Philippines. Instead of saying 'Kawawa naman tayo', he shouted 'Wow Philippines' in almost every major tourism marketing event there was and brought in a whopping 2 million tourists a year by the end of 2003-- straight up from less than 1 million a year in 2001.

Right now, he is a Senator who is known for a couple of important things --

He is the father of Automated Elections in 2010. He virtually dragged his colleagues at the Senate to amend the existing Automated Elections law to make it work and dragged a couple more people in the Comelec to make sure we will no longer have Hello Garci in 2010. He is working to make sure that every body's vote will be counted in the coming elections.

He is also the author of the Text for Change bill, a proposed law that will get 10 to 50 centavos out of every peso earned by Smart, Globe, and Sun and pour these funds into public education. At the current P 2 Billion text messages a day, this will generate as much as P70 Billion in funds that will be added to the budget for public education. This means an end to classroom and teacher shortages, better books, science and computer laboratories in all public schools, higher teacher salaries, free food all year round for students, free medical and dental services, and to top it all off, scholarships for 100,000 college students -- 10,000 of which will be sent abroad to study in Ivy League Universities.

Filipinos get more vacation time in 2009

The recently concluded Christmas Holidays here in the Philippines has so far been one of the longest ones in my memory.

I enjoyed every moment of it with my wife and kid. We didn't go out of town or do anything special, we basically just stayed at home or made short visits to the malls -- there are about three that are within a 30 minute drive from our house in Manila. All in all, just before reporting to work on Monday, I found myself wishing for more long holidays.

Then, just this morning, I spotted this news item by Inquirer's Joel Guinto about more long holidays coming in 2009.

And here it is:

Palace lists down 2009 holidays
By Joel Guinto
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 16:21:00 01/08/2009

MANILA, Philippines -- President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has issued Proclamation number 1699, listing down the regular and special non-working holidays for 2009.

Except for those that are religious in nature, holidays will be moved to the nearest Monday, pursuant to Republic Act 9492, the proclamation stated.

According to the proclamation, the regular holidays are:
• April 9 (Maundy Thursday),
• April 10 (Good Friday),
• April 6 (Monday, nearest April 9, Araw ng Kagitingan),
• May 1 (Labor Day, Friday),
• June 12 (Independence Day, Friday),
• August 31 (National Heroes' Day, Monday),
• November 30 (Bonifacio Day, Monday),
• Christmas Day (December 25, Friday), and
• December 30 (Rizal Day, Wednesday).

The special non-working holidays are:
• August 21 (Ninoy Aquino Day, Friday),
• November 1 (All Saint's Day, Sunday),
• November 2 (Monday),
• December 24 (Thursday), and
• December 31 (Thursday).

Arroyo signed the proclamation last Dec. 24, 2008, but was
released only on Thursday.