I haven’t written anything about what’s happening the Philippines in a long time. Here’s one stab after a long hiatus.
One thing I learned in my years of corporate existence is you should pick something up from every experience. Takeaways are very important and developing actions from key learnings is critical for success. In the case of managing a country, do governments learn from the rumblings within? More importantly, does its citizens learn from past successes and failures?
The country is set to lay down a decision on its very first impeachment case versus a Chief Justice. Much like the case versus President Erap, the trial of CJ Corona wasn’t spared from the drama. Heck, there were even hugs, kisses and tears last Friday. Personally, I am glad that it is almost over. The country can FINALLY move on from rubbernecking. More importantly, our president PNoy has one less excuse for not making any huge economic progress in the two years he’s been running the country.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. As a layman and a spectator, I’ve got to ask myself this: are there any key takeaways from this impeachment experience? As a country, what did we all learn and what are the things we are planning to do after this? Maybe it’s about time to cut the bullshit in the way we do things in this country.
My thoughts lie on the following ideas:
The CJ presented a law or his interpretation of it that seemed to absolve him of the need to disclose his foreign currency deposits? From a layman’s point of view such as mine, does this present a legal loophole that any able government crook can exploit? What are we going to do to close that up?
If the CJ will be replaced, are there safeguards in place that ensures that the next appointee won’t be a LACKEY of the incumbent? I hate to imagine that we’ll have to go through this exercise again in 2016 or 2017.
Regardless of how the vote swings, that challenge of the CJ to his accusers still stand. Is the country going to do a follow-up on those waivers? I remember a congressman from a few months back complaining about how they are always perceived to be corrupt. Maybe opening up and being more transparent is a positive step to correct this impression about them. Maybe the FOI Bill can start moving again.
As an added point to the one above, maybe we can add transparency ratings to candidates whenever there is an election. Presidential appointed public officials should also have a similar ranking. Frankly, unless one knows these people personally, one can’t tell what they can do with public coffers. Sheesh, if we can have Energy Efficiency ratings whenever we buy a refrigerator, why can’t we have a similar rating for candidates? Are we better informed in buying home appliances than in choosing leaders?
Are we all guilty of passing the burden of proof to those accused? I noticed that news media can be quite damaging to one’s public reputation. As first impressions count, do accusers have to issue retractions on false statements? Much like in the case of the CJ, the original allegation of 45 properties was certainly damaging. I don’t know if people were still listening when it went down to 5.
Related to what I said above, the sad part there is that it revealed the “who the fuck cares if we’re wrong” attitude of public accusers. Would this be the face of government? As a consumer of its services, does this mean that we are all potentially going to get screwed over if government decides to do so?
I’d also like to see a list of things that will happen if the CJ is taken out of circulation. Were there any key economic initiatives that he was personally blocking? Maybe the great presidential speechwriters can get us all excited for a change.
While we were all focused on the impeachment, unemployment is up (according to the SWS), government spending is below its Q1 target. So what’s going to happen now? Oh, and there’s still that nagging issue with the Chinese over a tiny rock on the map.
So, what’s next? Can we build a Great Pyramid now? Me, I’m going back to work.
With the recent Wikileaks…leak about US dispatches referring to the Philippines, a lot of words saw print online and off. End of the day assessment leads me to just take everything with a grain of salt (for now). It’s really stupid for the PNoy government to just fly off the handle because of these “leaks.” Their releases were too amateurish, even for an amateur like me. Their reactions trumped the presidential lovelife jokes. It was like, basta makahirit lang.
I think PNoy should bring out the thunder and lightning in his meetings with them. I didn’t vote for the guy. I don’t believe in him. However, I also don’t want him to fail as president. In this wikileaks case, I think his people made him look bad in front of all of us. That’s a different story altogether.
Just to take a break from that circus. I read one of the oldest opinion writers in the Philippines the other day. Whoever thought of the title for his piece could have done better, imho. While on a mean streak, I found this “funny”:
Incontinence Makes the Headlines
The picture of an old man next to that title. Sorry, I guess I was too bored and too mean that day. Picking on the title and not much on the writer. 🙂
I finally got into this situation again. I am at a critical point that some thoughts are just getting too distracting as they all swim inside my head; all trying to compete for dominance. It is time to “park” them…again. As observed in the course of current events and society, I think these are perfectly applicable in our daily lives:
2. If you can’t do the right things, blame someone else. If you’re president of this country in Southeast Asia, you can blame media and past presidents.
3. If you’re a president of this country in Southeast Asia and price increases start to make you look bad, give the people a subsidy.
4. If you’re a president of this country in Southeast Asia and you’re running out of people to blame, fire someone who’s associated with someone who’s associated with a previous president that you’re trying to pin down. Never mind that you can’t fire your own people. Okay na ang simpleng cool off sa balita.
5. If you have to bring out the smallest detail just to prove you are working, then you are hardly working and not working hard.
6. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. To the cat, it’ll always be just one way — the painful way.
7. Actions speak louder than words. Flatulence is in a league of its own.
8. If people don’t know what you are supposed to be working on, how on earth can they know that you are even working?
At this point in time, Filipino politicians should listen to just one Beatles song — “Dear Prudence.” The Beatles sing it this way: “Dear Prudence won’t you come out to play.” While the song was originally written for Mia Farrow’s sister, in this country’s case, we should sing and call out this virtue to take active participation in our daily lives. More importantly, Filipino politikos should call it out more often than reciting an entire rosary.
What is prudence, anyway? WikiPedia defines it as:
Prudence is the characteristic of exercising sound judgment in practical affairs.
Before going any further, I’ll narrow the discussion and twist that WikiPedia definition into “exercising sound judgment in political affairs.” Prudence hasn’t been around Philippine politics in ages. From choosing candidates in elections to exercising job functions of elected officials, we’re pretty much screwed. Truth of the matter is, we keep putting the same kind of people in power and expect different results. That’s just batshit Einstein-insane. It’s funny why the people still vote for the same kind of people come election time. Call it a state of apathy or a weird exaggerated state of “puwede na” behavior.
Politics is a balancing act between altruism and selfish ambition. The common Filipino perception of the Pinoy politician has always been that selfish ambition is on the heavier end of that balancing act. In a way, a politician constantly entertains a perversion of the “I want to be a rockstar” kiddie fantasy. That is why they love the media attention coming from the recent hearings. They are so easily drawn out by vanity. If Al Pacino’s devilish John Milton was real, he’ll probably say this to our politicians everyday — “Vanity, definitely my favorite sin.”
Like an ABS-CBN telenovela on its closing week that people watch even if they are already aware of how the story will end, a number of Filipinos are similarly engrossed with the Ombudsman impeachment drama going on in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The carnival of opportunistic politicians found another “worthy cause” in an attempt to add gloss to their not-so-polished images. Personally, I won’t blame the politicians for jumping on the bandwagon. If I was in congress, I won’t miss something as historic as the Ombudsman’s impeachment. It’s a bit like trying to show off your dancing skills to a hot-looking lady looking to get laid.
Anyway, prudence dictates that you shouldn’t jump at all opportunities without weighing all the options. Just because the gang leader says “Let’s go for it,” it doesn’t mean you should, without thinking. PNoy’s call to the LP to nail Merci can be likened to a pila balde situation or calling all gangmates for a sure lay — regardless of whether you’re protected or not. While I support the impeachment move as part of due process, our lawmakers (specially the senators) shouldn’t jeopardize their position of impartiality. After all, how can you be objective once you’ve already made a guilty verdict even before the case has been heard?
As I have read in the Babe Romualdez column in the Philippine Star:
The big question this coming May is: Will the Senators particularly those from the Liberal Party be fair and objective, especially in light of the revelation that President Noynoy Aquino has given his party mates marching orders to “get” Gutierrez? And what if the Ombudsman asks them to inhibit themselves from the proceedings because their objectivity could have been clouded since it has apparently become a Liberal Party imperative to get rid of her?
So, has the government already come to a verdict on Merci? I say that it has. What’s really alarming is that PNoy even alluded to that on his recent CNBC interview as getting rid of “land mines.” He does not bother to hide his disgust of the Ombudsman (who hides it ba?). Since he is president of the country, maybe it will be wise for him to act a bit like Solomon and keep his mouth shut about this. He also has to shield himself from other issues. After all, there will still be an impeachment trial this may and it CAN GO EITHER WAY. What if the prosecution team bungles it and Merci is acquitted of all charges, then who will be the biggest dodo bird in this country? It certainly won’t be the congressmen or the LP. It’ll be the top executive who goaded everyone in his party to go after Merci.
In another case of being too talkative for his own good, Sen. TG Guingona should not have called for the Ombudsman’s resignation. From a bystander’s point of view, it can be seen as both an offer of “peaceful” resolution or even a sign that he “blinked.” Who knows? There could be an actual weakness in those cases that the House of Representatives are preparing. Sun Tzu prescribes that the general should always mask his strength to ensure victory over his opponent. If that is the case, then why force a way out of the confrontation? If total obliteration of the guardian of the Arroyos is needed, then let it happen. Do they just have a noisy but weak gun pointed at Merci? I certainly hope not.
The trouble with a weak case sent against the Ombudsman’s way is the danger of falling into another Erap-impeachment type of ending. In Erap’s case, the impeachment didn’t really come to a real conclusion. If that happens, what are the “people” going to do? Form a mob armed with torches and pitchforks? Another scenario is that the Senate encounter might really be more favorable to Merci, as she only needs 7 senators to quash the proceedings. If that happens, then it will appear that the LP actually helped the Ombudsman get away.
I also have to cite what Senator Escudero felt about the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee report that recommends impeachment of Ombudsman Merci (as shown in a report in Inquirer.net):
Escudero said he signed the document because at that time it was given to him, he didn’t know that there would be a number of senators who would also express reservations to a portion of the report, recommending the impeachment of the Ombudsman
“Ang intindi ko [From what I understood] we took no part, we expressed reservations about it and took exception to it,” he said.
Asked if there was a need to delete that part in the committee report, Escudero said it could either be clarified or there might not be a need at all to make that clarification since it was clear that the majority “took exception” to that impeachment portion.
“So hindi ito kasama sa [this isn’t part of the] overall approved ng [of the] blue ribbon committee,” Escudero further said.
I remember my old boss. During the time that he was still around on this earth, he used to always tell me that “the devil is in the details.” In the case of the blue ribbon report, I hope someone did not just try to pull a fast one on other senators or at least force a quick agreement to all that it had to say. Well, maybe someone did just that. It could be that some senators saw it right away, some didn’t. It could be that they’re just being subtle about it. But hey, that’s just me and my overactive imagination at work. 😛
Prudence dictates that we should pause and realize that, despite its perceived flaws, the Philippines actually has a system of doing things. We are still in a democracy, right? If we’re all convinced that the Ombudsman is guilty even before the trial, then let’s just skip the drama. If we are all so hot to do it, there’s a cheaper non-televised way to send the Ombudsman to hell, imho. Even the president should cool his heels and let the process take over. They have the numbers in the House of Representatives. Let the numbers do their work.
If you can’t think straight, just listen to the Beatles muna. All you need is love. Peace. 😀
When life imitates art, it usually ends up looking a lot like a poor knockoff. Oftentimes, whenever this happens, we get bizarre results. Sometimes, there may even be some lethal consequences.
I am sure that a fan of Hollywood films will remember “A Few Good Men” from the 90s. The film starred Tom Cruise, as a hotshot JAG lawyer, and Jack Nicholson, as a die-hard US Marine colonel, someone who ate breakfast “300 yards from 4,000 Cubans” who were all trained to kill him. In the climax of the film, Tom Cruise pushes Nicholson’s Jessep character to lose his composure and spill the Cuban beans – that hazing/ Code Red ordered by him indeed killed a marine.
While the film succeeded in selling the drama to moviegoers, I don’t think the same courtroom techniques employed by Tom Cruise’s Kaffee should be regular fare in Philippine courts. I don’t think it’s particularly effective in getting to the truth, either. That’s regardless of whether we can handle the truth or not.
Take the case of the Estrada impeachment hearings. Did it come to a legal conclusion? If you consult the history books, then it’s a big NO. However, that NO didn’t come without a lot of drama. Heck, we all got played by the emotion from the daily telenovela that starred a former actor/mayor-playing-a-politician-who-thought-he-could-be-president-while-getting-jueteng-money. Eventually and much to the relief of GMA, the former president Estrada got convicted for plunder — LONG after he was forced out of office by a factor outside the impeachment court. It wasn’t the courtroom rhetoric that made the former actor/mayor Estrada become a former president. It was something else. It took…tada…people power. The mob did him in.
If people will go back to that moment in 2001, what drama triggered people to take to the streets and jam up EDSA for a second time? If my memory hasn’t failed me yet, one of the strongest images then was Tessie Oreta’s dancing after the impeachment court decided not to open the second envelope. It was a moment that embodied political evil’s triumph over a poor nation — the lady danced over the grave of truth. It sold all the drama that both ABS-CBN and GMA can only dream of selling in an entire lifetime. Agitate the stirred-up emotions with a bit of viral text messaging and…tada…instant mob!
Real-life drama, like that of the 1986 and 2001 People Power, cannot be packaged in one TV show. However, that constraint isn’t enough to stop people from trying to get the same effect. Media will constantly try to produce the next entertainment extravaganza. If they can’t, trust the politicians to do this for them. It’s a perfect system and sticking to it certainly takes a lot of stress off the shoulders of TV producers and writers. It’s a perfect fit. Bad news = Drama and Bad news is now this country’s weird form of entertainment. This has become the entertainment norm for the last decade. Call it an appetite for pain, if you want.
Fast forward to 2011. We now have regular hearings in aid of legislation, a favorite tool of legislators to get all the media mileage they want in their quest to ferret out the truth and vice versa. Ms. Anna Pamintuan of the Philippine Star opined the other day that these hearings have become the court of last resort for the poor people of the Philippines. She even described it as some sort of fast break hearing — indicted in the morning, convicted in the evening news. If it’s just swift justice that we want – trial by publicity – we might as well just form lynch mobs and string up those accused on TV. Of course no one in his right mind will ever agree to that. We’re all so civilized now. We can only do People Power — absolutely no lynching. That’s why we’re stuck with these hearings. While these hearings may seem okay to most, including me from time to time, isn’t it disturbing? At this point in Philippine history, have we become products of political and media manipulation? Admit it. We, Filipinos, love our trials-by-publicity as much as we love our telenovelas with the sampalan and sabunutan.
These hearings that serve almost like trial courts are bordering on inefficient use of public funds. It’s loaded with drama without anyone getting sent to prison. It’s a tease. It sells the idea that things are moving forward when in fact they’re frozen stiff. Cito Beltran couldn’t have put things nicer in his column yesterday about what is happening in the popular hearing of this day.
In the currently very popular Garcia Plea Bargain hearing/ AFP Pabaon scandal, in the quest for the basic truth of the matter, a brilliant but aggressive senator of the land – Trillanes — tried to do a Kaffee (or a Tom Cruise, for that matter). However, he ended up losing a resource person instead. Did he expect Angie Reyes to cry out “You can’t handle the truth!” or simply that GMA did it? Trillanes was no Tom Cruise. Angie Reyes was certainly no Jack Nicholson. And OMG, Jinggoy was certainly no Demi Moore.
Naïve as it may sound, I do have a question: if Rabusa can turn from crocodile into a guilty rat, who are we to say that more senior crocodiles cannot turn into guilt-laden rodents, too? After all, Trillanes did say that there are bigger crocs than the former general who committed suicide last week. Who knows?
Dead men tell no tales, unless you’re a forensics expert or a spiritista, that is. Frankly, I don’t know what value the senate can get out of a dead resource person. Columnist De Quiros even says it’s honorable for Trillanes, Estrada and Rabusa to have intensely grilled former Sec. Reyes – push him against a very hard wall. It may have been required, but I am 50:50 on it being honorable. If the end justifies the means, then there is no use glorifying an act that resulted in basically nothing but MORE speculation. In the end, it was Angie Reyes who killed Angie Reyes — literally and figuratively.
So now, I throw the same question at them, who were they (Estrada and Trillanes) to decide then that the senior alleged croc cannot turn rat? Isn’t that the reason why Reyes was called in as a resource person, for him to shed more light into the matter? One can even loosely infer that former AFP Chief Reyes saw the political ambition behind these interrogators and decided to “scorch the earth” to stop them dead in their tracks. If the PCIJ-Reyes interview notes point to a hint of guilt, then there may have been a strong possibility that he could have clarified more than any inquiry in aid of legislation can ever hope to achieve.
Achieve. That’s a pretty strong word to use together with “inquiry in aid of legislation.” The reality is that they cannot stand together in one sentence, taken in the Philippine Congress’ context. When a former legislator and government man — Ernie Maceda — writes that these hearings result in better budget management in government. If Mr.Maceda is right in his assumption, then the legislative body should have spotted the conversion scheme long ago. Even Angie Reyes acknowledged that the system was there even when he still just a young lieutenant. That makes it all weird. Doesn’t the government have the budget approved on an annual basis?
In fairness to the Congress, Mr. Maceda did say they got results out of the hearings on the hot issues of their day (like PEA-Amari). He also cited some gains on the hot case being heard in the congress today. Take note of the use of HOT. The focus is only on hot issues. And that is just it, if our lawmakers were eagle-eyed as we would like to believe, then we wouldn’t have these scandals we have today, right? Am I clamoring for near-perfection? Not really, but assuming the legislative body eats up a substantial chunk of government funds (from our taxes), it should be safe to demand a bit more diligence in their work.
What’s wrong with the government’s setup? It’s either the combined brainpower of the people crafting our laws is no match against creative crooks or the congress and senate were just blind all of those years. How much pork barrel did we give to them, anyway? How much accountability do congressmen have when it comes to spending the public cash, anyway? How much time do they spend on really protecting the PUBLIC’s interest? If paying taxes was legally an optional thing with a menu for how you’d like to budget your tax payment, I’ll probably give legislation the least amount of money due to poor performance — dami pa kaya absent diyan.
Really, we citizens should look at this issue objectively and not let ourselves get carried away with the agitated emotions that both politicians and media are peddling. I say that they — all the people involved — should stop washing this crime off their hands. Why not just fix the damned holes? Stop the hearings. File the cases. Fix the system and don’t take your eye off the process. It is not the absence of funds to do it. I think that It’s the absence of will to do it. If a small person, like an auditor of the CoA, can rise to the occasion, why can’t the bigger people do the same?
What kind of law do they hope to craft anyway after the AFP Pabaon hearings? Wait! Don’t they have the bill for Freedom of Information already? Maybe they should just make tanggal the alikabok off it. At least they should start reviewing the FOI Bill again as a start. However, have you heard any senator or congressman mention that in recent weeks? Just because PNoy didn’t include transparency as a priority doesn’t mean that it should be a dead project. If there’s no measure derived from the hearings, then it’s really just a glorified GMA and Ombudsman Merci hunting expedition. It would have been cheaper to use an IED on them — that’s what the people expect anyway, right? No, we want our live telenovela.
Do we really need live TV media inside these hearings? When you know that millions of eyes are looking at you, do you not try to look and sound your best? There’s no incentive in being smart and silent, especially when you know that your performance can be a very big meal ticket in the future. The smart bet is in looking smart and being loud. Does that put national interest in the forefront? Maybe we need a director on-set to make it all authentic.
Now, I go back to my beginning statement. When life imitates art, what do you get? You get the paying public to lose their money without them even knowing it. If this goes on any further, the paying public might end up losing the shirts off their back.
Wake Up and Smell the Coffee 