Reopen FPJ Protest

'Act of judicial statesmanship'

Inquirer News Service

I FIRST encountered this highly profound phrase in an opinion of former Senate President Jovito Salonga on the Supreme Court decision that declared President Joseph Estrada as constructively resigned. The decision was met with vigorous opposition from some of the country's legal minds, for being unconstitutional. It became the subject in the columns of leading opinion writers, who took their respective sides—for or against. Salonga came out with an opinion, saying that what the Supreme Court did was an exercise of judicial statesmanship. He called the Davide Court an activist court.

I recently encountered the phrase again in an Inquirer column of Fr. Joaquin Bernas. He urged the Supreme Court to reopen the protest case filed by defeated presidential candidate Fernando Poe Jr.—as an act of judicial statesmanship. The case was pursued by FPJ's wife, Susan Roces, after his death. But Roces' petition to substitute for her husband was struck down by the high court on a technical ground. Father Bernas argued that with the reopening of FPJ's protest case, the attention of the nation would be focused on the Presidential Electoral Tribunal—which would pursue the case vigorously, until such time that it would be able to determine who really won in the May 2004 presidential election.

The frantic call for President Macapagal-Arroyo's impeachment and the maddening protest rallies demanding her resignation would then become unnecessary. But this could only be realized if the Supreme Court exercised, once again, that act of judicial statesmanship. If the honorable justices did it in January 2001 to save the nation from chaos and bloodshed, why couldn't they do it now for the same reason? And it would undoubtedly be a defining moment for Hilario Davide Jr., who is retiring as chief justice this December.

—CESAR T. PUENTENEGRA, Gullas Law School, University of the Visayas, Cebu City

Erap's Bail

Santiago defends plan on Estrada release

Veronica Uy Tetch Torres
INQ7.net

TALK of reconciliation between former president Joseph Estrada and incumbent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has legal basis and is not just politicking as alleged by Senator Joker Arroyo, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said Monday.

She said that while capital offense was non-bailable, bail was "a matter of discretion on the part of the judge" in such cases.

Citing the Constitution, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-94 (1994), and the ruling in the 1995 case of Santos vs. Ofilada, Santiago said, "The ongoing reconciliation talks between him [Estada] and President Arroyo should be pursued because there is legal basis. The talks are not mere pretense, as alleged by others."

"Because president Estrada is charged with a capital offense, he is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. But he can still apply for bail, as a matter of discretion, and a hearing will be mandatory."

She reminded Senator Arroyo of a similar capital offense case where he served as defense lawyer of the late Lino Brocka and Behn Cervantes and she was judge.

"Among the defense lawyers [at that time] was Joker Arroyo. He is reported [now] to be claiming that bail can no longer be granted in a capital offense case, which seems to be a contradiction of the position he took before me, when I was RTC judge," she said.

Santiago said granting bail would balance the right of an accused person to provisional liberty and the duty of the state to protect our people against dangerous elements.

"If we apply this two-fold test to [former] president Estrada's case, my view is that release on bail will not render him a danger to society," she said.

"Further, because of his age, health, and status as former president, I do not believe that he will flee the country. I humbly opine that procedural due process should be followed, and after due hearing, if warranted, president Estrada should be admitted to bail," Santiago said.

Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez doubts whether the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court will allow Estrada to be released on recognizance.

Under the revised rules on criminal procedure, recognizance involves the release of an accused without bail to someone of high moral standing in the community.

"With the magnitude of his case, I doubt if it is within the ambit of recognizance," Gonzalez told reporters Monday.

The Sandiganbayan is set to resolve Estrada's motion for bail, which he filed last July 27, claiming that the government's case against him is weak.

Estrada said he preferred to stay with his mother at Polk Street in Greenhills, San Juan municipality if the anti-graft court will grant his petition.

Special Prosecutor Dennis Villaignacio has submitted his opposition to Estrada's petition in early August.

Estrada is on trial for plunder, a crime punishable by death under Philippine law.

Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Michael Defensor disclosed last week that part of reconciliation talks was Estrada's release on recognizance -- a plan Senator Arroyo belittled as mere politicking.

Betrayal

Sounding Board : Betrayal of public trust

Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Inquirer News Service

THERE is a battle royal going on as to which impeachment complaint the Committee on Justice should take up.

The line of defense being put up by the President's lawyers is that only Oliver Lozano's complaint should be entertained because anything after Lozano's complaint would be a different second or third complaint prohibited by the Constitution. The Constitution says that only one impeachment proceeding against a respondent may be initiated within one year. In other words, the President's lawyers equate "complaint" with "proceeding."

Let us look at the main pillar of Lozano's complaint. He bases it on "betrayal of public trust." The example he gives of betrayal of public trust is the phone call made to an official of the Commission on Elections, a phone call which the President has admitted with public display of compunction, and for which she confessed "lapse in judgment." And since several phone calls were involved, she as much as admitted multiple lapses in judgment. But is that all that betrayal of public trust means? Is it limited to one example, or can it cover a multitude of other sins? The President's lawyers seem to be saying that Lozano, having given one example, may not give more. Such a stance is worse than just a lapse in judgment; it is an attempt to water down an offense solemnly enshrined in the Constitution.

We must look to the history of the phrase "betrayal of public trust" as it is now found in the 1987 Constitution. It is a phrase not found in the United States Federal Constitution whence our impeachment system originated. It is not found in our 1935 Constitution either, or in the 1973 Constitution. But the 1973 Constitution added "graft and corruption" as another ground for impeachment in order to tighten the screws on misbehaving public officers. Not content with previous texts, however, the 1986 Constitutional Commission added "betrayal of public trust" as another ground for impeachment. Evidently, they wanted to make the screws even tighter. What did the 48 commissioners mean?

Commissioner Ricardo Romulo, in response to a query from Commissioner (later Supreme Court Justice) Florenz Regalado, said that the phrase "betrayal of public trust" was meant to be a catch-all phrase to cover any violation of the oath of office. Commissioner Rustico de los Reyes, who was responsible for the insertion of the screw-tightening phrase, said that it referred to all acts, even if not punishable by statute as penal offenses, which render the officer unfit to continue in office. He enumerated "inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, etc. to the prejudice of public interest and which tend to bring the office into disrepute." To which Romulo added "obstruction of justice." Expressly excluded, however, were "profanity, obscenity, habitual drunkenness while performing official duty"-perhaps, in the belief that these are understandable macho vices!

Significantly, Commissioner Blas Ople, who had sought to add "manifest and gross disregard of the popular will" as another ground, withdrew his amendment after the Committee explained that such addition would in fact narrow the grounds for impeachment by requiring that the offense be gross. Moreover, Commissioner (former Chief Justice) Roberto Concepcion cautioned that additional particularization would have the effect of weakening the provision under the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

To further understand the import of "betrayal of public trust" as a screw tightener, it is important to compare it to how the 1986 commissioners understood "culpable violation of the Constitution." The accepted view in the Commission was that "culpable violation of the Constitution" implied "deliberate intent, perhaps even a certain degree of perversity, for it is not easy to imagine that individuals in the category of these [impeachable] officials would go so far as to defy knowingly what the Constitution commands." Moreover, as Commissioner and now Chief Justice Hilario Davide observed, "betrayal of public trust," as already explained, required much less than culpable violation of the Constitution and, in effect, already included everything in the other enumerated grounds for impeachment!

Having seen the broad meaning of "betrayal of public trust," we next look at what the Constitution prohibits. It prohibits the initiation of more than one "impeachment proceeding." It does not necessarily prohibit more than one complaint. More than one complaint would be prohibited only if the multiple complaints would require more than "one proceeding." But if they can be logically and conveniently combined into one proceeding, there would be no violation of the Constitution.

In the current controversy, the so-called "amended complaint" and the Lopez complaint, both transmitted on the same day to the Justice Committee together with the Lozano complaint, are nothing more than "bills of particulars" to accompany the Lozano complaint. They both elaborate on the one constitutional offense of "betrayal of public trust." For constitutional purposes, therefore, what is being initiated is only "one proceeding involving one complaint but with an extended bill of particulars."

I can understand, however, why the President's defenders argue the way they do. They must realize that if the "bill of particulars" is elevated to the Senate, the President will be tarred and feathered and be made to squirm. I guess we must bemoan the conclusion that the presidential defenders and their client do not wish to face the music.

Bernas' Column

Sounding Board : Jointly or separately

Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Inquirer News Service

SOMETIME ago I was told by a friend, who was a denizen of the inner sanctum of the House of Representatives, that my column, where I said that the two houses of Congress should vote separately when proposing amendments, did not sit well with some of the overt advocates of constitutional revision. Now, however, I hear an opposite story. A friend, who listened to Speaker Jose de Venecia speak before a recent forum on parliamentary government, said that the honorable Speaker cited a column of mine, where I supposedly said that the two houses should vote jointly when proposing amendments.

Well, at least I should be grateful that my columns are read, even if sometimes misread, deliberately or otherwise. I think it was Chesterton who said, "My sins are scarlet, but my books are read." But for the record, and for the benefit of the Speaker—if indeed he attributed to me something I never said—let me clear things up.

What the Speaker is reported as having said is an indication that, should Congress decide to propose amendments to the Constitution, there will be a battle royal involving the question of whether the two houses of Congress should vote as one body or separately. In earlier debates regarding this issue, it had already been argued that when Congress proposes amendments, it acts as a constituent assembly and, therefore, it is not bound by the normal rules that govern Congress. I cannot accept that argument.

I begin with a fundamental principle: We have opted for a bicameral Congress. When the 1986 Constitutional Commission was drafting the current Constitution, the debate on bicameralism or unicameralism was intense. I took the side of unicameralism. When the moment of reckoning came, the side I favored, the unicameral side, lost. Yes, by one vote. The final vote was for bicameralism, 23-22.

I must confess now that I do not regret having lost that vote. Today, I thank all the 23 who voted against unicameralism. In retrospect, I now believe that if we had voted for unicameralism, the US military bases would probably still be in Subic and Clark. Likewise, if we had voted for unicameralism, extension of term limits or total elimination of term limits would be a done deal by now.

The choice in favor of bicameralism was deliberate. One of the reasons proposed in support of bicameralism was that it allowed for mutual correction. Commissioner "Soc" Rodrigo, speaking from 12 years' experience in the Senate, gave a practical illustration which, I suspect, is also operative today. He said:

"This was our experience in the Senate of which I was a member for 12 years. There were times when members of the House of Representatives would come up and say: 'Soc, mayroon kaming inaprubahang bill doon sa Lower House; masama, hindi ko gusto pero hindi ako makatanggi sa isang lider. Kayo na ang bahala sa Senado, patayin ninyo ang bill na iyon.' This happened several times. And, of course, since the senators were elected at large like the President of the Philippines, they could stand up to the President, and this can be attested to by facts. The senators could refuse the President or even take a stand against that of the President even if the President belongs to their own party."

Bicameralism means two houses acting autonomously and occasionally checking each other. This is a fundamental principle in our Constitution. The two houses work separately. That is the general rule. The larger House may not swallow the smaller house. If fusion is to be allowed at all, the Constitution says so. And whenever the Constitution says that the two houses meet together, the Constitution is careful to dispel any notion that autonomy is thereby being put aside. In such occasions—as when declaring a state of war, or acting as a board of canvassers for presidential and vice-presidential elections—the Constitution is careful to warn that, even in joint session, they should vote separately. Similarly, the 1935 Constitution, which said that when proposing amendments Congress should be "in joint session assembled," was careful to specify that even then the two houses should vote "separately."

The present Constitution now says: "Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members . . ." The power is given to Congress. We should remember that there are two houses in Congress. Moreover, the two houses are not called to come together in joint session. They can stay where they are. They are empowered to propose amendments as they are where they are. Congress, as is, is simply given a constituent function, that is, the power to propose amendments.

Indeed, the two houses may agree to come together for a joint session. Coming together does not nullify the bicameral character of Congress. Only a constitutional revision can transform the two houses into a unicameral body. Voting separately, however, is of the essence in a bicameral Congress. It cannot be voluntarily surrendered either by the Senate or by the House.

The constituent function is given to a bicameral legislature. The two houses, therefore, should act as a bicameral legislature—voting separately, able to check each other, and not reduced to one monstrous body marching to the same drumbeat. Let us hope that the Senate will not surrender its autonomy to the larger house.

Monsod's Column

Get Real : An ouster call in Batangas

Solita Collas- Monsod
Inquirer News Service

BATANGAS State University (BSU) president Ernesto de Chavez is using President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as his model in refusing to leave his post. Reacting to a demonstration by faculty and students who demanded that he step down, De Chavez said in a press conference held last Saturday: "Ang Presidente nga ng Pilipinas nira-rally araw-araw at gustong patalsikin pero hindi pa rin umaalis ... normal na 'yang rally dahil sa ekonomiya natin. Hindi ako aalis sa puwesto. [Daily rallies are being held against the President of the Philippines by people who want to boot her out, but she still doesn't leave ... those rallies are normal because of the state of our economy. I will not leave my post.] If I leave the post I will be charged of (sic) abandonment by the Board of Regents."

I guess misery loves company. But the parallel that De Chavez tries to draw is simply not there. Charges have been filed against him, formal investigations have been conducted, and after due process, Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo ruled last July 12 that "Respondents De Chavez, Lontoc Sr., Ligaya and Lontoc Jr. are hereby found guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct and are, thus, meted the penalty of Dismissal from the Service..."

The student-faculty demonstrations occurred because he refused to leave. In the Arroyo case, the demonstrations are being held to pressure her into resigning even before impeachment proceedings have followed their due course and before she has been found guilty.

Moreover, while Ms Arroyo recognizes the authority of Congress to impeach her and is ready to step down if found guilty by the Senate, BSU's De Chavez does not recognize the authority of the Ombudsman who, he claims, has no right to discipline him, because only BSU's board of regents (BOR) has the appointing and disciplining authority over him. To quote him again: "We are not even under the CHED [Commission on Higher Education] or Civil Service [Commission]. We have our own charter, 'meron kaming BOR' [we have a BOR]. We are with CHED but we are not under CHED. 'Hinihintay lamang namin ang anumang magiging desisyon ng Civil Service Commission at nakahanda kaming sagutin ito.' [We are just awaiting whatever will be the decision of the Civil Service Commission and we are ready to respond to it.]"

Whew. That's pretty arrogant stuff and fuzzy thinking. The Ombudsman does have administrative authority over all government officials, to which category state university officials belong. Yes, the BOR is the appointing power, but there are limits to its independence. In the case of the BSU, the BOR chair is CHED Commissioner Saturnino M. Ocampo Jr., with the chairpersons of the Senate and House education committees and the regional director of the National Economic and Development Authority as members. They are surely aware of their powers and responsibilities.

But what exactly did De Chavez and others -- including a brother-in-law who is BSU's vice president for academic affairs and a nephew (the brother-in-law's son) -- do to merit the dismissal? Per the Supplemental Resolution of Ombudsman Marcelo, first, there was the matter of the unauthorized collection of graduation fees, with no official receipts issued, and with the collected fees never deposited in a government bank for the account of the BSU.

Then, it seems, the De Chavez family (including a brother-in-law) was involved in the business of renting caps and gowns, and apparently used its members' position to become the exclusive supplier of these paraphernalia to the faculty and graduating students.

In addition, De Chavez and his nephew were found by the Ombudsman to have collected Internet fees from students (again with no official receipts) with the funds deposited in their joint account. The funds were transferred to the regular trust fund of BSU 18 months later, only after charges were filed against them -- but with a shortfall.

Furthermore, there are matters like the collection of on-the-job training and related learning experience fees (again with no official receipts and funds deposited in a non-government bank); the conduct of comprehensive examinations and the (unauthorized) collection of fees. The Ombudsman has also asked the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to look into charges of nepotism and other administrative issues.

Why then, despite the Ombudsman's resolution, dated July 12, 2005-finding De Chavez, et al., guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct, with a penalty of dismissal-is De Chavez still in his post (and reportedly wreaking all kinds of vengeance)? Is the BOR, as some detractors claim, in his pocket?

Nothing Machiavellian here. The simple reason is that the Office of the Ombudsman did not send a copy of its resolution to the BOR with the request that the latter implement it-instead, the resolution asks the CSC to implement it. So the BOR is still awaiting formal notice from the Ombudsman or the CSC although it is informally aware of the decision and has already initiated consultations and made contingency plans, BOR Chair Ocampo said. CSC Chair Karina David says that her office is puzzled that the Ombudsman has asked them to implement what the latter should be doing itself, hence the delay.

A bureaucratic snafu? No. Ombudsman Marcelo is not dumb. It turned out that he issued the resolution while there was some legal question about his office's powers. But since then, the Supreme Court has come up with a definitive ruling that, indeed, the OO does have administrative authority over all government officials other than those who are impeachable.

So it is not the case that De Chavez is following in Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's footsteps. It may in fact be the other way around.

ABS-CBN Cuts Costs

ABS-CBN to lay off 210 more

Clarissa Batino
Inquirer News Service

TWO HUNDRED and ten more employees of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. are going to lose their jobs between now and October, casualties of the network giant's strategy to cut cost and regain its lead.

"We plan to (terminate) 360 employees or 20 percent of our workforce by September or early October," ABS-CBN president Luis Alejandro said. "This is part of our restructuring to cut cost."

Alejandro said the company had laid off 150 employees so far. It had also reduced by half the number of its management officers, from 12 to six.

The Lopez-owned network said it would save P350 million a year from the salaries of the employees to be fired.

The savings compare with the retirement benefits, expected to cost about P500 million, that the company will have to provide. The benefits will be financed from the proceeds of a new deal struck by its profitable global unit.

ABS-CBN has 1,800 regular employees. Of the 150 who lost their jobs, 35 were editors and reporters under News and Current Affairs. The 35 got the best termination package, according to sources.

The 150 employees received three months' salary for every year of service, which translated, according to sources, millions of pesos to several highly-ranked employees.

"We started with the News and Current Affairs, then sales and marketing, then we are doing the engineering department this week to next week," said Alejandro.

He said even the network's talents were asked to "cooperate" in the effort to cut costs.

Several celebrities, he said, had agreed to reductions in their talent fees and no talent got an increase. "This should translate to savings of about 10 percent of our costs," said Alejandro, who declined to name the stars who took pay cuts.

"We are sticking to our three-point recovery plan. The strategies of focusing on prime time ratings, optimizing production cost and cutting expenses will be continuing," Alejandro said.

Sacrifices

The 'ifs' for Philippines to take off

Inquirer News Service

OUSTING Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from office is not the magical solution to our problems. It will not pull our nation from the morass of poverty. But replacing our system of government through Charter change will be worse. Her state of the nation address was dismaying but, at least, I agree with her on one thing: "Ours is a country divided."

Yes, our country will not be able to take off because we are not united as a team. There is a Philippines of power-hungry leaders living in luxury; and a Philippines of a starving people whose power to vote has been exploited and undermined by the first Philippines.

No, it is not our system of government but our leaders whom we must change. Charter change will only dance us to hell because our present leaders have no respect for honesty and justice. For what are we teaching our children by ignoring the "Hello Garci" scandal? That it is OK to cheat?

Ms Arroyo said: "Perhaps we politicians have done our best; but maybe our best is not enough, given the present system. Perhaps, we have strained the present political system to its final limit." Yes, our politicians have done their best to keep themselves in power illegally. Their best in this is more than enough. "Tama na!" [Enough!]

What more sacrifice do the Filipinos need to make? Two-thirds of the Filipinos are living below the poverty line while Mike Arroyo doesn't care about staying in a $20,000-a-night hotel suite. What more does Ms Arroyo want Filipinos to do? Miss breakfast and lunch just so they can afford to pay more taxes?

For as long as we have dishonest, corrupt and wasteful leaders, our country will never move forward.

If only the present administration stopped the use of luxury cars by government, then our people wouldn't have to pay more taxes on their meager income. If only Congress abolished the pork barrel, then the government could allot more funds for roads and education.

If only our courts wouldn't sell their decisions to the rich and the powerful, then the poor wouldn't feel oppressed. If only our journalists could be given protection, then we could preserve the sanctity of democracy.

If only the nation's sacrifices were shared by the ruled and rulers alike, our country would now be on the verge of taking off.

MILES RABIE, Tucson, Arizona, USA (via e-mail)

Devastated State

Sense and Sensibility : A crying shame

Bambi Harper
Inquirer News Service

IF the real meaning of heritage is inheritance -- that which past generations have handed down to us as stewards of the country's collective memory -- then like the foolish servant in the Bible parable, we have chosen to fritter it away. This is not to say that as a nation we don't have problems other than patrimonial destruction that threaten to overwhelm us in their magnitude. A cursory glance at any newspaper makes it clear that what ails us isn't going away any time soon or that our troubles can be cured with Band-Aid. If it would do any good, we could wonder how much we are to blame for these problems-whether economic or social-and if they aren't of our own making. But then I don't know that we're really given to much introspection or accepting our share of responsibility. (These days the opposition isn't zeroing in on blaming the Spanish or the Americans but trying to make us believe that one person is responsible for all our ills as though they had no hand in it despite many of them having been in government a donkey's years.)

Having said that, let me tell you a horror story that threatens to be worse than all the crimes against heritage I've run across (no, not as evil as demolishing the Jai-Alai building but close or claiming you're God's gift to preservation while obliterating Manila's historic spaces). Over the years to our grief, we've encountered the destruction of a peoples' patrimony due to greed, ignorance, political expediency, indifference and many times arrogance. This is a continuation of the sorry tale of our country and the senseless erasure of decades of history in the now woeful town of Argao in Cebu province.

The present church of Argao, whose first titular saint was Michael the Archangel, dates from around the beginning of the 19th century. It may have been the second or third to be constructed since the parish was founded in 1733. When I first saw it more than 30 years ago, it was a sleepy little pueblo by the sea although I learned later that antique dealers from Manila had already been there and the stunning ivory statue of St. Michael had long been gone.

Romantically, there were cobwebs and dust everywhere but they didn't obscure the baroque carving of the pews (since taken to the Cebu Cathedral, I hear) or the richly painted ceiling or the beautifully ornamented "retablos" that not even the apparent neglect could hide. Since the Filipino has lost so much of both his natural and man-made heritage, it was awesome to find a jewel like this one. In the intervening years, I would make an effort to travel to Argao whenever I was in Cebu to admire the gorgeous carvings and images. Some five years ago, they were still intact.

Last year, I began to hear whispers about the destruction of the images by a parish priest for reasons best known to himself (God knows what he told his bishop or whether he even bothered). Perhaps he saw the movie "Goldfinger" and imagined himself to be a latter-day Midas. Whatever insanity possessed him compelled him to go to the nearest hardware store, buy several gallons of gold paint and slather all the statues on the main altar. Perhaps he thought this was the way gold leaf was applied in the old days. During the Revolution, the donors from the town probably would have strung him up from the nearest tree and left him to the vultures.

The saddest part, it seems to me, is that we have so little left of this heritage. We like to say Bangkok has this or Bali has that and poor us, what do we have? Well, we had Argao, for one, but obviously it has been totally, thoroughly and terminally wasted on us.

Not satisfied with his grand feat of vandalism, Father Montecillo went off to continue the destruction of the town's heritage. In the cemetery, he had the carved main arch of the gate demolished to make way for his own design because it is said he wanted to enlarge the space. You think perhaps these people do this on purpose or are they just stupid?

Having been a member of the Committee on Monuments and Sites of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) for more years than I care to remember, we had already zeroed in on parish priests as part of the problem in the efforts to conserve this country's heritage. Ever since the NCCA was formed in the late 1980s, we kept trying to send lecturers on preservation to the seminaries. For years, we couldn't even get an appointment with the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. Our reasoning was that the value of patrimony and cultural identity had to be explained to the seminarians and the responsibility of their stewardship emphasized.

More than a dozen years later, I don't think the committee has succeeded in getting a toehold on the door of a seminary. Consequently, the Church has produced priests like Montecillo who hasn't a clue about aesthetics or history and the concept of stewardship. Try to imagine what went through his brain that he dared put his mark on images that didn't belong to him and erase more than 100 years of history.

If I were younger, perhaps I might have felt anger at such arrogance but what I feel now is regret. I'm sorry for us. I'm sorry that we don't have the leaders who care enough or are enlightened enough, whether in the Church or in government. I'm sorry that our egos overwhelm us and we can't seem to see beyond our noses. Here is a country where so much has already been destroyed and here was a treasure that had been preserved all these many years, only to be destroyed by some idiot.

Agri Promise

COMMENTARY
OFWs and Philippine agriculture
Ernesto M. Ordoñez
Inquirer News Service

HOW big is the connection between overseas Filipinos and Philippine agriculture?

Today, it is small but a project proposed by a Filipino businessman currently living in the United States can change that. The good news is that this project can succeed without government support, though government assistance will always be welcome.

Background

In an e-mail group last week, a La Salle alumnus wrote, "Do you know that the combined income of the Filipinos in the United States is more than the gross domestic product (GDP) of the entire Philippines?" He said there were 1.4 million registered Filipino workers earning an average of $70,000 a year, as against the per capita GDP of about $1,000 a year for our 88 million Filipinos here.

The Commission on Overseas Filipinos said that as of December 2004, there were 2.7 million Filipinos in the United States. This makes credible the claim that there are 1.4 million workers in the United States who are earning income. This is because both man and wife in a Filipino family there are working.

If we use the same ratio that approximately half of registered overseas Filipinos are earning income, then as many as four million out of the eight million overseas Filipinos are in this category. It cannot be denied that the 4 million overseas Filipinos definitely earn more than the country's entire GDP. This is where badly needed help for Philippine agriculture can come from.

Where remittances go

The Filipino businessman, who prefers to remain anonymous, said Filipinos in the United States invariably send money home, mostly to relatives. Though some of these remittances go to worthwhile causes such as tuition support, these funds are sometimes spent for unproductive activities such as gambling and drinking.

This is why many overseas Filipinos would rather contribute to productive projects. And while charitable works are liked, there is a desire to contribute to sustainable economically productive endeavors. They not only want to give fish, they also want to contribute to teaching people how to fish.

There are, however, two obstacles. First, they do not know the people who can teach their intended recipients "how to fish" or how to make a livelihood activity productive and profitable. Second, they do not personally know the recipients sponsored by the many organizations that ask for funds from them. Thus, they are reluctant to donate to these organizations.

The proposed project addresses both obstacles.

Alyansa Agrikultura

The Alyansa Agrikultura [Agricultural Alliance], composed of 39 national and local federations of farmers and fisherfolk in the country, is proposed to address the first obstacle. Though its members have their own outreach livelihood programs, they are limited in helping start small businesses because of lack of capital.

Going to banks is difficult because of lack of collateral, while relying on 5-6 loan sharks often means failure because of the 240-percent average annual interest rate. The funds from abroad proposed in this project will allow them to expand their program of transferring technology, ensuring markets, and generally making the livelihood projects successful.

The Alyansa Agrikultura members will provide guidance at no cost. They will even incur the obligation of helping ensure that the fund recipient gives quarterly progress reports to the donor. This has the added benefit of monitoring fund use to ensure that the funds are not used for non-productive purposes.

The second obstacle is also addressed by this project. The overseas Filipino will identify his or her intended recipient, usually a relative. The money will go directly to him or her, provided he or she identifies the project as well as the "big brother" or "big sister" from groups like the Alyansa Agrikultura. This way, the chances of success will increase. The project can then generate income for the recipient's needs.

Forum

Already, this Filipino businessman has identified several Filipinos in the United States who want to contribute to this project. Several Alyansa Agrikultura member-organizations have likewise expressed their support.

Albert Lim, president of the National Federation of Hog Raisers Inc. with its 34 associations nationwide, said, "This will certainly help our outreach program because of the additional grant funds."

Gregorio San Diego, president of the United Broiler Raisers' Association said, "This will be an added boost to the growth of the small broiler industry, which can benefit from new players using better technology."

Arsenio Tanchuling, a convener of the Kilusang Mangingisda [Fisherfolk Movement], said, "With this project, we can teach nontraditional technologies, such as crab fattening, seaweed culturing, and 'ginamos' making."

On Thursday, Aug. 11, the Alyansa Agrikultura is sponsoring a forum on this topic. This will be held at 1:30 p.m. at the Philippine Social Science Center Conference Room on Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City. Interested parties in linking overseas Filipinos and Philippine agriculture may call +632 8516635 if they wish to attend.

The author is the chairman of Agriwatch, a private sector initiative. For inquiries and suggestions, e-mail agriwatchphil@yahoo.com or call or fax +632 8516635.

Another Jueteng Witness

Posted by Sheila Coronel
Filed under In the News

IN a hurriedly called press conference this morning, a Malacañang political operative made what are potentially the most damaging allegations of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's involvement in electoral fraud since the "Hello Garci" tapes were made public in June. 

Michaelangelo "Louie" Zuce, a presidential staff officer assigned from February 2001 to July 2004 to the Office of the Presidential Liaison Officer for Political Affairs headed by Lakas stalwart Joey Rufino, also accused the Office of the President of directly bribing and otherwise getting the cooperation of elections officials in Mindanao to ensure Mrs. Arroyo's victory.

The burly Zuce, a nephew by affinity of the disgraced elections commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, whose wiretapped conversations set off the gravest crisis of the Arroyo presidency, also attested to his role in the fraud, which included conniving with election officials in Mindanao to make sure Mrs. Arroyo led in the count. (Click here for Zuce's sworn statement.) 

Zuce, who said he came out publicly because his life was in danger, apparently also acted as his uncle's trusted messenger, runner and companion. He said that his tasks, dating to 18 to 20 months before the May 2004 elections, included raising funds for, organizing meetings with, and distributing payoffs to, Mindanao election officials.

Even more damaging, Zuce said that some of the payoffs made to Mindanao-based provincial election supervisors and regional directors of the Commission on Elections came from Pampanga-based jueteng lord Rodolfo "Bong" Pineda and his wife Lilia. He also confirmed that 27 regional directors and provincial election supervisors from Mindanao had a secret dinner with Mrs. Arroyo at her La Vista, Quezon City home in January 2004.

During that dinner, which Garcillano and then Isabela Gov. Faustino Dy Jr. allegedly also attended, the election officials were introduced to the President by Mrs. Pineda, Zuce said. After the introductions, Mrs. Arroyo supposedly made a short speech asking for the officials' support in the elections.

The President then left and proceeded to another engagement. "As we were leaving, Mrs. Pineda gave RD (regional director) Johnny Icaro white envelopes for all of us," Zuce's affidavit said. "When we opened them in the vehicles, we found that each envelope contained P30,000." 

In impromptu remarks made in the launching of a breastfeeding program this morning, Mrs. Arroyo denied any involvement in election fraud and accused her opponents of "waging a black propaganda against me, saying I am this and I am that, especially those who are angry, those who are in need of money and whose testimonies are for sale."

Later, in an interview with ABC-5, she said, "Ang masasabi ko walang nagbibigay ng suhol sa harap ko (All I can say is no one gives out bribes in front of me)."

Indeed, Zuce said the President was no longer there when the payoffs were made. What his affidavit alleges is her "knowledge and direct participation" in the rigging of the elections as attested to by:

• Her canny appointment of Garcillano, after he had proven that he had a personal network of key Comelec people in Mindanao who would do his bidding;
• Her personal knowledge of the attempts to influence the election officials through meetings and "consultations," as attested to in the approval by the Office of the President of these consultations;
• Her approval of the release of funds for such consultations with key Mindanao Comelec personnel;
• Her personal appeal for support, as a candidate, from officials of a supposedly nonpartisan election body; and
• Her tacit approval of the role the Pineda couple allegedly played in getting the cooperation of the Comelec bureaucrats.

Presidential Political Adviser Gabriel Claudio called the charges "incredible and fantastic," saying that it didn't make sense that a minor functionary like Zuce would be included in meetings to which his boss, Rufino, was not. Rufino, he said, was ill with cancer and could not answer the allegations directly. (Both Claudio and Undersecretary for Political Affairs Raymundo Roquero, however, confirm that Zuce was employed in the Office of the President, first under Rufino, and from September 2004 to last May, under Roquero.)

While the account of the dinner at the presidential home may be the most sensational of Zuce's allegations, his sworn statement also reveals a deliberate and organized effort by the Office of the President to influence the outcome of 2004. 

Zuce's narration begins in October 2002, when he introduced his uncle, then Comelec Region 10 director, to Rufino, who subsequently endorsed Garcillano's appointment to the President. Apparently to ensure his nomination as commissioner, Garcillano proposed a "nationwide consultation" with Comelec officials, which was a thinly disguised attempt to get these officials' support for the president.

Garcillano, according to Zuce, was "used by PGMA during the elections in exchange for his ambition to become a Comelec commissioner." 

Garcillano began by asking for a budget of P2.4 million, but only P1 million was initially approved by the President and this was used for three "consultations" with Mindanao elections officials, some of them coinciding with the Comelec sports fests that Garcilliano was famous for organizing.

During the consultations held in Mindanao, these election officials "expressed their willingness to support PGMA's candidacy depending on what Director Garcillano wanted them to do," Zuce's affidavit said. "The Mindanao election officials present also said that  Atty. Garcillano should be appointed Commissioner so that he would be behind them and be able to answer for them in their efforts of supporting PGMA." 

In all three consultations, Garcillano distributed P20,000 each for regional directors and provincial election supervisors, P15,000 for city election officers, P10,000 for municipal election officers and P5,000 for selected staff of Comelec Mindanao, said Zuce. Garcillano, Zuce added, made the point to say that the cash was "being given by PGMA in appreciation of their expression of support of her candidacy."

A second round of payoffs was made to Mindanao regional directors and provincial elections supervisors at a meeting organized by Rufino's office at the Grand Boulevard Hotel on Roxas Boulevard in Manila in late 2003.  During that meeting, Zuce said that he personally distributed to the Comelec officials P17,000 each in white envelopes. 

A third meeting with Mindanao Comelec officials, again at the Grand Boulevard, was held in January 2004, where three of Rufino's staff distributed P25,000 each to the attendees.

A month later, Garcillano was named Comelec commissioner, with strong endorsements from Rufino and a manifesto signed by Comelec officials in Mindanao. Zuce said that Garcillano told him that Mrs. Pineda "was asked by higher-ups to help in the confirmation of Comm. Garcillano before the Commission on Appointments."

Once ensconced in the Comelec, Garcillano began planning a "big special operation" in Mindanao under his supervision, said Zuce. 

To get the ball rolling, the Comelec commissioner planned a junket in Manila for 27 Mindanao regional directors and provincial election supervisors. Zuce said that his uncle asked him to get Rufino to fund trip. Garcilliano also allegedly brought Zuce to the Pinedas' Greenhills, San Juan home to plan such an operation, which would include the assignment of people and the vehicles that would be needed.

Also at that meeting, Bong Pineda, according to Zuce, gave him P150,000 to cover the costs of the Manila junket, including a three-day stay at the Rothman Hotel in Malate. It was also then that the dinner with Mrs. Arroyo was announced. 

For the election operations proper, Zuce said he was asked to:

• Prepare the budget for the Mindanao operations, on the instructions of Garcillano and Rufino
• Coordinate the delivery of vehicles needed for the Mindanao operations (four Pajeros and two jeeps courtesy of Pagcor chief Ephraim Genuino)
• Monitor and coordinate with Comelec officials and employees to ensure Mrs. Arroyo's victory. "In places where PGMA would be losing, I was to talk to them to find ways to reduce her loss or to add votes in her bailiwicks," said Zuce's affidavit. His area of operations included the Misamis provinces, Lanao provinces, Marawi City, Cotabato City, Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, North Cotabato, South Cotabato and Sarangani. He was also coordinating, through mobile phone, with operatives in the Zamboanga provinces, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan and Zamboanga City.

Among the more sensational contents of Zuce's affidavit is the revelation that Garcillano was given P12 million for the Mindanao operations, an amount the commissioner said was not sufficient. Zuce said he was brought by his uncle to a condominium on Macapagal Blvd. in Pasay and shown a closet filled with P1,000-bills wrapped in plastic.