Alternatives

There's The Rub : A modest proposal

Conrado de Quiros dequiros@info.com.ph
Inquirer News Service

IT'S the most infuriating thing in the world to have to look for an alternative just to get rid of someone who has no right to be in Malacañang. To repeat an analogy, it's like having to explain to the officer on duty in a police precinct why you deserve to get your stolen cell phone back. Indeed, why the thief who has been caught red-handed with it deserves to be jailed and not be allowed to keep your cell phone as punishment for his misdeed. One would imagine it is common sense. But these are uncommon times ruled by uncommon sense. You now have to argue even for things like that.

If President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has survived this long, it is only because the people who want her out, who are eight out of 10 inhabitants of these islands, cannot agree on a common agenda. It is the only thing that has kept her from being pried loose from her chair. The longer it takes for that common cause to be forged, the longer the one person who stole the presidency will be able to keep it. This country has become that weird police precinct.

I have a proposal. But before I propose it, and advance my reasons for it, let me just look at the other alternatives on the table.

The first, which is what Cory Aquino and the resigned Cabinet members have been pushing, is that Vice President Noli de Castro becomes president. (Which should result, among other things, in the firing of the current secretaries and the rehiring of the resigned ones.) That is problematic on several grounds. At the very least, it is just as divisive as keeping Ms Arroyo in power. Indeed, if we are to go by the lack of enthusiasm for it, it is probably worse. It is the one single thing that is keeping an outraged citizenry at bay, the thought that De Castro would replace Ms Arroyo, which is not unlike Ms Arroyo replacing Joseph Estrada. Like I said before, Ms Arroyo's greatest weakness is also her greatest strength: People are afraid to oust her out of fear of creating another her, a cure worse than the disease.

There are moral and legal arguments against that option. One is that while there is no evidence De Castro cheated in the elections, there is reason to believe he was at most an accessory to it and, at least, a beneficiary of it. Certainly, he cannot escape suspicion, and the Office of the President may only be above it. You may not remove De Castro as vice president for lack of a prima facie case of cheating -- there is one in Ms Arroyo's case -- but you may not promote him either as president.

More importantly, unlike Estrada's, this is not a case where the presidency has been vacated, the President having been found to betray the public trust. This is a case where the presidency was never occupied, the non-President having been found to have cheated the public will. The normal rules of succession do not apply here.

The second alternative is impeachment. Impeachment does have its upside. At the very least, it does remind the public Ms Arroyo has done a humongous wrong. Even if she has the numbers in Congress, there is no telling how an impeachment will go. Estrada, too, had the numbers in Congress, and was moreover the most popular President ever to have blessed, or cursed, this country. Yet ere the trial was over, he was fighting for his life. Not the least of the reasons for it being that the trial took a life of its own, no small thanks to the media, which turned it into the most powerful soap opera this side of the Pacific. It became more popular than the PBA professional basketball games and the Mexican "telenovelas" [TV soaps] and Japanese animés combined. The public became positively addicted to it. Like any riveting soap opera, it told a story of heroes and villains, good and evil, the "api" [maltreated] daughter and the evil "madrasta" [stepmother]. Guess who more easily conforms to the role of evil madrasta?

My problem with impeachment, however, is two things. One is that, as I said above, this is not a case of removing a president for betrayal of public trust, which impeachments are for and which appropriately pertained to Estrada. This is a simple case of removing a non-President or a usurper. You do not need an impeachment for that. Two is that, an impeachment falls into the same category as a Truth Commission, and is equally redundant. What more truth do you want to ferret out that Ms Arroyo has not already revealed? Ms Arroyo has confessed to being the voice on the "Hello Garci" tape. That is a crime punishable by the comfort of jail, not by the cross of the presidency. It is not for Ms Arroyo to assess the weight of her crime and prescribe her own punishment, it is for the people.

The third alternative is a transitional government or council, revolutionary or not. Dodong Nemenzo, the proponent of the first, cautions people about a knee-jerk reaction to the word, "revolutionary." Cory's government after Ferdinand Marcos was a revolutionary, transitional one. She was never elected president -- the results of the "snap election" are arguable even now -- and she wielded extra-constitutional power at least until 1987, when a new constitution was ratified. She did not abuse those powers. She ushered in a liberal democratic order, however some argue that she just restored the pre-martial law one with all its infirmities.

My beef with a transitional government, revolutionary or not, quite apart from its intrinsic problems, is that however lofty its purposes and well meaning its proponents, it will probably not get off the ground. It is probably the second thing that is keeping an outraged citizenry at bay, no small thanks to an elite that has put the fear of God and radicalism on it.

More intrinsically, a transitional government, or council, will have the same problem as Ms Arroyo right now, which is legitimacy. Where does its mandate come from? How can it presume to speak for the people?

House Warned

Substantive justice against procedural technicalities

Inquirer News Service

ALTHOUGH the process of impeachment is available, there is a mounting call for President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's resignation, which is anchored on the belief that in these abnormal times, one more day of her administration is another day of moral erosion and economic recession.

Impeachment is one of the modes of removing a president, but only the House of Representatives has the power to initiate an impeachment, and only the Senate has the power to try and decide impeachment cases. At least one-third of all the members of the House is needed either to affirm a favorable resolution of the committee on justice, while at least two-thirds of all senators is necessary to convict.

The opposition congressmen pushing for President Arroyo's impeachment still do not have the required number to automatically transmit the petition for impeachment to the Senate.

Second, according to news reports, they were caught flatfooted when Ms Arroyo's lawyer filed a formal answer to the original impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano. Under the Rules of Court, they may no longer amend the aforesaid original complaint when there is already an answer. Thus, the majority congressmen defending the President will have a reason to oppose the amended impeachment complaint filed last July 25.

Third, according to Rep. Prospero Pichay, the amended impeachment complaint is considered a new complaint. Under the law, only one impeachment complaint is allowed per year. If such is the case, considering that an impeachment complaint had been filed earlier, the July 25 amended complaint will be considered a third complaint and will have to wait until 2007 to be heard.

Fourth, Rep. Prospero Nograles has come out with an opinion that even if the opposition mustered the necessary one-third vote, the fact that the impeachment complaint is already with the committee on justice, it will have to stay there until after a committee report is submitted to the plenary session. Therefore, the committee on justice can sit on it for at most 60 session days or about six months, considering that there are no sessions during Fridays.

Fifth, the impeachment rules have not yet been formulated up to this time. The congressmen seem to be busier with the proposed Charter change than with the impeachment proceedings. Hence, the committee on justice cannot act yet on the impeachment complaint.

Substantive justice should be given emphasis vis-à-vis procedural technicalities. Technicalities should aid, not impede, substantive justice although they are important for well-ordered proceedings. Would it not be a monstrous parody of justice if the members of the House inflicted serious injustice just for the sake of technicality?

EMMANUEL LJ. MAPILI, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City

Please Resign

Corrupt, exploited political system

Inquirer News Service

"YAHWEH then said, 'I have seen the misery of my people. I have heard them crying for help on account of their taskmasters. Yes, I am well aware of their sufferings.'" (Exodus 3:7)

Indeed, this has been the plight of our Filipino people and it has reached disastrous proportions: "12M children below the age of 10 suffer from hunger and malnutrition," "12-14M are unemployed and underemployed," "3,000 Filipinos leave the country daily, forced by massive poverty, to accept jobs that are dangerous and degrading to human dignity," "our women and children are being trafficked and commodified," "our patrimony is being plundered and sold to MNCs [multinational companies] and TNCs [transnational companies]," "prices of basic commodities rise unabated."

We have witnessed and experienced, through our various Good Shepherd ministries the sufferings and struggles of women and children, urban and rural poor, indigenous peoples and migrants. We have seen the continuing destruction of our environment.

Globalization has exploited the graft-ridden and corrupt political system in our country, which intensifies the chronic economic crisis. This government has failed to avert the present crises.

Past administrations, including the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration -- which should be promoting the common good and protecting our national sovereignty -- have become subservient to foreign interests and patronage politics. The trust of our people in our government leaders' capacity to govern has been eroded.

"At the sight of the crowds, Jesus was moved with compassion for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd." (Mt. 9:36)

Our people are being pushed to the limits of human endurance. We challenge Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to prove her avowed love of country and to heed the call of the suffering people. She must step down now!

Let us act now to help bring about the much-needed radical systemic change in our economic, political and cultural institutions.

We call on the Filipino citizenry to support the basic sectors and other people of goodwill who are now participating in the transition of government and coming up with their agenda for meaningful change.

We will continue to intensify our prayers and fasting until God's reign of justice, peace and freedom will prevail in our country.

SR. CARMELITA CRUZ, RGS, provincial superior, Sisters of the Good Shepherd (RGS), Philippine Province, 1043 Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City

Sumalipao Interview

Lanao poll official confirms voice in tape
By Ryan Rosauro
Sun-Star Ozamiz correspondent

MARAWI CITY -- In an act that could provide leads into the authenticity of the conversations in the "Garci tapes," a Lanao election official confirmed that one of the wiretapped exchanges over mobile phone is true.

Lawyer Rey Sumalipao, provincial election supervisor of Lanao del Sur, told reporters here he actually received a call from then Commission on Elections (Comelec) Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano inquiring about the developments in the field.

This admission makes him the second person to confirm that it was his voice on the tape. The first was President Arroyo but did not specify which of the conversations.

In a transcript of the tape prepared by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), Sumalipao was telling Garcillano about a canvassing going on in Lumba-Bayabao town of Lanao del Sur.

Sumalipao told Garcillano there was an en banc order to continue with the canvassing but suspend the proclamation. In the conversation, Garcillano seems surprised by the issuance of the order. The conversation happened on May 30, 2004 at around 1:30 pm.

Sumalipao said he was in Lumba-Bayabao to enforce the order when Garcillano called. A day before, he said, there was an order to stop the canvassing.

Sumalipao said the conversation had nothing to do with defrauding somebody during the elections.

No call

The second time his name was mentioned in the tape was a June 8, 2004 conversation allegedly between Garcillano and President Arroyo on how to deal with the allegations of Abdullah Dalidig, provincial chair of Namfrel in Lanao del Sur, that there is massive "dagdag-bawas" in the province.

Garcillano assured the President that Sumalipao will answer the allegations.

Sumalipao defended this line by Garcillano saying it is but logical for him to answer the Namfrel charges as he is the Comelec official with responsibility over administering the elections in Lanao del Sur.

But he said he did not receive any call from Garcillano instructing him to answer the charges.

Sumalipao, who is now Comelec's assistant regional director for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (Armm), said it is flimsy to conclude that the 2004 election results in Lanao del Sur was heavily rigged in favor of Arroyo just because of those conversations.

Save for the results from two towns where there is complete failure of election and about three others with partial failures, the results for the province were already transmitted to Congress afternoon of May 24, 2004.

Sumalipao estimated that the remaining towns where failure of election was declared comprised only of around 15,000 voters.

"How can those conversations have bearing on the electoral outcome when they took place after we have transmitted the election results to Congress?" Sumalipao asked.

Meetings

Responding to recent allegations made by Michaelangelo Zuce, Sumalipao said these are falsehood, especially that about the consultation meeting in Tubod town of Lanao del Norte and a gathering in President Arroyo's La Vista residence.

Sumalipao said the alleged consultation meeting was actually a three-day sportsfest held towards the end of 2002. A local reporter who covered the event attested to this, and said Garcillano was also present.

When asked of the possibility the consultation meeting happened during the night, a shrugged shoulder was the only reply.

The reporter noted that throughout the event, there was always a program at night after which socials follow.

But the reporter observed the expensive prizes of their raffles like a refrigerator for the major prize and uppity mobile phone units as consolation prizes.

Sumalipao also debunked Zuce's claim that Mindanao election officials were gathered for a payoff at La Vista. He admitted that a meeting of Mindanao election executives did occurred but in a hotel, although he could no longer recall the name of the hotel by now.

Not stupid

He related that sometime January 2004, the provincial election supervisors were in Manila to submit the list of candidates to the central office.

"We made use of that opportunity for the organizational meeting of all provincial election supervisors of Mindanao," he said.

He said the fact that they were already there, "it is just a matter of each of us to come together." The meeting led to the creation of the Mindanao Provincial Election Supervisors Association.

During the meeting, Sumalipao said, the "elected interim officers, assign members to draft a Constitution and by-laws."

He assailed the attendance sheet that was attached to Zuce's affidavit as only lifted and hence out of context. "We are lawyers. We are not stupid to make evidence of ourselves in an irregularity," Sumalipao stressed.

He also admitted seeing Zuce once in Garcillano's office but could not recall anymore when, although he said he recalled meeting him when he saw Zuce on television.

"It is quite easy to remember his face and built," he said.

Sumalipao said Zuce's "lies" are "designed to let the Comelec succumbed to people who intend to grab power."

"Please stop all these lies," Sumalipao implored Zuce.

Inquirer Editorial

Editorial : Better way to Charter change

PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has made a good start toward the amendment of the Constitution by announcing that she would form a consultative constitutional commission that would draft proposed amendments to the Charter. A commission could make a thorough study, then write the proposed amendments that would be considered either by a constitutional convention or Congress meeting as a constituent assembly.

She could follow that up by scheduling the election of delegates to the constitutional convention. She would be well advised to abandon her announced plan of leaving the job of amending the Constitution to Congress meeting as a constituent assembly.

Earlier this year, Ms Arroyo said she was in favor of a constitutional convention, but last month, after experiencing the most serious political crisis of her presidency, she changed her mind and said she was for a constituent assembly. Well, she can change her mind again and go for a constitutional convention, if she wants to promote the national interest.

In the first place, there is no need to speed up the amendment of the Constitution, unless it is going to be a part of a "graceful exit" for Ms Arroyo. She said in her recent State of the Nation Address: "The mode of Charter change is the exclusive prerogative of Congress. But a constituent assembly may well give our people the quickest reforms."

But why subject the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, to a fast-track procedure? Proposed amendments to the Constitution should be discussed and debated thoroughly. The constitutional convention (or the constituent assembly, whichever mode is finally chosen) would be amending the fundamental law that will be the guiding light of the nation not only for this generation but also for many generations yet to come. Certainly this task should be done not in haste, but with a great deal of deliberation and circumspection.

If we are to proceed slowly and with deliberation in amending the Constitution, then it is best done by a constitutional convention. A constituent assembly made up of the members of Congress would be an assembly motivated largely by self-interest. The legislators, once functioning as members of the constituent assembly, can be expected to promote and protect their personal, familial and parochial interests. They could not even pass a really effective land reform law. They would not even give up their wasteful and graft-ridden pork barrel. And now they would be expected to have the best interest of the nation at heart in amending the Constitution?

The Citizens for ConCon said that "without the perks and powers of Congress to protect, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention can be expected to be less self-serving, more objective, and thus more credible." Inquirer columnist Juan Mercado has warned that a constituent assembly would be an assembly of self-seekers. He quoted H.L. Mencken, who said that an assembly of self-seekers would be "a place where Jesus Christ and Judas would be equals. But the betting odds would favor Judas."

We all know that many times in the past the national interest was betrayed by Congress. Are we going to see a repeat of these betrayals in the event that the task of amending the Constitution is given to Congress?

A constitutional convention would be less partisan and more independent-minded than a constituent assembly. Its delegates would be elected by the people on the strength of their qualifications and not their celebrity or political or dynastic ties. The election of delegates should see the emergence of new leaders with a new vision and fresh perspectives.

Legislators who oppose the constitutional convention proposal say that it would need the allocation of new money "which we don't have." Estimates of the cost of holding a constitutional convention range from P2.5 billion to P8 billion. If our legislators can find sources of funds for their pork barrel, surely they can find a way to fund a convention. But they should not focus on the cost of holding a constitutional convention. They should not consider the outlay a huge cost but money well spent, an investment for a more progressive and stable future.

It is well that the current political crisis has brought to the fore the need to amend the Constitution. It is a task that has been postponed many times. It's time we gave serious thought to the idea of revising the Charter to make it more responsive to the economic, social and political ills plaguing the nation. But let the task of amending it be done by a constitutional convention, not by a discredited body like Congress.