Wednesday, December 28, 2011

An Unsettling Impeachment

by Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez

Before I begin, and before you read this, I would like to make this disclosure. My wife was a court attorney at the office of the Chief Justice for 6 years. However, I only met him once and that was when CJ Corona swore my wife in as a judge. I do not know him as a person or as a Chief Justice except for what most people know from the papers and some amusing office stories I hear from my wife. I am writing this not because of any loyalty for him but because I voted for the Liberal Party and I had high hopes that this party would be the traditional party that could rise above traditional politics. If you think that my thoughts here will be biased because of any of these things I disclosed, then you should skip this piece.


The impeachment of CJ Renato Corona shocks me and leaves a hollow feeling at the base of my stomach. I know that the way I am thinking about this issue and how I am reacting to it places me squarely on the other side of the fence of people I have campaigned for good governance and democratic reform with, but I can’t help it. I have been trying to make sense of my own reaction to this whole event because it bothers me to be thinking so differently from the people I so admire and struggled with for the marginalized, and so far this is the most I can make of how I feel.



I believe that my unease is multi-layered and so I will begin by exploring the layers of it. The first layer of disquiet is this: everyone is so angry at the Court for having shot down the truth commission idea. Truly, I was one of those people who wanted so much to have a truth commission to unearth the perceived evil that the GMA people accomplished. More than that, I wanted her to pay for the evil if indeed it can be proved. However, the truth commission was not so well conceived that it could arguably shown to violate the constitution. In ruling that the executive order (EO 1) creating the Truth Commission is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court’s majority declared the EO violated the equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution when it singled out the GMA administration as the subject of the Commission’s investigation. The majority believed that there are no substantial distinctions between the GMA administration and other past administrations to justify being singled out in the EO. The dissenters, however, disagreed and believed that it is reasonable to say that the GMA administration is different from other past administrations and can be treated differently. There is no definitive answer either way, and it would have taken a minor revision for the order to be approved by the Court. The Chief Justice sided with the Court’s majority. It is difficult to see why he should be condemned for his stance on an issue which is contentious or for a majority opinion he did not even write. If we wanted that Commission to unearth the evil that GMA Inc was and is, then why didn’t the government lawyers do their job well? Shouldn’t something like this have been crafted with such impeccable legal logic that it could not be faulted for its unconstitutionality? And yet it was so easily shot down, and when it was shot down they didn’t just go ahead and do the revision. I don’t think we should fault the Supreme Court for the administration’s sloppy lawyering. And yet we did—so much that we want CJ Corona to fall for it. Even if the Court was acting out of misplaced loyalty to the fallen ring master, why are they being blamed for the administration’s shoddy work?

I think this is true too for the latest crisis that sparked this unsettling impeachment. When the Court issued a temporary restraining order against the DOJ watchlist which would have allowed GMA to travel, she was not yet charged of any crime and, in fact, the DOJ was still in the process of investigating her for possible prosecution. Unquestionably, the right to travel is in our bill of rights and may be impaired only “in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.” Others opine that the there should have been a hearing first before the TRO was issued. But there is no law or rule requiring that. Again, this is not the decision of the Chief Justice but of the En Banc. It cannot be said that the majority of the Court which includes the Chief Justice had no basis in law for its ruling as in fact they were upholding a constitutional right. And yet since the dominant voices in society have determined that they decided wrongly then the Court is wrong and biased despite having legitimate bases for its decisions. Wouldn’t this whole crisis have been averted if the cases against the ex-first couple of corruption had been filed properly and earlier? It had been how many months already since the government was supposed to have prioritized this case, and still they could not come up with a properly filed case. Even if they say, as they do, that it was a difficult case to put together, still they were able to file it over the weekend after the TRO was issued. Why were they so slow before that if they could produce a case instantly when the TRO was issued? Wasn’t this another case of bad lawyering? The administration lawyers just have to admit that they were almost out maneuvered. What could have been their excuse for the delay? And why blame the Court for having decided a case in a way that could arguably have upheld a constitutional right? I am no lawyer, but I am a citizen and I would rather that the Supreme Court err on the protection of a citizen’s rights, no matter how evil, than for it to bend to the will of those in power or the popular sentiment. We cannot violate enshrined rights just because we want to make a person pay for her crimes: that is the slipperiest slope we can slip on. Just remember how our parents allowed Marcos to take liberties on our rights just to defeat the threats to social order.

The second important layer to my unease, and I believe it may be the unease of many others, concerns the very process of how we impeached the Chief Justice. As we now know, the impeachment complaint was passed around blitzkrieg fashion to make sure that the administration party mates and allies in the persecution of GMA signed the document immediately without having to subject this to discourse or deliberation. Classic railroading or bulldozing is what this was. And tactically, this move is extremely admirable. However, what the administration is doing with this impeachment is to accuse one of the leaders of the pillars of our government of corruption and of acting in a way that undermines the will and welfare of the people. Actually, what it is doing is accusing the majority of the Court of being corrupted by GMA Inc as seen in its collegial decisions. Whether the administration intended it or not, such a serious accusation undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court, because at heart we are saying that the Court’s most recent decisions were defined by the undue influence of the immediate past president. With such a serious accusation, one that would set in motion a process that would paralyze the Senate and start another media circus, the accusers should make their accusation with some seriousness grounded on deliberation. Otherwise, this just looks like the vindictive act of one section of the elite against another.



A colleague of mine thoughtfully suggested that perhaps the Liberal Party and its allies took on this tactic because they were responding to the very tactics of the enemy. I agree that this was perhaps a response to the perceived reprehensible tactics of GMA and her cohorts to which we were subjected in the last 10 years. She did seem to use the tyranny of her majority to undermine our economic and democratic systems. However, I heard from Secretary Rocamora, a reformer in the administration who heads the Anti-Poverty Commission, that this administration wants to realize reforms profoundly enough so that they cannot be undermined even by a non-reformist government. I admire that sentiment and goal, however, I see this impeachment strategy as a tactic so grossly low, something on the level of GMA herself, that it only furthers the cause of non-democratic governance. I agree with the administration reformers’ strategy that every act that the government accomplishes now should be a precedent as to how we should govern. This makes it doubly disturbing that we will persecute GMA and her allies through the tyrannical acts of an undiscursive and vindictive majority. Just because we are on the side of the good and reform does not justify our means which clearly exhibit the worst of process railroading. Of course, this is allowed by constitutional procedures, but it kills the discursive quest for articulating the just and the good.

The last layer of this controversy that disturbs me is this: ultimately, this whole process is all about the exercise of political power by those who have it. One of the LP traditional politicians actually said on TV that Corona should resign because they have the numbers in the Senate and he should just spare himself the embarrassment. That is just the most crass statement made on the impeachment and it reveals how this whole impeachment is a bullying by the administration of the persons who are an obstruction of their agenda. No matter how just one’s agenda is, one cannot and should not thoughtlessly move to destroy one’s enemy—especially when this destruction could destabilize our already fragile governance system. The recent attacks on the Supreme Court, with their virulence and lack of nuancing, have truly planted the seeds of doubt in the minds of the public. With such an intense accusation, I as a citizen would like to know if the Supreme Court’s decisions are grossly biased for GMA and if indeed they are a hindrance to our quest for justice and reform. In the end, this is what the impeachment is about. The administration feels that the Supreme Court cannot function as the supreme arbiter of the meaning of the laws and ours acts in relation to these—that is their message to the public. I for one, as a member of that public, a citizen who voted this party into power, would like to know if indeed this is true. And so the Chief Justice should not resign! The citizens need to know if they can trust their Supreme Court. Of course, all this hinges on the hope that the Senate will remain fair and just in the impeachment trial. And or course they must, because now more than ever we need to know.

I should be rejoicing during this time. Now that people who have the same reform agenda as I have are in power and they can get things done—and hopefully the right way. But I am not rejoicing. I am very unsettled. And of course, the more political among us will say that I am being naïve again. That in the real world, we need to act in any way that will push forward our reforms—and to a level that reform will be difficult to dismantle. However, we have seen how their zeal can actually damage procedures of good governance. These tactics could actually further entrench the ethos of injustice, corruption, and the tyranny of the majority.

I know that those pursuing GMA feel that they are doing all they can to fulfill their moral duty. And I agree: making those who have wronged us pay is a moral duty. However, to do our moral duty, we must do it properly—with attention to detail, respect for procedure, impeccable lawyering, and utmost respect for the spirit of the rule of law and democracy. The moral crusaders and reformists must remember that they are standing in for a majority whose genuine will and aspirations they do not really understand or know. And as they try to build a world that they imagine does respond to the will of the majority, they should not destroy the processes that will allow this majority to one day represent themselves.

51 comments:

  1. "And yet it was so easily shot down, and when it was shot down they didn’t just go ahead and do the revision." --> TUMPAK. I was so puzzled hearing the admin criticize the SC about this in recent speeches. If I recall the news about it correctly, the SC decision even included specific suggestions as to how the administration could put together a Truth Commission in a way that was constitutional, is that not correct? But, as you said, the administration did not issue a new EO to correct the previous one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's the all-important paragraph: "Lest it be misunderstood, this is not the death knell for a truth commission as nobly envisioned by the present administration. Perhaps a revision of the executive issuance so as to include the earlier past administrations would allow it to pass the test of reasonableness and not be an affront to the Constitution."

    ReplyDelete
  3. ...and the media is exacerbating the situation. God bless our country.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ...i have been feeling the same way too from the moment that i viewed the speech, outrightly lambasting the SC! :( Told myself "what and where will we be getting justice from if the SC is faulty?" I am no lawyer. I am just a grade 5 teacher and i'm not so much into politics but i know when something is freakingly, gravely and gruesomely wrong!!! It is indeed disturbing knowing that the almighty and powerful person can manipulate even the lawmakers to unmake the laws itself...huhuhu! Atta sad scenario...what else is left for this country of mine? huhuhu! my heart really cries..why would something like this happen? the president lambasting the Supreme Court for allegedly erroneously deciding on a matter of factly, ON NATIONAL TV? HUHUHU!!!
    God, have mercy on us! haizt!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As we speak, our President, His Brilliance, continuous to astound and shock us with his pronouncements, recently admitting forming a short list of names for the next Chief Justice.

    That is affront to the senators who are yet to decide on the CJ's case and an affront to the JBC, who are the ones tasked to create that short list.

    There is no sign of stopping of the growing arrogance of his Highness.

    Hindi ito ang Daang Matuwid!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I share your unsettling thoughts...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kudos to you for writing this blog. This not about favoring the present CJ but preserving the Constitution and the Rule of Law. I hope that Cj Corona will stand his ground up to the end. I will share this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. no need to read this, it is a wast of time... cj corona has favored everything about GMA...

    ReplyDelete
  9. results show the true colors of cj corona, he is a mere midnight appointee. not a chief justice.

    ReplyDelete
  10. KUNG IKAW SI GMA AT WALA KANG HANGARIN NA PROTEKTAHAN ANG SARILI MO DAHIL ALAM MONG WALA KANG GINAWANG MASAMA HABANG NANUNUNGKULAN KA, BAKIT KA MAG-AAPOINT NG ISA SA PINAKAMATAAS NA POSISYON SA BANSA SA NATITIRANG SANDALI MO SA PUWESTO?
    AT KUNG IKAW NAMAN ITONG SI CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA, BAKIT MO NAMAN TATANGAPIN ANG GANITONG PUWESTO? GANID KA DIN BA SA KAPANGYARIHAN? DELIKADESA MO NASAAN, TAPOS IPINAMUKHA MO PA SA BUONG BANSA NA TUTA KA NI GMA. ANG KAPAL TALAGA NG MUKHA MO AT GINAGAMIT MO PA ANG PUWESTO PARA PROTEKTAHAN NGAYON ANG SARILI MO. SYMPRE IKAW ANG BOSING NG MGA NASAILALIM MO, KAYA SILA NAKIKISIMPATIYA SAYO AT DAHIL NA DIN SA DEPARTAMENTO NILA ITO. KUNG YUNG ISKWATER, IPINAGLALABAN ANG DI KANILA EH HANGANG PATAYAN. WAG NYO KAMING GAWING MGA TANGA SA PINAG-GAGAWA MO CJ CORONA.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I share your position as I too, campaigned for members of the LP, also with high hope that they can bring our country forward. And like you, I am unsettled at how the recent turn of events have shown their tendency to subvert the law for their own "reform" agenda. I am all for accountability, but what they did to the chief justice just offends my sensibilities to the highest degree.

    ReplyDelete
  12. great blog! and very sensible too. i hope that our countrymen will see the bigger picture in the issue. breaking the rule of law and disregard for the constitution is a big price to pay just to achieve one's campaign promise. no one is above the law, no matter how lofty your goals are.

    ReplyDelete
  13. We all must not forget what they (GMA and Corona) did to us. Also include Palparan, who is also a crony of GMA. I am more concerned to the real victims of these culprits, not the other way around. The administration is right whatever they are doing now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree with making GMA accountable, and I also wonder why the government prosecutors took their sweet time to firm up the cases. I however, see no fault in CJ Corona, as his decisions along with the majority were well supported by jurisprudence. I am not a lawyer but it's hard not to see that he is accused for collegial decisions of the SC. That doesn't make any sense. And it is certainly deplorable how congress impeached him at breakneck speed, resorting to dirty tactics. I was pro-PNoy from Day 1. However because of his mindless persecution of the CJ and strong-arming of congress under his directive, I have chosen no longer to stand by him. He no longer can say that he is incorrupt. The end does not justify the means!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "We all must not forget what they (GMA and Corona) did to us"

    I think in Philisophy, this is called the fallacy of Guilt by Association. GMA appointed Corona, ergo Corona is like GMA.

    This is a fallacy repeated over and over again until you could not discern where the demarcation lies.

    We need the ADMU Philosphy Department to help enlighten these misguided people.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As I've always said: Noynoy has the tendency to appoint weak spokespersons, cabinet, lawyers, etc. Their president (sorry, but I really disown him) believes in "in the kingdom of the blind, corsseyed is the kin" - so within his curcle - Noynoy appears to be the brightest. Despite you know...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just to correct some typos: As I've always said: Noynoy has the tendency to appoint weak spokespersons, cabinet members, lawyers, etc. Their president (sorry, but I really disown him) believes in "in the kingdom of the blind, crosseyed is the kin" - so within his circle - Noynoy appears to be the brightest. Despite you know... Kaya kahit na bobits si presidente, pinakamagaling pa rin sya kasi mas bobits mga tao nya. Correct? Correct!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tingin ko dapat bumalik sa imburnal itong si Corona.

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://masterfuldeceit.blogspot.com/2011/12/primer-to-chief-justice-coronas.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope you read the account written by (Ateneo alumnna) Justice Sereno in the GMA-TRO case. It shows that the collegiality of the Supreme Court - which you made much of - is actually an illusion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You made the point that nothing in the law requires a hearing for a TRO to be issued. The point also has to be made however that the process of impeachment was followed, there being no law violated. That is, unless the Supreme Court comes up with something. There is no minimum number of days for an impeachment complaint to be processed. If GMA can outmaneuver (your words) so should Pnoy, right?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I hope you read the account written by (Ateneo alumnna) Justice Sereno"

    I did, and why believe her word against the rest of the justices?

    "The point also has to be made however that the process of impeachment was followed, there being no law violated."

    Laws were violated, specifically Article XI, Section 3 and Rules of Court Section 4 Rule 7. The complaint was not "verified". How can it be, if it was not even read?

    Try harder guys.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And may I add, if indeed the complaint was not read, it also violates the respondent’s right to fundamental fairness, which is the essence of due process of law” as guaranteed under Section 1, Article 3 of the Constitution

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous,

    "There is no minimum number of days for an impeachment complaint to be processed"

    There is a minimum actually, that is, the amount of time the complainant completely read and understand the complaint he is signing. It is the bare minimum. Anything less is a CRIME!

    ReplyDelete
  25. this is a political exercise, so the constitution be damned.... not so much different from that fiasco perpetrated on erap a couple of years back......

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope you read the account written by (Ateneo alumnna) Justice Sereno in the GMA-TRO case. It shows that the collegiality of the Supreme Court - which you made much of - is actually an illusion. "

    I did and hers is just a dissenting opinion, and one that breaks the internal rules of the court. (Breaking rules seems to be the theme of this administration) She has lost integrity herself by not even trying hard to conceal that she is at the behest of her benefactor. Can she be impeached as well for being obviously biased for Aquino? Because hers is not a collegial decision but a personal one.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The point also has to be made however that the process of impeachment was followed, there being no law violated. "

    Quite a few laws were violated actually as one of the posters have listed above. I don't understand how someone can justify what congress did without batting an eyelash. The numbers were there, they got 188, alright. But as the IBP pointed out, the complaint is fatally flawed. These 188, or most of them, did not read before signing. They are liable for perjury actually.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "We all must not forget what they (GMA and Corona) did to us."

    What exactly did Corona do to us by the way? I have read the articles of impeachment twice over and CJ Corona's reply as well. Legally speaking, there is nothing in the impeachment complaint that makes him impeachable. The articles of impeachment are so shoddily drafted that is almost laughable and would make a first year law student cringe with disgust. But then again, who are we kidding? This is not about bringing an impeachable officer to justice. This is all about appeasing an angry president and his even angrier clan at the expense of eroding our democratic institutions. Where is the justice in that?

    ReplyDelete
  29. It is not the president who is angry, it is the people...

    If you will speak about legality, let the senators decide...

    For us poor people, we don't care at all but we want to know the truth about GMA and Corona collaboration...

    Moreover, if Angelo Reyes is not dead, surely he will be spitting out the truth, that is the one of the main reason of sacrificing his own life, being ashamed of himself...

    Corona should be also ashamed of himself...
    Why do you think GMA was not impeached during her term, because she was a dictactor herself...
    And extending her protection by appointing Corona...

    Who is the berdugo of GMA, of course Palparan...

    What can you say to the victims of massacres and judicial killings? Sorry? Like what GMA said in the past during the Hello Garci?

    So stop obstructing justice you perverts...Shame all of you...

    GMA alipores claims that her life is in critical danger and must go out of the country as soon as possible. Is she dead? So who is lying now?

    GMA, Corona, Palparan and all of your supporters, SHAME ON YOU!!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. if we leave all these to the lawyers, we and the country will never progress. Tuta..tuta habang ang ating bayan patuloy na maghihirap

    ReplyDelete
  31. The articles of impeachment contain the following: " "We, after being sworn in accordance with law, depose and state: That we are the complainants in the above-entitled complaint/resolution of impeachment; that we have caused the said complaint/resolution to be prepared and have read the contents thereof; and that the allegations therein are true of our own knowledge and belief on the basis of our reading and appreciation of documents and other records pertinent thereto" followed by the signature of the representatives. How can you argue that the signatories did not read the complaint? By believing Corona's allies? Is there any ONE signatory who said that s/he was forced or that s/he did not read the complaint?

    On the contrary, those who said that they were not able to read, like Remulla, in fact did not sign the complaint.

    And now Corona should stop hiding behind legal technicalities. He should simply answer the charges - especially as he and Professor Rodriguez - believe it to be weak.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous the one who had "For us poor people..." in his post,

    Ha ha ha. Carandang? Is that you? Us poor people indeed.

    You mentioned GMA, Angelo Reyes, Palparan in your post. Somebody already mentioned GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. It is a flawed logic and even "poor people like you" should stop invoking it.

    And for Anonymous who actually believed that each of the 188 actually read the 57 page complaint when there was no copy of the document to go around, try defending those congressmen when they attest to that under oath. Even Belmonte, Tupas and other reps admitted as much.

    "And now Corona should stop hiding behind legal technicalities"

    This is exactly the problem of YOUR PRESIDENT. He treats things like the CONSTITUTION and the RULE of LAW as MERE LEGAL TECHNICALITIES.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wow,there's a lot of anonymous personalities here and all think they are the best for this country!

    ReplyDelete
  34. The author write that his wife is now a judge after 6 years working for Corona. If Corona should then be involved in a case assigned to her sala, people can be expected to think her biased in Corona's favor. Same with Corona. His long association with GMA before his appointment cannot be ignored by the author.

    By the way, that also sets him apart from Sereno - who had no association with the president before her appointment. She even voted with the majority in the Hacienda Luisita case. Very different from Corona.

    ReplyDelete
  35. yes be like the former administration. troll on pnoy admin. we voted for reforms and change. not just change of personnel with same trapo mentality. and i hate to admit it but the govt lawyers and people with agenda are always wrong legally. pde ba think before you speak or act, tapos pag na shot down kayo mag bubunganga kesyo this and that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous,

    "She even voted with the majority in the Hacienda Luisita case. Very different from Corona."

    Sereno is pushing for a 6 billion package for the Cojuangco's as compensation for Hacienda Luisita which should only be less than 1 billion if the majority decision is followed.

    Need we say more?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "The author write that his wife is now a judge after 6 years working for Corona. If Corona should then be involved in a case assigned to her sala, people can be expected to think her biased in Corona's favor. Same with Corona. His long association with GMA before his appointment cannot be ignored by the author." - are you proposing to amend the Constitution? are you saying that you do not believe in appointment as a method of placing a person in a position because it creates partiality?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "By the way, that also sets him apart from Sereno - who had no association with the president before her appointment."

    --> Of course he was associated with Sereno. Do your homework first. Their relationship goes way back to the Ateneo. They were college friends in the Ateneo, both took up Economics before Sereno went on to UP to take up law.

    "She even voted with the majority in the Hacienda Luisita case. Very different from Corona."

    --> Yes she voted with the majority, which is more than what I can say for Justice Antonio Carpio - who abstained in voting to distribute the lands to the farmers. But Sereno's dissent comes with a calculation that disables any farmer from being able to afford the land. Is this what you want? A justice who favors "just compensation" for the landlords but diables the farmers from reclaiming what is rightfully theirs?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Halata naman pong biased itoong nagsulat pabor kay Corona. Ok lang. kaniang blog naman to.

    At hindi po naging kaklase sina Noynoy at Sereneo. Akala niyo lang yun dahil 1 batch mas bata si Noynoy at parehas silang econ. Patunay nga aber?

    ReplyDelete
  40. maraming panahon na hindi nalulutas ang mga kaso sa dahilang nalalagyan lagi ang ating hukuman. kaawaawa naman ang mga simpleng tao at mahihirap na hindi kayang maglagay,,,nabubulok ang mga kasong hindi nabibigyan ng katarungan, kaya naman hindi nalulutas ang garapal na katiwalian sa ating bayan. panahon na upang malinis ang kahukuman ng pilipinas...kundi, lalong dadami ang kasalukuyang lagayan, favoran, at katiwalian. kung ang presidente ay nai-impeach,,,si cj corona pa kaya? gising pilipinas.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous,

    "maraming panahon na hindi nalulutas ang mga kaso sa dahilang nalalagyan lagi ang ating hukuman..."

    Ang iyong sinulat ay puno ng mali-maling lohiko. Kay Corona mo ba sinisisi na maraming nalalagyan sa mga korte? Siya ba ang dahilan sa dami ng kaso na dumadaan sa mga korte? At dahil na impeach si Erap ay tama ang pagkakaimpeach kay Corona?

    Marahil ay kailangan gisingin ang sarili mo.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dear Mr. Rodriguez,

    This is one of the best articles I've read on the impeachment complaint against Corona. I hope the non-legal community may be able to read this and see why the SC decided on certain issues in favor of GMA. Some people's argument against Corona is flawed if not legally baseless and I would like to see a more intelligent Filipino community posting their comments here to see the logic or the legal basis of the other camp.

    "Due process" is one of the concepts that is foreign to an average Fillipino. But most of us forget that when we cry for justice, it should go hand-in-hand with due process. If not, we'll end up being barbarians of the modern world.

    I find it ironic that it is the President's mother who is one of the major personalities that led to the 1987 Constitution but his son seems to look at it as a mere "technicality".

    ReplyDelete
  43. "At hindi po naging kaklase sina Noynoy at Sereneo. Akala niyo lang yun dahil 1 batch mas bata si Noynoy at parehas silang econ. Patunay nga aber?"

    whoever said they were classmates? lol. one of the posters above said they were college friends - not classmates. think before you type ;-)

    so sereno is not the saint and incorruptible pillar of justice as she is being portrayed by the admin. such a waste that her brilliance is being used for shady ends. her bias for noynoy is so palpable, it is almost conduct unbecoming.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Nung Dec 14 2011, sabi ni Chief Justice:"Haharapin ko nang buong tapang at talino ang mga walang basehang paratang na ito, punto por punto, sa Senado. Handanghanda akong humarap sa paglilitis."

    Ngayon, ayaw na niyang humarap sa paglilitis. lol.

    ReplyDelete
  45. improve your english please. and your writing skills, too. is this the 80,000 per semester quality of written and spoken english ateneo churns out nowadays? and you are even faculty.

    finally, it appears that this work of yours is the product of poor research. fyi, in many countries, like canada, australia, africa, brazil, chile and guatemala, truth commissions which cover specific offenses against their people committed by SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS have withstood the constitutional test of reasonableness, and are in fact a source of national healing and closure for these countries and their people.

    next, the swiftness of the impeachment exercise is not an issue. the corrupt acts of corona and the other gods in padre faura are a matter of public knowledge. don't tell me your wife does not know about it. she may have been privy to some of them, if she worked for the cj. you know that but of course will not admit it openly. besides, don't you have what we call 'gut feel'? or are you as dense as they come.

    and what 'doubt in the mind of the public' are you talking about? don't you read the papers, or watch the news, or listen to your friends or colleagues? don't you get that the overwhelming response is that noynoy is doing a great job running after the crooks of administrations past? come on. get real my friend. plant your feet on the ground. don't try to get high in the clouds on us.

    don't you even have the decency to cry for justice, for retribution, for all the corruption these people have wrought upon your country? can't you even fight for the future of your children? do you have to resort to bootlicking. knowing that you get nothing from it?

    come on. get real. and get back to the drawing board. instead, concentrate on trying to write well. in form and content.

    ReplyDelete
  46. improve your english please. and your writing skills, too. is this the 80,000 per semester quality of written and spoken english ateneo churns out nowadays? and you are even faculty.

    it appears that this work of yours is the product of poor research. fyi, in many countries, like canada, australia, africa, brazil, chile and guatemala, truth commissions which cover specific offenses against their people committed by SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS have withstood the constitutional test of reasonableness, and are in fact a source of national healing and closure for these countries and their people.

    next, the swiftness of the impeachment exercise is not an issue. the corrupt acts of corona and the other gods in padre faura are a matter of public knowledge. don't tell me your wife does not know about it. she may have been privy to some of them, if she worked for the cj. you know that but of course will not admit it openly. besides, don't you have what we call 'gut feel'? or are you as dense as they come.

    and what 'doubt in the mind of the public' are you talking about? don't you read the papers, or watch the news, or listen to your friends or colleagues? don't you get that the overwhelming response is that noynoy is doing a great job running after the crooks of administrations past? come on. get real my friend. plant your feet on the ground. don't try to get high in the clouds on us.

    don't you even have the decency to cry for justice, for retribution, for all the corruption these people have wrought upon your country? can't you even fight for the future of your children? do you have to resort to bootlicking. knowing that you get nothing from it?

    come on. get real. and get back to the drawing board. instead, concentrate on trying to write well. in form and content.

    ReplyDelete
  47. To the Anusnymous, just above my post.

    Go live in Canada or australia or africa or where ever you think equal protection under the law is not an issue. As long as you're not being persecuted this ok, but find yourself at the sharp end of persecution and you'll quickly change your tone.

    There is a huge doubt in the mind of the public because we do read Inquirer and watch ABS CBN but we don't swallow what they say hook line and sinker. We also read Manila Standard and Tribune where Noynoy is not hyped up and shown as the unintelligent, uninspiring moron that he is.

    FYI, retribution is not equal to justice and all accused deserve due process and not trial by publicity and demolition jobs.

    If you're all about abolishing corruption, look no further than your President and his plan of getting a 12 billion compensation package for his Hacienda Luisita.

    Suck on you 'gut feel'. We want a government of laws not of the "gut feeling mob'

    ReplyDelete
  48. Unfortunately, we have to recognize that the impeachment process is political - it is not some liberal negotiation of what best serves the people. Both PNoy and Corona claim to serve the interests of the people. It is not a conversation to determine what is constitutional, fair, just and right. It is a war between irreconcilable views on what constitutes a functional high court.

    It is a battle wherein either side believes that they, to the exclusion of the other, possess ascendancy, righteousness and virtue. PNoy might be right; Corona, likewise. As with every battle, only to the victor belong the spoils of war. Like it or not, the impeachment trial is a zero-sum game because it is, by its very nature, political.

    One can choose to be magnanimous by fighting fair, by not acting like a bully. But magnanimity is a quality that belongs only to the victor, or to the one perceived to hold an insurmountable advantage. No one seriously believes that the President or the prosecution holds such an advantage. And at the moment, I cannot say that PNoy will win this political confrontation.

    In the end, what is fair, what constitutes the 'rule of law', what constitutes a Chief Justice of irreproachable character and fitness, indeed must have some degree of stability in our body of law and experience. But it must always be subject to contestation - as it is now in this trial. And what becomes of our view of fair, rule of law and character, may or not change at the end of this trial - but believe me, to a large extent it hinges on who will win the favorable verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I wish the author would be kind enough to offer a reply to the many comments here. People make an effort to engage in dialogue; the least the author can do is to continue the dialogue by replying to the comments. Was that not the point of this blog? To engage its readers in fruitful discussions? Otherwise this blog is becoming nothing but intellectual masturbation.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Rodriguez, Torres, Reyes, panu na ba 'yan? Hindi talaga tugma ang SALN ni Corona sa pera niyang hawak Dagdag pa ang bahay, condo at lupa. Dagdag pa ang dollar accounts. Tunay na "unsettling" nga.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Convicted. 'Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete