The MMDA’s latest gimmick, Pink Cloth, takes off, according to INQ7. Yeah, it took off and crash-landed immediately.

Early last night I was witness to the Pinoy’s penchant for rule-breaking. You can’t blame the MMDA for resorting to pink gimmicks, from pink fences and now, pink clothes. These gimmicks are immutable signs of the lack of discipline in our part. You see, the MMDA has to erect pink fences just to remind drivers and commuters where to load and unload. However, we Filipinos are known on hurdling obstacles, and in this case, literally.

Last night after training, infront of the bus bays at Farmers Plaza, I saw these MMDA men carrying aluminum poles, with pink cloth in them, plus a bell. The commuters enter the lane assigned for a certain bus route. Great idea. So when a bus overstays its welcome, the MMDA man just lowers the pole at the lane exit, a flimsy way to stop riders from getting in on the bus. Also, the buses can no longer take passengers on the stop that is not assigned to their route.

The ideas were good. It’s just that there’s no stopping Pinoys from their rulebreaking habit. I get the idea why, since complying to the laws does not pay. You’ll see why.

Now, about the pink cloth. This plan failed. Let me describe the situation. The bus bay at Farmers is divided into two lanes. If you are facing EDSA North, on your right side is the lane assigned to the routes going Sta. Maria in Bulacan, Monumento, UE-Letre, Malanday/Marilao. On the middle, Fairview, Novaliches. The outermost left lane is free-for-all, but buses cannot load and unload passengers on that lane. Now, in the right lane, the exits are as follows (still facing EDSA North): Angat/Sta. Maria, Malanday/Monumento, exit to the next lane, UE-Letre/Monumento. To circumvent the ideas of MMDA, you can do two things. One, if you are bound to UE-Letre, line up in the Sta. Maria or Malanday exits. Buses, driven by typical Pinoy bus drivers, will stop on all exits to get passengers. So when the bus gets on its proper exit, the bus is full. Second, stay at the exit going to the middle lane. When the bus stops at the Malanday exit, get on the road and take the bus.

The passenger lanes are even divided into two – aircon and ordinary bus exits. A third way of circumventing rules – line up on the lane that has the lesser people; whether you will take an aircon or ordinary bus doesn’t matter.

So imagine what happened to me last night. It took me 30 minutes before I got in a bus. Since I wanted to take an aircon bus, I lined up on the aircon bus lane of the first UE-Letre bus stop. In horror, then rage, I saw UE-Letre buses loading at the bus stop assigned for Sta. Maria-bound buses! When those buses reached where I am, they were already full (and I won’t pay seventeen pesos to stand up in a packed bus). And when UE-Letre ordinary buses arrived, people lined up at the aircon lane boarded. All I could do last night was shake my head. Shook my head a lot of times.

The Pinoys don’t have the concept of lining up – when someone is ahead of you, you line up at his back (that’s the idea). But no, that’s not the Pinoy way – if you can get ahead of the queue, go for it! And last night I got to observe this Pinoy talent in practice. Unfortunately, most of those who did it were women.

The MMDA men’s actions (or I mean inaction) didn’t help. Laws and rules are useless if implementors of these cannot, do not, and will not implement them. Ideally there should be one MMDA man for each exit, and two more to tell bus drivers to move on. Last night, you could see their ineptness. No one was guarding the exit to the middle lane. They allowed buses to load at exits not assigned to these buses. Though I can’t blame these men, with emasculated powers to enforce these rules. So when the people openly defy their orders, what could the Blue Boys do?

And it saddens me to see these people openly defying the laws, the rules. Is lack of discipline, the lack of respect to rules, endemic to the Filipino nature? Is it an inseparable part of its character? Is it going to be part of our national identity?

I think it is not endemic to our nature, nor it is a part of our character. I have heard of amusing (maybe, not amusing at all) stories of rulebreakers becoming stickler to rules when abroad. My uncle is an example. He had already migrated to the United States, courtesy of his mother. He was a typical Pinoy – throws cigarrette butts anywhere, spits anywhere, crosses at the dangerous parts of the streets, inconsiderate driver – you know the drill. Imagine our shock when he came back here for a visit. He even told us to cross the street when the lights are red.

Everyone else is doing it, why can’t I? That’s the name of my co-worker’s blog, which was named one of the sexiest Pinay bloggers and who is due to leave our company. (Just plugging her blog. Go read it.) Anyway, I think that’s the usual justification that we Pinoys say when we break rules. I realized that last night. You see, being compliant to the laws and rules does not pay; see what happened to me last night. I could have transferred to the Sta. Maria/Malanday exits, and got home early. I could have stayed at the exit going to the middle lane, and took a bus there. But no, I chose to follow the rules, and see what it caused me.

And sometimes we view rules as impediments to our goals. These pink fences impedes our desire to get home early. Elections impede our desire to be in power. So what do we do? We short-circuit the process, we break or bend the rules to our advantage.

These pink fences, these pink clothes, these number schemes – these are signs that we Filipinos cannot be trusted in following rules. The rules are there to govern our behavior, to honor the rights of others. It is part of our social contract. And acting as if there are no rules is a sign of a sick mind. These pink fences, these pink clothes -they are signs that we are a sick country, a sick people. We are in need of healing. Badly.

Update: Read the decision (written by Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna) here.

These two weeks are rather frustrating for the Arroyo administration. (Or is it?)

ABS-CBN News has just reported that the Supreme Court, in a 13-0 decision, has declared the calibrated preemptive response policy as null and void. INQ7 has reported that the SC has directed the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to implement Section 15 of Batas Pambansa 880, which calls for local government to declare freedom parks.

The SC has given heads of cities and municipalities 30 days or else all parks will become freedom parks.

The score then stands at 2-1. (For Arroyo: one for National ID, 0.5 for EO464, and 0.5 for BP880. Against her: 0.5 for EO464, and 0.5 on CPR. I split the score on EO 464 and BP880/CPR.) Next for decision are the petitions against Proclamation 1017.

Expect Mike Arroyo to once again say “It has done its purpose”.

The SC should rule on 1017 soon; issuing its decision before May 1 is the best-case scenario. Why? Remember that Proclamation 1017 was issued last February 24, 2006, the 20th anniversary of EDSA1, on the pretext that there was an aborted coup. All rally permits were revoked, rallies were dispersed, some were arrested, a newspaper office was raided. And now, with the so-called Oplan 4G, another coup/destabilization effort is supposedly scheduled on May 1, in time for the usual Labor Day protest rallies. Arroyo will just issue a similar proclamation to suppress all these rallies if the 1017 issue remains unresolved by that time, since there is nothing to deter her from doing so.

It seems my claim that the SC will drag its feet on these cases were wrong. I even complained that this SC is beholden to Arroyo, given the Arroyo propensity to tell her detractors to sue her. I was wrong. The gameplan, really, was to give her space, so that the heat generated by her political woes would subside. They knew beforehand that what they were doing were illegal. They just need the time and space. And they got them.

---

The administration and its minions will now be hard pressed to identify freedom parks, and I presume they will choose small parks to designate. For example, Manila is a congested city, what are its options? Liwasang Bonifacio, Plaza Miranda, Plaza Lacson, Bonifacio Shrine in City Hall. Would Quezon City declare the People Power Monument as a Freedom Park? Will Pasig declare the EDSA Shrine as a freedom park? (Fat chance, the Catholic Church owns the land.) The decision lamented the fact that no freedom park exists except for Cebu’s Fuente Osmeña:

If this is so (referring to the non-compliance on Section 15), the degree of observance of B.P. No. 880’s mandate that every city and municipality set aside a freedom park within six months from its effectivity in 1985, or 20 years ago, would be pathetic and regrettable. The matter appears to have been taken for granted amidst the swell of freedom that rose from the peaceful revolution of 1986.

Also, BP 880 was declared in toto as constitutional. I think the only questionable part of that Marcos law is Section 6, which was abused by Lito Atienza. By not acting on the application, the law specifies that the application is deemed approved. The police interpreted it otherwise – City Hall not acting on an application is an outright denial of that application. The burden of proof that an application has been denied now lies on the authorities:

Furthermore, there is need to address the situation adverted to by petitioners where mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when the police demand a permit and the rallyists could not produce one, the rally is immediately dispersed. In such a situation, as a necessary consequence and part of maximum tolerance, rallyists who can show the police an application duly filed on a given date can, after two days from said date, rally in accordance with their application without the need to show a permit, the grant of the permit being then presumed under the law, and it will be the burden of the authorities to show that there has been a denial of the application, in which case the rally may be peacefully dispersed following the procedure of maximum tolerance prescribed by the law.

And there is also Section 12, calling for peaceful dispersal of rallies without permits. How can there be peaceful dispersal? What if the rallyists refuse to heed the calls of police to disperse? The police has no choice but to employ force; would you call that peaceful? And take note of the provision:

Sec. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. – When the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be peacefully dispersed. (Emphasis mine)

That provision speaks a lot. The government may or may not disperse rallies without permits. MAY. Not SHALL. On all instances, this government had chosen to disperse rallyist, according to law. It even used everything that was forbidden by the maximum tolerance provisions (Sections 3c, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). The question now is this: assuming that a rally has no permit, and the police has to disperse it, do the provisions of Sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 still apply?

In a speech before the graduating class of UP School of Economics, PCIJ’s Sheila Coronel spoke about poverty, the problems of the political system, and the possible explosion of the social volcano. She even said that her generation had failed, and it is the turn of the generation of the graduating class:

Ultimately, this means forging a new social compact, one built no longer on the mutual, if unevenly distributed, benefits of a system based on patronage and spoils. We need a social contract that is premised on the right of every citizen to the fundamentals of a decent life and on a more equitable sharing of the wealth our country produces.

This is your task now. The generations before you — including mine, which reached adulthood in the 1980s, at the dawn of people power — have failed. I am probably the same generation as your parents. Now in the throes of middle age, my generation has realized that many of our great hopes about this country have been frustrated, our big dreams of reform have turned to dust. While Edsa 1 is the defining experience of our lives and we will always be proud that we took part in restoring freedom, we have also failed to build a just and equitable society. That undertaking is yours. And as economists trained in the country’s premier university you are uniquely placed to play a reforming and nation building role. The UP School of Economics has a tradition for critical and innovative thought. For the past 20 years, it has upset presidents with its uncompromising analyses of our country’s economic problems. You are the bearers of this tradition.

Unlike her, though, I am not optimistic. For the example that our generation had shown to them had taught them to be apathetic, cynical, and indifferent. Yet, as Confucius had said, “A youth is to be regarded with respect. How do you know that his future will not be equal to our present?” I am willing to be surprised, but the indications are not good.

I was reading the decision of the Supreme Court on EO 464 (go read it here, it is very easy to read, except for the footnotes), and I can’t help but comment on certain points. Bear with me since this is rather haphazard. I will make a comment later.

The decision, written by Associate Justice Conchita Morales, began by stating the following:

A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a truly republican state. Even in the early history of republican thought, however, it has been recognized that the head of government may keep certain information confidential in pursuit of the public interest. Explaining the reason for vesting executive power in only one magistrate, a distinguished delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention said: “Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man, in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.”

History has been witness, however, to the fact that the power to withhold information lends itself to abuse, hence, the necessity to guard it zealously.

By the last line alone, we know how the decision will go. The decision then began stating the facts of the case in chronological order, and it quoted the contents of the controversial EO, which I reproduce here:

SECTION 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress. – In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress.

When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted in executive session.

SECTION. 2. Nature, Scope and Coverage of Executive Privilege. –

(a) Nature and Scope. – The rule of confidentiality based on executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995). Further, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that Public Officials and Employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest.

Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this executive order, including:

1. Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public official covered by this executive order (Almonte vs. Vasquez G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002);
2. Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998).
3. Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
4. Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
5. Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002).

(b) Who are covered. – The following are covered by this executive order:

1. Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
2. Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege;
3. Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive privilege;
4. Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and
5. Such other officers as may be determined by the President.

SECTION 3. Appearance of Other Public Officials Before Congress. – All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

After stating the facts, the decision began its inquiry whether the prerequisites of a judicial review of the case are present. The respondents, as represented by the Solicitor General (Alfredo Benipayo at that time, now Nachura), claim that all the petitioners have no legal standing, and thus the petitions should be dismissed for lack of merit. The Court saw otherwise, declaring all but one petitioner have legal standing.

As for whether there is an existence of an actual case or controversy, look how the Solicitor General argued that there is none:

Respondents counter that there is no case or controversy, there being no showing that President Arroyo has actually withheld her consent or prohibited the appearance of the invited officials. These officials, they claim, merely communicated to the Senate that they have not yet secured the consent of the President, not that the President prohibited their attendance. Specifically with regard to the AFP officers who did not attend the hearing on September 28, 2005, respondents claim that the instruction not to attend without the President’s consent was based on its role as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, not on E.O. 464.

You see, it is the habit of Gloria Arroyo to pass the blame; the argument presents those officials barred by the EO as the ones who had fault – merely communicated to the Senate that they have not yet secured the consent of the President. Nope, they did not attend not because Arroyo prohibited them; they just haven’t secured her consent. I would not be surprised if consent was not given at all.

The decision’s answer to this argument was powerful:

The Court finds respondents’ assertion that the President has not withheld her consent or prohibited the appearance of the officials concerned immaterial in determining the existence of an actual case or controversy insofar as E.O. 464 is concerned. For E.O. 464 does not require either a deliberate withholding of consent or an express prohibition issuing from the President in order to bar officials from appearing before Congress.

Precisely the reason why the said EO was issued – to prevent executive officials from attending legislative inquiries. Deliberate withholding of consent or express prohibition is unnecessary; the EO PREVENTS THEM FROM ATTENDING LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES. That’s the intended effect of EO 464.

OK, the decision upheld Section 1 and Section 2(a) on the grounds stated in Article VI, Section 22. In comparing Sections 21 and 22 of the said Article, the decision quoted from the Journal of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The decision states:

A distinction was thus made between inquiries in aid of legislation and the question hour. While attendance was meant to be discretionary in the question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation. The reference to Commissioner Suarez bears noting, he being one of the proponents of the amendment to make the appearance of department heads discretionary in the question hour.

And subsequent discussion states that the two inquiries are different in nature, and that attendance in inquiries in aid of legislation is compulsory, while attendance in the question hour is not. And EO 464’s sections 1 and 2a are valid insofar as the question hour is concerned. It has one caveat, however:

Section 1 cannot, however, be applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently made, either by the President herself or by the Executive Secretary.

On the legality of Section 3, I leave that to DJB, who has already blogged on it.

A recent comment to the previous post lamented the decision, calling it rotten, using the analogy of a rotten apple – who’d want a rotten one? I advanced, in reply, another analogy: if a trader sells you an apple with the rotten portions chopped off, would you buy it? The courts can invalidate a law in part and in full, and that’s what the Court did in this instance, like chopping off the rotten parts of an apple. And another friend commented that the decision seems like designed to please everybody.

No, I don’t like an apple with rotten part chopped off. A rotten apple should be thrown away.

In a stunning turn of events (in my case, at the very least), the Supreme Court in Baguio has reportedly declared the controversial Executive Order 464 unconstitutional. Though no official confirmation from Court spokesman Ismael Khan yet, ABS-CBN News and INQ7 have reported on the matter. The new elated the opposition, but Solicitor General Nachura is still in a fighting mood, vowing to ask the Court to reconsider its decision.

I think it is still too early for the opposition to be happy; after all, Khan has not yet confirmed the news.

Nachura thinks he can still convince the Court on the issue, since he believes the Court is divided on it. Wait and see mode, people. There is a press conference at 5:30 PM.

UPDATE: In a rather unique way, the SC has decided 14-0 to declare some sections of the EO as constitutional, and some are declared unconstitutional. Divide the score between the opposition and the administration.

From the summer capital (Baguio), the Supreme Court in its summer sessions has just declared constitutional the National ID System as contained in Executive Order 420. Ismael Khan, the Court spokesman, also said that the Court will decide on another EO, 464, Thursday. The vote was 12-2 in favor, Justice Carpio wrote the decision. (INQ7, ABS-CBN News)

The decision was made more than a year since the EO was issued. Score one for Arroyo. Will she score another one on Thursday? Is this decision a sign of things to come?

Romulo Macalintal is one of the known lawyers when it comes to election concerns. And the way he speaks is almost convincing – calm, cadenced, measured. He is a respectable guy at least.

Yet, I just can’t help but shake my head whenever I hear him say ad infinitum, that the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has spoken, that Gloria Arroyo’s victory can no longer be questioned, that she won fair and sqaure, and other sentences in those veins.

It is true that in legal terms, her victory in the 2004 elections can no longer be questioned, as the PET had already decided on the issue. But what was the basis for the PET’s decision? Take note that the PET had not even started counting ballots when the decision was issued March 29, 2005. That’s PET Case No. 002. Go read the said decision.

The said decision concentrated on Rule 14 of the PET Rules. It then applied Rule 3 Section 16 of the Rules of Court. As quoted by Justice Quisumbing:

Rule 14. Election Protest.–Only the registered candidate for President or for Vice-President of the Philippines who received the second or third highest number of votes may contest the election of the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, by filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within thirty (30) days after the proclamation of the winner.

Section 16 of Rule 3, Rules of Civil Procedure states:

SECTION 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. – Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs.

As a background: On July 23, 2004, the late Fernando Poe Jr. filed an election protest against the person declared by Congress acting as National Board of Canvassers “past midnight, in the early hours of June 24, 2004′ as the winner of the 2004 elections. Then on December 14 of the same year, the actor died.

His wife, Susan Roces, filed a motion to intervene as a substitute to her husband in the electoral protest in January 10, 2005. Her motion argued that she be allowed to be the substitute “to ascertain the true and genuine will of the electorate in the 2004 elections”, and

that even if the instant protest case succeeds, she is cognizant that as a mere substitute she cannot succeed, assume or be entitled to said elective office, and her utmost concern is not personal but one that involves the public’s interest. She prays, however, that if subsequently determined that the protestee Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did not get the highest number of votes for president, for protestee to be disallowed from remaining in office, and thus prevented from exercising the powers, duties, responsibilities and prerogatives reserved only to the duly-elected president or her legitimate successor.

Gloria Arroyo, through her lawyer (who else, Romulo Macalintal), filed a comment asserting that “the widow of a deceased candidate is not the proper party to replace the deceased protestant since a public office is personal and not a property that passes on to the heirs. She points out that the widow has no legal right to substitute for her husband in an election protest, since no such right survives the husband, considering that the right to file an election protest is personal and non-transmissible”.

And I quote more on Macalintal’s arguments as quoted by the decision:

Protestee also contends Mrs. FPJ cannot substitute for her deceased husband because under the Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, only the registered candidates who obtained the 2nd and 3rd highest votes for the presidency may contest the election of the president and patently, Mrs. FPJ did not receive the 2nd and 3rd highest votes for she was not even a candidate for the presidency in the election that is being contested.

Citing pertinent PET Rules, protestee also stresses that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction over actions of surviving spouses to ascertain the vote of the electorate as the Tribunal has jurisdiction only over election protests and quo warranto cases.

According to protestee, movant/intervenor Mrs. FPJ cannot use “the public interest” to justify her request to be substituted for her husband. “Public interest”, i.e. the need to dispel uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate, is applicable only in election contests, not in an action to merely “ascertain the true and genuine will of the people.” She asserts that the only case herein cognizable by this Tribunal is an election protest involving a protestant and a protestee, not between the electorate and the protestee. Citing analogous HRET cases, protestee avers that in a case where the protestant, the primary adversary in an election protest case dies, the public interest in said protest dies with him.

Protestee also contends that in the adversarial nature of a protest case where one of the parties dies, a correct ruling cannot be had because the dead protestant could no longer refute his adversary’s allegations because death has rendered him hors de combat.

Brilliant guy, isn’t he. And thus, history shows that Gloria Arroyo won because no qualified person filed an election protest; that FPJ’s election protest died with him; that no one can substitute for a dead protestee in election protests; and that public interest applies only on elections, “not in an action to merely “ascertain the true and genuine will of the people”.

The decision is guided by this:

We are not unaware that a contest before election tribunals has two aspects. First, it is in pursuit of one’s right to a public office, and second, it is imbued with public interest.

And the conclusion:

Acting on the protest and considering the Notice of the Death, submitted by counsel of protestant RONALD ALLAN POE, a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR., we also resolve that Presidential Electoral Tribunal Case No. 002, entitled Ronald Allan Poe a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr. v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, should be as it is hereby DISMISSED on the ground that no real party in interest has come forward within the period allowed by law, to intervene in this case or be substituted for the deceased protestant.

Nowhere in the decision is a statement that the ballots were examined and recounted. Nowhere is a statement that Gloria Arroyo, through the recount, really got more votes that FPJ. Where in the PET decision can we find that Arroyo won the election fair and square? And yet the crux of Macalintal’s statement that her victory is unquestionable lies only on the facts that (1) FPJ the protestant died; (2) Susan Roces was not a legal substitute for FPJ’s protest; and (3) no qualified person who may contest the elections filed a protest within 30 days after proclamation by the National Board of Canvassers. Yes, her victory can no longer be questioned in any court of law; but would her victory be confirmed by the truth?

Unfortunately, public interest is not in the minds of the members of the PET – the Davide Supreme Court. The public, the people, whose votes are reputed to be stolen – they are not parties to election protests:

She avers that she is “pursuing the process” to determine who truly won the election, as a service to the Filipino people. We laud her noble intention and her interest to find out the true will of the electorate. However, nobility of intention is not the point of reference in determining whether a person may intervene in an election protest. Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is the applicable rule on intervention in the absence of such a rule in the PET Rules. In such intervention, the interest which allows a person to intervene in a suit must be in the matter of litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the effect of the judgment.

Yet it was our votes which were reputedly to be stolen. My vote is personal to me. You take it away from me, you deprive me of my right. Have I not lost anything in this decision? YES! I LOST MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE PERSON TO LEAD MY COUNTRY!

I lament the thought that is slowly creeping in my head – the rule of law does not necessarily mean the rule of truth (or justice). The rule of law is fast becoming the rule of technicalities. And it’s all because of lawyers like Macalintal.

And to you, Mr. Macalintal – woe to you, for hiding behind technicalities. You won in the court of law, but not necessarily in the court of truth.

UPDATE: In an interview (in Filipino) with DZMM, Macalintal once again said that the 2004 poll fraud allegations are already closed, and I quote:

Well kahit pa tapos ang term wala naman akong nakikitang anumang ebidensiya. Kung ang sinasabi niya ay ‘yung video na ipinakita n’yo diyan sa isang news item.

Alam mo ano ba ang nakita natin doon, ang nakita natin doon ay dalawa o tatlong taong naglalakad sa dilim ‘yun lamang ang ebidensyang pinatutunayan noon, kung ano ang ginagawa ng taong ‘yon, kung ano ang dala niya walang makapagsabi.

‘Yung video na ‘yon ay hindi nagsabi na mayroong isang balota na nadagdag kay Pangulong Arroyo o kaya ay may isang balotang nabawas kay [Fernando Poe Jr.]

There was supposed to be a video showing that ballot boxes were being transferred, and Macalintal was reacting to this. The highlighted text is roughly translated as such: That video doesn’t show that there is one vote added for Arroyo nor one vote was subtracted from FPJ’s vote.

Nowhere in the PET decision was it stated that there is a vote added for Arroyo nor a ballot subtracted from FPJ. He keeps on harking on that decision, when it only dismissed the protest on the ground of technicality, not because there was a recount.

---

The opposition is not blameless. They should know the law, yet it did what was done. Maybe Sixto Brillantes is not as brilliant (ironic) as Macalintal. The disunity of the opposition has cost the people a lot. No wonder people like Austero would rather be apathetic.

The said decision merits a few more questions, but as they say, they are moot and academic.

What would you do if you received a comment like this?

Kayo ang mga hipokrito dahil hindi ninyo kayang lunukin ang katotohanan na mas ginagalang pa ng marami ang mga katulad ni Davide kaysa kay Cory Aquino na isang ulyanin at may anak na palengkera na hindi niya kayang i-disiplina.

I quote them Matthew 7:1-6 (NIV quoted here):

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Speaking of hypocrisy, have you received those messages during the Holy Week, like asking that if you love God, you should forward the message to twenty of your friends, or something like that? I had loads of them, but I have not forwarded any. I am reminded of Matthew 6:5-6:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

I maintain that faith is not for display.