In one of the latest proofs why the House of Representatives is superior to the Philippine Senate, a congressman whose son is a Cabinet member claims that some members of the House contingent in the Commission on Appointments are asking for money or projects in exchange for confirmation of presidential appointment.

This is a nice game of “Who is it”? First let us name the members of the House contingent to the CA:

* Prospero Pichay Jr. of Surigao del Sur
* Jesus Jurdin Romualdo of Camiguin
* Eduardo Veloso of Leyte
* Marcelino Libanan of Eastern Samar (now immigration commissioner)
* Prospero Amatong of Compostela Valley
* Manuel Ortega of La Union
* Rafael Nantes of Quezon
* Antonino Roman of Bataan
* Aurelio Umali of Nueva Ecija
* Victor Sumulong of Antipolo City
* Harlin Habayon of Northern Samar
* Rolex Suplico of Iloilo.

The congressman who blew the whistle, Herminio Teves of Negros Oriental gave the following clues:

* Some congressmen who demanded money from Cabinet members and generals ran in the May 14 elections but lost
* Others were third-term House members like him who were not qualified to seek re-election but who fielded their wives in their districts to be their successors (Unfortunately, their wives lost, he said.)
* This Inquirer report has more clues:

Earlier in a TV interview over ANC, Teves was asked if one of the members of the so-called Big Five had run for the Senate. He replied in the affirmative.

Asked if the congressman had lost, he said: “Use your imagination.”

Two members of the House named a fellow congressman involved in the supposed extortion activities in the CA.

According to the two lawmakers—a man from the opposition and a woman from the administration—their colleague ran a highly expensive campaign but lost in the midterm elections.

Oh boy this is fun. View the lists here and here for confirmation.

* Romualdo is a third-termer; Pedro Romualdo is replacing him.
* Veloso is a third-termer; I’m not sure if any of his relatives run, but no Veloso is in the list of winners for Leyte.
* Libanan is a third-termer; his wife lost in the elections.
* Amatong is a third-termer; Rommel Amatong is replacing him.
* Ortega is a third-termer; Victor Ortega is replacing him.
* Nantes is a third-termer; I’m not sure if any of his relatives run, but no Nantes is in the list of winners for Quezon.
* Roman is a third-termer; I’m not sure if Herminia Batista-Roman is his wife.
* Umali ran as governor; I’m not sure if Czarina Umali is his wife or daughter.
* Sumulong either lost or is a third-termer; Robbie Puno is replacing him.
* Suplico is a third-termer; his wife lost the congressional race to Raul Gonzalez Jr.
* Pichay ran for the Senate and lost.

Pichay issues a denial. Suplico calls on Teves to name names. There are two congressmen who ran for senator under Team Unity: Pichay and Migs Zubiri.

Sirit?

You know, if you extend a hand of reconciliation and the other party refuses, you do not slap the other party. It only shows how dishonest you are with the insincerity of your reconciliation effort.

Immediately after Mike Arroyo got out of the hospital (after a successful operation), he vowed to have his libel suits withdrawn, which he did, after the damage has been done. In retaliation for all the libel suits, some of those he sued filed a class suit against him. Even if the libel suits were withdrawn, these journalists chose to push ahead with the class suit. And why should they? As I have said, the damage has been done. Read this post by Ellen Tordesillas.

And now, to show that Mike Arroyo is one insincere guy, his lawyer is now turning the tables against those who filed the class suit, using the much-vaunted rule by law: he wants the Makati RTC to have 8 journalists arrested for not attending court hearings. Why should they, when he plans to use them as hostile witnesses?

You know why no one wants to trust you, Mr. Arroyo? Because you are one insincere man.

Last Friday, I was off somewhere in Makati when I found out that the coup charges against Gregorio Honasan were dropped by the Department of Justice. The order was signed by no less than the poster boy of the Arroyo Administration, Raul Gonzalez. I saw the 90-plus-page order – the last page, at least, and there’s the signature. (That day was ironic, though that’s one of the unbloggable days of my life.)

This comes two months after the DoJ indicted Honasan for the same crime after he was granted bail. And Raul Gonzalez even tried blaming the Supreme Court for the Makati RTC’s decision to allow Honasan to post bail!

Anyway, I saw him on TV Friday night, and again he claims that he will be independent once he assumes his seat in the Philippine Senate. I highly doubt it. The circumstances behind his release, the DoJ’s abrupt about-face, the denial by the Fortress and Honasan that there is a deal – these things don’t add up.

Anyway, as I have said last month, for all intents and purposes, Gringo is TU.

Miriam Santiago must be thinking that since the election campaign period is over, it’s time for people like her to hog the limelight. In her case, she did twice within the span of a week.

Last week, she called senators who refrained from pork barrel as “gago”. She always get away in saying stupidsilly things, like that famous “I lied ha ha ha” idiocy eons ago (I think that quote got her re-elected).

Now, she claims that Senator Antonio Trillanes IV will have to serve his term in jail until he is acquitted. She cited the Constitution’s equal protection clause and the case of the pardoned, convicted child rapist Romeo Jalosjos. The news item cites her as a constitutional expert, which for me is argumentum ad verecundiam.

It is argumentum ad verecundiam because the assertion that Trillanes will have to serve in jail is not valid just because a so-called Constitutional expert says so. Besides, the case of Jalosjos and Trillanes are different. Here is the Supreme Court decision, People v. Jalosjos, on Jalosjos’ appeal to be allowed to serve in Congress, which Santiago cited. In the Jalosjos case, he ran as congressman after he was convicted and his case was on appeal. In Trillanes’ case, he is charged but not yet convicted.

Now, while this case is worthy of a lengthy blog post, let’s concentrate on Santiago instead. She did not have to dip her fingers on the issue. She was not asked to issue an opinion; she released a press statement. She has the right to express her opinion, true, but I can’t help but ask – why? And the fact that her opinion is debatable makes things more fuzzy.

Maybe she is gunning for 2010?

—

Argue on the issue of Trillanes. Here are some statutes to guide you in the discussion:

* In her concurring opinion on People v. Jalosjos, Justice Gonzaga-Reyes quoted Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, to wit:

All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

* She also quoted Article VI, Section 11 of the same document:

A Senator of Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.

* The main opinion in the Jalosjos case cites Article III, Section 1:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Which brings us to the next.

* Jalosjos’ motion cites Aguinaldo v. Santos (212 SCRA 768, at 773 [1992]):

The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When a people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with the knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the Court, by reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people.

Note that the said case pertains to an administrative one.