And he’s on video!
We happened to be along EDSA when the convoy carrying Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante passed by. So we joined the convoy up to St. Luke’s Medical Center. This 2-minute video was taken when the convoy was several hundred meters away from the hospital. At 1:40 mark you will see Bolante on stretcher.
The consensus I am hearing right now (specially over at Filipino Voices) is to let Gloria Arroyo finish her term in 2010. The reasons for this consensus includes: all legal efforts to put her accountable have failed (read: squashed), and she has less than 3 years left in her term. Is this consensus sound? I disagree on the account that it is not to her best interest for Arroyo to step down. She can expect several criminal cases being filed against her, and she cannot afford them. She will be asked to explain everything that she have tried (and still trying) so hard to avoid for the past 3 years.
Granting that those will be her motivation not to step down, what would she do to make sure her future is secure (by at least making sure at the least that she would step down in peace, unmolested by cases upon cases)? Unfortunately, time is on her side, and some of the pieces necessary for her plans are in place already.
One option is Charter change or Chacha. This option has been explored since 2005, back when the Hello Garci scandal broke out and Arroyo almost lost the presidency (which was not hers in the first place, as some groups contend), only to be thwarted by the Senate (for disagreeing with the Constituent Assembly or ConAss route) and the Supreme Court (for putting Singaw, este, Sigaw ng Bayan, in its proper place, effectively killing people’s initiative). The Chacha via ConAss option is the most viable, and will be explored further later.
Another option is the imposition of some sort of emergency rule or martial law. She was close to declaring one back in 2006; according to sources unknown, the US had put its foot down, and then Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz disagreed with the idea. The scenario was ideal for the situation: a state of rebellion was declared February 24, 2006 (ostensibly because there was supposed to be a coup) to prevent another EDSA Dos, and then the Philippine Marines had their affair at Fort Bonifacio two days later. Proclamation 1017, which placed the country under a state of rebellion, was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The second option, the military one, is prolly her last card, to be put in play when losing is very much possible. Of course, it will depend on a very loyal chain of command, where she needs to court military officials. This can be expensive, and reliability of officers is an issue.
That leaves her with Chacha via ConAss. From the very beginning, the Senate has been the stumbling block in the ConAss plans, first because the opposition has the numbers (though this is actually superficial), and second, it is insistent on the separate voting rule. Now this is where the Supreme Court enters.
The bone of contention, ladies and gentlemen, is Article XVII, Section 1 of the Constitution:
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Look closely at item 1. Amendments or revisions may be proposed by The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members. This is the provision that the House of Representatives wants to use to force ConAss into the nation’s ass, and which the Senate is resisting. This piece of sloppy writing will have to be decided by the Supreme Court; specifically, whether the Constitution says that the vote is 3/4 of all members of The Congress (meaning, both houses voting combined), or 3/4 of members of each House (voting separately). Some quarters think that Section 1 is clear enough, which is true at cursory reading. The Supreme Court will have to ascertain the intent of the framers of the Charter to decide on this matter.
In an ideal situation, that’s how the Supreme Court should handle the case. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.
Newsbreaks has a series of articles about the current Supreme Court, and it is instructive. This passage is most instructive and apropos to what I want to convey:
Data show that the three justices who dissented on PP 1017 case, namely Justices Corona, Tinga and Velasco, have consistently been voting as a bloc in other critical and tight cases.
For instance, the three justices voted as one in the closely-decided initiative petition filed by the Raul Lambino which challenged the Commission on Elections’ refusal to hold a plebiscite to amend the Constitution. The SC, by a vote of 8-7 on Oct. 2006, ruled to junk the petition. Joining the three magistrates in the minority were Puno, Leonardo Quisumbing, Minita-Chico-Nazario and the now retired Cancio Garcia.
Corona, Tinga and Velasco also voted as a group in rejecting the motion to quash, filed by San Juan Mayor JV Ejercito, the subpoena issued to Export and Import Bank and Equitable-PCI bank to produce certain bank documents. Nine justices denied Ejercito’s petition, three dissented and three took no part.
In the executive privilege case of former socio-economic planning secretary Romulo Neri, the three beefed up the majority, 9-6, who upheld the invocation of secrecy. Corona, Tinga and Velasco were also with the seven minority in the Moro ancestral domain case.
xxx
The latest case where the three justices took a similar stance was the Moro ancestral domain case. They were joined by four others to form the minority.
Next year, 5 justices will retire, 2 of them in the first quarter. All she needs to do is to appoint friendlies and loyalists to the Supreme Court. All she needs is a convincing majority to legitimize her attempts to prolong her stay at the Fortress. And that is what her closet supporters need to give her their tacit support.
You might be saying this is bullshit. Newsbreak has the bad news for you:
One of the basic principles, as adopted by the United Nations, is that the independence of the judiciary “shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution…It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.”
Moreover, the basic principles state that “the judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
Ideally, this should be the case. But as a Court of Appeal justice observed, in a politically charged environment like in the Philippines, other factors, such as justices’ beliefs, inclinations and aspirations play a crucial role on how laws and rules are interpreted.
To convince you further that the ConAss route is the most viable option for Arroyo (via the Supreme Court), Newsbreak has been kind enough to post the voting pattern of the current justices of the Supreme Court. Read and weep.
And weep more, as the first salvo heralding the use of this option has been fired: SC asked to decide on constitutionality of House rule on Cha-cha.
The road to 2010 is clear.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b58e7912-0d1e-4613-b06c-d665653c4a26)
It’s been a while since I last did a restaurant review. The last one I did was in August; for a resto in the Philippines it was in May. As a sign of changing lifestyles and budget constraints, I find myself cooking more and eating out less. But my Dear and I still do eat out at least once a week, usually near her office. Here are brief reviews of three restaurants we’ve visited recently (in alphabetical order). An explanation of the scores can be seen here.
Annabel Lee
Promenade II, Greenhills Shopping Center
San Juan City, Metro Manila
Half Italian restaurant half foodcourt concessionaire mutant. Pretty decent actually, and was one of Tatler’s top restaurants for 2007. Service is good and professional. I had the Roast Beef Sandwich (P190) and my Dear had the Puttanesca Pasta (P160)– the entrees had good flavour and they were of fine quality, but the serving sizes were, like the waitresses’ skirts, on the small size. I also bought a soft baguette (P75) to take home– not bad but not spectacular either, which can also be said for the restaurant. I don’t think any winged seraphs of heaven will covet this Annabel Lee.
Quality = 6.5
Size = 4.0
Taste = 7.0
Ambience = 4.0
Service = 6.0
Value = P267.21
Price = P250.00
Sulit Rating = 1.07 > 1
Choi Garden
Annapolis Street, Greenhills
San Juan City, Metro Manila
This Chinese restaurant is so popular Barack Obama will want to be seen with it. It is so packed with customers you have to call in a reservation if you don’t want to wait 45 minutes to get a table. They have a fairly sized parking area, but there are just too much cars that have to be parked. The place itself is big and the service is decent, but the sheer number of people can dampen the overall dining experience. But it’s all about the food. Our regular (i.e., cheaper side of the menu) orders include siomai topped with sharksfin or siolong pao (dumplings filled with meat and soup) for appetisers, sauteed greens with garlic, and a main course of steamed fish with garlic or spicy spare ribs. The fare can get easily grander than this, with various kinds of fresh seafood (groupers, lobsters, crabs, etc.) and a selection of Chinese charcuterie collectively called roasting. Our favourite dessert is mango pudding, which is basically mango tapioca submerged in evaporated milk. Good food at a reasonable price– the definition of sulit.
Quality = 7.0
Size = 7.0
Taste = 7.5
Ambience = 6.0
Service = 6.0
Value = P559.38
Price = P250.00
Sulit Rating = 2.24 > 1
Good Burger
Connecticut Carpark, Greenhills Shopping Center
San Juan City, Metro Manila
A vegetarian burger place, for those who like hamburgers but don’t like the meat. Vegemeat doesn’t usually inspire confidence in me but this was worth a try, if only to see how not bad vegemeat can be. The pleace itself is pretty clean but small and not so comfortable; better have your burgers delivered. The burgers, which are flame-grilled, come in three sizes: good (1 regular patty), better (1 bigger patty), and best (2 regular patties). My Dear got the Margherita Burger (good, P90) and I got the Persian Burger (best, P95). The Margherita has tomatoes and basil while the Persian has aioli and bell peppers (they were supposed to be roasted but I guess they didn’t bother anymore). We also had a side of Regular Wedge Fries (P30)– I think we got eight pieces. Overall, not so bad considering the price and that it’s vegemeat. It’s a pretty decent alternative if you really don’t like meat.
Quality = 5.0
Size = 5.0
Taste = 5.5
Ambience = 2.5
Service = 3.5
Value = P113.12
Price = P100.00
Sulit Rating = 1.13 > 1
One of the political institutions that is destroyed by the current regime is the impeachment process. The impeachment is the only way to hold an incumbent president accountable for his actions. This political exercise is vested on Congress as representatives of the Filipino people.
Unfortunately, it went the way of the dodo in 2005. Many attempts at reviving it were made, but all of the attempts were sabotaged by the usual suspects.
This year’s attempt was sabotaged by the opposition itself.
First, you do not announce your war plans. Unless it is an attempt to fool the enemy, the blustering by Harry Roque is sheer foolishness. He should know that the Fortress was already anticipating this year’s impeachment (see that pathetic attempt by Oliver Lozano to mail-in his complaint); after his foolishness, the House Secretary General fled the coop and went to Switzerland for Heaven knows what for. You just cannot book a flight to Switzerland that fast. But you can always cancel or reschedule a flight.
Second, you do not disarm your own weapon. Dropping the unconstitutional Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain from the complaint is like firing blanks. Granted that the complaint contains substantial charges, the Fortress’ attack dogs will only say that this year’s complaint is just a rehash of last year’s complaint (as they are saying now) and thus deserves the garbage bin. If you have to throw the book, make sure that the book is thick enough to hurt. In this case, they threw a thin pamphlet.
Now, many people are questioning the wisdom behind the impeachment process. Some people are now saying that we should concentrate on the economy instead, a line that was gleefully picked up by the regime as a propaganda line (brilliant, by the way). Some people say it’s futile anyway, so why bother? Heck, even one oppositionist not only echoed the standard propaganda line about the economy, he also said it will only give more money to the Fortress attack dogs at the House of Reprehensibles!
Our country will never be the same again after this. All of those institutions that were established to keep things check are no more, subsumed by ambition and greed. And this time, aided and abetted by the opposition itself.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9428039b-a3d2-4d0b-af56-51a52c60cac9)
I will not bother with the technicalities and provisions of the Reproductive Health Bill that is being debated in the House of Representatives. You can read the contents of the bill and decide for yourself. Just the same, let me express my support for the bill, with my main argument centering on the freedom of choice and the government’s duty to provide its citizens the widest choice possible when it comes to reproductive health.
First, the freedom of choice is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Instead, it is divided into several freedoms as stated in the Bill of Rights (Article III), like (but not limited to) freedom of speech and of expression, freedom of religious worship, and the non-imposition of a poll tax. Also, in Roman Catholic theology, free will is universally accepted and respected (there’s an “as long as” after that, but I leave that to theologians). When a man and a woman gets married, they do so on their own choice and free will (unless it’s an arranged or shotgun wedding). When a married couple choose to have children or not, they do so on their own choice and free will. Whatever mode of family planning that they choose, the Church and the government has no right to interfere with the said choice (as long as the choice is not incompatible with existing laws); nor does it have the right to deny the choice as long as it is not contrary to law. The Church may morally convince the couple to choose the natural method, but since it has lost the power to impose its will (come on, excommunication is just an empty threat), it can do no more.
Second, I have already stated this before (in the post The Church and the State), and I will state it again: “The Government must promote (not push) artificial family planning to those who are willing to use it. It should not be denied to those who need it most. I believe that the policy should be of promotion, not institutionalization.” Let me refine by saying that the government must promote all family planning methods. This is the Government’s duty.
Unfortunately, the current regime has chosen to act as part of the Catholic Taliban and made natural method its family planning policy. So a poor couple (and the woman has an irregular period) who wants to control the number of offspring cannot expect the government to hand them out condoms and/or pills. I think this policy violates the couple’s freedom of choice. This is a gross dereliction of duty by this regime.
I believe that the Reproductive Health Act (if enacted) will hopefully correct this abusive, short-sighted, and counterproductive policy. It makes the policy a law so that a tyrant cannot just arbitrarily impose his/her religious belief on everyone. The RH Bill is a step in the right direction.
—
But I am not that hopeful about the future of the bill. The delaying tactics by congressmen on both sides of the aisle (I am terribly disappointed with the opposition, to be honest) is working, and the bill might pass by a very narrow vote (or be utterly defeated). And what about the Senate version? The Senate is having one of its obligatory intramural, and most likely the counterpart bill would be shuffled in the recycled bin. And even it it passes the Senate, Gloria Arroyo can always veto it. Depending on how the votes go, both Houses of Congress would need more than just a simple majority to overturn the veto. So, yes, it is an uphill climb, and the future is bleak. But who knows? Divine intervention might choose to exercise divine irony.
The success of the bill’s local counterpart in Quezon City is an exception unless other local governments enact similar ordinances. It can be done, and it is more manageable.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=80af8ef7-4bb4-4e41-a3d4-c0f97afb9ab7)