The debate about the economy, to me, is just political noise and not much else. Why should senatorial candidates debate about a topic that is clearly the domain of the executive? Sure, legislators enact economic laws, but they do so because the executive asks them to do so.

In the presidential system of government, it is the executive that sets the economic agenda, and calls on the legislative to enact laws that will support this agenda. Legislators may file bills of economic nature from time to time, but those bills do not fit the agenda, they are not prioritized.

So where does the Senate fit into the so-called debate on the economy? Why debate on statistics? Can they correlate those figures with the bills passed by the Congress?

(Besides, government numbers are always disputed; see this column by Manuel Buencamino. All I can say is this: changing the rules in mid-game is called cheating.)

And as MLQ3 has said, making the economy as the topic of the debate is a double-edged sword. It can always boomerang against the one who threw it.

John Marzan has a continuing post on the issues that should be tackled by the opposition.

Electoral reform and political reform, for starters. We keep on lamenting the kind of politics that we have, yet we fail to take our legislators to task when it comes to these matters. See this PCIJ post for what could have been.

Maybe the economy-as-debate-topic is just a smokescreen to hide other issues that should be tackled.

Is Alan Peter Cayetano more of talk, less of substance?

He is one of the most vocal (and to some, the noisiest) opponents of Gloria Arroyo at the House of Representatives, and the people had seen his performance during the failed impeachment attempts. At that point, he was already considered a senatoriable.

And what a thorn he was to Mike Arroyo’s side. His “expose” of a supposed secret bank account had led to Arroyo’s attempt to have him expelled from the House. However, many are bewildered by Cayetano’s refusal to present his evidence and on his insistence that Arroyo sign a waiver, leading the people believe he is just blustering and fishing.

Cayetano has a plausible reason for such insistence: the secret account cannot be revealed unless Arroyo says anyone can look at it. Arroyo got a certification from a German bank, stating that he has no account with the said bank. At first glance, Cayetano appeared to be a fool.

I cannot blame others if they doubt the competence and reputation of Cayetano. He has yet to show his true mettle. I suggest that he refrain from his attacks and instead tell the people in simplest terms his legislative agenda. (Heck, all senatorial candidates should do this.)

At the end of the day, the people will tell him to either put up or shut up.

—

PS: If there’s one argument for the scrapping of the bar exams, it is one name: Oliver Lozano.

With the apathy that most of us displayed when the 21st anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolution passed by, Gloria Arroyo had fittingly buried the EDSA phenomenon by calling on Filipinos to forsake another EDSA.

Fittingly, for she had hijacked that phenomenon in 2001 to meet her own goals. And with the people badly burned by the experience, she played with that apathy with skill so that EDSA will not be used against her.

The shot that started it all began in 2001. The final blow happened last year, when all possible EDSA moments were trashed by Proclamation 1017 and the calibrated preemptive response. The statement made by Arroyo yesterday was the burial eulogy.

And the fact that only a thin crowd was there to witness the burial ceremony was a sign that its death is already fait accompli. Afterall, the people are rather busy attending to more important things – the Kris Aquino-James Yap-Hope Centeno story and the start of Pinoy Big Brother, to name a few.

Twenty one years ago today is a long time for a lot of people. And most of the Filipinos alive today have no inkling of what had happened on that faithful day. No thanks for people like Tito Sotto, the quintessential comedian of the Philippine politics.

He was an FPJ partisan in 2004, he was until this year, when, typical of a Filipino politician, jumped over the fence. And he even had the gall to claim that FPJ would have supported his decision to join Team Unity. FPJ’s soul must be furious. (Inquirer report)

Then he went on to claim the FPJ’s widow, Susan Roces, supports him. Unfortunately, the journalists were responsible enough not to verify from Ms. Roces herself. (Another point for “responsible” journalism.)

To drive my point made in the first paragraph, Sotto was busy defending his decision:

What I said before has been said. We will not move forward if we dwell in the past. I have to respect the alliances of my new situation, if it ever pushes through. That’s it, let me keep my peace. (emphasis mine; same Inquirer report)

WE WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD IF WE DWELL IN THE PAST. Look where we are now, Mr. Sotto. If the people do not dwell in the past, congratulations. You are on your way to the Senate.

And that’s why, twenty one years later, we are still in the same muck we are in. The same fools are still fooling us, all because we do not dwell in the past.

I’m confused. Is Mike Defensor aspiring for a Senate seat or for a role in a Star Cinema movie? Gauging the TV ads and campaign posters, Mr. Defensor is acting (pun) as if he is an audition.

Instead of presenting his ideas or legislative priorities, he is projecting (pun) himself as someone’s utol (brother). He is confused; he thinks he is running for an executive post.

Then in campaign sorties, he uses the “Ibabahay ko kayo” joke (a double-meaning joke), in allusion to his previous post as housing czar.

He was also a former congressman, representing Quezon City; he was also part of the so-called Spice Boys, those congressmen who made noise during the eve of Estrada’s downfall.

And he also formulated the Defensor Postulate at the height of the Hello Garci scandal. The postulate goes like this:

x=~x

You know, “it’s her voice but she was not the one speaking.”

Brilliant guy. Give him the Best Actor award, please.

As the 2007 electoral campaign drags on slowly, the more Joker Arroyo shows what a joke he has become since the martial law days.

His political career from 2000 onwards has shown a path towards an inconsistency that is hard to understand. In 2001, his campaign ad showed his opening speech at the aborted Estrada impeachment trial, when he said that “we cannot have a country run by a thief.” This year, his ad states that he had defended the Constitution, the Senate, and the Bill of Rights.

So far so good. But he is now under the administration ticket, the administration being headed by someone that tried to bamboozle the Senate’s right to conduct investigations (EO 464) and the right of the people to assemble (CPR, PP 1017). In short, he allied himself with the very same person that he had opposed several times. He allied himself with someone that had tried to cost him his job.

Then he said that Gloria Arroyo is still the best defender of the Constitution. How many times did the Supreme Court declared several administration policies as unconstitutional?

Pag bad ka, lagot ka? Tell that to the Philippine Marines!

DJB has a very strong indictment of Joker Arroyo here and here.

(Absurd – inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense.)

—

This is the first in the (projected) series on the 2007 senatorial candidates.