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.

The Holy Week is one of those weeks that we can get some respite and peace. People either troop to the provinces, go to resorts, or go to retreats and other similar religious activities. The roads in Metro Manila are empty (Thursday night and early Friday morning Katipunan Ave. was so empty your car could cruise at 120KPH without any serious problems) and most businesses shut down.

And some Roman Catholic believers practice their beliefs in different ways – from the calm (Visita Iglesia, Pabasa), to the hysteric (flagellation, crucifixion).

DJB recently asked, Wasn’t one crucifixion enough? Of course it is! The crux of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ had died to pay for our sins, so that our sins are forgiven. In short, all we have to do is to believe and to follow God’s words.

Yet for some of us, His sacrifice is not enough. They have to resort to extreme forms of punishment, as stated earlier. This is pure arrogance, pure narcississm. Sheer arrogance, for they have arrogated themselves the absolution that only God can give. As stated by DJB in his comments:

Now, when I interviewed one of the crucified to ask WHY they all did this sort of thing at Lent, he said simply that he was a sinful man and that this was his way of atoning for the evil things he had done, tho we didn’t get into that.

Of course we atone for our sins. But to atone by doing what had been done to Christ – what arrogance! What faith! By doing what had been done to Christ, they assume that what Christ had undergone does not suffice to cover for their sins. How arrogant!

And DJB continues:

But if the kids know who he is, or maybe he is their father or uncle, then there might arise the natural suspicion of being guilty of “praying in public so people can see our piety.” Jesus (and Garry Willis) castigate this a hypocrisy.

Now I can see how narcissism might creep in, if this man, (whom of course I am unfairly ASSUMING is being hypocritical) also admires himself for being so clever, convincing his kids he’s actually ATONING for drinking, womanizing or beating them up all year long.

I think this business of displaying our holiness in public is a tad hypocritical and a way of saying, “See, I am holier than you might think I am.”

In the end, I believe that this practice is just for the show – a display to feed their narcissism, to show the world how “faithful” they are.

And then, The Bystander note that this week is a show of religious hypocrisy. His words are so powerful, I reproduce some of them here:

Don’t get me wrong. I am Catholic too. I was not only “born” Catholic. I, like many of the corrupt politicians we now have, was raised, schooled and brought up as a Catholic. So why am I questioning Catholicism as if it was the cause of all these cultural, social and even political mess? Nope, I am not really questioning Catholicism as a doctrine. I am only questioning how it is practiced in the Philippines with the acquiescence of the local Catholic heirarchy. For example, while we hear priests explain that they haven’t authorized the practice of imitating the passion and crucifixion of Jesus Christ during Holy Week, their token disapproval stops right there. I have yet to hear them clarify to the faithful that being nailed to a makeshift cross will not erase their sins nor guarantee salvation in the afterlife. Unfortunately, this ritual has transformed into a religious spectacle, nourishing not the spirit but the pockets of businessmen who take advantage of this stupidity by making it as a lucrative tourist attraction.

Likewise, every year during Holy Week, I never fail to notice our honorable politicians, perhaps by miracle, suddenly sound like innocent public servants asking the Lord (or is it the jueteng lord?) for wisdom and guidance in the conduct of their day to day affairs. We always see them on TV either volunteering as lay ministers or talking about Christ’s message of love and repentance — as if we are unaware how ruthless and corrupt they have become or how ruthless and corrupt they will continue to be once the Holy Week ends. I am not at all surprised of this phenomenon. This is the time of the year when even the devil can quote the Bible.

The same holds true for some Filipinos. All year long they preoccupy themselves with gossiping, mudslinging and backbiting their enemies, friends, neighbors and even relatives. When Holy Week comes, you see them lining up in churches and in other sacred spots throughout the archipelago holding the rosary in one hand while the other hand is busy texting his/her lover that they will meet somewhere so they could continue praying the rosary together in the cover of darkness. So much for spending time with GOD during Holy Week! Again, don’t get me wrong. I am not condemning those who exert effort to repent and mend their ways. We are all sinners in His eyes. What I am aghast about is this never ending sight of hypocrites using religious rituals to make it appear that they are in constant communication with GOD.

To end this post, let me post here my comment at the quoted post of Bystander:

A church that is packed? More likely the people there are just fulfilling what they think is their Sunday obligation. People coming and going in the middle of the service – is that faith? It’s narcissism, it’s contempt for the God they worship.

We have the wrong manifestation of faith. Maybe that’s why this is a God-forsaken country.

The issue of who represents the Center has been debated in several blog entries and comments. John Nery has devoted two blog entries: Where does the center lie and Solita no more. Read them and the comments made by readers. Atty. Lacierda rebutted Nery’s contention that Solita Monsod represents the Center; where Solita goes, so does the Center.

As for me, the Center has been defined by M. Scott Peck in the People of the Lie. In his discussion on the Vietnam War, he postulated the reason why the American people let themselves drown in the muck of lies called the Vietnam War. His description of the American society at that time fits my belief of what the Center is. He answered the question “why were most of us not aroused to ire or suspicion or even significant outrage about the nature of war” this way:

Once again we are confronted with our all-too-human laziness and narcissism. Basically, it was just too much trouble. We all had our lives to lead – doing our day-to-day jobs, buying new cars, painting our houses, sending our kids to college. As the majority of any group are content to let the leadership be exercised by the few, so as a citizenry we were content to let the government “do its thing”. It was Johnson’s job to lead, ours to follow. The citizenry was simply too lethargic to become aroused. (p. 279)

That is the Center. That is where the Center is.

Ano ba talaga, Ate?

After announcing, and then withdrawing, the conferment of the National Artist title on Fernando Poe Jr., the Fortress by the Pasig announced that the announcement made days ago stays. It even denies taking back the title given to FPJ. ABS-CBN News posted a reaction by a Poe family friend.

This made me laugh:

He said “there must have been a lapse somewhere but … the conferment [of the] awards is in June, so in a maximum of two weeks, everything will be final,” he said.

“I don’t think it’s anyone’s fault. The Protocol and OPS just did not know that the documentation process was not yet finished,” he said.

“I don’t think there’s anything to apologize for. These things happen,” Ermita said.

Yeah, like that of July, 2005? They really love the phrase “lapse of judgment”.

Talk about bullheadedness.

After announcing yesterday the designation of Fernando Poe, Jr. as a National Artist, the Fortress by the Pasig backtracks, withdrawing the announcement. (ABS-CBN News, INQ7)

I have a song for Gloria Arroyo, you might want to sing with me if you know the song:

Urong sulong ka,
Bakit ka ganyan,
Urong sulong ka.

Or for a more contemporary flavor:

Ooops, I did it again.

Some various comments and observations for today:

• Some of the bloggers whose blogs I read are about to take or are already on vacation. MLQ3 is on a break until Easter (may he have a good break). DJB is about to visit the Crucifixion site – in the Philippines, at least. Can’t wait for the pictures. Atty. Aceron, in preparation for iBlog summit, is reading The Last Temptation of Christ while on vacation.
• Atty. Lacierda posted a musing on how the Arroyo-led Philippines would treat Jesus if He is alive today. Not for those who are literally-minded when it comes to religion.
• Those who says that they were in EDSA 2 but are now unwilling to do it again are implicitly admitting that what they did at 2001 was wrong, in my opinion. For why they should be so unwilling to do so again, when the circumstances call for it, if EDSA 2 is right? The reasons they state, they should have thought of in 2001. And I call on them to reflect on what they did this long holiday. After all, it is time for such reflections, and maybe they will get to know what the word HYPOCRITE means.
• The Supreme Court is clogged with constitutional issues of the year (CPR, BP880, EO464, 1017), and now another one is about to go to the Court. This batch of justices will be in history books, for their opinions on the matters at hand will be landmark decisions. That is, if they get to decide on these issues before their retirement.
• Atty. Te reflects on repetition as a sign of love. Gloria Arroyo repetitively fools with the people. Does that mean she loves us? Ugh. In the same vein, since the police repeatedly disperses rallyists, do they love ’em “communists” (as what they – you know who they are – say)?