Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Impeachment Process Stalled

Bookmark and Share
Posted by Alecks Pabico 
PCIJ

AS expected, the opening of the House justice committee hearing this morning to determine the impeachment complaint's sufficiency in form went haywire, abruptly halted less than half an hour into the proceedings with the committee chairman Rep. Simeon Datumanong (Maguindanao, Lakas-CMD) ordering its suspension until next Tuesday and subsequently calling for an executive session among its members.

Datumanong actually set the tone of the stalled hearing by stating what he said is an "unprecedented" case before the justice committee — the existence of "three complaints filed against the same impeachable official and referred to them one after the other on the same day. 

"We may have these preliminary questions to consider," Datumanong said. "One, are we going to consider them one by one as they were referred by the House? Or are we going to consolidate them like bills on the same subject matter pending before the committee? Or do we find out what is the effect of the amended complaint on the first complaint of Atty. Oliver Lozano?"

The committee chair said that only after a decision has been made on these questions can the committee proceed to the determination of sufficiency in form.

Taking his cue from Datumanong's opening remarks, Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay, Aksyon Demokratiko) seized the opportunity to raise his own set of "prejudicial questions" that he said need to be fully debated and subsequently resolved by the committee in order to determine which complaint(s) shall be subject to the committee's jurisdiction. Lagman's questions are as follows:

  • Was the amended complaint which was filed on July 25, 2005 properly or seasonably interposed or is it a prohibited pleading under Article XI of the Constitution and the pertinent Rules on Impeachment of the House of Representatives?
  • Considering that the amended complaint was filed on July 25, 2005 when the House had not yet adopted the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment in the 13th Congress, under what standard or rule should the filing of the amended complaint be assessed?
  • Since the amended complaint radically and substantially supplanted the original Lozano complaint, should it be considered as a separate, independent and new complaint?
  • If it is considered a separate or new complaint, is it barred by the one-year rule which proived that "no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within period of one year." (Sec. 3 (5) of Article XI)?
  • How will the amended complaint be assessed under the standard or definition of initiating impeachment proceedings in the case of Ernesto B/ Francisco Jr., et. al. vs. the House of Representatives, et. al.?
  • Did the amended complaint supersed the original Lozano complaint so much so that the Lozano complaint will be subsumed under the amended complaint and consdiering further that Atty. Oliver Lozano signed the verification attached to the amended complaint thereby giving his conformity to the amended complaint?
  • What is the import and effect of the respondent's filing of an early answer on the amended complaint?

Datumanong then told the committee that only members, including ex-officio members, will be allowed to participate in the debates.

At that point, two congressmen took turns in raising logistical issues of the not-so-easy access to microphones and the cramped space. Rep. Douglas Cagas (Davao del Sur, NPC) complained that some members were seated behind those occupying the front row, not allowing them the "equal opportunity to be able to speak out."

Rep. Mayo Almario (Davao Oriental, Lakas-CMD) was even more blatant. "May we know if there are first class and second class members of this House?" he asked. "I think we here are considered second class members because we are not entitled to the same privileges of those who are seated in front of us."

Meanwhile, Rep. Rolex Suplico (Iloilo, LDP) sought for a reconsideration of Datumanong's ruling. "As per my understanding based on the tradition of this House, the other members who are not members of this committee are allowed to ask questions for their own understanding because later on they will participate in the plenary hearings on the impeachment complaint," he said.

The committee chair, however, insisted that only regular members, including ex-officio members, of the committee will be recognized as it is "not any ordinary committee of the House, and pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution."

Datumanong added that the other members of the House who were present in the hearing — complainants or endorsers of the impeachment complaint — were invited because of their status but may not enjoy the same privileges in the matter of debate as members of the committee.

As a commotion started to break out, Datumanong was forced to call for a one-minute recess, and later, a suspension of the proceedings.

In the executive session, committee members argued at length what the minority bloc called Datumanong's "unilateral ruling" to suspend the hearing. They, however, later agreed to adopt procedures for the next hearings, now scheduled from noon to four in the afternoon every Tuesday and Wednesday. To be able to comply with the 60-session day requirement for the justice committee to come up with its report to the House, the debates will be limited to regular members (including ex-officio ones), co-complainants and endorsers. The committee is left with the discretion of allowing non-members to participate only after the said members have taken their turns.

On the sidelight, there was also a curious battle of symbols. Some women who were not in favor of the impeachment wore blue ribbons and Philippine flag pins. The pro-impeachment audience, obviously displeased withe the outcome, had "Impeach" buttons, peach ribbons and roses bearing "Impeach Gloria" tags. 

Impeachment Watch

Bookmark and Share
Posted by Alecks Pabico
PCIJ

CIVIL-SOCIETY groups launched today the Citizen's Impeachment Watch, an initiative to mobilize the so-called middle forces so they can take an active part in the "process of change," beginning with the impeachment of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Caught in the present political crisis, the middle forces — business, academe, professionals — have remained silent until this moment despite the fact that majority of them believe that Pres. Arroyo has lost all moral authority to govern in light of allegations of systematic electoral fraud. They want her to step down or face impeachment but are wary of the discredited group of traditional oppositionists who they see as "opportunists." They are also cold to the idea of extra-constitutional change for fear it might lead to violence and chaos.

With the impeachment process in the House of Representatives seemingly in peril given that most of its members are allies of the ruling coalition, the impeachment watch — organized by people's organizations and NGOs led by the multisectoral National Peace Conference and Philippine Alternative Study Center for Research, Education and Social Development (PASCRES) — is banking on the middle forces to break their silence by "encouraging their legislators to vote according to their conscience and make sure that the process is transparent and will not be soiled by partisan politics."

The impeachment watch groups will be linking with the business sector, professionals and students to lobby Congress by engaging in letter-writing campaigns and personal meetings with legislators through out the impeachment process to ensure that the case against Arroyo "prospers to pave the way for truth and justice." Symposiums and forums will also be conducted around the country. A website is also in the works to provide people with an online information network where they can access the scoreboards, alerts, petitions and other relevant impeachment-related materials.

As opening salvo timed with the start of House justice committee hearings on the impeachment complaint against Arroyo tomorrow, "impeachment watchboards" will be placed in strategic locations in various parts of the country including schools and markets to "inform the public about the status of the impeachment case. The tally boards will be featuring the names of legislators who have already signed the complaint, but more importantly those who are anti-impeachment (or pro-Arroyo), and who have yet to declare their position on the issue.

As of today, August 9, the Citizen's Impeachment Watch tally has the following House members either against the impeachment (left column) or who have yet to declare their positions (right column). Clicking on the links will direct you to information culled from the representatives' statements of assets and liabilities and PCIJ research available on i-site.  


ANTI-IMPEACHMENT
(PRO-ARROYO)
NO DECLARED
POSITION YET
Lakas-CMD/KAMPI Liberal Party (LP) Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC) Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP) Party List Groups Lakas-CMD/KAMPI/NPC Liberal Party (LP) Nacionalista Party (NP) LDP/KNP/PMP Other Parties Party List Groups

Fidel's Shocker

Bookmark and Share

Analysis : Fidel Ramos' shock formula

Amando Doronila
Inquirer News Service

WITH A PERSISTENCE characteristic of the man, former President Fidel Ramos has addressed the argument that revising the 1987 Constitution alongside the impeachment proceedings against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo could put competitive claims on the time and energy of Congress.

Misgivings have been expressed that Congress would be overloaded with two extremely important tasks with rather fundamental implications for political change -- the first involving the dismissal from office of a sitting president, and the other, constitutional change seeking a shift from the 70-year-old presidential system to the parliamentary system -- let alone doing normal legislation and being sidetracked by congressional investigations.

Speaking at the 104th anniversary of the defunct Philippine Constabulary-Integrated National Police, which Ramos headed during Ferdinand Marcos' martial-law regime, Ramos asserted that "impeachment, constitutional change and lawmaking can be done simultaneously."

The speech reflects the "can-do" mentality of Ramos, which is the hallmark of his high-performance presidency, but the agenda he proposed to fast-track constitutional change is a tall order and unrealistic. Members of Congress do not have the work ethic set by Ramos during his presidency.

Ramos urged members of Congress to change their bad habits and hold plenary sessions in the morning rather in the afternoon. At present, committee hearings, in which most of the bills are drafted, are held in the morning, if members are not diverted by congressional investigations.

Thus, Ramos proposed that members refrain from taking too many holiday breaks and junkets abroad. "Work 16 hours a day," Ramos said. "They should stop dinner meetings. They should just be served pan de sal and coffee. Food is expensive now. Let us cut out the frills and the extravagance."

One wonders whether legislators can accept a Spartan lifestyle. The menu he prescribed is barracks food. Ramos is not only stressing the urgency of constitutional change, he is also advocating a drastic lifestyle change and a work ethic that would send members of Congress into paroxysms of culture shock. Between lifestyle change and constitutional change, the former might be harder to undertake.

To be sure, Ramos lived up to this rigorous work regime during his presidency, which found him working longer hours than the fabled workaholics such as the Japanese and Koreans in their drive to transform the countries into advanced industrial economies. Ramos set a legislative agenda that performed and that received Congress' consensus.

The high performance of his administration -- in particular, the breaking of the energy shortage in his first year in office -- seems to have motivated Ramos to push constitutional change to the fast lane and to think that his agenda can be accomplished within a timeframe of six months, culminating in a switch to the parliamentary system by middle of 2006.

However, Ramos has to overcome the resistance to his call for constitutional change, coming from critics who suspect that the switch to the parliamentary system would pave the way for his return to power as prime minister, the same criticism hurled at Speaker Jose de Venecia, another advocate of speedy revision.

Other than that, the switch, it is alleged, is a mechanism that would divert the not inconsiderable public pressure on President Arroyo to step down because of allegations of cheating in the 2004 election to the process of constitutional revision and buy her precious breathing space, thereby prolonging her stay in office.

Since 1986, Ramos has played a pivotal role in, first, ousting the Marcos dictatorship, and, second, in defending the Corazon Aquino government from six coup attempts. At a critical moment of the Arroyo regime on July 8, when it was on the brink of collapse, Ramos intervened by coming to the side of Ms Arroyo and emphatically rejecting calls for her resignation. He also put on top of the national agenda of political change the issue of constitutional revision. Ramos' intervention is believed to have neutralized the intervention of the other Edsa People Power I key player, former President Aquino, who joined the resignation call.

Although Ramos' intervention was crucial to the Arroyo regime's survival, it would be too much to say that Ramos is now the power behind the regime and has taken it captive. That is exaggerating his role. Ramos' agenda seems to be larger and more important than opening space for a soft landing for President Arroyo from the current crisis.

Ramos' interventions have grown out of crises since 1986. These crises have defined his political outlook and have influenced his thinking that the succession of crises has demonstrated that the presidential system has proved to be dysfunctional, and has underlined the urgency of the shift to the parliamentary system.

Ramos has called attention to persistent gridlock in the adversarial system of checks and balances of the presidential system and the system's inflexibility. The stalemates that can't be broken within the system have driven conflicts over non-performing, venal and scandal-ridden governments for resolution to the streets through people power. The adaptability of the parliamentary system in averting crisis and dismissing political leadership through a non-confidence vote is the strongest argument for systemic change.

Whether or not the shift would allow survival of the Arroyo regime is secondary to the promise of deadlock-breaking within a parliamentary arena, without going to the streets and the shedding of blood. Besides, her political life is likely to be decided soon enough by another process, which is impeachment.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Arangkada for August 10, 2005

Bookmark and Share
 

             KONTES SA BAKAK

 

Sa di pa makabuylo ang mga torotot sa Malakanyang pagkondenar sa oposisyon nga ilang gipasanginlan nga nagtukod og "witness academy" pinaagi sa pagpresentar og peke nga mga saksi, angayng pahinumdoman ang Palasyo nga silay labing napaso sa way kukaikog nga pagpakita og mga saksi nga klarong gitumong sa paglubog sa kamatuoran. Tuguting maghisgot lang kog duha sa labing kuwestiyonable nilang mga saksi:

  • Ang chief of staff ni Kongresista Ignacio Arroyo nga maoy unang gipresentar isip "Gary," ang lalaking kaistorya ni Presidente Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sa Garci tapes pero ang presidente mismo ang niangkon sa bakak kay giangkon man nga opisyal sa Comelec ang iyang kaistorya ug si kanhi Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano niangkon nga siya ang kaistorya sa presidente; ug
  • Ang lalaking niangkon nga gilugos siyang Arsobispo Oscar Cruz, pero wa na ipakita sa Palasyo ang pekeng saksi kay nisamot na man hinuon ang kaligdong ug kalig-on sa kampanya ni Cruz batok sa jueteng.

-o0o-

Mahimong nilampos ang Malakanyang paglawgaw sa kontrobersiya tungod sa nagkalata nilang mga saksi nga gitugbang sa kada bag-ong saksi ug pasangil batok sa presidente. Pero ang katawhan dili bugo ni buang. Lumalabay rang ilang kalibog. Dili sila hangtod sa hangtod nga malubong ni Presidente Arroyo sa kangitngit.

Sama nga ang kamatuoran di mahimong hangtod sa hangtod nga malubong sa lang-og nga lunangan sa pagpangulipas. Bisan sa higanteng makinarya sa propaganda nga gipalihok sa presidente ginamit ang minilyon ka pesos nga pondo sa nasudnong panudlanan, ug bisan unsa kadudahan ug katibuwaag ang liderato sa politikanhong oposisyon nga maoy niduso sa nagkayamukat nga kampanya pagpalagpot ni Presidente Arroyo sa katungdanan, moabot rang adlaw nga ang Haring Lungsod motimbakuwas.

Ug mopalayas sa presidente nga way lehitimong mandato.

-o0o-

Ang makalibog nga baruganan ni House Speaker Jose de Venecia nga usa ka adlaw nideklarar nga patay nang impeachment complaint batok sa presidente, pero pagka sunod adlaw nibakwi nga dako diay ning buhi, di monopoliya sa liderato sa Kongreso. Samang kalibog ang nagbukot sa tibuok administrasyon:

  • Kon ilang ibasura ang impeachment complaint pinaagi sa pagsuburno sa mayoriya sa mga kongresista ug pagluok sa tanang ipresentar nga mga saksi ug mga ebidensiya, peligrong moalsa ang katawhan nga nagpaabot sa presidente nga manalipod sa iyang kaugalingon pinaagi sa impeachment trial; pero
  • Kon ilang tugotan nga masumiter ang articles of impeachment ngadto sa Senado, peligrong makatsamba ang oposisyon pagpresentar og laing "Chavit Singson" o "Clarissa Ocampo" o mga ebidensiya nga mas makabungog pa kay sa "second envelope" nga maoy kataposang lanot nga nakapabugto sa pailob ug pagpangiyugpos sa kinabag-an sa katawhan atubangan sa makauuwawng mga bisyo ug lapad nga pangurakot sa administrasyon ni kanhi presidente Joseph Estrada niadtong 2001. [30]  leo_lastimosa@abs-cbn.com

Better Dead Than Alive

Bookmark and Share

There's The Rub : The living and the dead

Conrado de Quiros dequiros@info.com.ph
Inquirer News Service

IT'S enough to make you believe God is playing tricks on us. The one man who should have been president of this country will never be so. He is dead -- felled by cancer. He would have been 64 on Oct. 26. Indeed, the one man who was voted president of this country will never be so. He too is dead -- felled by a stroke. He would have been 66 on Aug. 20. They are, of course, Raul Roco and Fernando Poe Jr.

One is tempted to say that the way things are going, Panfilo Lacson and Eddie Villanueva should seriously worry about their health. But Lacson may always rest easy in the thought that only the good die young.

God's trick, which must raise questions about the nature of divine humor, is that the one woman who never deserved to become president of this country in 2001 and never got to be voted so in 2004 is still there, alive and, well, if not kicking at least clinging to the throne so tenaciously you can hear nails scraping wood.

I did hear someone express the thought last weekend that maybe we did right not to vote for Raul Roco. Indeed, that maybe they did right to prevent FPJ from taking office. Or else we would not have a president right now. Maybe God in his infinite wisdom spared us this pass.

Well, I don't know that wisdom, divine or not, infinite or not, may ever be associated with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's presence in Malacañang, or even on earth. At the very least, we don't have a president right now either, if by that is meant someone who got voted into power and is leading the nation forward. What we have is someone pretending to be so and leading the nation to ruin. At the very most, the briefest tenure by an enlightened president -- or never mind enlightened, mind only legitimate -- is still worlds better than the longest one by a tyrant -- or never mind tyrant, mind only usurper. Either Roco or Poe would easily have been a blessing for this country, however fleetingly they would have passed before our eyes.

Instead, we have a curse. And one that threatens to haunt us all our lives.

A couple of weeks ago, during the State of the Nation Address, Ms Arroyo told us that our monumental problems today do not owe to her but to a political culture that is grinding us underfoot. She was at least half-right. She would have been fully right if she had said our monumental problems owed to her and a political culture that was grinding us underfoot. The two are not contradictory, they are complementary. Indeed, they are more than complementary, they are one and the same. Roco showed during his life that you need not be part of that political culture. All you have to do, as the anti-drug crusade puts it, is just say no.

I remember that one of the debates in Roco's camp during the elections was whether to accept "donations" from people like Lucio Tan. Some believed he should, not just to improve his financial position but his psychological projection -- he was being backed by "wise money." Roco refused, though Tan has roots in Naga City as well. Those donations do not come free, he said, they carry with them more strings than are needed to tie up Florante to a tree in the woods. His position was better to lose with a light heart than to win with a heavy burden.

I remember as well that yet another debate in his camp was the wisdom of fielding Hermie Aquino and the people who eventually filled up his senatorial slate. Though Hermie was an Aquino, his detractors said, his name did not ring a bell. Neither did Aksyon's senatorial candidates. Roco's position was that better lesser known lights than well-known trapos. Better to lose fighting the good fight than to win peddling the bad cause.

And I remember that the most critical debate in his camp was whether he should continue to run or not after he came back from the United States when his cause seemed lost. When his supporters had lost heart and the voters were turning away from the propaganda that sick presidents were not good for the country. Roco refused to quit, arguing that, true enough, sick presidents were bad for the country, but there was sickness and there was sickness. Some were sick only in the body, others were sick in the mind. Presidents who were sick in the body but sound in the mind cured a sick country. Presidents who were sound in the body but sick in the mind only made the country sicker.

Roco reposed his faith instead in the people. We had no end of conversations when I would argue before him that this country, more than America, qualified for Mencken's savage barb that "Nobody yet lost a buck underestimating the popular taste." Which was true most of all of elections. He insisted on carrying his campaign on a high plane, based on ideas, scorning the song-and-dance routine. He kept telling me that the Filipino voter was not stupid, and that this voter could be convinced to make the right choice given the compelling logic of survival. He was unshakeable in that faith. He reposed his faith in particular in the youth, whom he truly believed was the hope of this seemingly hopeless country. You can't lose, he said, with the youth behind you.

All the while Ms Arroyo was soliciting donations from Bong Pineda, wooing the Marcoses and the Joseph Estrada camps, dropping the charges against Ping Lacson to encourage him to not quit, paying off Noli de Castro to run as running mate, leaving no centavo in the public treasury unturned, and otherwise flailing furiously at the very horse she now says is trampling us underfoot.

Truly, presidents who are sick in the body but hale in the mind can cure the country while presidents who are hale in the body but sick in the mind can only make the country sicker. Even more truly, some dead are more alive than the living, and some living are more alive than the dead.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Arangkada for August 9, 2005

Bookmark and Share
 

                LAWOG SA TIRONG

 

Gibunyagan sa gobyerno ang overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) nga "bag-ong mga bayani." Pero way gihimo ang gobyerno pagpanalipod nila gikan sa bakak nga mga pasalig ug tulis sa placement fees sa recruitment agencies hangtod sa way kukaluoy nga pagwatas-watas sa ilang mga kontrata inig abot na sa ilang mga destinasyon.

Labing uwahing mga biktima mao ang OFWs, nga nag-apil og mga Sugbuanon, nga gipangulata sa Taiwan tungod sa ilang pagreklamo sa paglapas sa mga kontrata nga ilang gipirmahan. Sama sa naandan, way nahimo pagpanalipod nila ang Manila Economic Council (Meco) sa Taipei. Ang OFWs napugos pagasto sa ilang nihit nga hiniposang kuwarta para sa plitehan sa ayroplano aron nga di katiwasan sa bagis nga mga langyaw.

-o0o-

20 ka OFWs ang nangadto sa Taiwan aron pagtrabaho sa usa sa labing dakong kompaniya sa Taichung niadtong Hunyo. Tam-is kaayong pasalig nga ilang nadawat gikan sa employment agency nga gitugotan sa Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) pagpanguha og mga trabahante sa Sugbo ug ubang bahin sa nasud.

Uwahi na dihang nadiskubrehan sa OFWs nga dakong bakak ang suweldo ug mga benepisyo nga gipasalig sa recruiter. Inay sa gipasalig nga P41,000 ang buwan, P13,000 ray nadawat sa ilang mga pamilya tungod sa way kinutobang kapon sa ilang brokers. Ang mga trabahante gilumpong morang sardinas sa usa ka kuwarto ug gipakaon daplin sa dan.

-o0o-

Ang ilang reklamo ngadto sa Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) sa Taiwan way nahimo. Diha na nanglihok ang taga OWWA human sa pagbiya sa OFWs sa ilang mga trabaho sud sa usa ka adlaw.

Bisan pa, napakyas ang OWWA pagpa-arang-arang sa ilang kahimtang sa panarbaho. Hangtod nga sa niaging semana, gipugos ang OFWs pagpapirma og kontrata nga Ininsek nga way hubad nga Iningles. Ang OFWs nga nibalibad kay wa kasabot gibukbok pag-ayo sa bagis nga goons sa broker.

Ang mayoriya nga napugos pagpirma nakahukom nga mamauli sa Pilipinas sa labing daling panahon tungod sa kahadlok nga silay isunod pagbukbok. Gida ang nabun-og nilang mga kauban, apil nang duha nga tungod sa kagrabe sa samad gipakanaog atol sa stopover sa ayroplano sa Hong Kong.

-o0o-

Dihang gipaubos nang OFWs sa custody sa OWWA sa Manila, gihudlat sila sa recruiter nga kon mokiha, dugay nga mahusay ang kaso, dako ang ilang gasto ug mahimong ma-blacklist pa gyod sa ubang placement agencies. Wa gyod mobaraw ang OWWA dihang gitanyagan silag areglo bugti sa pag-uli sa nabayad nga placement fee ug paghatag sa usa ka buwang suholan.

Kon ang mga ahensiya nga gitahasan pagpanalipod sa OFWs tua kapusta sa pikas, unsa man intawoy dag-anan sa atong mga kapamilya sa ubang kanasuran? Tinuod bang gitawag silag mga bayani kay dako ang kahigayonan nga mangamatay? [30]  leo_lastimosa@abs-cbn.com

Peter Jennings, 67

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jennings, Urbane News Anchor, Dies at 67

Peter Jennings, a high school dropout from Canada who transformed himself into one of the most urbane, well-traveled and recognizable journalists on American television, died yesterday at home. He was 67 and lived in Manhattan.

The cause was lung cancer, said Charles Gibson, who announced the death of his colleague on television in a special report just after 11:30 p.m. Mr. Jennings had disclosed that he was suffering from lung cancer on April 5, first in a written statement released by ABC and later that night on "World News Tonight," the evening news broadcast that he had led since September 1983.

In brief remarks at the end of that night's program, Mr. Jennings, his voice scratchy, told viewers that he hoped to return to the anchor desk as his health and strength permitted. But he never did.

It was a jarring departure for someone who for so long had been such a visible fixture in so many American homes each night. Along with the two other pillars of the so-called Big 3 - Tom Brokaw of NBC and Dan Rather of CBS - Mr. Jennings had, in the early 1980's, ushered in the era of the television news anchor as lavishly compensated, globe-trotting superstar. After the departure of Mr. Brokaw from his anchor chair in December, followed by the retirement from the evening news of Mr. Rather in March, Mr. Jennings's death brings that era to a close.

For more than two decades, the magnitude of a news event could be measured, at least in part, by whether Mr. Jennings and his counterparts on the other two networks showed up on the scene. Indeed, they logged so many miles over so many years in so many trench coats and flak jackets that they effectively acted as bookends on some of the biggest running stories of modern times.

Mr. Jennings's official ABC biography notes, for example, that as a foreign correspondent, he was "in Berlin in the 1960's when the Berlin Wall was going up," and there again, as an anchor, "in the 1990's when it came down." Similarly, he was on the ground in Gdansk, Poland, for the birth of the Solidarity labor and political movement, and later for the overthrow of the country's Communist government.

In addition to reporting from nearly every major world capital and war zone, Mr. Jennings also managed to report from all 50 states, according to the network. He seemed to draw on that collective experience - as well as his practiced ability to calmly describe events as they unfolded live - not long after two hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Over the course of that day, and those that immediately followed, he would spend more than 60 hours on the air in what Tom Shales of The Washington Post , among other critics, praised as a tour de force of interviewing and explanatory broadcast journalism laced with undisguised bewilderment.

"This is what it looked like moments ago," Mr. Jennings said at one point that first morning, as he introduced a piece of videotape recorded moments earlier in Lower Manhattan. "My God! The southern tower, 10:00 Eastern Time this morning, just collapsing on itself. This is a place where thousands of people worked. We have no idea what caused this."

The coverage of all three broadcast networks that week underscored a maxim of the television news business: that however much the audience of the evening news programs might have eroded in recent years, viewers usually return during moments of crisis.

"He was a man who came into the anchor chair absolutely prepared to do the job, from years and years of reporting in the field, which is precious and not easily duplicated," said Tom Bettag, who competed against Mr. Jennings as executive producer of the "CBS Evening News with Dan Rather" and later worked with Mr. Jennings as a colleague as executive producer of "Nightline."

"He established a level of trust with the viewer that would be difficult for anyone else to match going forward."

At the peak of his broadcast's popularity, in the 1992-1993 television season, Mr. Jennings drew an average audience of nearly 14 million people each night, according to Nielsen Media Research. He reached that milestone midway through an eight-year ratings winning streak, during which his audience sometimes exceeded those of both Mr. Brokaw and Mr. Rather by two million or more viewers. (For nearly a decade since, to his periodic frustration, his broadcast had lagged behind that of NBC's, even after Mr. Brokaw yielded to Brian Williams in December.)

Though the audience for the evening news has fallen precipitously in recent years - a casualty of changes in people's schedules and the competition offered by the cable news networks and the Internet - Mr. Jennings's broadcast and those on CBS and NBC still drew a combined audience of more than 25 million viewers this past year.

And however much his audience had aged - the median age of a Jennings viewer this past season was about 60, according to Nielsen - advertisers still spend in excess of $100 million annually on each of the evening news programs. Like Mr. Brokaw, Mr. Rather and now Mr. Williams, Mr. Jennings was well paid for his efforts: he earned an estimated $10 million a year in recent years. His most recent contract with the network was due to expire later this year , but at least until he became ill, the network was preparing to extend Mr. Jennings's time in the anchor chair for "several years to come," according to David Westin, president of ABC News.

Mr. Jennings's broadcast training had begun at an astonishingly young age, a function at least partly of his family background. Peter Charles Jennings was born July 29, 1938, in Toronto. His father, Charles, was a senior executive of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and a pioneer in Canadian radio news.

In "The Century" (Doubleday, 1998), one of two history books that he co-wrote with Todd Brewster, Mr. Jennings recalled an early exercise that his father put him through to sharpen his powers of observation. "Describe the sky," his father had said. After the young boy had done so, his father dispatched him outside again. "Now, go out and slice it into pieces and describe each piece as different from the next."

By age 9, he had his own show on Canadian radio, "Peter's Program." He dropped out of high school at 17, and by his early 20's, was the host of a dance show similar to "American Bandstand" called "Club Thirteen."

His rise to the pinnacle of Canadian television news, and later its far larger counterpart to the south, was swift. In 1962, at age 24, he was named co-anchor of the national newscast on CTV, a competitor of his father's network, a job that he held until 1964.

That year, he moved to the United States to begin work as a correspondent for ABC. Barely a year later, the network named him an anchor of "ABC Evening News," then a 15-minute newscast, which put him, at age 26, head-to-head with Walter Cronkite on CBS and the formidable tandem of Chet Huntley and David Brinkley on NBC. Though he would serve ABC in that capacity for nearly three years, Mr. Jennings said in an interview last year that he was ill-suited for the job and unhappy in it.

"I had the good sense to quit," he said.

What followed was more than a decade of postings abroad as a foreign correspondent for ABC, during which, Mr. Jennings said last year, he got an on-the-job introduction to the world with a tuition bill effectively footed by his employer.

"I have no formal education to speak of," Mr. Jennings said. "ABC has been my education and provided my education. ABC has enabled me to work everywhere in the world and has ended up paying me beyond handsomely."

From 1968 to 1978, Mr. Jennings traveled extensively, including to Vietnam, Munich (where he covered the hostage-taking and killings at the 1972 Summer Olympics) and Beirut (where he established the network's first news bureau in the Arab world).

In 1978, he began his second tour as an anchor for the network, serving as one of three hosts of "World News Tonight," along with Frank Reynolds and Max Robinson, in a format devised by Roone Arledge, the sports programmer who had added the news division to his portfolio. Mr. Jennings was the program's foreign anchor and reported from London until 1983.

Three weeks after Mr. Reynolds's death from bone cancer, Mr. Jennings was named the sole anchor (and managing editor) of the broadcast, titles that Mr. Jennings continued to hold at his death.

As an anchor, Mr. Jennings presented himself as a worldly alternative to Mr. Brokaw's plain-spoken Midwestern manner and Mr. Rather's folksy, if at times offbeat, Southern charm. He neither spoke like many of his viewers ("about" came out of his mouth as A-BOOT, a remnant of his Canadian roots) nor looked like them, with a matinee-idol face and crisply tailored wardrobe that were frequently likened in print to those of James Bond.

Though his bearing could be stiff on the air (and his syntax so simplistic at times as to border on patronizing), Mr. Jennings was immensely popular with his audience.

During a trip last fall through Kansas, Pennsylvania and Ohio in the weeks before the presidential election, he traveled at times aboard a coach customized by the news division to trumpet its campaign coverage and frequently received a rock star's welcome when he decamped.

For example, in the parking lot of a deli just outside of Pittsburgh, where he had come to interview a long-shot candidate for Congress whose threadbare headquarters was upstairs, Mr. Jennings found himself on the receiving end of several hugs from loyal viewers.

"He's so handsome," one of those viewers, Vilma Berryman, 66, the deli owner, observed immediately after meeting him. "He's taller than I thought. He speaks so softly."

"I feel like I know him," she added. "He's just so easy."

Like all of the Big 3, Mr. Jennings was not without his detractors. Some critics contended he was too soft on the air when describing the Palestinian cause or the regime of the Cuban leader Fidel Castro - charges he disputed. Similarly, an article published in July 2004 in the National Review portrayed him as a thinly veiled opponent of the American war in Iraq.

The article quoted Mr. Jennings as saying: "That is simply not the way I think of this role. This role is designed to question the behavior of government officials on behalf of the public."

Mr. Jennings was conscious of having been imbued, during his Canadian boyhood, with a skepticism about American behavior; at least partly as a result, he often delighted in presenting the opinions of those in the minority, whatever the situation.

And yet he simultaneously carried on an elaborate love affair with America, one that reached its apex in the summer of 2003, when he announced that he had become an American citizen, scoring, he said proudly, 100 percent on his citizenship test.

In a toast around that time that he gave at the new National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, he described his adopted home as "this brash and noble container of dreams, this muse to artists and inventors and entrepreneurs, this beacon of optimism, this dynamo of energy, this trumpet blare of liberty."

Mr. Jennings's personal life was at times grist for the gossip pages, including his three divorces. His third wife, the author Kati Marton, whom he married in 1979 and divorced in 1993, is the mother of his two children, who survive him. They are a daughter, Elizabeth, and son, Christopher, both of New York City. He is also survived by his fourth wife, Kayce Freed, a former ABC television producer whom he married in December 1997, and a sister, Sarah Jennings of Ottawa, Canada. Having prided himself on rarely taking a sick day in nearly 40 years - and being dismissive, at times, of those well-paid colleagues who did - Mr. Jennings had missed the broadcast and the newsroom terribly in recent months.

In a letter posted on April 29 on the ABC news Web site, excerpts of which were read on that night's evening news, Mr. Jennings described how treatments for his cancer had proven more debilitating than he had expected.

"Yesterday I decided to go to the office," he wrote. "I live only a few blocks away. I got as far as the door. Chemo strikes."

"Do I detect a knowing but sympathetic smile on many of your faces?" he added.

About a month later, Mr. Jennings did make a rare visit to the ABC News headquarters on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. With a gray sweater draped over his shoulders, and his feet clad in thick wool socks and moccasins, Mr. Jennings held court for about a half hour late one morning from his desk, in what is known as "the rim," a newsroom one floor below the "World News Tonight" anchor desk.

His voice soft and his body as much as 20 pounds lighter than usual, Mr. Jennings told several dozen staff members who had gathered around his desk about the doctors and other patients he had been meeting and of a first-time radiation treatment that he had just received, according to one veteran correspondent who did not wish to be identified so as not to offend Mr. Jennings's family.

Mr. Jennings brought himself and many of his colleagues to tears when he turned to Charles Gibson, one of his two principal substitutes on the program, and thanked him for closing each night's broadcast with the phrase, "for Peter Jennings and all of us at ABC News." Mr. Jennings then put his hand over his heart and said, "That means so much to me," according to his colleague.

But whatever maudlin feelings were in the air quickly evaporated, Mr. Jennings's longtime colleague recounted, when the anchor brandished a familiar black calligraphy pen and began marking up the rundown for that night's broadcast. "No, that's not a good one," he could be overheard telling Jonathan Banner, the program's executive producer, about one segment. Of another, he added, "You want to move this higher up."

For his closest colleagues, the reassuring sight of the anchor-as-editor provided a fleeting moment of normalcy in what had been a disorienting and heartbreaking few months.

The Fight Goes On

Bookmark and Share

The Long View : A minority of many

Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer News Service

RAUL S. Roco was a man who refused to be apologetic about his intelligence. He loved learning, and loved to be a learned man. He did not possess a formidable intellect only to disguise it with false modesty or a feigned humility. In fact, he loved history, poetry, politics, the law and literature so much that he assumed his love for them was shared by others. Not everyone did; and those who didn't, proclaimed his affections as manifestations of a monumental ego.

There was, indeed, something monumental about the man; no dainty dilettante or shrinking, Hamlet-like intellectual was he. He was possessed of a strong self-assurance that manifested itself in an unfortunate tendency to refer to himself in the third person: he would say, "Roco believes," instead of "I think." But then the same habit was apparent in leaders like Charles de Gaulle of France. Like De Gaulle, Roco was, by nature, a lone wolf; he inspired devotion-of the kind one normally identifies with mystics. He was above the throng, outside the herd: he would not pander if that was the price of leadership. He would lead only on his own terms, because, to his mind, those terms were both demanding and reasonable. Leadership required competence; it needed preparation; it demanded integrity.

For those who wanted leadership with intellectual depth, who desired to be led not on the basis of the least common denominator but on the chief's daring to raise the bar of public service, Roco was ideal. He was ideal because he was idealistic; he never asked of his followers less than he asked of himself-and he asked a lot of himself throughout his life. He came from the province, but was not provincial; he loved his provincial origins, but refused to be parochial; he was a politician, but there was always a kind of politics to which he could neither submit nor condone.

What was that kind of politics? The kind that was vague; the sort that promised everything, and so, could achieve little and more often than not, nothing. He was not about "win-win," he was about winning, so that the evils that deserved to lose-corruption, incompetence, mediocrity and mental and moral mendacity-would be defeated.

The problem with the lone wolf is that other wolves do not trust him, and the sheep fear him because, while being one of a kind, different from other wolves, he remains identified with the rest of the wolves.

Raul Roco's greatest failure as a politician was that he was always unable-perhaps unwilling-to join the pack, much less lead it. As a leader, he would lead, alone, yet the other wolves howled he still was a wolf, though in sheep's clothing. What could he do? Snarl that the voters are not sheep, but conditioned to being sheep; and they viewed him with a sheep's fear of the wolf. And so the people chose to be like sheep, and put their faith in the other wolves.

There have been other lone wolves in our political past. There was Juan Sumulong before the war, Claro M. Recto and Raul S. Manglapus before martial law, even Jovito Salonga. They all rose far, but only so far-and not far enough. Each had the capacity to inspire devotion and loyalty; each tried to buck the trend; all failed to achieve the highest office within the gift of their people. Each one was conscientious, admired for a fine and brave conscience, supported by a dedicated and idealistic minority. Democracy, however, is not about the nobility of the minority but the success of the majority.

The "advantage" of a politician unencumbered by scruples, intellect, or a stubborn insistence on integrity (or self-worth) is his ability to generate a kind of joy that is infectious. It is the kind of joy felt by the audience in a basketball game where the finer points of the game are set aside in order to gain points and achieve victory. We are, after all, a country whose basketball heroes include Robert Jaworski, who is not, by any means, the exemplar of gentlemanly conduct on the court. Roco was the kind of political player we could all admire, but who remained so unique, so different-in the end, so strange-that he could not achieve the transformation from being a personality attractive to a minority into some kind of leader desirable to the majority.

Was his, then, a life turned into political tragedy? A well-intentioned footnote to history? To his followers and, perhaps even to himself, his political career was tragic: he was twice rejected in his bid for the presidency, the last time, under circumstances made worse by the illness that claimed his life. However, it was not cancer that defeated Roco's bid for the presidency in 2004, it was fear, the same fear that defeated him in 1998. It was the fear of the people, of an electorate who behaved more like terrorized sheep, so different from the kind of voters Roco saw if only they were were given the chance to prove themselves.

He was that chance; but not enough took a chance on him.

Today with his passing, everybody is praising him-even the wolves, and most poignantly of all, the sheep. His greatest achievement doesn't lie in the praises being heaped on him with his passing, but in the hearts of the few who followed him, even to the point of defeat. For unlike the rest of us, they can say: a vote for him is a vote we will never have cause to regret. No finer words can a follower say of a leader; no nobler feeling can a candidate hope to find in the hearts of his countrymen.

Roco was true to himself; and he caused others to be true to themselves. In so doing, he forged a bond that only true leaders can build. And thus, he created and led a minority of many-and many there will be to continue his fight.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Arangkada for August 8, 2005

Bookmark and Share
 
IGNORANTE SA DENGUE

 

        Ang labing epektibong paagi sa pag-alkontra sa dengue mao ang pagpanglimpiyo, dili ang pagdeklarar og state of calamity.   Mas epektibong paagi pagpalayas sa mga lamok ang paghabwa sa tanang nagpondong tubig o pagpangita og lutsanan sa nabara nga mga kanal, dili ang pagpangompra og minilyon ka pesos nga balor sa kemikal.   Mas daghang kinabuhi ang maluwas pinaagi sa pag-edukar sa mga molupyo sa tukmang mga paagi pakigbatok sa lamok kay sa pagarpar ug salida sa mga politiko aron lang pagtagbaw sa ilang kahigwaos paghilabot sa dakong calamity fund.

         Pero ang mga konsehal sa Syudad sa Sugbo nipili sa pagsalida, pagasto og minilyon ka pesos aron pagpalit sa way kapuslanang mga kemikal ug kahimanan, pagdasig sa mga molupyo pagsunod sa ilang ka-ignorante ug, labaw sa tanan, pagrisgo sa mga Sugbuanon, gikan sa labing bata ngadto sa labing tiguwang, sa padayong paghasi sa mga lamok nga nagda sa makamatay nga sakit.

-o0o-

        Ang problema sa kampanya batok sa dengue di lang sa Syudad sa Sugbo, nga sa labing uwahing ihap maoy labing daghan og kaso sa tibuok Pilipinas, kon dili sa ubang lugar sa nasud mao ang tokar-tokar nga kakugi sa lokal nga mga opisyal ug mga molupyo pagpanglimpiyo sa mga nataran sa kabalayan nga kasagarang maigo sa dengue.   Si Dr. Susana Madarieta, regional director sa Department of Health sa Central Visayas, niangkon nga usa sa posibleng mga hinungdan sa pagsaka sa mga kaso sa dengue karong tuiga mao ang pagkumpiyansa sa mga molupyo ug mga opisyal human sa pag-us-os sa mga kaso sa niaging tuig.

        Nga kadasonan sa mga numero sa niaging lima ka tuig.  Human sa pagsaka sa mga kaso sa dengue sa unang tuig, naninuod pag-ayong mga opisyal ug mga molupyo pagpanlimpiyo sa ikaduhang tuig.   Tungod sa pagtidlom sa mga kaso sa ikaduhang tuig, nangiyugpos na lang maong nisaka na sang dengue sa ikatulong tuig.

        Ang subo nga kamatuoran mao nga di makapausab sa atong batasan ang pagahin sa Cebu City Council og P3 milyones batok sa dengue.

-o0o-

        Usa ka adlaw human gideklarar sa konseho ang state of calamity, napalit dayon ang mga kemikal ug gisugo dayong mga kawani sa Cebu City Health Department sa pagpasirit ini sa Banawa, Guadalupe ug ubang lugar nga grabe ang dengue.   Nikalit ba lag kaabtik ang burukrasya sa City Hall o nakontrata nang daan ang kemikal maong gi-apura ang deklarasyon sa state of calamity?

        Ug samtang susihon may subasta bang morang kilat nga pagpamalit sa kemikal, maayo sang pangutan-on ang mga konsehal nganong wa piski og bisan usa ka dako ang mga kahimanan sa Cebu City Medical Center pag-atiman sa mga pasyente sa dengue.  Sama sa ilang blood refrigerator nga dugay nang guba ug gihimo na lang butanganan sa mga dokumento.  [30]  leo_lastimosa@abs-cbn.com

Inquirer Editorial

Bookmark and Share

Editorial : Sense of the possible

EX-SENATOR Raul Roco, who passed away on Friday, did not leave the scene like an Old Testament prophet, unhonored in his own country. From his youth, he had received the grateful recognition of the various communities he served, expressed in diverse forms: academic honors, unqualified professional success, an outstanding lawmaking career, untold political capital.

And yet there remains a sense that the country he served did not quite give him the final recognition he deserved. This sense, of course, is based on his two unsuccessful runs for the presidency, on the notion that his defeat was ultimately the nation's loss.

It is worth noting that, in the outpouring of praise from all sides of the political divide, the tributes from the younger politicians have been stamped by a deep imprint of what-might-have-beens. A fellow Bicolano, Rep. Rolando Andaya Jr., said that if history would judge Roco the "best president this country never had, no one will contest such a judgment." At the other end of the political spectrum, Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teodoro Casi¤o echoed this view: Roco was "probably the most qualified president the country never had."

These are remarkable testimonials, considering that history's list of highly qualified candidates for president includes Claro M. Recto, Raul Manglapus and Jovito Salonga.

They are all the more remarkable coming from the country's younger leaders.

The older members of the political class have not held back on their praise for Roco. But it is in the language used by Andaya, Casiño, et al. that the sense of unfulfilled potential is strongest, and at its most plaintive.

Why is this so?

In part, the tribute is a function of the very language they used; the praise may have been suggested by the phrase.

But the tribute is also a function of their youth; they were not around when Recto and Lorenzo Tañada and Manglapus tilted at the windmills of Philippine politics. Roco's example may have made a stronger impression because it was an experience they lived through.

But in greater part, the tribute is a reflection of Roco's own appeal: He drew the young, understood them, spoke their language.

We do not mean that he spoke in rap or wrote in "textese." We mean that he appealed to the idealism, the sense of the possible, that animates the young. His last campaign theme, offering "new hope," was political sentimentalism; but it was political sentimentalism with a specific demographic in mind.

It helped that his appeal to idealism was backed by a reputation for competence, in his law practice and in government service, and for wit.

These three virtues-idealism, competence, intelligence—all came together in an iconic episode during the Estrada impeachment trial. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a former judge, had insinuated that a witness, a young lawyer who had left a job at one law firm for another with lower pay, was somehow in the wrong. "The normal reaction is to accept the higher salary," Santiago sang. Roco used his turn to ask the witness to defend, not only the lawyer on the witness stand, but all lawyers. He asked questions that allowed the witness to say the truth, which is that money was not the only consideration. Then he turned around and smiled: "The law is not a business but a noble profession."

In a sense, he owed everything to that profession. His work ethic was shaped by the brutal realities of lawyering, Philippine-style. As many of those who worked for him have said, he did his homework, and drove himself and his staff hard.

He had his shortcomings, of course. He was not much of a coalition builder; for him, politics was not so much addition as geometry. He believed that a single man with Archimedes' lever could move the world. But in Congress, and in the Senate, and in the Department of Education, the reality is that no lever can ever be long enough.

This shortcoming was felt most in his presidential campaigns, which lacked the network and the resources that a Senate slate of equally impressive candidates would have made available. The outpouring of praise since Friday is thus doubly poignant; if these politicians had supported him then, perhaps, his fate would have been different. Eulogies are wasted on the dead.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Arangkada for August 7, 2005

Bookmark and Share
 
                NAGKABULINGIT

 

        Hangtod karon, di pa ko kumbinsido sa determinasyon ni Mandaue City Mayor Teddy Ouano pagtapak sa mga buslot sa iyang administrasyon nga maoy hinungdan nga nakalusot ang pagtukod sa labing dakong pabrika sa shabu sa iyang nataran.   Maong pasayloa nga bisan sa tanan niyang pagarpar di pa ko kumbinsido nga hingpit nga inosente ang iyang pamunoan sa eskandalo sa pagpili sa Mandaue isip base sa higanteng sindikato sa ilegal nga drugas.

        Tungod ini, wa ko mahibung nganong morang gisilian nga nagkisikisi pag-ayo ang mayor dihang niangkon ang mga imbestigador nga duna na silay mga ngan sa local contacts ni Calvin de Jesus Tan, ang gipasanginlang financier sa mega shabu laboratory sa Umapad, Mandaue.   Mangahas gani ko pagpangagpas nga nisamot kahasol ang kinatulgan sa mayor dihang gipahibawo ni Kongresista Roque Ablan, tsirman sa House Committee on Dangerous Drugs, nga naapil sa listahan ang dagkong mga politiko.

-o0o-

        Usa sa mga hinungdan sa akong pagduda hain kapusta si Mayor Ouano mao ang taphaw niyang imbestigasyon sa nabisto nga pagpabaya sa mga ahensiya sa Mandaue City Hall pagsusi sa bodega nga gihimong shabu laboratory.  Way bisan usa sa mga ahensiya nga gitahasan unta paghimo og tinuig nga inspeksiyon ang niduaw sa bodega nga, ambot naatol ba lang o mao gyoy hinungdan, gipanag-iya sa pamilyang sikit pa sa ampaw sa pamilya sa mayor.

        Bisan sa abunda ug lehitimong mga sukaranan sa pagduda sa iyang administrasyon, way gihimo ang mayor pagsilot sa iyang department heads nga wa katuman sa ilang trabaho.   Bisan sa buwag nga kamandoan sa Visayas Ombudsman, Department of Interior and Local Governments ug Department of Justice, way klarong imbestigasyon nga gihimo ang mayor sa makauuwawng bulilyaso.

        Labing klarong ebidensiya sa iyang pagpabaya?  Hangtod karon way bisan usa sa masalaypong department heads ang nasilotan.

-o0o-

        Ang taphaw nga imbestigasyon sa eskandalo gisangon ni Ouano ngadto sa otrong taphaw niyang legal officer nga si Rey Heyrosa.   Kinsa nipada og memorandum sa hingtungdang department heads pag-esplikar sa ilang sipyat "…within the period of five" sa way pagklaro kon 5 hours, weeks, days o months ba.

        Maayo na lang kay human sa pipila ka semana, nakahimo gyod og rekomendasyon si Heyrosa pagsuspenso nilang City Engineer Ceferino Ingles ug City Treasurer Lorna Atega.   Ang usa ka semanang suspenso pasiuna lang sa mas komprehensibo nga imbestigasyon sa di pa sila pasakaan og pormal nga mga kasong administratiba.

-o0o-

        Human ko gipasapasa sa mga departamento sa City Hall, akong nahibaw-an nga wa mapatuman sa mayor ang rekomendasyon ni Heyrosa ug wa mapasakai silang Ingles ug Atega og mga kasong administratiba.

        Maong di kapangugat ang mayor nga limpiyo ang iyang kamot.   Bisan kon di pa siya maapil sa listahan sa local contacts ni Tan, magkabulingit gihapon siya sa eskandalo.  [30]    leo_lastimosa@abs-cbn.com

         

No To Cha-Cha

Bookmark and Share

Get Real : Shall we dance?

Solita Collas- Monsod
Inquirer News Service

AT A FORUM entitled "Shall We Dance the CHA-CHA?" held at Miriam College, I gave a Power-Point presentation that may interest the reader. It at least provides a basis, which she can build on, for her decision on Charter change.

The presentation is simple and short. It starts with a restatement of the fundamental principle of rational decision-making, i.e., an action (to dance?) is worth taking if and only if it leaves the actor better off than before-and that happens if the extra benefits that arise from the action are greater than the extra costs. Nota bene: Since what is good for the individual is not necessarily good for society (beware the fallacy of composition), and vice versa, it will make a difference whether the perspective we take is the country perspective (social costs and benefits) or the individual (private costs and benefits). In this exercise, we look at it from the country viewpoint.

The second part of the presentation reviews the more recent (previous decade) efforts to change the Constitution. Three episodes are recalled, all of which shared the same articulated objective: removing the obstacles to economic reform and growth. In the first episode, during the Fidel Ramos administration, the main issue was term limits, particularly of the president, with the proposed shift to a parliamentary form of government. In the second episode, Joseph Estrada claimed that the obstacles were the economic provisions, particularly the limitations on foreign ownership and control, and gave assurances that he was not interested in the political provisions. The third episode is the present one, where, in contrast to the Estrada perception, the main obstacle to economic growth is perceived to be the system of government. In all three episodes, the exponents have been the incumbent presidents and members of the House of Representatives, although the latest episode sees the addition of local leaders because of the promise of federalism, which did not figure in the previous two.

For purposes of the discussion, Charter change, or "Cha-cha," refers to (as espoused by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Congress) a change in the system of government from a presidential, unitary, bicameral system to a parliamentary, federal, unicameral system, together with more liberal foreign ownership and control provisions than in the 1987 Constitution. All these to be done through a constituent assembly (Con-Ass).

What are the benefits of this Charter change, as claimed by its exponents? Not necessarily in the order of their importance, the list is as follows:

(1) A Con-Ass will be more efficient (less costly, faster) than a constitutional convention (Con-Con), what with talk of the work being finished by December, and a plebiscite by May;

(2) The parliamentary system will reduce gridlock (executive-legislative; House-Senate) and therefore delays in decision-making;

(3) There will be more power to the people at the grass-roots or local government level (because of the federal system), as "imperial Manila" loses its hold over the rest of the country;

(4) Elections will be less costly, since presidential elections will be no more, and therefore the need to recoup financial losses or to make political paybacks in exchange for financial support will be less-reducing incentives for corruption;

(5) We will have a more stable politico-economic environment, because there will be no more political crises of the sort that occurred during the Estrada regime and is occurring now: in the new system, all that is needed to change leadership is a vote of no-confidence by the majority of parliament; and

(6) As a result of 2, 3, 4 and 5, there will be faster growth and less poverty.

Then there are the disadvantages, which are basically the same points with a diametrically opposite twist:

(1) The cost savings from a Con-Ass will be more than offset by the cost of delays in the rest of the legislative agenda and/or a poorer legislative performance; if in three out of the past four years, the legislature could not even pass the national budget on time, what more damage will be wreaked when the legislature adds impeachment and Cha-cha to its plate?

(2) "Faster" decision-making means also a faster pace of making wrong decisions. Furthermore, there is no assurance that gridlock will be reduced; it will just arise in a different form-not one House against the other, but one political family or business power bloc against the other. Worse, easier deals can be made at the expense of the Filipino people.

There's more:

(3) The people will have less power, not more, because (a) national and state leaders are no longer elected directly but by national and state parliaments; and (b) it will be easier for local dynasties and political warlords to wield and retain political power.

(4) Elections will be more costly, what with each state in the federal system having parliaments, and each aspiring local governor or prime minister having to support a larger set of candidates.

(5) "Stability" may be more imagined than real, as shown by the numerous times leadership may change hands in a parliamentary system, what with only a majority required to bring a leader down, rather than the two-thirds for a conviction in an impeachment trial at the Senate.

And finally, there are certain problems which have been ignored, and which will exacerbate uncertainty: How will the national debt be divided among the states? How will the federal equalization fund be administered? How are the taxing powers to be allocated? How is a professional civil service to be attained? How is a strong party system, which is necessary for a parliament, to be achieved? No homework done here.

Shall we dance? No, thank you.