BACK FROM A FORCED HIATUS

After we moved out and transferred to another location, I was informed by Globelines that they could no longer provide broadband service in the area where we are now staying.  The place has so many internet users that their primary (the main installation line) is already stuffed up.  Thus, I’m back to using internet prepaid cards with a speed of only 33.6 Kbps!  I have to wait for several minutes before being able to browse from one blog to another.  This turtle-paced travel in cyberspace really pisses me off!  But I can’t do anything except to wait until someone from within this area gives up his or her internet connection so that it can then be assigned to me. 

I missed so many issues that I could have blogged about during my almost two-month absence — the SC Ruling on the Neri petition, the rice shortage crisis, the proposal of Senator Pimentel to establish a federal government and a host of other topics that arouse my curiousity.  One thing though hasn’t changed.  Gloria Arroyo is still very much around despite being hounded left and right by scandal after scandal.  To borrow the words of Albay Governor Joey Salceda, she is indeed the luckiest bitch in the Philippines. 

The rice shortage crisis has done wonders for Malacañang.  Since almost everybody in Manila has come to believe that the crisis is for real, politics has taken a backseat.  The ZTE scandal, which was the hottest issue prior to the rice crisis, has practically been archived not only in the Senate but also in the minds of the people.  It seems that everytime a political scandal crops up, someone or something usually saves the day for Arroyo and her cabal. 

This, however, should not stop us from voicing out our opinion on matters that offend our collective consciousness.  As I’ve always said, the job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open. 

MEET CHONA MAE

 

The following are some of the hilarious entries in the blog of Chona Mae Banaag, a household helper who worked for a rich family residing somewhere in Valle Verde Subdivision, Pasig City in the year 2004.  She calls her employers mam Tess and sir Arnold.  Not much is known about Chona Mae whose last entry after a 2-year hiatus was a two-word title called “May Himala”.

Her narration of her day-to-day experiences with the use of “carabao” English has attracted 310, 289 visitors as of this writing. 

But make no mistake about it.  She has the qualities of a good writer, qualities that are wanting in most of the blogs (and that includes mine) proliferating in the blogosphere.  The innocence  that flows from her entries is the magic ingredient that keeps you coming back for more. 

Step aside Ms. Janina San Miguel.  Pave the way for the ultimate star of the show.

I HATE MAM TESS 

“Hay naku, chona mae! puro ka lakwatsa! mamamasyal ka lang! kaya nga tinuruan kitang mag-internet di ba? pwede mo silang sulatan sa e-mail! matulog ka na at maaga pako bukas! puro kayo sakit ng ulo!”I cry and cry last night until i sleep. pano ko naman sila susulatan sa internet e wala naman kaming PC (personal computer) sa romblon. hindi nga marunong magmakinilya sina mama at papa e. nami-missed ko na talaga sila. sabi ko nga kay mam tess, kung gusto niya, ihahatid na lang ako ng driver nila na si ambet para siguradong uuwi ako kagad lalo namang nagalit. hindi muna ako hihiling ng kahit ano kay ate kasi baka lalong magalit. balak ko po namang umadbans sa sweldo sa katapusan kasi gusto kong bumili ng bgagong cell. sira na kasi yung 5110i ko e. nahulog sa washing mashing. haaay naku. ang sungit talaga ni ate pag minsan. siguro menopos na. sabi nga nung katipan ni sir jeff pag kaaway niya yung kaibigan nilang si marinel, betch! betch ka talaga mam tess. sungit mo! i’m hate you!

__________ 

BLACK CHONA

i try to discover who is R yesterday. last saturday night i make a plan to catch R. my plan is that i wake up very early at 2AM and clean all the household chores that aling choleng the betch assigned to me coz you know, we are like school here in the house. we have homework to do and we also have class officers. mam tess is like the president and aling choleng is the vice president. me and myrna are the members. sir arnold is like the teacher coz he is the big boss so since mam tess (the president) is in abroad, the vice president or aling choleng (betch!) is the manager in cleaning the household chores today but for sir arnold, i am the vice president coz every night, sir arnold ask mam tess to bring beer and give him foot spa or massage sometimes but when mam tess is in the abroad, i bring beer to the room of sir arnold and i give him foot spa. so for mam tess, aling choleng is the vide president but for sir arnold i am. is like teacher’s pets coz sir arnold is like the teacher. 

so i wake up at 2AM yesterday and i do everything that aling choleng asked me to do so i will finish early. i finish at 3:30 AM. after my work, i go to the garage and hide at the back of the car of sir arnold so that i will see who will doorbell and leave me the secret letter. i wait and wait and wait. i get hungry coz it is already 10AM and no one is still doorbell and i also get very scared coz sir arnold catch me at the back of the car. i get shocking when someone try to open the door. 

sir arnold: o? chona? anong ginagawa mo dyan?

chona mae: naglilinis po.

sir arnold: e bakit nakasara lahat ng pinto at bintana? tingnan mo nga pawis na pawis ka.

chona mae: ang hirap po kasing linisin ng kotse nyo e. sinara ko na lang po para di na mapasukan ng alikabok. aalis na po ba tayo? san po tayo pupunta?

sir arnold: ano? di ka kasama. ako lang ang aalis. buksan mo na ang gate.

chona mae: pwede po bang kayo na lang magbukas? di ko po kasi ako pwdeng lumapit sa gate hangga’t walang nagdo-doorbell e. masisira po ang plano.

sir arnold: anong plano? chona, ang aga aga e pinapainit mo ulo ko. gusto mo bang pauwiin na kita ng romblon?

chona mae: pwede po?

sir arnold: oo at hindi ka na babalik dito kahit kailan. gusto mo ba yun?

chona mae: ay, ayoko po.

sir arnold: pwes, buksan mo na ang gate. nagmamadali ako.

chona mae: opo sige po. wait lang sir. nagmamadali din po ako.

i open the gate but before i open it big, i look right and left just like when i am crossing the street to see if there is anyone there waiting but there is none so i open it big. the car is leave and so is sir arnold. sir arnold dont have driver on sunday coz it is ambet’s day-off on weekends. that is why sometimes i want to study driving so that i will be a driver also with day off. that is why i imagine that i am driving the car if i am using the floor polisher to shine the floor coz i think driving the floor polisher and the car is the same. 

i close the gate after the car is leave the house. i cannot find a place to hide myself coz the car is not there anymore. i hide in the plants in the inside garden so that they are not see me from the outside. is very difficult coz the sun is hot coz it is already 10:00AM. i am very wet again with sweat all over me. i did not eat breakfast and lunch coz i don’t want to miss the passing by of R. i wait and wait and wait coz they say that a good motto in life is wait and wait until you are succeed. thats why i wait and wait so i will be a success. 

i did not watch ASAP Mania and ASAP fanatic coz i am still waiting in the garden. is very tired but i also feel nice coz i feel that i am like proncess gonzales of the eagles in basta’t kasama kita. i wait and wait and when it is already 4pm, i see someone riding a bike. he has a fat body and he stops near the gate. i try to see from the leaves. i move the leaves of the plants to see the face of the person. i think it is really R and then he goes down from his bike and doorbelled and i see that he is slide the letter below the gate but i was very shocking coz i see that R is rowena the lady guard of the village. rowena is tomboy and she is love me. i get scared and nervious coz i dont like it. i see that rowena is go away already so i walk near the gate using my hands and my knees very slowly and i see that she is give me again a rose, three judge bubble gums and one box of curly tops with a letter. i get the letter fast and run to my room. i read the letter and it say to me that: 

dear chona, 

mahal na mahal kita pero alam kong ayaw mo sa akin. wag kang mag-alala, hinding hindi na kita aabalahin. ito na ang huling regalo ko sayo. 

lovelots, 

Rowena

is very angry coz she is tell me also her name in the letter. i wait all day and my skin is now very black because of the sun. before i am light black but now i am black. sayang lang paghihintay ko sasabihin din naman pala. muntik pa akong mahuli ni sir arnold. hmp! 

p.s.
ang hapdi ng mukha ko. =( 

__________

I’M BACK

thanks god coz mam tess is not very angry on me anymore. is very sorry to all of you coz i am not write hear to you for long coz mam tess is ground me for 1 week coz she is say that i am a bad girl. but is ok now coz she is now let me use the PC (personal computer) again. i want to thank all of you for greeting me a happy birthday even if my birthday is not very happy coz mam tess is angry on me. your greeting give me more power. all of you touched me very much. even if mam tess is no longer ground me, i am still sad a little bit. i cry and cry for many days and more.

on my birthday, mam tess is very nice and happy to me. mam tess is not ask me to clean the household chores coz she is say that it is my birthday. sir arnold also touched me coz he is greet me a happy birthday and he is give me 50 pesos as birthday gift. after the lunch, mam tess is ask me to go shopping with her in makati. 

mam tess: hoy, birthday girl! magbihis ka at sumam ka sakin. punta tayo sa mall. wag ka nang mag-uniform . suot mo yung bigay ko sayong damit. mag dress ka at birthday mo naman. 

i was very exciting coz i want to go to the mall and buy some shopping for me. i shower and dress up. at first, i am confused what to wear coz mam tess is give me many of her old dress and clothes. i choose the class dress that mam tess is give me last year. is very pretty. the dress is have lace and starovski crystals. the starovski crystals are like stars in the dress like jewels. mam tess is wear this when she is ninang to the wedding of the child of her amiga many months ago. i am also wear my step-in sandals. i feel very pretty and special. i go out of my room and wait in the sala for mam tess. when mam tess is go out of her room she is very shocking to me.

mam tess: o? sigurado ka bang yan ang isusuot mo?

chona mae: opo. mam sige na. birthday ko naman po e saka matagal ko na pong gustong isuot ito. dream come true po ito for me..

mam tess: sige na nga. tara na.

we are go to the mall. i bring all my savings coz i want to buy shopping also. i want to gift myself but mam tess is not buy shopping pala. mam tess is only go to the parlor. we are go to 6750 for mam tess parlor. mam tess is have haircut and manicure and pedicure. i nwait in the sofa near the door.

bakla: mam parang bihis na bihis ang inyong helper a.

mam tess: oo nga e. hayaan mo na birthday kasi.

i get boring and i am also gelous of the other girls who are have their haircut. i ask mam tess if i can have my haircut also.

chona mae: mam pwede po ba akong magpagupit?

mam tess: mahal dito. may pera ka ba? di ako magbabayad ng pampagupit mo ha.

chona mae: mam may pera po ako. dala ko po ipon ko. pwede po?

mam tess: sige. bahala ka. basta ikaw magbabayad nyan ha.

chona mae: opo. promise.

the bakla is give me haircut. first the assistant is shampoo me.

assistant: mam, shampoo po muna tayo.

chona mae: wow. mam daw.

the assistant is show me the way where to shampoo.

chona mae: wala ba kayong banyo? bakit lababo lang? baka masilipan ako dito.

assistant: mam hindi po tayo maliligo. shampoo lang po natin yung ulo nyo.

chona mae: a ganun ba?

assistant: opo.

the assistant is shampoo my hair and then she is return me to the chair. the bakla is come back and is give me hair cut. i ask the bakla to give me bangs so that i look like my idol claudine.

bakla: mas maganda to kung kulayan natin para sosyal ka.

chona mae: sige! gusto ko blondie.

bakla: blondie? sige pwede pero mas maganda kung highlights lang. ano? game ka?

chona mae: sige. game na!

is very exciting for my new hair with bangs and color. mam tess is still getting massage and manicure and pedicure. mam tess is also hot oil.

the bakla is finish my color and is very pretty. i am very happy. i wait for mam tess to finish in the sofa near the door. mam tess is go out and is very shocking again.

mam tess: naku dyos ko, chona ano naman at nagpakulay ka pa? sabi ko na nga ba. nagpapaganda ka kay reynante ano?

chona mae: dah. di mam no. pangit kaya ni reynante. maganda po ba?

mam tess: ok lang. maganda na rin para maiba naman. nagbayad ka na ba?

chona mae: di pa po.

mam tess: o halika na sabayan mo nako pagbabayad dito. tumayo ka na dyan para makauwi na tayo. bilis.

mam tess is get her bill and i get mine. i get shocking and nervious coz my bill is 2,700. my money is only 700. i want to cry and i get wet of sweat.

mam tess: o? ano? nabayaran mo na?

chona mae: kulang po e. 2,700 po e 700 lang po pera ko.

mam tess is get very angry and she is shout at me in the parlor.

mam tess: aba! ano ka sinisuwerte? chona! pagbabayarin mo ako ng dalawang libo para sa kalandian mo? may mga bangs at kulay ka pang nalalaman. dapat tinanong mo muna kung magkano bago ka nagpakulay!

chona mae: tinanong lang po kasi nung bakla kung gusto ko. kala ko po kasama na sa bayad ng gupit. kala ko po combo na yun.

mam tess: naku. sinisira mo araw ko. babayaran ko to pero sinasabi ko sayo, di ka na makakaulit sa akin! ibabawas ko to sweldo mo!

i start crying and everyone in the parlor is look at me. some are laugh. some are not. they are just look.

chona mae: mam sorry na po. di na po uulit.

mam tess: sige na sige na. grounded ka. di ka pwedeng lumabas ng bahay.

chona mae: di naman po talaga ako lumalabas ng bahay kasi ayaw nyo di ba?

mam tess: sumasagot ka ba?

chona mae: hindi po.

mam tess: bawal ka ring mag-computer. di ka rin pwedeng gumamit ng telepono.

chona mae: po? pano po pag tumawag si sir jeff?

mam tess: si myrna ang sasagot bakit?

chona mae: mam. sorry na po. di napo ako uulit. papatanggal ko na lang po yung kulay.

mam tess: sira! di pwedeng tanggalin yan! tara na! humanda ka pagdating sa bahay!

i cry and i cry until i go home. mam tess is not stop at shouting at me even in the car but she is only repeat everything that she is say to me.

but is a little bit ok now coz i am use the computer again and i am still happy for my hair coz it is have bangs and i am blondie just like the girls i see in hbo but i am not very blondie coz it is only highlights so i am half blondie and half black. =) 

__________ 

PASALUBONG

sorry is been many days since i last write hear coz is been very busy coz mam tess is comeback from abroad last saturday and there are many things to do. mam tess is bring many shopping materials with her from the abroad. mam tess say that she is go to many places. i am very exciting for the stories of mam tess coz i also want to go to the abroad but i dont know how and i dont have money.

sir arnold is ask me to go with him to get mam tess from the airport so that she is come home to us.

sir arnold: chona, maligo ka.

chona mae: naku sir wag po. 

i get surprising and i cover my body with my hands coz i get scared. coz they say in TV that if the sir of the helper ask the helper to take a bath, he is rape her. 

sir arnold: ano ba nangyayari sayo? tumigil ka nga dyan. maligo ka na at magbihis ka at sasama ka sakin. aalis tayo. susunduin natin si mam tess mo sa airport. bilisan mo at baka ma-late tayo. 

chona mae: ay. ganun po ba. kala ko kasi.

sir arnold: kala mo ano?

chona mae: wala po. joke lang po. ano po isusuot ko?

sir arnold: tinatanong pa ba yun? mag-gown ka. naku chona.

chona mae: ay, formal po. wala po akong make-up e. di po ako makakasama. kayo na lang po. 

sir arnold: syempre uniform. ung white. nasisira araw ko syo. ang aga-aga e. sige na maligo ka na tapos magbihis ka tapos buksan mo yung gate.

chona mae: tapos?

sir arnold: aalis tayo. bakit?

chona mae: wala po. sige po. maliligo na po ako.

i am always exciting everytime mam tess and sir arnold are ask me to go with them coz i get very boring here in the house and i dont want to see aling choleng and myrna. mam tess and sir arnold are always ask me to go out with them coz aling choleng is the manager of the house and she cannot leave the house and she is always dizzy when she rides the car. suka ng suka. kadiri. myrna also cannot go coz if she is leave, aling choleng should go with her also thats why i am always the one who is go with sir and mam.

i take bath very quick coz sir arnold dont like to wait and he always in time. i wear my pants uniform. i am also very exciting for the pasalubong. i wish that mam tess is buy me chocolates. 

we leave the house and we are go to the airport. many airplanes fly over and above the car. we wait and we wait and then mam tess is finally come. she has many bags small and big coz she is go to many places. 

chona mae: hi mam! ako na po magdadala nyan. welcome to the philippines po. na-miss ko po kayo.

mam tess: asus. sipsip! wag kang mag-alala, may pasalubong ako sayo. kumusta naman kayo nila myrna sa bahay? malinis ba ang bahay? ayokong makakarinig ng maraming sumbong ha.

chona mae: ako po ok lang ewan ko po sina aling choleng.

we are go to duty free for more shopping. mam tess, sir arnold and me. mam tess are buy more things and then we are go home coz mam tess is already tired from the travel. in the car, i ask mam tess about abroad.

chona mae: mam san po kayo nagpunta?

mam tess: madami. bangkok, vietnam, hongkong, china, japan, singapore. nakakapagod.

chona mae: nag-japan po kayo? di ba masama po yun? bakit nyo po nagawa yun?

mam tess: sira! namasyal lang ako at nag-shopping. arnold, san ba natin nakuha to? parang nagkamali tayo dito a.

sir arnold: sinabi mo pa. wrong move honey. wrong move. ano, chona? soli ka na namin?

chona mae: wherever. 

sir arnold and mam tess are always joke with me that they are return me to romblon but is ok coz i know that it is joke only. 

chona mae: malaki po ba ang abroad

mam tess: chona talaga. oo. malaki.

chona mae: ano pong pasalubong nyo sakin? na-miss nyo po ba ako?

mam tess: marami akong pasalubong sayo mamaya mo na tingnan sa bahay. di ko alam kung na-miss kita kasi puro kunsumisyon dala mo sakin. 

mam tess is the deny queen. i know that she is only deny. i know that she is missed me also. 

we arrive home and we are bring the bags in the house. mam tess is open her bags and she is call aling choleng and myrna to give away the pasalubongs. 

mam tess: o myrna etong sayo. yung kay choleng kasam na dyan, may pangalan yan. 

the bag for choleng and myrna is big. they have imported lotion, important soap, imported shampoo and imported perfume. mam tess is also give aling choleng a sholder bag and some chocolates too also.

mam tess finally gives me my gift pack. many things inside the bag. she is give me one imported t-shirt that is color pink. the front of the t-shirt says: “abercrombie and bench” i think it is same with the t-shirt that the MTV and the MYX BJ wear. mam tess is also buy me kitkat and nestle crunch and kisses also. she is also give me lip glows. lip glows is look like a lipstick but mam mam tess say that lip glows is make the lips shine. is very happy. 

HAPPY EASTER. 

THE QUEEN CAN DO NO WRONG?

 

Okay.  Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo should be made answerable for this and that scandal.  She should be investigated and eventually prosecuted for graft and corruption, bribery or maybe even plunder and for all other laws that she and her cohorts may have violated.  Problem is, we cannot do all that while she is the sitting President.  She is IMMUNE FROM BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SUITS until June 30, 2010.  And whether we agree or not, her presidency has already been declared legitimate by the Supreme Court in 2001 and by the Abalos-Garci Comelec in 2004.  She will not resign and it looks like the AFP under General Esperon is not about to succumb to the wishes of People Power hopefuls.

WHAT THEN DO WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT A PRESIDENT’S PRIVILEGE OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT? 

Here are some of the anticipated questions and answers:

1.  What is the historical basis of the doctrine of executive immunity? 

The logical basis for executive immunity from suit was originally founded upon the idea that the “King can do no wrong.”  The concept thrived at the time of absolute monarchies in medieval England when it was generally accepted that the seat of sovereignty and governmental power resides in the throne. During that historical juncture, it was believed that allowing the King to be sued in his court was a contradiction to the sovereignty of the King.  (R.J. Gray, Private Wrongs of Public Servants, 47 CAL. L. REV.. 303, 1959) 

2.  What happened to the medieval concept of the “King can do no wrong” with the advent of democratic thoughts and institutions? 

The Supreme Court said that although the doctrine had lost its moral force, it found its way of surviving in modern political times, retaining both its relevance and vitality. Executive immunity has now become necessary for a variety of reasons.  The doctrine, among others, is rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers (Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 451 U.S. 731, 1982).  The separation of powers principle is viewed as demanding the executive’s independence from the judiciary, so that the President should not be subject to the judiciary’s whim. Moreover, by reason of public convenience, the grant is to assure the exercise of presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that the Chief Executive is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also demands undivided attention (Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393, 198 . 

3.  How and when did this concept of executive immunity emerge in our jurisdiction? 

The principle first came out in the 1910 case of Forbes, etc. vs. Chuoco tiaco and Crossfield, 16 Phil 534, where the Supreme Court at that time, speaking through Justice Johnson, held that: 

“The principle of nonliability, as herein enunciated, does not mean that the judiciary has no authority to touch the acts of the Governor-General; that he may, under cover of his office, do what he will, unimpeded and unrestrained. Such a construction would mean that tyranny, under the guise of the execution of the law, could walk defiantly abroad, destroying rights of person and of property, wholly free from interference of courts or legislatures. This does not mean, either, that a person injured by the executive authority by an act unjustifiable under the law has no remedy, but must submit in silence. On the contrary, it means, simply, that the Governor-General, like the judges of the courts and the members of the Legislature, may not be personally mulcted in civil damages for the consequences of an act executed in the performance of his official duties.” 

The decision, however, failed to mention whether a chief executive is also immune from criminal prosecution during his incumbency.  It only emphasized the possible consequences that may result if a chief executive is deprived of such immunity, such as:  “action upon important matters of state (will be) delayed; the time and substance of the chief executive spent in wrangling litigation; disrespect (would be) engendered for the person of one of the highest officials of the State and for the office he occupies; (there will be) a tendency to unrest and disorder resulting in a way, in a distrust as to the integrity of government itself.” 

4.  Did the 1935 Constitution contain any specific provision on presidential immunity? 

No. The 1935 Constitution was silent on the matter of executive immunity.  

5.  How about under the 1973 Marcos Constitution?  Was there ever a provision on executive immunity? 

Yes.  In 1981, Article VII, Section 17 was amended in this wise: 

“The President shall be immune from suit during his tenure. Thereafter, no suit whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by him or by others pursuant to his specific orders during his tenure. 

The immunities herein provided shall apply to the incumbent President referred to in Article XVII of this Constitution.” 

The effects of such amendment were that first, the immunity applied to both civil and criminal cases and that second, it covered not only the official acts of the President but also the acts of others who acted upon his specific orders.  The late dictator had probably anticipated a barrage of civil and criminl suits the moment he was no longer in power and true enough, some of those cases are still pending resolution up to this day.  This amendment, if not for his ouster in 1986, would have saved the day for him and Imelda. 

6.  Does the 1987 Constitution have any provision on executive immunity similar to that of the 1973 Constitution? 

No.  The Constitutional Commission created by President Aquino to formulate the draft of the 1987 Constitution did not bother to reenact the provision on executive immunity as found in the 1973 charter.  Fr. Joaquin Bernas, who was one of the commissioners,  saw no need to do so because it is already implicitly recognized in jurisprudence and in the principle of separation of powers that a President, during his tenure, is immune from suit. 

CONCLUSION: 

• A President cannot be prosecuted administratively, civilly and criminally during his tenure except by impeachment under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution; 
• The only reason why a President cannot be prosecuted during his tenure is to allow him to perform the duties of his office without having to attend to possible suits that may arise from such performance; and
• The immunity ceases once a President resigns, is removed from office (either intra-constitutionally or extra-constitutionally) or when his term of office expires. 

But do you agree to the proposition of Ex-Senator Jovito Salonga that while President Arroyo may be immune from suit, she is not immune from investigations? 

What do you think? 

(reference:  Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15. March 2, 2001)

THE HOLY WEEK OF HYPOCRITES

 

HYPOCRITES abound this season of the year. 

We hear of bishops allowing priests to officiate mass in Malacañang but at the same time prohibiting and/or discouraging these same priests from accepting invitations from groups opposed to the President. 

We hear of bishops saying it is not their “business” to call for President Arroyo’s resignation, yet, in a not-so-distant past, they were instrumental in ousting two previous administrations.  They did not invoke their misplaced concept of “separation of Church and State” then but they are unsurprisingly invoking it now. 

We hear of other Christian leaders sing songs of praise and glory to the Almighty almost on a daily basis, but their defeaning silence on the issues of the day reveal who they really are.

We see throngs of people go to Church and pray at this time of the year, but after brief moments of religious infatuation, they return to their old selves at the first crack of dawn of Monday after Easter Sunday — as gossipers, mudslingers, opportunists, adulterers, perverts and the like. 

We see politicians craving for seats in the front row of every televised mass in order to be seen by their constituents as God-fearing public servants. 

We hear of rich people donate large sums of money to the Church in the hope of mitigating their sins and to show-off their calculated generosity to the public. 

And lastly, every year, we have a President who gives a routinary Lenten Message of hope, peace, sacrifice and prayer.  Well, I’m not at all surprised.  Even the Devil can quote the Bible. 

I don’t want to be a hypocrite.   And since I don’t want to, I will just stay at home and watch Barney with my one-year old kid.  Make love to my wife.  Eat.  Rest.  Surf the net.  And of course pray where no one else will see and hear me. 

(picture lifted from time.com)  

PACQUIAO vs. MARQUEZ: FINISHED BUSINESS?

 

Unlike his previous fights, Manny Pacquiao’s victory over Juan Manuel Marquez was not as convincing as it should be.  Except for the 3rd round where he scored a knockdown and in the 10th round where he delivered crisp blows to the face of Marquez, the fight all throughout was dictated by the Mexican. 

But a win is still a win.  The fight could have gone either way, and fortunately for the millions of Filipinos who are rooting for PACMAN (me included), the judges gave it to Manny. 

PACQUIAO vs. MARQUEZ III?  For sure there will be.  Marquez’ camp will insist that they should be given another chance to disprove Pacquiao’s reputation as the “Mexican killer”.  Not only that, the prospect of earning millions of dollars from another Pacquiao-Marquez fight is simply hard to resist.

So congratulations to Manny for now.  You are indeed a boxing icon who deserves to be immortalized in this wise: 

   

Just a word of caution for Pacquiao.  Many politicians, especially of the lying, cheating and stealing kind, will tap your back and take advantage of the opportunity to once again mouth words of unity and reconciliation.  First in the line is the couple from Malacañang. 

(above illustrations were lifted from pinoysports.ph and fireballart.com)

WOMEN AS ANALYZED BY SCIENCE

 

They were e-mailed to me by a friend.  The illustrations confirmed some of my thoughts on women.  HEHE.. 

A TALE OF TWO SAN MIGUELS

2008 Bb. Pilipinas World JANINA SAN MIGUEL: 

 

 

2008 ZTE-NBN “surprising” witness LEO SAN MIGUEL:   

 

The girl has balls.  The man doesn’t.  TONGPATS! 

Guest Commentary: WHY DO PEOPLE LIE?

 

Everybody lies. It may only be “white” lies, but everyone tells lies or “omits the truth” sometimes. We start lying at around age 4 to 5 when children gain an awareness of the use and power of language. This first lying is not malicious, but rather to find out, or test, what can (be) manipulated in a child’s environment. Eventually children begin to use lying to get out of trouble or get something they want. White lies, those concocted to protect someone’s feelings, are not a big deal at all. The person, however, who seems to feel compelled to lie about both the small and large stuff has a problem. We often call these folks pathological liars (which is a description, not a diagnosis). They lie to protect themselves, look good, gain financially or socially and avoid punishment. Quite often the person who has been deceived knows that this type of liar has to a certain extent deluded him or herself and is therefore to be somewhat pitied.  A much more troubling group is those who lie a lot - and knowingly - for personal gain. These people may have a diagnosis called antisocial personality disorder, also known as being a sociopath, and often get into scrapes with the law. Lying often gets worse with the passage of time. When you get away with a lie it often impels you to continue your deceptions. Also, liars often find themselves perpetrating more untruths to cover themselves. We hold different people to different standards when it comes to telling the truth. We expect, for example, less honesty from politicians than from scientists. We have a vision of purity about those who are doing research, while we imagine that politicians will at least shade the truth about themselves in order to get elected. Why do we dislike liars, especially sociopaths, so much? It’s a matter of trust. When a person lies, they have broken a bond - an unspoken agreement to treat others as we would like to be treated. Serious deception often makes it impossible for us to trust another person again. Because the issue of trust is on the line, coming clean about the lie as soon as possible is the best way to mend fences. If the truth only comes out once it is forced, repair of trust is far less likely. As a parent, the most important message you can send your children about lying is that you always - always - want them to come clean with you. No matter how big a whopper they have told, remind them that you would always rather hear the truth, no matter how bad it is, than be deceived. Tell them there is really nothing more sacred in your relationship than your trust of each other. Of course, all this presupposes that we have discovered an untruth - some people are so expert at deception that it often takes a long time to find out that we have been lied to.  How, then, can we best detect whether we are being misled? There is no foolproof way, but there are often clues you can see in behavior that should make you suspicious: 

• Avoidance of eye contact.  Usually someone makes eye contact at least half the time they are talking to you. If you notice them avoiding eye contact or looking down during a specific part of a conversation, they may well be lying. 
• Change of voice.  A variation in pitch of voice or rate of speech can be a sign of lying.  So can lots of umms and ahhs. 
• Body language.  Turning your body away, covering your face or mouth, a lot of fidgeting of hands or legs can indicate deception. 
• Contradicting yourself.  Making statements that just don’t hold together should make you suspicious. If you lie all the time, even about unimportant things, you are likely to have a problem that will eventually — if it hasn’t already — cause you real relationship, financial or legal troubles.  Figuring out what is driving you to lie in the first place will help heal this self-destructive behavior.  This may mean going into treatment with a therapist to discover why you feel the need to deceive.  –By Gail Saltz, Contributor, TODAY (lifted from msnbc.com) 

-oOo- 

x x x A dangerous form of lying involves deliberate deception intended to gather support for a particular organisation or group, to obtain information about the opposition or to manipulate the outcome of a situation. This includes the manipulation of information or data interpretation so as to sway the target population, or defamation of the opposing party with falsified evidence or claims.

In military operations, fabrication of information is a tactic employed regularly to throw the enemy off course or to force the enemy’s hand. Soldiers on duty at an outpost may be required to lie about their numbers when reporting so as to misinform eavesdropping enemies. Military tactics sometimes call for the planting of false information for enemies to retrieve and misinterpret - ‘leaked’ information about their next target, for instance. And some of these strategies are used ruthlessly in espionage, especially when moles are planted within hostile organisations, pretending to be allies under faked identities while siphoning information from the members. 

Why People Lie - a Summary

We have already covered different types of lies and on what occasions people tell them. But here is the question - what makes people lie? 

• Greed - for power, for advantage, for money, for admiration
• Fear - we are sometimes driven to lie by fear - usually of what will happen if we tell the truth
• Acceptance - no man is an island. We find ourselves doing whatever it takes to be accepted, to be liked and appreciated
• Habit - compulsive liars lie compulsively because they are used to it 

The Hazards of Lying

When everything depends on just one tiny lie, we forget that in order to correct one lie, seven others have to be told.
- Shevat Yehudah 

It is all too well if someone manages to get away with a little lie or deception. But what’s in it for him if he gets caught? Or - if the lie is an especially big one - what will it do to others? 

The immediate answer is:  people would lose faith in him.  He has betrayed their trust - how will he ever regain it? This is especially bad if he belongs to a large organisation or movement of some sort, because that little act will now have insinuated to the people that the person is untrustworthy, ergo his organisation is not to be trusted either - who knows how many deceitful people are in it? It may even cost the person his career, his reputation, his future. Damage like this is irrevocable.

And what of those that have been deceived? Jolly good for those who see through the lie. However, countless others will fall for it, hook, line and sinker. This is not necessarily because they are unable to think for themselves, but because they may feel that there should not be a need to question the person’s integrity, especially if he is a person of power. Status can sway the people. And in some cases, when the liar is exposed, it is not he who the people are angry with - it is the person who exposed him. 

In extreme situations, lies can also create turmoil, political upheaval, even war as people of one country are turned against the people of another because wildly inaccurate information has been propagated and their feelings have been stirred.

The most tragic hazard of lying, however, is that too often a person who repeatedly tells a certain lie will end up believing it himself. It may start out as an attempt to impress or to get sympathy, but as the lying goes on, the person himself may lose track of reality, until at the end he can no longer differentiate between reality and the fiction he has created.  –Excerpts of the article were taken from bbc.co.uk 

Gloria.  Mike A.  Ermita.  Bunye.  Gaite.  Atienza.  Razon.  Abalos.  Neri.  Now we know where they’re coming from. 

The MISCONCEPTION about the SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE

  

In light of the CBCP’s call for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to scrap EO 464 (which she did), a call that dismayed the anti-Arroyo crowd who wanted the bishops to issue a stronger statement, i.e. resignation, the question which I believe until now has not been clearly answered is this: 

IS THE SEEMING INTRUSION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH INTO THE POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF THE NATION A VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? 

Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution states: 

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. 

In the case of Austria vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124382, August 16, 1999 (involving an illegal dismissal case filed by a Pastor against the Seventh-day Adventist Church), the Supreme Court made the following pronouncement: 

The rationale of the principle of the separation of church and state is summed up in the familiar saying, “Strong fences make good neighbors.”  The idea advocated by this principle is to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions.  The demarcation line calls on the entities to “render therefore unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”  While the State is prohibited from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs, the Church is likewise barred from meddling in purely secular matters. 

In that case, while the Court explained the meaning of “purely ecclesiastical affairs”, it did not expound on the phrase “purely secular matters”.  Finding out the meaning of these terms is imporant in order for us to know when the two institutions can be said to be intruding into the affairs of the other.  Hence, while an ecclesiastical affair is “one that concerns doctrine, creed, or form or worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership, and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of membership”, there is no such counterpart definition in the decision with respect to what are purely secular matters.  That leaves us, therefore, to determine for ourselves what they are. 

The daily operations of government and the official functions exercised by various government officials are, in my opinion, the matters which the Church should not meddle into. The business of government is better left to the expertise of people who are specially trained in running the day to day affairs of the State.  Ergo, if the Church as a whole (or as a matter of policy) immerses itself in government, e.g. establish a political party, allowing its bishops and priests to be appointed or elected as public servants, then that would be a violation of the constitutional principle. 

Be that as it may, Article II, Section 6 should be read in conjunction with Article III, Section 5 which provides: 

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. 

There are three important principles in the aforecited section.  First, it prohibits the establishment of any official religion by the State.  Second, it guarantees the free exercise of religion.  Third, it prohibits the conduct of religious tests before a person can exercise civil or political rights (like, for example, limiting public offices to those who adhere to a particular religion). 

There are other constitutional provisions that reinforce Article III, Section 5.  They are Article VI, Section 29 (2): 

No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. 

and Article IX, C, Section 2 (5), 1st paragraph: 

The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: 

x x x 

Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration. 

From the foregoing, it is clear that the burden is more on the State to ensure, inter alia, that first, it does not intrude into the ecclesiastical affairs of the Church; second, it does not establish any official religion; third, it guarantees the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship; and fourth, it prohibits any religious test for the exercise of civil and political rights. 

Except for the soft reminder that it should not interfere with “purely secular affairs”, nowhere in the Constitution can you find similar or counterpart burdens imposed on the Church.  Thus, it is wrong to say that the Church is meddling with politics when: 

1. the CBCP or any of its bishops issue pastoral statements attacking or defending the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; or when 

2.  activist priests and pastors hold rallies or stage protest actions against the government;  or when 

3.  you hear priests like Fr. Romeo Intengan blame the Left for the ills of the nation; or when 

4.  you see Pastor Apollo Quiboloy (the self-proclaimed “son of god”) openly declare President Arroyo to be God’s choice; or when 

5.  religious denominations like the Iglesia ni Cristo endorse certain candidates for public office; or when 

6. La Salle brothers and nuns provide sanctuary to NBN witness Jun Lozada; or when 

7.  you see priests holding political masses for former President Corazon Aquino and her followers; or whenever 

8.  you see 17 priests from Pampanga exorcising the evil out of Gloria.   

In all of the above cases, there is no violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. 

Read the statements of: 

Archbishop Angel Lagdameo here and here. 

Archbishop Oscar Cruz here and here. 

Ricardo Cardinal Vidal here. 

Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales here. 

Archbishop Orlando Quevedo here and here.

Q and A on EXECUTIVE ORDER 464

1.  What is the scope of the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation? 

The pertinent provision is found in Article 6, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution:

SECTION 21.  The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.  The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. 

In the case of Arnault vs. Nazareno (87 Phil. 29, 45), the Supreme Court had occasion to state that the power of inquiry is an essential component to the legislative function because Congress may not be able to legislate effectively if it is not armed with the necessary information “respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change”.  However, the Court in that same case also said that “it would be difficult to define any limits by which the subject matter of its inquiry can be bounded.  Moreover, it is not necessary that every question propounded to a witness must be material to a proposed legislation.  In other words, the materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation.” 

Going by the the above ruling, it would seem that the Senate is well-within its powers to make inquiries on the aborted/cancelled/suspended ZTE-NBN broadband deal, not so much for partisan political purposes (as what Malacañang spin doctors are harping about) but more so on the issue of whether or not the deal has complied with the government’s procurement laws that Congress itself has enacted.

2.  What is Executive Order No. 464 in relation to Article 6, Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution?  How did the Supreme Court interpret the controversial executive order? 

The salient features of Executive Order No. 464 are reproduced hereunder, viz: 

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.

SEC. 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.  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; 

2.  Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged; 

3.  Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements; 

4.  Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings; 

5.  Matters affecting national security and public order. 

(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.

On the other hand, Article 6, Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution states: 

SECTION 22.  The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. 

The Supreme Court in the relatively recent case of Senate of the Philippines vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita (G.R. No. 169777) held that Sections 1 and 2(a) of EO 464 are valid while Sections 2(b) and 3 are void. 

According to the Supreme Court, there is really no problem with Section 1 of the executive order as the same relates only to Article 6, Section 22, which refers to the so-called question hour, and not to Article 6, Section 21, which refers to the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.  In the former, the appearance of department heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part considering that Congress can only request them to do so; or if the initiative to appear comes from the department heads themselves, then they can only appear with the prior consent of the President. 

However, if you examine the provision closely, this so-called question hour finds no application in a presidential system where there is separation of powers among the three branches of government.  It is more akin to a parliamentary system (where there is blending of powers) as this is usually “the period of confrontation initiated by Parliament to hold the Prime Minister and the other ministers accountable for their acts and the operation of the government, corresponding to what is known in Britain as the question period”. 

The Supreme Court has made it clear that “while attendance was meant to be discretionary in the question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation.  The High Court further explained: 

Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function.  x x x 

Ultimately, the power of Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials under Section 21 and the lack of it under Section 22 find their basis in the principle of separation of powers. While the executive branch is a co-equal branch of the legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of Congress to legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for information. 

3.  What is executive privilege?  How does it affect the power of Congress to compel the attendance of executive officials under Section 21 (inquiries in aid of legislation)? 

In the case above-mentioned, the Court declared that the only way for department heads to exempt themselves from Congressional inquiries in aid of legislation is by a valid claim of executive privilege. 

Executive privilege is basically the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public.  Specifically, there are three recognized kinds of executive privilege and they are: 

1.  the state secrets privilege — the information is of such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military or diplomatic objectives; 

2.  the informer’s privilege — which refers to the privilege of the Government not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of that law; and 

3.  the generic privilege for internal deliberations — this has been said to attach to intragovernmental documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.  

But how does one validly invoke a claim of executive privilege? 

The claim of executive privilege must be accompanied by a specific allegation as to the basis thereof, “whether the information demanded involves military or diplomatic secrets, closed-door Cabinet meetings, etc.  x x x Otherwise, Congress is left to speculate as to which among them is being referred to by the executive.  x x x Congress has the right to know why the executive considers the requested information privileged. It does not suffice to merely declare that the President, or an authorized head of office, has determined that it is so, and that the President has not overturned that determination. Such declaration leaves Congress in the dark on how the requested information could be classified as privileged. x x x Absent then a statement of the specific basis of a claim of executive privilege, there is no way of determining whether it falls under one of the traditional privileges, or whether, given the circumstances in which it is made, it should be respected.” 

Citing the case of U.S. vs. Reyolds, the High Tribunal said: 

The privilege belongs to the government and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party. It is not to be lightly invoked. There must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer. The court itself must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege, and yet do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect. 

4.  If the President’s formally revoked E.O. 464, what happens, does it mean what the S.C. allowed the President and her officials to invoke, can no longer be invoked? Or can you still invoke the provisions of an executive issuance that has been formally revoked? Specially since Memorandum Circular 108 is still in force? (adopted question from MLQ3) 

President Arroyo does not need EO 464 before she can invoke executive privilege.  Executive privilege, though not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, is nevertheless recognized by the fundamental law with or without said executive order.  The scrapping of EO 464 is practically useless as Romulo Neri can always invoke executive privilege when, in his judgment, or upon the advice of his lawyers, the information sought to be elicited is covered by the principle.  If the Senators disagree, then resort may be had to the Supreme Court to break the constitutional  impasse.  If that happens, then that would buy more time for the President to recover lost ground.  We all know how “long” it takes before the SC comes up with a decision or resolution.

5.  The main arguments in the provisions that were still valid, up to the time of revocation, having been ratified by the court, does a new executive issuance have to be signed, to continue invoking them?

In other words, does revoking E.O. 464 while asserting the right to invoke executive privilege, at this point, and with the particular issues at hand, actually mean anything? (also an adopted question from MLQ3) 

The revocation means nothing.  As far as the “valid” provisions of EO 464 are concerned (Sections 1 and 2a), they are still binding and effective.  Why?  This is so because Section 1 is merely a reiteration of the constitutional provision regarding the discretionary appearance of heads of departments in the question  hour (Article 6, Section 22).  It does not refer to inquiries in aid of legislation which is governed by Article 6, Section 21. 

Section 2a, on the other hand, is merely a discussion on the nature, scope and coverage of executive privilege which, as I said, is already jurisprudentially recognized with or without said EO. 

President Arroyo’s legal advisers were clever enough to scrap the executive order because they know that executive privilege springs not from some EO but from another source which is the Constitution. 

But I like this loaded question of Justice Carpio to Atty. Bautista:  Can executive privilege be invoked to hide a crime?