President Arroyo has officially scrapped EO 464 which barred government officials from testifying in congressional inquiries. Following her revocation of the directive though, President Arroyo ordered officials of the executive branch to attend scriptwriting workshops a day before each congressional hearing.

EO 464 Scrapped II

President Arroyo has decided to scrap EO 464 which barred government officials from testifying in congressional inquiries… reportedly sending chills down the spine of CHEd Chairman Romulo Neri who couldn’t imagine himself "coming out" in front of senators live on ANC!

The Deal on Spratlys

Reports say President Arroyo entered into an agreement with China in 2004 allowing it to explore the disputed Spratly Islands in exchange for an $8-billion loan package. Teka lang, is there a way to check if we still are Filipinos?! Baka pati Pilipinas nabenta na, hindi lang natin alam.

JDV on Spratly Deal

Former House Speaker Jose De Venecia denied that the Spratly deal is tied to loans from China. Hanggang ngayon ba naman, in denial pa rin si JDV na nuknukan rin sha ng katiwalian?

Erap on Succession

Pardoned plunderer and former president Joseph Estrada said that "I have the constitutional right to replace President Arroyo because I was unconstitutionally removed." Constitutionally… just shut up!

Erap on Noli

Pardoned plunderer Joseph Estrada said he is not comfortable with Vice President Noli de Castro replacing President Arroyo. Actually, kami rin - sa inyong dalawa.

JLo’s Sanctuary Fund

The good news is that the sanctuary fund for Jun Lozada has reached 2 million pesos. The bad news: that’s not enough to launch a senatorial campaign in 2010.

JLo’s School Tour

Handlers of Jun Lozada have arranged for him a nationwide high school graduation tour where he is expected to deliver speeches. That, in fact, is a wise move considering that members of this year’s graduating class would be 18 or older by 2010 and would definitely be eligible to vote.

Tabloid Headlines: ZTE NBN and Other News

Good News: Bagong testigo sa NBN ZTE deal lulutang
Bad News: Bagong testigo, sobrang ingat dahil ayaw niyang lumutang… sa Pasig River

Good News: Senado, may bagong “surprise witness”
Bad News: Surprise witness, lalabas sa isang giant cake (may clowns pang kasama)

Good News: Bagong “surprise witness” ng Senado, hawak ni Senador Lacson
Bad News: Hawak ni Lacson? Anong surprising do'n?

Good News: Senador Lacson may bagong "surprise star witness"
Bad News: Jun Lozada, kinakabahan; takot matalbugan

Good News: Senators to unveil new star witness
Bad News: Pero belo ni Neri, 'di nila ma-unveil

Quote of the Week

TV host/manager Lolit Solis’ reply to another scribe when the latter asked: "Sa palagay ‘po n’yo bakit maraming babae ang nagkakagusto kay Senator Bong (Revilla)?":

"Eh kasi nga dakila si Bong noh! Malaki ang nota n’yan kaya maraming babae ang na-e-elya elya sa kanya. Kahit maglaway pa kayo sa nota ni Bong, si Lani pa rin ang legal wife noh!"

Enjoy your weekend!

***

There are 4.7 million poor Filipino Families in 2006 according to the 2006 Official Poverty Statistics report released Wednesday by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). The government figures say that our economy perform better but many don't feel the 'better performance. I think this concern - uplifting the economic conditions down to the grassroots level - need more attention.

***

President Arroyo is welcome in Cebu. She is set to visit Cebu City on March 28. Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña invited President Arroyo to come to Cebu City when she met with some city mayors in Malacañang last Monday.

***

The Senate "Star" Jun Lozada is also set to visit Cebu. Arman Perez of Bayan Muna confirmed this during the forum at Seminario Mayor de San Carlos last Saturday. What for? Cebu City Vice Mayor Micheal Rama asked. Vice Mayor Rama said the Cebuanos do not need him coming here to know the truth. Mayor Tomas Osmeña said, Lozada may visit Cebu. I don't know if Lozada is welcome here. Will he come for a vacation or promotion?

***

If President Arroyo is serious in her effort to eliminate graft and corruption, she should start by prosecuting the people involved in the controversial National Broadband Network (NBN)- ZTE scandal. She should also commend star witness Rodolfo Lozada Jr., by making him a hero for his self-sacrifice in exposing the scandalous transaction, Sun Star columnist Bobby Nalzaro wrote last Monday. Will Arroyo do that? A remote possibility.

***

Mindanao bloc wants that former House Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. has to be replaced as president of the ruling party Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats (CMD). Former President Fidel Ramos has offered JDV to become Chairman Emeritus of the party. Ramos is Chairman Emeritus which means there will be two Chairman Emeritus if JDV accept the offer. JDV reportedly agrees to be removed as Lakas president. There are many conditions though.

***

Robberies in Cebu - a graduating Nursing student was killed by her robber last night. Cebu's police must intensify their efforts to minimize if not solve street crimes.

***

Is Cebu really the smuggling capital? Who says that? Remember the hot cars. Whether to destroy the hot cars or not, that still subject to discussions.

***

More and more pirated software installers are displayed in Cebu City's Colon area. More and more people are supporting piracy. Let us not just look at the bigger picture of corruption.

***

Have a great Thursday!

______________________________________________
Jerry G. Gervacio|Mandaue City|Contact: Send Mail
Blog I author (Bisaya): Ambot Lang!
______________________________________________

Yesterday, in her efforts to appease the Catholic Bishops, Gloria gave in and rescinded EO 464. Was it a victory? Will this bring us nearer to the truth in the ZTE-NBN scam and other scandals like the "Hello Garci" and the fertilizer scam (remember Jokjok Bolante?)?

Do you think Gloria will give in just like that? Ain't this just another calculated move designed to project an image of introducing changes because she has her back on the wall?

For the most part, EO 464 was already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Rescinding an order declared unconstitutional by the highest court of the land is not an act of goodwill. In fact, faking goodwill by rescinding EO 464 make it an act of deception.

Without EO 464, high government officials can now be summoned by congress and the senate to their investigations even without the consent of the president. This will just ensure their appearance but can they be forced to talk much less tell the truth? They still have Executive Privilege to hide behind. The scope of executive privilege is still being debate on. In the case of Romy Neri, the senate can force him to appear before the senate but he will just invoke executive privilege every time they will delve into his communications with the president. We may end up going to the Supreme Court with every question asked to which he will invoke executive privilege, making our search for the truth a constant and slow legal struggle.

We cannot legislate honesty. We cannot abolish dishonesty nor the conspiracy of deception and silence of the Arroyo administration. Honesty is a personal virtue, a virtue abandoned by even the most decent in the Arroyo cabinet. They can even lie under oath and lie in front of millions o Filipinos watching the live coverage of the proceedings (remember Abalos, Manny Gaite, Gen. Razon, Sec. Atienza and the airport gang?).

Gloria and her cohorts have calculated the risks of rescinding EO 464 to fake goodwill to the Catholic bishops. They concluded that taking out EO 464 will not damage their concealment of the truth.

EO 464 has been abolished. Will it bring out the TRUTH?

I still believe the abolition of EO 464 is a hollow and meaningless act. Like the declaration of a state or emergency, it is just a disposable barrier that Gloria created to derail the search for the truth just like the rusty container vans that she uses to block the entrance to the palace.

The Arroyo administration should be taken to task for imposing EO 464 in the first place. Rescinding it after it has been declared unconstitutional to appease the Church and to project an image as is the Arroyo administration is seeking for the truth makes it an act of deceit and a ploy for survival.

Gloria and her highly paid and richly commissioned gang of a$$lickers can shove EO 464 up each other's A$$ES and consider that their Executive Privilege.

Is this a substantial change? Or was the scrapping of 464 merely sleight of hand?

In striking down (kinda) EO 464, the Supreme Court in essence ruled:

• Congress can compel the appearance of public officials in inquiries "in aid of legislation;"
• That EO 464 is constitutional insofar as it bans executive officials from appearing during the "question hour" (investigations directed merely to congressional oversight over the implementation of laws); and
• That only the President can invoke executive privilege.

MC 108 very clearly adheres to the formulation implied by this SC decision but it also lays down procedures which are intended (transparently) to rein in ... uhrm ... Senatorial exuberance.

First of all, 108 doesn't say executive department officials cannot appear before inquiries in aid of legislation, but it forces the legislature to justify the summonses.

Upon receipt of the request to appear before either House of Congress by any official, said official shall promptly request from Congress information, if it is not so provided in the invitation, regarding the possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inquiry, the subject matter of the inquiry and the questions relative to and in furtherance thereof

This apparently addresses the widely held perception that inquiries in aid of legislation are actually nothing of the sort - that they are actually fishing expeditions conducted purposely to garner media mileage for the committee members running the show.  By asking the legislature to provide some indication of what the intended new legislation and what the possible questions will be, 108 provides at least a semblance of protection for the Executive Department from the kind of barratry the Senate seems to have taken a liking to. I say only a "semblance" because once the summoning House (Senate or Lower House) has provided the requested information, there really is nothing stopping them from letting the questioning morph into a 3rd degree once they have the hapless official before them.

What is not explicit, but can prolly be assumed, is that if the summoning House refuses to provide the requested information, then the summoned official can "delay" coming to the hearing until the information requested has been given. In other words, refusal by the House sets up a stand-off.

This is the first substantial distinction between 464 and 108. 464 was guilty of overbreadth - as the SC pointed out. 108 is more focused on inquiries in aid of legislation - not to frustrate valid inquiries, but to protect against witch hunts.

Secondly, assuming the requested information is provided, that information is then forwarded to the President - together with the summoned official's recommendation (e.g., 'I think I should go;' or 'I think I shouldn't go')  - who will then decide if the proposed inquiry will fall within the scope of executive privilege.

The official, after obtaining such information, shall forward the request and all pertinent documents, together with a brief background and recommendation, to the President through the Executive Secretary;

The President shall consider whether the subject matter of the inquiry is in aid of legislation and/or fails within the scope of executive privilege;

This is where 108 most closely mirrors 464 in that the official's appearance is still predicated on the President's consent. Under 464, the President is not required to explain why no consent is given (either by inaction or by outright refusal). Under 108, the Executive Secretary is directed to explicitly claim executive privilege and to explain why the claim was made.

Upon a determination that the subject matter of the inquiry falls within the scope of executive privilege, the President of the Executive Secretary, acting "By order of the President", shall inform the Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, of the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made (e.g., whether the information demanded involves military or diplomatic secrets, closed-door Cabinet meetings, etc.)

While the difference may be negligible to those who would be satisfied with nothing less than the absolute power of Congress to interrogate anyone, the fact is this requirement to explain is a substantial guarantee because it exposes the claim to contestation; something that could not legally be done under 464 (you can't compel people - even the Prez - to decide one way or the other; at most, you can compel them to make the decision).

Third, 108 explicitly instructs the summoned official - once he is before the summoning House - to exercise discretion and determine whether the questioning is tending to elicit responses which might undermine State security or prejudice public interest. In such a case, the official is told to ask for an executive session. If the summoning House refuses, the official is told to ask for a chance to consult with the Prez.

It doesn't take a genius to see that if this situation arises (and it likely will), then that official's interrogation will either be brought to a screeching halt, or the interrogators can draw it out and milk what they will call the official's "defiance" for all the public outrage and melodrama they can.

But again, this signifies a major departure from 464 in that it gives the summoning House the chance to be reasonable and to respect a co-equal branch of government. Under 464, the official could simply clam up and that would be that. Not very respectful of the Legislature either, truth be told. So, under 108, the Executive is forced to ask for a time-out, and the Legislature is given the opportunity to be gracious. Respect all around. Under 464, the Executive refuses to play, and the Legislature gets the chance to be the offended party. Disrespect all around.

To summarize 464 v. 108 ...

Seems like substantial distinctions to me.

What is less clear to me is why the Palace seems to have gone out of its way to make 108 so potentially abrasive. Here's what I mean.

Section 1, talking about Question Hour, says:

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.

Note the mandatory "shall." The Senate isn't going to like being told how to run its business.

The entire Section 3 is basically about throwing Congress' rules  right back in its face. Whoever wrote this damned thing probably isn't married. New Rule: don't remind me of my own rules when I don't feel like obeying them.

Especially funny is when Section 3 talks of officials having the right not to answer questions like:

(1) Those which contain arguments;
(2) Those which include offensive or unparliamentary language or expression;
(3) Those which pertain to matters sub judice;
(4) Those which refer to the internal affairs of a foreign country or contain unwarranted discourtesy to it;
(5) Those which seek an opinion on a question of law;
(6) Those which relate to matters failing within the responsibility of another department head;
(7) Those which repeat question/s previously asked and answered;
(8) Those which violate the rights of officials as guaranteed under the laws and the Constitution; and
(9) Those which are neither directly material nor pertinent to the subject matter of the inquiry or legislation.

But those are exactly the kinds of questions that draw public attention! Those are exactly the kinds of questions Senators ask! And (see number 2, please) how they like to ask them!!! LOL! And as for number 4, *gasp-OMFG!* ja-ja-jamby might feel al-al-alluded to! If I had only watched every single televised session as obsessively as some people have, I might even be able to match the objectionable questions to the Senator who asks them. LOL!

Gloria Arroyo's latest mandate to the Armed Forces of the Philippines to take speedy action on cases of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances made the headlines last week. She made the order after her speech at the United Nations on September 29, urging Burma's military junta to release the country's pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and to “allow all interested parties to take full part in the effort to national reconciliation through peaceful and inclusive dialogue.”

Basking in the good praises of American businessmen, the President never let the rare opportunity pass to boost her worsening image here and abroad. She has to patch up her “bad girl” image after her rating plunged amid the NBN controversy, with only three in every ten adults were satisfied with her performance.

In her speech she advertised the Philippines as “the most democratic country in our region.” “We have no tolerance for human rights violations at home and abroad,” she said.

Very well said. But her call on the AFP to put an end to political killings and enforced disappearances could have been more belieavable if not for some paradoxes and inconsistensies in her new administrative order.

The timing is noteworthy when she issued Administrative Order 197, which contains the President's directive ordering the AFP to protect human rights violations and adopt effective measures to avoid military abuses.

But here's the flip-flop. While the President, who allegedly stole her position with the help of an election commissioner in May 2004, tried to parlay her U.N. moment into a big achievement, and her “democratic call” into a heroic legacy, a portion of the order appears to be out of tune.

A.O. 197 also directed the AFP and the Department of National Defense to draft a legislative proposal that would put protective “safeguards" in place against "disclosure of military secrets and undue interference in military operations inimical to national interest.”

“The DND/AFP shall draft legislation in consultation with the PLLO and Congress allies for safeguards against disclosures of military secrets and undue interference in military operations inimical to national security,” Mrs. Arroyo said in the AO.

She also ordered that the proposal should ensure that military operations would not be hampered or unncecessarily interrupted.

It can be gleaned from the tenor of the order that the President seeks to see a new law that would further tighten the lid on military secrets. It appears that her partially nullified Executive Order 464 that bars her men from appearing in any inquiry without her consent is still not enough to ensure her regime's rule of secrecy.

Her latest edict seeks to counter the ongoing Senate hearing on the Hello, Garci controversy and the undying search for Jonas Burgos, espcially now that the Court of Appeals ordered the AFP provost marshal and the inspector general to release a copy of their report.

In my opinion, said order is especially made to counter the “ballistic” threat of the two cases, which, if totally extracted by the Senate, could forcibly open the regime's Pandora's box.

As then and now, the question remains the same: What is there to hide? Why is Mrs. Arroyo so fervent in keeping the secrets of her government? Her actions even add proof to the suspiscion that something is dead in her closet.

Perhaps, those secrets, if divulged, could spell end to this secretive administration. Lest we forget, all despotic and/or facsistic governments in the world subscribe to the code of secrecy to maintain their iron grip on power.

The Senate is becoming more persistent in linking Mrs. Arroyo to all of the cases presented before it, including the NBN controversy. Its power of inquiry has always been upheld by the Supreme Court and cannot be trampeled upon by any executive juggernaut.

The Hello, Garci controversy, without a doubt, has a list of military officials at its disposal. A.O. 197 now seeks to gag the President's men in the AFP, especially those in the Intelligence, from revealing the secrets of the military(?), or more precisely, the secrets of Hello, Garci.

The Jonas Burgos case, on the other hand, also contains names of military officials in its list. If the motto for ongoing NBN hearing is “Follow the money,” here, the guiding principle should be “Follow the leader.” There is a possibility that the blood line will go as high as the highest military official in the land. Who knows?

If the Hello, Garci case threatens to reveal the “original sin” (or the sin of the Queen), the Burgos case also threatens to expose the “collateral sin” (or the sin of the generals in trying to protect their boss). The first, which pertains to the massive cheating in 2004 elections, is the mother of all crimes under the Arroyo regime, as it implicates a constitutional body (the Comelec) as the one that engineered Mrs. Arroyo's phyrric victory with the help of the military, public officials, and private individuals.

The second would explain the AFP's degree of determination and persistence in preserving the regime.

Without any thread of doubt, the birth A.O. 197 is also logically related to the Supreme Court's issuance of the Writ of Amparo, which is “a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.”

“The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof,” the Court said.

The writing can now be seen on the wall. The Arroyo Administration has to contain all these counter-developments made by both the Senate and the Court.

The President and her cohorts, on one hand, use the law and seek refuge in the protective loopholes of the law to justify their actions and to cover the disgusting secrets of the administration. The Court and the Senate, on the other hand, have to find ways and means to uncover the government's tightly sealed secrets.

Mrs. Arroyo has to tighten her iron grip on power by exploiting her mythical executive previlege. The more she used this so absurd power, the more she caused disservice to the Filipino people. While the high court recognizes the right of the president to use this power, she should also bear in mind that in this country, sovereignty always resides in the people, and all government authority emanates from them.

Common sense should tell us that in a republican state, the people possess the supreme right to information, and that any executive adventurism cannot deny them such right and authority. Since the term executive privilege has now become part of our political system, this power, for it to be valid and constitutional, must be exercised in good faith and only if necessary, and not to cover up corruption and official abuses and malpractices.

We should always remember that a transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a truly republican state.