Arroyos Electoral sabotage

MANILA, PhilippinesWith a vote of 13-2, the Supreme Court affirmed Tuesday the findings of the Department of Justice-Commission on Elections (DOJ-Comelec) that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo be prosecuted for electoral sabotage. The 13 justices are Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Presbitero Velasco, Lucas Bersamin, Teresita Leonardo De Castro, Bienvenido Reyes, Jose Catral Mendoza, Estela Perlas Bernabe, Jose Perez, Mariano Del Castillo, Marvic Leonen and Martin Villarama. The two dissenting justices are Associate Justice Arturo Brion and Roberto Abad. The high court, in its ruling, said Mrs. Arroyo who is now a Pampanga lawmaker already pleaded not guilty to the case that is currently pending with the Pasay City Regional Trial Court. The Court took judicial notice that Arroyo not only entered a plea of not guilty, she also filed a motion for bail, which was granted. She benefitted from the RTC order; she has in fact chosen to seek judicial remedy before the RTC where the electoral sabotage case is pending instead of the executive remedy of going back to the Joint Committee for the submission of her counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence, High Court said. The high court added that the conduct of preliminary investigation against Arroyo was proper because it was done in accordance with the Rules on Criminal Procedure. There was no denial of Arroyos right to due process when her right to inspect documents was denied; the documents she requested were not submitted to the Joint Committee and therefore could not be provided her, the high court said.

People power 1-2

The first Filipino People Power revolution broke out at 6:30 p.m. on Saturday, Feb. 22, 1986, at Camp Aguinaldo, headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, with a military revolt led by Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos, AFP deputy chief of staff and Philippine Constabulary chief, against the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship. The revolt ignited a mass civil uprising that ended without shedding blood 14 years of oppression, corruption and abuses of the Marcos regime. The leadership of that people power movement fell into the hands of the opposition figure, Cory Aquino, daughter of one of the wealthiest landed families in the country, the Cojuangco clan embedded in Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac, a province in the heartland of agrarian unrest. In reality, it was not the centuries-old highly inequitable distribution of wealth between rich and the poor that triggered the first Edsa Revolution. It was the stealing of the snap presidential election of Feb. 7, 1986, that triggered the revolution. It was the catalyst of Edsa I. The installation of Cory Aquino did not put Philippine society on the road to social reform, or redistribution of wealth. She was installed by acclamation of a coalition of popular forces in Edsa on Feb. 25, at Club Filipino, four days after the military revolt that forced Marcos to flee to Honolulu, Hawaii, on the strength of the unofficial vote count by the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel) showing Aquino leading Marcos. The dictator disregarded the Namfrel result and proclaimed himself elected on the basis of the count of his rubber-stamp Commission on Elections. Sparse crowd One of the disturbing consequences of Cory Aquinos installation was that it led to the perpetuation of the Aquino family dynastywith family dynasties still dominating the power structure in senatorial, congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral offices nationwide. From this context, Edsa I was not a positive agent of change for democratization of Philippine politics. There was little to celebrate on the 26th anniversary of Edsa I at the gathering of the government dignitaries and officials at the People Power Monument at the edge of Camp Aguinaldo. More than a quarter of a century after Edsa I, a second Aquino dynasty heir, President Benigno Aquino III, is running the country and presiding over the direction and revision of the mandate of the nonsocial revolution led by his mother. To be sure, the current President, unlike his mother, was formally elected by a landslide in a free and fair election in 2010.

In his speech on the 26th Edsa anniversary on Saturday, President Aquino addressed the official celebration which failed to generate euphoric attendance in a crowd composed mainly of officials and local mayors and their retinues. He used the occasion to launch a historical revision or interpretation of people power as an agent of social change. He used the event as a platform to attack the judiciary, which was a perversion of the original role of People Power I which was directed at toppling the dictatorshipan action that was a strike for liberty. Rather, Mr. Aquino used the occasion to rabble-rouse the people to rise up in street protests against the constitutionally independent judiciary. He urged Filipinos to take action against the judiciary that, he said, like the declaration of martial law by Marcos in 1972, was one of the wrongs committed in the past that needed to be corrected. This is an erroneous analogy. The President continued to attack Chief Justice Renato Corona, who is on trial at the Senate impeachment tribunal. He urged immediate action, saying that martial law happened because people chose to keep silent until they could no longer bear the abuses of the regime. Inciting mob rule I trust that we can reach a society that is free from a judiciary with two facesone with a partial justice system, and another with balanced scales, Mr. Aquino said. If you want to remain in the old system, go ahead and pretend to be deaf. Pretend to be blind. Dont speak. Dont participate. But if you believe that theres something wrong in the system and that this had to be corrected, lets go and push back. Lets participate, lets make it right. Although the President did not spell out the forms of action he sought, it was clear that he was inciting mob rule and violent action for crowds to storm the Supreme Court and possibly drag out Corona and justices appointed by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to pressure them to resign before the Senate tribunal could render a decision on the impeachment case. No Filipino leader has attacked the Supreme Court and the judiciary with more vehemence and fanatical zeal than Mr. Aquino, who justifies his action with the goal to flush out corruption in government. Our country is now at a crossroads. In one direction is the weedy path, where the influential holds the scales of justice and those who manipulate the law benefit, he said. In the other is the straight path where the rules are clear, justice favors no one and those who are at fault made answerable Let us now move so that we can quickly leave behind the darkness in the past. Departure from Edsa These frenzied attacks have sharply underlined the issue that the President has gone out of bounds in fomenting mob rule, violence and undermining a fair trial under the rule of law. The President-instigated thuggery is a clear departure from the character of People Power I. Edsa I was a voluntary and instantaneous explosion of the peoples wrath against the dictatorship. No one trucked or instigated the people to rush to the streets to attack Malacaang. Edsa I was a defensive move. People took to the streets in response of the call of Jaime Cardinal Sin to protect the forces of Enrile and Ramos from imminent attack and annihilation by Marcos armored loyalist forces under Gen. Fabian Ver. In his zeal to destroy Corona and the independence of the Supreme Court, Mr. Aquino is completely misreading the meaning of people power as a weapon of last resort to protect the liberties of the people from the tyranny of their ruler. Edsa I was an extraordinary exercise of the sovereign will of the people to restore democracy. Mr. Aquinos election did not give him a mandate to destroy the constitutional principle of checks and balance by coequal branches on government. He is using people power to establish one-man rule in this country.

Quirino Chinese hostage taking MANILA, Philippines?It was not last year?s hostage-taking at the Quirino Grandstand that left eight Hong Kong tourists dead which proved traumatic for members of the Manila Police District?s Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team. Rather, it was the name-calling and scathing comments thrown their way after their botched attempt to rescue the foreigners from their captor, dismissed Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza. Nearly seven months after the tragic August 23 incident, members of the assault team say they have moved on.

Senior Supt. Nelson Yabut is the former head of the MPD?s District Police Safety Battalion (DPSB) which is in charge of the SWAT team. He was called a gatecrasher and action star-wannabe when he joined the operatives who launched an assault on the Hong Thai bus without any protective gear and his police cap donned backwards. ?I was their chief. I headed the unit that conducted the assault. I could not just stand by and watch as my men risked their lives against the bullets and the downpour. I had to do something as their superior officer. All policemen there [at the Quirino Grandstand] had to do something but where were they?? Yabut told the Inquirer in a recent interview. He laughed when reminded that after the hostage-taking, some of his colleagues dubbed him ?Robin Padilla? after the actor star who often wore a baseball cap in reverse. It was just more practical to wear his headgear that way, Yabut said. ?I needed full visibility. The visor was getting in the way of my vision.? He also brushed aside accusations that he was after glory when he joined the assault. ?The hostage-taking had to end with the rescue of the tourists. Everyone in the assault teams knew that. So what we lacked in equipment, our assault teams more than made up for in courage. While others hid and waited, we were the few who actually did something to end the crisis,? he said. Yabut, who has been cleared of administrative charges in connection with the botched rescue attempt, was promoted early this month based on an application he had submitted before the incident. The processing of his papers was put on hold pending the resolution of the case filed against him. However, his promotion has made him ineligible to retain his post as DPSB chief. He has since been reassigned to the Philippine National Police (PNP) headquarters in Camp Crame pending his appointment to a new post. As for the MPD SWAT team, it remains intact except for team leader Chief Insp. Santiago Pascual III and assault team leaders SPO2 Bernardo Espinosa, SPO4 Reynaldo Antonio and SPO3 Alfonso Gameng Jr. who were relieved and reassigned to the National Capital Region Police Office pending the outcome of the cases filed against them. Senior Insp. Joey de Ocampo, officer in charge of the MPD rapid deployment unit, declared the SWAT unit ?fully recovered? from the trauma as a result of the hostage-taking. ?It was painful that we were put in a bad light. But our men are past all that,? he said. After undergoing stress debriefing, the SWAT members were sent in batches to the PNP School for Values and Leadership at Clark Special Economic Zone in Angeles City, Pampanga, for 45 days of intensive training to further hone their skills. They also received more equipment?15 Kevlar ballistics helmets, 25 bulletproof vests, 30 gas masks, 32 Glock 9 mm pistols, and five 12-gauge semi-automatic shotguns?to boost their capability in assault operations. ?They have come to understand that something like that happens to even the best so it should not affect their morale. Even elite special forces in other countries fail some of their missions and technically we cannot say that the hostage rescue at the Quirino Grandstand was a failure because there were hostages saved,? De Ocampo stressed. He emphasized, ?They did their best as best as they could given their limitations at the time. They wanted to save people and they did. We all know Mendoza had already shot and killed a number of his hostages. The assault teams neutralized the hostage-taker before he could kill more hostages.? A SWAT team member who took part in the assault remarked that it was easy for onlookers and so-called foreign experts who have not participated in actual rescue operations to criticize and find fault with them.

?Theories do not always work in reality because they are based on ideal situations,? said the SWAT man who asked not to be identified. He added, ?We were there. We did our best. We saved lives.?

Coranas Impeachment
Renato Corona, the 23rd Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, wasimpeached on December 12, 2011. Corona was the third official, after former PresidentJoseph Estrada in 2000 and Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in March 2011, to be impeached by the House of Representatives. The Senate, convened as an impeachment court, began the trial on January 16, 2012. This was the second impeachment trial in the history of the Philippines, as Gutierrez had resigned prior to the start of her trial. On May 29, 2012, Corona was found guilty of Article IIof the Articles of Impeachment filed against him pertaining to his failure to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth.

NBN-ZTE Deal
NBN-ZTE deal whistle-blower Rodolfo Lozada Jr. failed to show up at Thursdays Sandiganbayan hearing into the graft charges against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in connection with the anomalous $329million broadband deal he helped expose. The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division reset the proceedings to Jan. 30 next year after Lozadas lawyer told the court his client had a cold and fever and thus could not come to the trial. Lozada is the second prosecution witness against Arroyo, after Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teodoro Casio. Casio on Wednesday told the court he had no personal knowledge of the acts of graft allegedly committed by Arroyo but that he and the other complainants had based their complaint on the Senate blue ribbon committee findings on the NBN-ZTE deal. Original complainant Casio was one of the original complainants for plunder against the accused in the Office of the Ombudsman in September 2011. The other complainants were former Gabriela party-list Rep. Liza Maza and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan chair Carol Araullo. Casios testimony prompted head defense lawyer Jose Flaminiano to say it was based on hearsay. Grilled further by Flaminiano, Casio admitted he did not see any exchange of money between Arroyo and ZTE Corp. executives in China. He said he was making an appearance as a complainant and not as a witness to alleged bribery. There will be witnesses who will have personal knowledge (of it), he said. Casio said Lozada was one of those who had personal knowledge of a bribe since he was involved in the packaging and approval of the contract. Other witnesses He said other witnesses who also had personal knowledge of it were engineer Dante Madriaga, businessman Ruben Reyes and former National Economic and Development Authority head Romulo Neri. Madriaga had testified in the Senate that former President Arroyo and her husband, former first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, had received at least $20 million in exchange for approval of the contract. Neri last week filed a motion to quash the witness subpoena issued against him by the Sandiganbayan, saying the antigraft court had no jurisdiction over the case. The former President had earlier filed a similar petition in the Fourth Division, which has yet to rule on the plea. The Sandiganbayan subpoenaed Neri as a hostile prosecution witness after he testified in the Senate hearing that he was offered P200 million by former Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chair Benjamin Abalos to approve the NBN-ZTE project that would have digitally interconnected all government offices throughout the country at the allegedly bloated cost of $329 million. The first graft case filed by the Ombudsman against Arroyo accuses her of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly having a personal interest in the contract for personal gain, despite knowledge of the irregularities and anomalies that attended its approval.

The second graft case against her and her husband, Abalos and former Transportation Secretary Leandro Mendoza is for alleged violation of the same law which penalizes entering into contracts or transactions manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. Hospital arrest The third case filed against Arroyo accuses her of violating Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Government Officials and Employees for accepting a round of golf and lunch with ZTE executives in Shenzhen, China, while the NBN deal was pending final approval. The former President is currently detained at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City in connection with a separate charge of electoral sabotage filed against her and Abalos by the Comelec. Abalos is detained at the Southern Police District headquarters in Taguig City. In the Sandiganbayan First Division, Arroyos lawyers asked the court to order the Ombudsman to release the resolution that allegedly showed a material difference from the conclusions of the Ombudsman which had found plunder in the alleged P366-million Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) anomaly. In a six-page motion, lawyer Anacleto Diaz asked the antigraft court to direct the Ombudsman to order the release of the Somido panel report. On Nov. 14, 2011, the Ombudsman created a special five-man panel of investigators headed by Deputy Special Prosecutor Cornelio Somido to conduct a preliminary investigation of the case. Diaz said the defense received the joint review resolution dated July 10, 2012, of the Office of the Ombudsman, but not the Somido panel resolution, which was reviewed, the motion said. Arroyos camp said the Somido panel resolution did not form part of the records. She [Arroyo] received information, and so alleges, that the findings of the panel are materially different from the findings and conclusions of the Ombudsman the panel found no suffici ent evidence to support the crime of plunder, the motion said.

2010 National Election

The 2010 election was administered by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in compliance with the Republic Act No. 9369, also known as Amended Computerization Act of 2007. It was the first national computerized election in the history of the Philippines. Although, there were cases of PCOS machine failures, there would be no postponement of elections since most technical issues were resolved by Election Day. Despite the fact that some provinces have reported failure of elections, these have not surpassed the 0.50% of the total number of PCOS machines, and most were replaced on time. Local elections were held in all provinces, cities and municipalities for provincial governors, vice governors and board members, and city/municipal mayors, vice mayors and councilors. There were more than 85,000 candidates for 17,000 national and local positions and it is believed that the youth will have the swing vote in this election as 40% of voters are 18-35 and there are a potential 3 million first-time voters. In cases where a candidate is running unopposed, that candidate only has to win one vote in order to be considered elected. In this case, the candidate can vote for themselves.

8 In order to sort out this mess being called as an election and campaigns, I was doing some more reading about McCain, Palin, Obama and Biden. That's when I got to thinking: What makes for a good politician? When I began to think about it, it became a much more difficult question to answer. After all, there have not been many candidates in my lifetime who I would label as good politicians. So I started thinking about the qualities an ideal politician would possess in order for me to actually endorse them:

Honesty Insert your politician jokes here, because dishonesty is what has become expected of today's politicians. Wouldn't it be nice if somebody followed through on their campaign promises (or even attempted to follow through)? Integrity I'm less interested in finding a candidate who is trying to ride the waves of public opinion than I am in finding a candidate who will stand up for what they believe in. Don't appease me by telling me what you think I want to hear, but have your own opinions and stick to them. If I wanted someone in office who was just going to do what I asked, I'd vote for myself. Patriotism Is is so hard to ask for a politician who puts the best interests of the community, state or country ahead of their own political careers or legacy? My ideal politician would make an unpopular decision that benefited their constituents, even if it ruined their career. Intelligence While our last several Presidents have had the educational pedigree, it seems pretty clear that none have been anything close to a scholar. Ideally, a good politician will have excelled in their schooling and used it to help them make their decisions instead of having to rely so heavily on advisors, advocates and lobbyists. Fiscal Experience The ideal politician should manage money well, because fiscal matters are very central to much of today's politics, especially in terms of debt management. If they can't keep their own credit score above 700, they probably aren't fit to manage millions (or billions) of public dollars. Reasonable Nobody can change the world overnight, and a good politician should realize that. In the long run, there's very little that a President can accomplish in an eight-year term, let alone only four years. They should still have high goals, but be realistic about what can be accomplished in the time they have, and be open with the public about how their plans are coming. Even if some changes may not be seen until long after their terms (like energy changes for the future), they should at least get the ball rolling. Charasmatic A good politician should make you want to follow them, and deliver the great speeches that many of us yearn for. However, this is at the bottom of my list because I will not sacrafice any of the above for someone who is simply a good speaker.

Passage of Freedom of Information Bill an important development SERAP

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has welcomed the passage of the Freedom of Information Bill by the House of Representatives describing it as an important development, which will improve the waning fight against corruption in the country. In a public statement signed by SERAP Executive Director Adetokunbo Mumuni, the group said that, Every elected leader has a responsibility to enable and ensure that the citizens fully enjoy their human right to know, and we applaud the role and leadership of the House of Representatives on the passage of the bill. The group called on the Senate to move swiftly to pass the bill, and on President Goodluck Jonathan to sign the bill into law as soon as it is sent to his office. Once the bill finally becomes law, the government will need to establish a plan of action to review, amend or repeal all existing laws such as the Secrecy Act, the Federal Commissions (Privileges and Immunities) Act, the Public Complaints Commission Act, the Evidence Act and the Criminal Code, which contain clauses forbidding the disclosure of official information by public officials. These laws need to be fully consistent with the FOI Act, the group added. According to the group, Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and the touchstone of all freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated. This right is entrenched in international and regional human rights treaties and standard guaranteeing the right of everyone to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Many countries now have access to information laws, and we have always insisted that Nigeria cannot be an exception, and have supported efforts by civil society groups to ensure that Nigerians enjoy the right to information. The FOI Bill provides every Nigerian with the right of access to official records and information held by public institutions. It imposes a corollary obligation on the government to make such information more freely available and accessible to the public. The Bill also makes it a criminal offence, punishable on conviction with three years imprisonment, for any officer or the head of any government or public institution who destructs or falsifies any official record before it is released.

SERAP believes that freedom of information is necessary for reversing the endemic problem of corruption in the country and establishing an open and transparent government, which is capable of promoting human rights of the citizens. Access to information is a basic right, not a luxury, indispensable to the functioning of a democratic society in which individuals have the opportunity to participate in making the decisions that affect them, the group stated. It would also allow individuals to understand decisions made by public authorities that affect their lives, and in some cases to challenge those decisions; Improve decision-taking by facilitating greater public debate; promote accountability and transparency in respect of decisions taken by public authorities, including the spending of public money; and ensure the personal probity of political leaders and officials.

Passing of Laws

The president doesn't pass laws. Congress passes the laws, but the president is involved in the lawmaking process, too. That is why he can make all of those campaign promises while he is running for office. If elected, he will have the opportunity to influence the passage of many new laws.
1

How does the president affect what laws are passed? There are several things that he can do.
2

When a new president comes into office, he usually has an agenda in mind - new laws that he hopes to get passed in order to do the things that he has promised during his campaign. To get them introduced, the president may make speeches to Congress and also speeches to the public. In this way he gets people interested in passing his ideas into law. Because of his status as leader of the country, the president is in a unique position to get people to listen to his ideas and to act on them.
3