Our issue for April 29, 2006

PHILIPPINES FREE PRESS

April 29, 2006

Main Features

1.Cover: Constitutional Amendment (brought to you by Pag-IBIG Fund)

2. Politicizing the Death Penalty

In a clear attempt to appease the Catholic bishops, who have expressed alarm over her administration’s haste to amend the Constitution, President Arroyo announces that she is commuting all death sentences to life imprisonment. She times the announcement with Easter to conceal the political intention of her decision under a shroud of spiritual pretense. The bishops are glad, of course, but they are by no means fooled into dropping their uneasiness about what the administration is doing in the villages. Lipa-Lingayen Archbishop Oscar Cruz says in a television interview that the purpose of Mrs. Arroyo’s announcement is clearly intended to mollify the church, but the church is not changing its stand that the nation should continue the search for the truth about the 2004 presidential election. In their Easter message, the only one besides the Pope’s that counts—politicians have no business issuing messages on religious occasions—the bishops carefully choose their words to send a real message to the nation and to Mrs. Arroyo: Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the bishops conference, says “forgiveness,” an “Easter fruit of the tree of the cross” will lead to “a birth of a new family in the risen Christ.” Filipinos, he says, “will taste the happiness of God, when we understand the meaning of Jesus eating and drinking with tax collectors and prostitutes.” He adds, “The fruit of repentance is peace and happiness with God.” Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, archbishop of Manila, calls on Filipinos to imitate Christ, saying, “His pursuit of good for humans was unchanging, because he was bonded with what was true, what was good, and what was honest.” Ouch. Do you think the Palace gets the message? The hides in this administration are too thick to even be affected. Mrs. Arroyo expects no political gains from her decision, Palace officials say. Respect the voice of the people, they say, as if the people were truly the ones behind the signature campaign for the amendment of the Constitution. Mrs. Arroyo’s decision to use the death penalty for political ends has led to the revival of the debate on the maximum punishment. Round up.

            By Ricky S. Torre and Wendell Vigilia

3. Brawl in the Courts

The government-sponsored group gathering signatures to force the amendment of the Constitution is taking the campaign to the Comelec on April 30, following an administration-set timetable. Under this timetable, the Comelec should be done with the verification of the signatures in May, call a plebiscite in June where the proposal to change the presidential system to parliamentary system would be approved—the administration would see to that—and an “interim parliament” would sit by July to work out the rest of the amendments to the Constitution. The Comelec has already said that it will verify the signatures, never mind the 1997 Supreme Court ruling that says the election agency is “permanently enjoined” from entertaining any petition for a people’s initiative the Constitution. That ruling distinguishes between “amendment” and “revision” of the Constitution, but the Comelec seems to be damned sure it can survive a challenge. The minority in the House of Representatives is ready for a brawl in the courts all over the country. When Sigaw ng Bayan goes to the Comelec, the minority, with the help of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, will file for restraining orders in the local courts, a fight expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court.

            By Guiller de Guzman and Wendell Vigilia

4. Untrustworthy Dog

Even President Arroyo’s allies in Congress support former chief justice Hilario Davide Jr.’s recommendation to overhaul the Commission on Elections. But would Mrs. Arroyo allow more than just “structural reforms” in the Comelec now that she enjoys the election watchdog’s full loyalty? Davide’s recommendations include changes in the commission, which has two vacant seats. If the nominees to those vacancies are coming from Davide, however, Mrs. Arroyo may not be willing to use her persuasive power to convince two from the current members to give way. Besides the sitting commissioners, especially the chairman, Benjamin Abalos, are resisting replacement, pointing out that they cannot be forced to leave office because their terms are set by the Constitution. But even a constitutional body that has lost the people’s trust needs to be reformed if it must regain that trust. The five committees of the House of Representatives that investigated the Arroyo tapes have recommended automation in the Comelec, and there is a bill in the Senate, introduced by Sen. Richard Gordon, that would modernize the commission. Gordon wants the Comelec to automate first before the government goes full blast into amending the Constitution. But automation is only a partial solution to the problem with the Comelec: the best computers may assure clean balloting, but not the vote count, which is presided over by election officials of questionable integrity. What are Davide’s other recommendations? The Palace is not saying.

            By Guiller de Guzman, Butch Serrano and Wendell Vigilia

5. Sanitized Report

Nobody was surprised when the military announced the results of its investigation into the alleged rigging of the 2004 presidential election because everybody expected the generals involved to be cleared. Even Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani, the only military official who appeared at the Senate investigation into the Arroyo tapes and admitted that President Arroyo’s husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, went to Mindanao during the election and gave away millions of pesos for an illegal operation that would give the election to Mrs. Arroyo, was cleared. None of the generals allegedly involved was interviewed during the investigation. But 70 people gave testimony, and the military found nothing against the generals. Who were those 70 people? The political opposition is daring the military to release the full report, but the military’s answer is predictable: no clearance from Mrs. Arroyo, no report.

            By Guiller de Guzman and Butch Serrano

6. These Are Bad Times to Be Children

At least in the Philippines, where seemingly insoluble poverty forces parents to allow kids to work, often as beggars in the streets, or just neglect them, making them wander around the city in search of food. They are rounded up by police and taken to government-run shelters. If their parents cannot be found, they grow up in the shelters as government wards. Those lucky enough to be born to parents who can send them to public schools are still neglected, not by their parents or by their teachers but by the government, which spends more to pay its foreign debts than for education. Because the government spends too little for education, teachers are poorly paid. Teachers spend more time trying to earn extra on the side, neglecting their students, who, in turn, leave elementary school unprepared for high school. Gone are the times when the Philippine government really cared for children and their education. Children, we often say, are the hope of the Fatherland. Alas, that’s just a saying now.

            By Ramiro C. Alvarez

Two editorials

For better or for worse. Editorial for April 28, 1934

April 28, 1934

For better or for worse

ANOTHER momentous event in Philippine history will occur when the legislature meets in special session to accept the Tydings-McDuffie independence law. Exactly thirty-six years after Dewey’s thundering guns sounded the prelude to American occupation of the Philippines, the Philippine legislature will meet to take the decisive step toward the final withdrawal of the United States from the islands.

Once the independence law has been accepted, the die will have been cast, the Rubicon crossed. There can then be no turning back from the high adventure upon which the Philippines will have embarked, no seeking of shelter from the buffets and blows of a selfish and remorseless world. For better or for worse, for weal or for woe, the game must be played out to the end.

The Philippines stand at the threshold of a new world, a new experience. This country will need courage and daring and a will to work and a capacity to suffer. Above all it will need a mighty and transcendental patriotism in the period ahead of it. God forbid that this glorious venture shall be wrecked upon the shoals of disillusionment, or despair or cynical, self-seeking, disregard of the public welfare.

Sunset. Editorial for April 24, 1948

“SUNSET”
April 24, 1948
(Editorial)

INTO the setting sun, merging into the shades of night, goes the spirit of President Manuel Roxas, bound for “the undiscovered country from whose born no traveler returns,” leaving behind a sad and sorrowful and anguished people. For him no more the breaking of the dawn, the call to the day’s pressing duties, the cares and burdens of the State, the sleepless hours in the silent watches of the night, or the occasional happy mingling with the thousands whom he served.

And tomorrow (Sunday), “in memoriam,” his people will do him homage, a nation will mourn his loss. In Manila, the cerements of woe, the solemn tolling of the bells, the slow passing of the caisson and the long cortege, with the family of the late President and high officialdom, from the Malacañang to the Hall of Congress, the hushed throngs lining the route of passage, the eloquent and soul-stirring eulogies in honor of the departed, then the procession to the North Cemetery under military escort with the US Army and the British Navy participating, and at the Cemetery the last sad obsequies, the lowering of the bier, the three volleys, the bugle blowing the mournful notes of the soldier’s requiem, “taps,” and all the impressive and somber ritual that marks the interment of the illustrious and soldier dead.

Likewise throughout the provinces will there be general observance. There also the bells will toll and by means of the radio and loud speaker the last solemn rites be heard. And there, doubtless, as here in Manila, there will be many a sigh and mayhap even a tear from those who knew him well, or perchance even from those who had only heard him speak or had the pleasure of greeting him and clasping his hand.

Yes, Manuel Roxas, President Roxas, is dead, and a nation bows its head in grief. Less than four years ago it was robbed of its beloved son, Manuel L. Quezon, and now again it is sorely afflicted, the hand of Death is laid heavily upon it. It bears its cross, but:

No more for him life’s stormy conflicts,
Nor victory, nor defeat—no more time’s dark events,
Charging like ceaseless clouds across the sky.

Quezon and Osmeña, April 22, 1933

April 22, 1933

Quezon and Osmeña

Discussions between leaders presage bitter fight over freedom bill

by James Wingo

AFTER meeting amicably in Paris last Saturday and sailing for New York Monday aboard the s.s. Ile de France, Senate President Quezon and Senator Osmeña broke sharply over the question of accepting or rejecting the Hawes-Cutting-Hare bill when they settled down to a formal discussion of the matter on board the ship.

The following report of the rupture was cabled by Carlos P. Romulo, managing editor of the T-V-T publications, to his newspapers in Manila:

“Mr. Osmeña was presenting a point when Mr. Quezon, rising and facing his colleague, broke out passionately:

“‘Sergio, you and I are growing old. We shall soon pass away. Do you realize the tremendous responsibility you and I are shouldering in accepting a bill, the effects of which will tie the hands of posterity? It is mortgaging the future of our children! We are deciding their fate, knowing that when we are gone, we shall be unable to help them!’

“‘Do you realize,’ replied Senator Osmeña, maintaining his usual calm, ‘the tremendous responsibility we will be assuming in rejecting the bill, as a result of which America may stay in the Philippines forever?’

Face to face, April 22, 1933

April 22, 1933

Face to face

THE United States may stay in the islands forever if the Hawes-Cutting law is rejected.—Osmeña.

The United States may remain in the islands forever if the Hawes-Cutting law is accepted, and, with our consent.—Quezon.

Such, is condensed form, is the first main line of divergence on which the two chief protagonists in the Hawes-Cutting law battle find themselves in opposition, as reported in the daily press.

However, it appears certain that Senator Osmeña will not commit himself till Washington is reached and his colleagues have a chance to be heard. There the real battle will begin.

Senate-President Quezon will sound out President Roosevelt and leading members of congress as to the probable result of rejection of the Hawes-Cutting law, with reservations. Should the information elicited be favorable, he may be depended upon to return here still more resolved upon rejection, even in opposition to his colleagues. In that event we may see staged the battle royal which has been long impending.

Our issue for April 22, 2006

PHILIPPINES FREE PRESS

April 22, 2006 Issue
 
Main Features

1.Cover: NPC Rep. Generoso DC Tulagan of Pangasinan

2. The Senators’ Initiative

Senate President Franklin Drilon, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., and Senators Panfilo Lacson, Jinggoy Estrada and Jamby Madrigal have launched a national movement to force President Arroyo to step down. They are going around the country rallying people to support the opposition in Manila with movements of their own. Their intention is to show the world the national outrage that the Palace claims does not exist, unlike the massive opposition to the rule of Thaksin Shinawatra that forced the Thai premier to step down last week.The United Opposition, led by Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, is adding to the pressure on Mrs. Arroyo by daring her to call a snap election, but the thick faces in the Palace say the answer to the country’s problems is not new elections but revising the Constitution. Only direct people’s action can break down this thick-hide resistance, but how? Mrs. Arroyo has the military, the police, and maybe the courts on her side and not even criticism in the international press can shame her. Her government is protesting The New York Times editorial about her heavy-handed tactics in dealing with opposition to her rule, even inviting the Times editors to come to Manila to see for themselves that the Philippines is a democratic country. Don’t Palace officials know that the New York Times has reporters and correspondents going in and out of the Philippines and seeing how riot police beat protesters out of the streets? It is possible that those journalists have already observed how the Arroyo administration is manufacturing a people’s initiative to force a revision of the Constitution, but we bet you the Palace will blame the unfavorable reports on the opposition. The Catholic Church has already noticed how the government is carrying out the signature campaign, expressing alarm over the haste with which the government is trying to amend the Constitution. But can the latest statement from the Catholic bishops galvanize the people to unite, as the Thais did, and join the senators’ initiative? It is a shame that the Filipinos, who invented people power, are not moving to use that power on an increasingly despotic ruler while the Thais have succeeded in forcing out of office a leader who is only accused of corruption.

            By Ricky S. Torre and Wendell Vigilia

3. What Are They Counting On?

The Arroyo administration is treading on a very thin line by launching a bogus people’s initiative to force the amendment of the Constitution for an immediate shift to the parliamentary system. Administration officials are aware of the 1997 Supreme Court ruling that there is no law that allows the people to initiate a revision of the Constitution but they are pushing critics of the government signature campaign to challenge the government in the High Tribunal. What are they counting on? PresidentArroyo’s latest appointee to the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., answered that question on Friday. The Court, he said, can reverse its 1997 ruling depending on the “wisdom of the times.” The opposition is right in deciding not to go the Supreme Court, but they will bring charges against any official or group that touches the signatures gathered from the campaign.

            By Guiller de Guzman and Wendell Vigilia

4. Terrifying Bill

Would the Senate pass the terror bill? Written in atrocious English, the bill, as passed by the House of Representatives last Tuesday, is really designed for fighting terrorism, but it has provisions that the government can use to put down opposition to the rule of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The approved bill would penalize anybody, or any group of people, for inciting others to commit acts of terrorism through “speeches, proclamations, and writings.” Given the Arroyo administration’s twisted view of criticism, the opposition has reason to fear the use of the fight against terrorism on them.

          By Guiller de Guzman and Wendell Vigilia

5. Thievery Confirmed

The Commission on Audit has submitted its final report on the campaign finance scandal called “fertilizer scam.” The final audit report shows why farmers received no fertilizer when the Agriculture Department spent P728 million for fertilizer in 2004: the money went to people who were either dead or not farmers and to nonexisting organizations. It took a nationwide audit to determine what happened to the fertilizer fund, earmarked for a hybrid rice program named after President Arroyo, and the findings are as damning as the complaining farmers and the Senate investigators have expected. The operators who ran the scam using the rice program for cover overpriced supposed fertilizer purchases by as much as 682 percent, or by P128 million, not to line their pockets, as corrupt officials usually do, but to create a special fund to finance Mrs. Arroyo’s presidential campaign.

            By Guiller de Guzman and Butch Serrano

6. Easy Way Out

It has been 20 years since the government launched an effort to recover the ill-gotten wealth of  Ferdinand Marcos, but all that the government has gotten back is the equivalent of P35 billion from the late dictator’s Swiss bank accounts. Where’s the rest and how exactly how much is that? There is no way of telling. The ill-gotten wealth watchdog Presidential Commission on Good Government has filed 578 cases against Marcos’s widow, Imelda, involving P220 billion in stolen wealth. Those cases have been gathering dust in Sandiganbayan, the antigraft, for a good part of the past two decades, and the government is nowhere near winning any of them. It may be true that there is at least that much more to recover from the Marcoses, but the government is having difficulty proving it. It is clear from the start that the recovery effort is going to be a war of attrition between the government and the Marcoses, and, after two decades, it looks like it’s the government that’s losing the war. To save face, however, the PCGG says it is willing to initiate compromise talks with Imelda Marcos, who is only too willing to sit down with the government to put an end to all her troubles. The PCGG wants full disclosure, that is, Mrs. Marcos should disclose all other assets that the government has not identified. Does the PCGG really believe Mrs. Marcos and her children will do that?

            By Guiller de Guzman and Nati Nuguid

7. Irrational

Impractical and economically disruptive, President Arroyo’s plan to move major departments of the government to the Visayas and Mindanao is probably dead. No department has moved and none is bold enough to take the lead. Mrs. Arroyo has probably realized the difficulties involved, but she still wants changes in the departments to improve public service. She has issued an order for the departments to “rationalize” their operations. “Rationalize” simply means “reorganize,” that is, shut down unnecessary operations and move staff around. It has been two years since the order to reorganize came down but only the Agrarian Reform Department has submitted a reorganization plan to the Budget Department. The employees of the other departments are resisting reorganization because the plan will surely lead to layoffs and demotions.

            By Ramiro C. Alvarez

Two editorials

Cory’s Proclamation No. 3, April 19, 1986

April 19, 1986

Cory’s Proclamation  No. 3

By Napoleon G. Rama

OF a sudden a word used by the Corazon Aquino crowd, “revolutionary,” was verboten. Unmentionable. This was when the Aquino Cabinet was mulling over the definition of her kind of government and was scheduling the announcement of Proclamation No. 3, the President’s most important law so far.

There were nearly 2,000 words in Proclamation No. 3, declaring the status and nature of the Aquino regime. Nowhere could one find the world “revolutionary”. And this is a government, all evidence would declare, born out of a revolution. The favored words in the Proclamation were the less muscular “provisional”, and “transition” and “temporary.”

Was the “tough” lady bending over backwards to accommodate her critics? Earlier, the Minister of Justice Neptali Gonzales had dropped the broad hint that she favored the “revolutionary government” idea. What a howl went up from the Batasan Pambansa, both from the KBL and UNIDO MPs to whom “revolutionary” meant “dictatorial”. Of them the one person whose views counted most with the President was MP Cecilia Muñoz Palma, her confidante and closest adviser up to some weeks ago. She gave it straight to the President. To declare her government “revolutionary” and abolish the Batasan Pambansa was to behave no better than Dictator Marcos, Palma said.

It’s not hard to understand the Batasan members’ opposition. The Batasan is a very good-paying job, counting the allowances and the pork barrel doles. Add to this, political power, the name of the game in politics. Being in the Batasan is the best insurance against prosecution or persecution. Without the parliamentary armor, they would be naked to legal or extra-legal process by the dedicated fiscals or foes in the new regime. Palma, though, had honest if shakey reasons for her views.

But to those in favor of a revolutionary government, the issue was simple. It was a revolution that midwifed the present regime. The people’s mandate is thorough change as soon as possible. It cannot be achieve without dismantling the entire Marcos dictatorial government and removing his warlords and lieutenants who had given him aid and comfort and long tenure. People will not understand if the Marcos setup and men were retained in positions of authority. The solution was to cut clean from the old regime, start afresh without any ties to the old evil. The formula is as simple as cutting the Gordian knot.

But how would the other nations receive the revolutionary government to which most nations are normally allergic?

To the new President the dilemma was a formidable one. But it didn’t faze her. The problem uncovers a new side to Corazon Aquino—the ability to walk the tight rope, avoid confrontations through the use of diplomatic semantics, a necessary art for a national leader. She was able to concede to the critics minor points while holding on to the vital ones.

Instead of defining her form of government, she defined the Constitution that would be the basis of that government. And she had a noncontroversial label for it,  the “Freedom Constitution,” which was to be drafted by honorable men to be appointed by her. She gave herself a deadline of from 30 to 50 days to name them.

Instead of identifying her mandate as coming from the people staging a revolution, she described her source of authority as “the direct mandate of the people as manifested by their extraordinary action”. It wasn’t a revolutionary regime but a transition regime based on a provisional constitution leading to a democratic government.

Of course, she didn’t write Proclamation No. 3. But the verifiable fact is that several conflicting memoranda and drafts were submitted to her. Even her own cabinet was split on the subject. It was she who made the decision and picked the final draft. Choosing the option and making the decision is what matters in the governing of a country. It was the best draft and the best decision under the difficult circumstances.

Like many proclamations born out of compromise, Proclamation No. 3 is not without its flaws. But first note the careful, felicitous wording of Proclamation No. 3—

“DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE, PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS, ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN ORDERLY TRANSITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER A NEW CONSTITUTION.

It is very hard to quarrel with that kind of policy statement. The WHEREASES were equally non-controversial and factual:

“WHEREAS, the new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines; WHEREAS, the heroic action of the people was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended; WHEREAS, the direct mandate of the people as manifested by their extraordinary action demands the complete reorganization of the government, restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights, rebuilding of confidence in the entire government system, eradication of graft and corruption, restoration of peace and order, maintenance of the supremacy of the civilian authority over the military; WHEREAS, to adequately respond to the mandate of the people and to achieve a transition to a government under a New Constitution in the shortest time possible and WHEREAS, during the period of transition to a New Constitution it must be guaranteed that the government will respect basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The significant stress is that the authority of the President emanated from the people as manifested by their extraordinary action. The main objective is to implement the people’s will to restore democracy and basic rights and remove the evils of the old regime through a New Constitution to be drafted in the shortest possible time. And there is a stern reminder to the New Armed Forces that under our system civilian authority enjoys supremacy over the military, and before they get ideas, it was the people that installed the new regime and their role was to assist the people in supporting it.

Except for the fumble in the penultimate WHEREAS because of the absence of a verb, hence, producing an incomplete sentence, the premises are sound and persuasive.

The portion of the Proclamation whose consistency can be called into question by political scientists is Article I which adopts certain provisions of the 1973 Constitution and rejects the rest. There cannot be a selective or partial acceptance of a Constitution. To adopt as valid certain provisions in the Marcos “Constitution” is to admit that the Marcos “Constitution” was validly ratified and still in force—a position contrary to that originally held by the present regime which never recognized the validity of the charter. One who accepts as valid a portion of that “Constitution” is estopped from rejecting or invalidating the other provisions in the same “Constitution.”

After admitting that partial validity and therefore the valid ratification of that “Constitution,” one can no longer ignore, revise or annul any portion of that “Constitution” since one is bound by the terms and procedures prescribed by said “Constitution” by which one may revise or annul any provision in it. The Marcos “Constitution” provides that for any of its provisions to be invalidated, annulled or revised, there must first be a constituent assembly (the Batasan constitution itself as such), or a constitutional convention elected by the people, that would draft the constitutional amendments and submit them to the people for ratification in a plebiscite. Thus, the President having recognized the validity and existence of the Marcos “Constitution,” she cannot now arbitrarily nullify, repeal or revise its provisions without calling for a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention and a plebiscite.

Provisions adopted by the Proclamation are noncontroversial articles on National Territory, Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Duties and Obligations of Citizens, Suffrage, Declaration of Principles, Judiciary, Local Governments, Constitutional Commissions, Accountability of Public Officers, National Patrimony and General Provisions. Rejected by the regime are the articles on Batasan Pambansa (abolishing it), the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, Amendments and the Transitory Provisions.

The criteria for the adoption and the abolition of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution are unassaible, even if the fundamental legal procedure raised earlier remains questionable. The Proclamation went on to implement the objectives set forth in the WHEREASES.

At this writing even a brother-in-law of the President had come out with a front-page attack on the Promulgation, zeroing in on the authority of one person, the President, to make such Proclamation and constitute a constitutional body with “handpicked” palace appointees. “Mrs. Aquino,” Alejandro Lichuaco said, “for all her immense popularity, cannot claim to having been empowered by the people to write a new constitution. Much less can the appointees…” Even Marcos, he argued, did not abolish the Constitutional Convention of 1973, composed of delegates elected by the people. Marcos realized that a Constitutional Convention or body made up of his handpicked men would be ridiculous, Lichuaco added.

Like Palma and the rest, the President’s brother-in-law damns the revolutionary nature of the government, the essence of Proclamation No. 3 for all its cautious language. And this is the core of the issue.

The critics don’t seem to have fully assessed the extraordinary dimensions of the problem confronting the President. Marcos had been entrenched for 20 years. Most of his men in the Batasan, and local governments and bureaucracy had been there for 20 years. The apparatuses of Martial Law had been there for at least 14 years. Over these decades Marcos and Imelda had also set up their own organizations and secret networks outside the government. The “Constitution,” the laws, policies and many offices of government under the Marcos regime had a common purpose: to prop up, strengthen and prolong his dictatorial regime. The plunder of the nation started two decades ago. Never has the world seen greed as devouring as Marcos’s and never has history recorded a loot by anybody so great as his. No surprise the national treasury is empty, the national economy in extremis.

For smaller problems, a revolutionary government or the exercise of unencumbered power by the President had been required. Even the old 1935 Constitution recognized emergency situations and thus provided the President with extraordinary powers. What was contemplated then was mostly natural or short-lived calamities. What we have now is a 20-year old calamity.

The clear mandate of the people was for change, and urgent change. The problem is that under the circumstances you cannot institute change without first dismantling and demolishing the entrenched apparatuses of dictatorship and removing the entrenched accomplices of the dictator. If the President had to follow the normal constitutional and legal procedures contemplated by the law to be followed under normal circumstances, that change may never happen or it may come too late.

The hair-curling problems of the nation calls for quick, firm and tough decisions. And that is exactly what the President has done in decreeing the Proclamation. The wishy-washy decisions and the tedious procedures will not do under the present conditions of the nation. All constitutions in the world recognize extraordinary situations calling for dispensing with the niceties of law.

Besides, the Proclamation provides only a provisional constitution which has to be debated publicly, ratified by the people and if need be, revised and amended by the proper body elected by the people. It’s an emergency constitution. The Proclamation provides for elections for government officials. One emergency situation that cannot be helped is that the government does not have the money to hold elections now.

If it is admitted that President Aquino’s support from the people is “immense”, as seen here and the world over, she can represent better and speak for the people in a representative system of government than the abolished Batasan many of whose members cheated or shot their way into it.

It would be unfair to compare her and her government with Marcos and his regime. First, Marcos in 1972 changed or transformed a democratic government to a dictatorship. Aquino is dismantling a dictatorship in order to install a democracy. Aquino had been fighting for the basic freedoms and human rights. Marcos had been defending and fighting for a despotic government. In equating Marcos with Aquino, the critics subvert their own case.

Bernard Shaw said that those who can, do; those who can’t, teach. Critics are a dime a dozen. To be one all that is needed is delusion of intelligence and wisdom. To make the best of a bad situation, to restore their lost freedom and dignity to the Filipino people and give them hope for the future requires an extraordinary person, and such a person her critics are not. Corazon C. Aquino is.

Trinidad Legarda: Civic Leader of the Year, April 11, 1953

TRINIDAD LEGARDA: CIVIC LEADER OF THE YEAR
April 11, 1953
by QUIJANO DE MANILA

THE Filipina as clubwoman is only about thirty years old but has a record that should impress even the male most stubbornly convinced that a woman’s place is in the home and only in the home.

A brilliant example of the Filipina as clubwoman is Trinidad Fernandez Legarda, who, since her teens, has been working to make her country cleaner, healthier, more united, more beautiful, and more cultured. On Thursday, April 16, her labors will be given due recognition when the 18 affiliate Red Feather organizations award her a gold plaque as the “Civil Leader of the Year.”

The Surplus bonanza, April 10, 1948

THE SURPLUS BONANZA
April 10, 1948

By Silvestre Songco
Guagua, Pampanga

THE word SURPLUS, according to Daniel Webster, means “excess” or “more than sufficient.”

To night clubs, restaurants, gambling houses and other business quarters where “money makes the man,” surplus means more than that. It means “big money,” so to speak.

In Angeles, Pampanga as well as in Manila and other places in the country where surplus depots are found, there is a literal flood of money. So called “surplus guys” (post war parlance) have more money to burn than anybody else, hacenderos and occupation buy-and-sell tycoons included.

In night clubs, restaurants, haberdasheries and other places where “money talks” the best customers are the surplus folk. If a night club owner or a haberdasher gets four or five surplus customers, his business enjoys a real boom.

Our issue for April 15, 2006

PHILIPPINES FREE PRESS

April 15, 2006 Issue

Main Features

1.Cover: Kampi Rep. Amelia Villarosa

2. Charter Express

In the 1997 case Santiago v. Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court granted the petition of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, stopping the Comelec from verifying the signatures gathered by the supposedly private initiative Pirma, and ruling that “the Comelec should be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.” That is very clear even to students of law. But the Arroyo administration doesn’t care what the Supreme Court ruling says. Confirming suspicions that her government is behind the signature campaign to force the amendment of the Constitution by people’s initiative, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo endorses the signature campaign as an expression of the “true power of the people,” but without admitting that her government is financing the bogus people’s initiative. “The old-time politicians of the status quo better stand back because this train has left the station,” she says. “It is time for politicians to stand back or get run over.” Her use of the train analogy is apt: her government is railroading the amendment of the Constitution to beat a July deadline for an “interim parliament” (see No. 3) where no complaint for Mrs. Arroyo’s impeachment can be filed because there is no impeachment in a parliamentary government. What the administration is doing is running over the rule of law; anybody who gets hurt can just go the Supreme Court to challenge the administration’s action. And that is exactly what the Comelec is doing, verifying the signatures despite the clear words of the 1997 Supreme Court ruling and daring the political opposition to question the verification in the high tribunal. The Senate is considering doing just that, but the minority in the House of Representatives is not stepping into the administration trap. Challenging the administration’s actions in the Supreme Court could result in a reversal of the 1997 ruling, and the administration is relying on support from the majority on the Court to reverse that ruling. Mrs. Arroyo has appointed former Court of Appeals justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. to fill the 15th and last vacant seat on the Supreme Court. She now has 11 appointees on the Court, including Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban who, although appointed to the Court by President Fidel Ramos was appointed chief justice by Mrs. Arroyo. But the House minority’s fear is based on uncertainty about the judicial independence of the majority on the Supreme Court. What if the magistrates are determined to uphold the rule of law? Didn’t President Corazon Aquino and President Fidel Ramos appoint justices to the Supreme Court who ruled against them later? The House minority’s plan is to sue government officials who would violate the Supreme Court ruling.

            By Ricky S. Torre and Wendell Vigilia

3. ‘Interim Parliament’

The people’s initiative applies only to specific amendments to the Constitution? Okay. Since that’s what the Constitution says, then let’s turn to Plan B. According to a plan by Speaker Jose de Venecia, the Comelec can finish the verification of the signature’s gathered by the Interior Department by May. After that, the proposal to change the presidential system of government to the parliamentary system can be submitted to the people for approval in a referendum. By July there will be no more Congress. There will be an “interim parliament” composed of the present members of the House of Representatives and the Senate that will work out the rest of the proposed amendments to the Constitution. It can be done. It will be done, period. Those who don’t agree, just shoot yourselves.

            By Guiller de Guzman and Wendell Vigilia

4. Yes, They Cheated

It has always been known that fraud marred the 2004 elections, but it is only on Monday that an official of the Commission on Elections admitted it. Answering questions during the continuation of the Senate Committee on National Defense’s investigation into the Arroyo tapes, Election Commissioner Ressurreccion Borra says there indeed was cheating in the elections two years ago, but not only one side did it. It doesn’t matter. The important thing is that even a senior election official has confirmed before an investigative body that there was cheating during the elections. Malacañang may consider Borra’s testimony irrelevant, but the cheating in at least six regions of the country that Borra has confirmed makes the charge of electoral fraud against President Arroyo even more credible. To what will this disclosure lead?

            By Guiller de Guzman and Butch Serrano

5. Let’s Play Jue . .

The small-town lottery is a good idea to eradicate the illegal jueteng. It’s legal, it will be used for charity, and it will benefit local governments and even the police. But how sure is the government that it can successfully replace jueteng, that is, jueteng will be no more. Right now, the jueteng lords are lining up for permits, to be sure to use the lottery as cover for their jueteng operations. The police are unhappy, because their take will be limited. The local politicians, too.

            By Guiller de Guzman and Nati Nuguid

Two editorials