Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Teddy Locsin's email to MLQ3 re impeachment

“I must clarify my indifference to the impeachment complaint. I am here and not there. That’s one. Attending a conference on aid effectiveness in Africa. The House sent Rufus Rodriguez and I, I wonder why.

“Two, I will not be used by the traitors who excluded what even Joey de V insisted on including as the strongest ground for impeachment: the MOA BJE, which I recall you favored when you did not share my enthusiasm for the emergence of Christian self defense units to give the MILF as good as they are dishing out. ‘Viva la muerta’, I said, artillery is the only language these ragheads understand. You said, ‘viva la mierda’. That was un-Christian of you. And for a student of history unhistorical. You know that armed Christians kept our Republic intact in the 70s.

“Satur and the other left and center left endorsers of an impeachment for aborted business deals—except Joc-joc’s fertilizer scam cannot have their cake and eat it too: attend the christening, of all things, of a pro-American independent and antidemocratic sultanate torn from the side of our Republic with the US and Japan as midwives and exclude that treason from the impeachment just to maintain a communist-Bangsa-Moro alliance and then expect those of us who fought it tooth and nail to support their truncated impeachment. Now that is hypocrisy to which I will not lend my not inconsiderable intelligence.

“On the other hand, Abigail Binay is correct. The intellectual mendacity of the truncated impeachment complaint is not a ground for outright dismissing the impeachment without hearing out the evidence and the witnesses even to rehashed charges. It is as if the House is bound to take a species of judicial notice of the antics in the Senate, which I refuse to do as the senators, by and large, are not an intelligent bunch let alone noted for integrity. I upbraided the House leadership for exposing a pro-administration House to public contempt… by refusing to hear out what everybody has already heard, to wit, the testimonies on the NBN-ZTE deal and the documentary evidence on the fertilizer scam whose investigation by a committee of the House poses a prejudicial question that bars a summary disposal of the impeachment until that investigation is terminated.

“I said that we deserve to get our own showing of Jun Lozada crying… Is he that good? And why should the senators be the only ones to get media mileage on him? I also think the CA decision dismissing the kidnapping charge was pure crap and unworthy of the mind that wrote it. What could the Palace be scared of?

“The charges and the evidence are second run and double feature... Since the Palace survived the first run, it should have no problem with the second run. And it would restore some credibility to the only institution still defending the President on what are charges related to an aborted deal where there was ultimately no damage to the public—except the kidnapping of Lozada—and material benefit only to 120 congressmen who pocketed and may not have shared the fertilizer scam with the President’s campaign.

“A congressman and his bribe are not soon parted. But, it appears the House leaders have not listened to their better judgment and want to make it an early Christmas for the Palace. I guess because none of them is running for a national position in 2010.

“On the other hand, Mat Defensor is right, the insertion of the MOA at this late stage is a separate complaint and thus fourth in the rank of complaints. Remember that this is not a real intervention because it is not included in the subject of the current one. There is no such thing as an impeachment for violating generically anything in the entire Constitution; it must be for specific violations. Interventions are allowed only for matters related to those specific violations or grounds for impeachment. That your intervention is unrelated is proved by Satur’s deliberate exclusion of the MOA from the current complaint. To allow it now is to present a moving target to the object of the impeachment.

“… I alerted Satur in the brilliant radio talk show ‘Karambola.’ But he would not and could not listen because the Left was working hand in glove with the US and Japan to … set up an independent, anti-democratic, misogynist but pro American sultanate in Mindanao.

“Well, too bad for him. If you had joined the descendants of conquistadors, as Celso Lobregat and I were so absurdly accused of being, and a veteran conquistador, Pabling Garcia, you could sound more convincing to me. ‘Somos o no somos,’ I said. If you were not with us successfully defending the walls ‘contra los Moros en la costa’, if you shared the party-list sympathy for these traitors to the Republic, can you really upbraid us for not laying down our arms to rest and instead taking the fight to the Fifth Column that almost opened the gates to the city? Especially on an impeachment crafted and filed by parts of that Fifth Column. I am referring to Satur and company.

“I am sorry to disappoint you but I cannot put a premium on treason even if the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But keep it up, your columns cover uncharted intellectual ground. But law is best left to the lawyers. Though I exclude the Ateneo lawyers who collaborated in the treason of the government and the Left.”

From Manuel L. Quezon III's latest column.

No comments: