Arroyo a corrupting influence

and here's a good assessment and summary of the situation gloria's in from Randy david:

Take a look at some of the major institutional casualties in this unending political crisis since Mrs. Arroyo succeeded to the presidency in 2001:

1. First there is the Supreme Court. Members of the Court came to the EDSA Shrine at noontime of Jan. 20, 2001 to administer the oath of office to Mrs. Arroyo, even before there was any clear determination that a vacancy had occurred in the Office of the President. Without signing a formal letter of resignation, Joseph Estrada left Malacañang at around 2:30 p.m. He later claimed that he had not resigned but only taken a leave of absence.

A few weeks later, the same Supreme Court had to adjudicate a case challenging the legality of Mrs. Arroyo’s assumption of the presidency. The justices unanimously upheld the legality of Mrs. Arroyo’s accession to the presidency, but they could not agree on the reasons. Many of the justices were severely skeptical and critical of the use of people power to effect a change in government. The majority decision ruled that Estrada had resigned “constructively” – a novel concept that could not be easily explained to a perplexed public.

If it was quick to state its position on what was clearly a very dynamic situation in January 2001, the Supreme Court seemed extremely hesitant to intervene in 2005 when members of the House committee investigating the impeachment charges could not agree on the correct interpretation of the phrase “impeachment proceeding” as found in the 1987 Constitution. What constitutes an impeachment proceeding? When is it deemed initiated? If three impeachment complaints are filed against the same public official for more or less the same reasons within hours of one another, would taking them up on the same day be construed as initiating three separate impeachment proceedings, and is therefore prohibited? Twice, a lawyer asked the Supreme Court to disallow the ruling coalition’s absurd interpretation of the constitutional provision barring the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same public official more than once a year. The Court said the question was premature. Then it said nothing more on the issue after the defective Lozano impeachment complaint was thrown out.

By the same token, the Supreme Court has so far failed to rule on the constitutionality of the so-called Calibrated Preventive Response policy of dealing with protest demonstrations, and of the gag order contained in Executive Order 464.

2. Second, there is, of course, the Comelec itself -- the one legal institution that the Cory Aquino government in the post-Marcos years tried very hard to rebuild so that its neutral and professional character may be preserved. A credible Comelec is the linchpin of a representative democracy. Mrs. Arroyo has done much to erode the Comelec’s credibility by appointing to it individuals of unsavory reputation, not the least of whom is Attorney Virgilio Garcillano himself. The man had worked his way up the Comelec bureaucracy, and gained a reputation as somebody who has mastered the electoral terrain of Mindanao.

But another image consistently stuck to him -- that of architect of "dagdag-bawas" [vote-padding and vote-shaving]. Thus, when he was appointed to the Comelec as one of the commissioners barely three months before the 2004 election, no less than former Comelec Chairman Christian Monsod appealed to the president to withdraw his appointment. The same plea was made by a victim of "dagdag-bawas" -- Senator Nene Pimentel. But Mrs. Arroyo would not be dissuaded. She was such a firm believer in Garcillano’s capabilities.

3. The third is the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Outside of Marcos, no other president perhaps has so brazenly enlisted the services of key officials of the AFP for partisan purposes than Mrs. Arroyo. Again, the "Garci tapes" are very incriminating. In one conversation, Garci was complaining that the cheating operations in some towns were very crudely done because the ones who were assigned to perform these tasks were inexperienced soldiers. Several names of high-ranking officers were mentioned in the tapes. By a strange coincidence, except for Gudane who retired, almost all of them were subsequently appointed to cushy positions in the AFP.

4. The fourth is the Ombudsman. This is a constitutional office that is invested with the power to initiate investigations and to prosecute erring public officials. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Comelec computerization project was illegal and ordered Comelec to recover the money it had paid, it also directed the Ombudsman to investigate the culpability of the Commissioners and to prosecute them. This has not happened, as far as I know.

The Ombudsman could also have initiated the investigation of ISAFP’s (Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines) involvement in wiretapping. It could have looked as well into the use of public funds like the Road Users Tax and the Fertilizer Fund for the election campaign of the president. We have not seen any such initiative. One wonders if the people at the center of all these controversies know something we don’t when they bravely challenge their accusers to sue them in court and file the necessary charges.