DJB, MLQ3 and Sassy

(UPDATE: the link to the video has been fixed.)

Dean Jorge Bocobo has an interesting post yesterday.

Reacting to MLQ3's post where kuya Manuel defended the extra-constitutional method to oust Erap called Edsa Dos, DJB dug up an old post of MLQ3 that I read and find really clarifying talaga.

But I will focus today on Sassy Lawyer's comment justifiying edsa dos:

Sassy Lawyer wrote on March 15th, 2004 at 2:47 pm

I think we can never interpret EDSA Dos or even EDSA in terms of strict legal requirements. They were political phenomena. They created de facto governments. True that the SC decisions that legitimized Gloria’s government were wanting in so many ways. But if we’re to be honest, so were the decisions and events that legitimated Cory Aquino’s government. What makes Cory more acceptable than Gloria?

The difference between Edsa 1986 and Edsa Dos though is that there was no democracy under Marcos, so Edsa 1986 was justified.

OTOH, democracy was alive and well under the erap admin. There was no need for edsa dos since the political and legal system were working and the COMELEC was still credible during erap's time to hold clean elections in May 2001. the anti-erap opposition could have won the may 2001 elections and put erap in more trouble in the impeachment. but of course, they chose people power instead.

It was Edsa dos that put us where we are right now, with our democracy in danger and a corrupt, incompetent and illegitimate president steering this country towards a cliff.

Installing unelected presidents was never a smart idea period, and arroyo has proven that in 2001 and 2004.

Second, Marcos stole the elections in 1986, but was legitimized by Marcos' Batasan anyway. Erap OTOH, won by a landslide in 1998. Erap wasn't a threat to democracy then, but Arroyo is now.

Of course, when it was arroyo's turn to be in trouble, nag-iba na rin ang attitude ni Sassy about "strict interpretations" of the law. MLQ3 comments on Sassy Lawyer:

An entry by the Sassy Lawyer on the PCIJ is very interesting. She and I have often differed on opinions regarding political questions, because from my point of view, Sassy tends to prefer a literal interpretation of events and law. A good case in point were our differing reactions to the Hello, Garci issue. She felt it was a violation of the law to listen to, much less reproduce, them. Others, including myself, felt it was our duty to not only listen to them, but to make them available. She advocated the strictest interpretation of the law; we advocated what we believed to be the limits and the spirit of the law -and at times, a higher law- as well. Her unpopular but highly principled stand earned her a column in the Manila Standard-Today, making her the first Filipina blogger to make the transition from online publishing to main stream media (however, she believes she is not “exactly” a part of media -mainstream, that is).

It is also because of the tapes, kaya siya (sassy) galit na galit sa PCIJ.

Jumper asked Sassy in her comments section:

Sassy: “Way I see it, every person who propagated those tapes by copying and disseminating is either 1) a part of the ploy; 2) a business opportunist who intended and/or actually made money from the tapes, directly or indirectly; 3) a political opportunist who sought visibility with the hope that with the downfall of one administration, he could hold a lucrative post in the next; or 4) simply and plainly gullible.”

Jumper: in your opinion, which among the 4 should PCIJ belong to?

Sassy replied:

Not 4.

Nice Sassy, very nice. And very classy.

Ito ang position ni MLQ3 about making the tapes available to the public:

Until the palace leaked its own version, it had the law on its side. When Secretary Bunye not only played the recordings, but made them freely available to the media, what, then, were the consequences?

It seems to me, what would have been a cut and dried case of violating the anti-wiretapping law became a freedom of information case. Basically, the question is, in cases where there is obviously something that exists that can shed light on the behavior of a president, what are the rights of the public to that thing? In this case, the tape is information arrived at in violation of every person’s right to privacy. The way Americans, for one, have handled the issue was discussed in Slate (including the Supreme Court’s decision on Nixon’s claim of executive privilege in FindLaw for Legal Professionals).

I suppose the lawyers will find the wiggle room for both media and the public highly restricted. I recall being told in an opinion by the Secretary of Justice, that there is a legal principle that there is a presumption of legality and validity to acts of Congress; is there such a presumption of legality and validity to actions by the executive branch? For if there is, then Sec. Bunye’s exposure of the recordings, would logically lead to the assumption by media that first, public playback and providing the means to listen to the tapes to the public was not only legal, but encouraged; and second, that considerations of privacy and the law aside, it was clearly in the public interest for media and the public to listen to them.

The third question, of course, boggles the mind. If it was always wrong, always illegal, to not only play the tapes in public, but to faciliate their availability to the public, then how high and to what extent does the responsibility extend? Should the Secretary of Justice file a case against Bunye (as he grumpily said he could), and if Bunye says the president ordered or authorized him to do it, would this constitute a wilful violation of the law, and possibly an impeachable offense?

I also discussed how Sassy would have reacted kung si Erap o Lacson naman ang nahuli sa tape instead of arroyo.

UPDATE: Here are interesting excerpts on MLQ3's Edsa Dos defense:

The second instance was in the days after the vote by the Senators not to open the 2nd envelope. As I’ve said over and over, Estrada was alone. He couldn’t summon any supporters. No one wanted to lift a finger on his behalf. He pleaded for a snap election -but it was too late.

What about Edsa Tres, Kuya Manuel?

And MLQ3 talks about the significant role of the Communists in Edsa dos and estrada's removal:

It is debatable if the rallies would have petered out, since they had as their backbone the organized Communists who ensured that there was always someone there, even when the disorganized members of Civil Society were absent and the spontaneous protesters would go home to rest. This was, however, the big fear, I would guess, of members of the Church and some politicians. The Communists were making up for their disastrous boycotting of the 1986 Snap Elections; who knows where their organization and newly-restored sense of power would lead them.

Estrada very clearly, was negotiating for a face-saving way out; in the late-night, early-morning negotiations in the Palace, he wanted 5 days to pack up and leave with dignity. Whether or not this was to buy time or not, was less important than the fear on the part of oppositionists who did fear it would give Enrile and company time to bring in troops from the provinces. The military didn’t want a civil war on its hands, the oppositionists perhaps feared that the rallyists would not be able to face up to guns, or worse, the Communists would sieze the opportunity to fight in the streets of the capital, after having tried to sieze the Palace.

So why did the Austeros and the Winnie Monsods of the world not find it wrong back in 2001 to link up with the commies and military adventurists, but now lecture us about "following rule of law" and have become downright hostile to their old leftist allies in edsa dos like beltran, ocampo, and casino?

Aren't they being uhhh... hypocritical?

UPDATE: now i know why the arroyo admin wants to imprison (or at least contain) the Batasan 5 (Satur Ocampo, Teddy Casino, Lisa Masa etc.) and Crispin Beltran. Because they want to cripple the militant leftist's efforts to organize these massive GMA resign and anti-CHA CHA rallies until Arroyo has a new Constitution in place. Katulad nang sinabi ni MLQ3, mas organized at effective sila sa pagra-rally. And without their leaders Beltran, Ocampo, Lisa Masa and Casino leading the way, parang headless chicken ang mga leftist organizations na ito, unable to function properly, which is what the arroyo admin wanted all along.

And MLQ3 is right about this: "In other news, Beltran’s arraignment postponed to May 29 (or: how to keep someone in jail long after you should have been able to prove your case)."

Anyway, more exceprts from MLQ3's old post:

It is debatable if the rallies would have petered out, since they had as their backbone the organized Communists who ensured that there was always someone there, even when the disorganized members of Civil Society were absent and the spontaneous protesters would go home to rest.

I think the rallies would have petered out (or even supplanted by a bigger pro-Erap rally similar to Edsa tres in size), and I say this even if Erap did not have a Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) to viciously disperse the rallies back then.

On the issue of the "acting president":

MLQ3: And I do share one skepticism with the (present) opposition, in that I do recall that when I was listening to the swearing in over the radio (I was in a sidestreet off Malacanang having witnessed the protesters break through the Mendiola barricade), the Vice President said she would preserve, protect, defend the Constitution, etc., as “acting president” or “act as president.” But what I and I think some other people heard, doesn’t seem to have been captured on film or video. Was I hallucinating?

No you're not MLQ3. It was captured on tape. Download it here. Listen to the first 30 seconds of the video.

OFF TOPIC: (Rizalist, on 02:38 of the vid, Arroyo said something about the military's role in erap's ouster, pero bitin ang video... hehe...)

OFF TOPIC 2:And why is Erap's Bingo 2 ball bad and Arroyo's Small Town Lottery okay? (check out 16:00 of the video, and you tell me)

This is interesting too, for kuya Manuel readers like myself.

MLQ3: The other option of course was for the prosecution in the impeachment not to walk out; perhaps Estrada would have acquited. If he had, he would have been faced with renewed fury in the streets but one legal problem would have been resolved.

Having been at the march on the Palace, I believe it would have been healthier for our country for a resolution to have taken in that manner. By this I mean either having Estrada have the blood of his countrymen shot at the gates of the Palace on his hands, or having him strung up on a lamp post, Mussolini style.

Healthier? That comment was made two years ago. This is MLQ3 Jan. 22, 2006:

very many people think blood on the streets is necessary to move the country forward. but who will decide who lives and dies? or do we mean some token sacrifices, the way so many not necessarily radical people think shooting lucio tan would put the fear of god in many delinquent sectors?

read the other comments too on that post too.