Ninoy’s legacy is many-layered, but we do not lack for anti-Ninoys, who pay lip service to his ideals while in the very act of betrayal. They are in positions of power or influence: a Cabinet secretary who says it is all right for board examinees to receive leaked answers as long as they did not solicit them; an election lawyer who argues that the truth of new fraud allegations is immaterial because legal remedies have already been exhausted; an Army general who seeks to justify the deaths of hundreds of leftist activists by pointing to those slain by the communist insurgents themselves. Their number, truly, is legion.
"It is a normal practice of rebel movements to recruit media personalities because propaganda is an important component of their effort to propagate whatever they (communists) are engaged in," Gonzales told a news forum in Quezon City.
"So it’s normal that they are going to get elements from the media to be their members and we know that there are," Gonzales added without naming names.
Asked how many communists have infiltrated the media, Gonzales said: "Let us not talk how many…That (propaganda) does not involve numbers (of infiltrators) but on how effective they are able to smuggle to media what they want."
Ito po yung ISAFP list ng mga media na kampi ng komunista.
They already succeeded in slowly building up the faith and confidence of a people in the judiciary when the high court justices voted unanimously to junk Executive Order (EO) 464, or the presidential gag rule on all employees with the executive department, save perhaps for the janitor, in instances where Congress, in hearings, summons them.
It was clear in that ruling, that Congress’ power to compel officials — especially from the executive department, to testify before it during hearings in aid of legislation was upheld and about the only time the executives should seek permission from the President would be in instances of the Question Hour, which is hardly called for by Congress.
But the high court justices just lost that flowering public faith and confidence when they, in another court ruling, weakened the power of Congress and strengthened the power of Gloria through the ruling against (retired) Gen. Francisco Gudani and Col. Alexander Balutan in the case of their having appeared before the Senate hearing even as it was claimed by the ponente, Justice Dante Tinga — the same justice who dissented from the 1017 ruling, saying Gloria’s 1017 was nowhere near Marcos’ martial law decree — that the orders of the Commander-in-Chief to her officers cannot be defied.
That ruling was deliberately opening the door for Gloria to exercise her gag powers over Congress by amending the earlier Supreme Court (SC) ruling on EO 464.
In the first place, it was fairly clear to one and all that Gudani and Balutan never received any order from Gloria not to testify before the Senate, as the information — it was not an order — came after the two had already appeared in the Senate.
In the second place, it was clear that the hearing held by the Senate was in aid of legislation — and about the military activity during the election period, which had nothing to do with a clearly illegal order from Gloria for military officials to shut up to effect a cover-up of the crimes committed by their Commander-in-Chief. This had nothing to do with national security issues. Their testimonies had something to do with criminal acts.
Yet the SC, speaking through Tinga, said in the instant case, the President was exercising her powers, not as Chief Executive on the EO 464, but as Commander-in-Chief in preventing military officers from testifying.
If the high court justices could make that distinction between orders coming from a Commander-in-Chief and another gag order coming from a President, how is it that the justices failed utterly to make a distinction between the gag rule order on Gudani and Balutan in the instance where they were to testify not on military security matters but on the cheating that went on during the 2004 elections?
Even a simpleton could make that distinction, yet these supposed “wise men” in the high court could not?
"Gloria and her aides has always said, when charges are raised: “Prove it. Show us the evidence. Bring this to the proper court” and oh, yes, she even appeals to the people to uncover evidence and come forward.
But these are all meaningless, as it has been proved time and again, that even as solid evidence is presented to back up these charges, they are quickly dismissed by Gloria and her aides, with the usual line of these pieces of evidence and charges being “recycled garbage.”
But what is recycled in the German bank deposits? This is certainly the first time this charge was raised. How can this be recycled? Even the P3-billion fertilizer funds scam is not a recycled charge as part of an impeachment complaint. So the scam was investigated in the Senate, but Malacañang conveniently omits the fact that it ensured that not one of its Cabinet officials — and especially Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante would appear before the Senate panel. This issue was never brought up in the first impeachment complaint....
Still, there must be something to this German account, for Malacañang occupants to react so vehemently to this disclosure. After all, if there is no such account belonging to the presidential family, and in that amount, it should be easy for the presidential spouse to sign a waiver allowing the congressmen to look into that bank account, to verify the truth of this charge.
But even in the case of the Jose Pidal secret accounts, there certainly were pieces of solid evidence that pointed to the First Gentleman being Jose Pidal, yet the government agencies — including the handwriting police laboratory — lied about this while the brother, Iggy Arroyo, claimed to be Jose Pidal then clammed up before the Senate, claiming his right to privacy.
UPDATE: MLQ3 comments: "The question of the alleged German bank account of the First Family is interesting, part of a larger trend of placing the financial activities of the President and her husband under scrutiny. So the opposition asks for a waiver; the President’s son says he’d rather fly first class to Germany with the opposition to verify the existence of the account. But wouldn’t the money have been transfered by now, with the news?"
But we all knew that the reality was one-man rule, supported by a fawning clique of politicians, big businessmen and generals whose interests coincided with that of the Marcos.
This in the case of mounting popular opposition to continued authoritarianism.
We have restored democratic processes and institutions. But we could hardly distinguish, say, the current House from the Batasang Pambansa. The Supreme Court has struck down the more execrable actions of the Executive for being unconstitutional. But by its equivocations it only succeeds in justifying the crackdown on dissenters (upholding the Batasan-era rules on rallies and demonstrations while junking the calibrated preemptive response) and emasculation of the powers of Congress (setting "guidelines" on the appearance of executives before legislative inquiries while ruling against the expansion of executive privilege via Executive Order 464)."
When you hear people showing displays of support and admiration for Sen. Aquino, and you examine their own contributions to democracy in this country, it is very easy to tell if that official or personality is a hypocrite of democracy or not.
Those who are hypocrites to democracy love to talk a lot about their convictions. Those who are really for democracy are continuously working in the background to ensure its preservation.
At a time when Martial Law tactics are all too obvious, particularly the cedula tactic of the military in Central Luzon, the least thing the government needed, is to flood Manila with yellow ribbons, and the exposure of President Arroyo on television gracing the memorial observance of Aquino's martyrdom.
If I were President Arroyo, I'd rather do these to preserve Ninoy's dream: immeadiately resign as President, allow the unobstructed investigations against any wrongdoing of the Administration, guarantee freedom of assembly and abolish BP 880.
Yup. I saw lost of yellow ribbons around manila yesterday. And plenty of big yellow flags/banners with ninoy aquino and lito atienza's on it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment