Ombudsman Gutierrez: Binay dapat kasuhan!

(3rd UPDATE)

-- Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez: Binay dapat kasuhan ng katiwalian

-- CBCP: FPJ was cheated in 2004 polls

A Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) committee tasked to investigate charges of massive fraud during the last polls issued its final report over six months ago and before a plenary bishops conference, showing that FPJ was cheated by at least 600,000 votes.

Bishop Teodoro Bacani confirmed that there was such a report submitted by the commit-tee created by the CBCP tasked to probe the alleged mas-sive electoral fraud com-mitted during the last presi-dential polls, but that the report, which was distri-buted to each and every bishop, was labeled “for your eyes only.”

“The report released to us by the committee indicated that there was cheating committed and that FPJ was cheated by at least 600,000 votes,” Bacani confirmed during a brief telephone interview with the Tribune yesterday.

So why is the CBCP still "searching for the truth"? Makes you go hmmm...

-- Ellen Tordesillas: "Nakikita pa ba ninyo ang advertisement ng Singaw ng Bayan tungkol sa coup? Mukha hindi ko na nakikita. Malamang pina-alis na nila. Dapat naman. Buking sila doon na nanloloko sila ng taumbayan"

-- Malaya Editorial: Setting the stage for another vote-buying spree in 07. Money quote:

We can only speculate on why Estrada decided to end directed lending. The reason probably is that Estrada knew he did not need to buy the love of the poor. So unlike the current occupant of Malacañang who seems to obsessively crave for the people’s affection.

In lifting the Estrada ban, Gloria, the economist, said she was addressing the continuing lack of credit for small and medium industries in the countryside. She said safeguards are in place to ensure that only qualified borrowers could go to the lending window.

Given her record, who would believe her?

-- and if some of the money here ended up on the 2007 elections, (like the fertilizer funds etc.) I will be really upset.

-- Rudy romero: No Waiver, no transparency.

-- From Conrad de Quiros, who said Vinyl records are making a comeback raw. pwede rin kayang gumawa ng pirated vinyls ang mga pirates natin?

-- Neal Cruz notes the contradictions in pro-Charter-change tactics

IN ITS desperate efforts to push Charter change, the administration is entangling itself in contradictions. This early, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her lackeys are already eyeing the administration's senatorial candidates in next year's elections. But the new constitution they are pushing will change our government to a unicameral parliamentary system, thus abolishing the Senate. So what are their senatorial candidates for? It can only mean that contrary to the confident statements of Speaker Jose de Venecia and the local government executives that the "Cha-cha" train can no longer be stopped, they realize that it is about to be derailed.

Another contradiction is that Solicitor General Eduardo Nachura, who argued in favor of Charter change at the Supreme Court hearing yesterday, filed, when he was still a congressman, a proposed enabling law for the constitutional provision on the people's initiative. As former senator Rene Saguisag said, that was an admission by Nachura that the provision
needs an enabling law. At yesterday's Supreme Court hearing, however, Nachura argued that no enabling law is needed.

Still another contradiction: The solicitor general is the lawyer of the government. So, he should be arguing for the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that rejected the petition of Sigaw ng Bayan and Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) to schedule a plebiscite for Charter change because there is no enabling law. Why did he argue against the Comelec as if he is the counsel for Sigaw and ULAP?

In the "Cha-cha" controversy, Malacañang should legally be neutral. It should not speak out for or against it. But all this time, Malacañang has been openly pushing for Charter change.

And where is Sigaw ng Bayan and ULAP getting the millions of pesos to pay for their pro-Cha-cha commercials and advertisements? Those TV commercials and newspaper ads cost about P100,000 per, and considering that there are so many of them, it must have already cost them hundreds of millions of pesos. Who is paying for all that?

Sigaw ng Bayan is a private organization and ULAP is composed of local government executives and they cannot afford those millions. Most local government units spend Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) funds (their share in the income tax payments of citizens) for their day-to-day expenses. So the government, and therefore the taxpayers, must be secretly footing the bill. They are committing large-scale estafa because they cannot spend tax money on their private projects, which the Cha-cha is.

It should be easy to trace the sources of these funds through the paper trail. The Commission on Audit (COA) and the Office of the Ombudsman, both independent constitutional bodies, should look into this.

-- Ernie Maceda: "Who’s paying? Malacañang has come up with a new newspaper called the Philippine Gazette. Who is the publisher? Sigaw ng Bayan spokesman, lawyer Raul Lambino, also president and chairman of the board. Certainly, Lambino does not have the P20- million initial capital to finance a new daily.

Whose big picture is on the front page? Former Makati Vice Mayor Bobby Brillante who filed a case against incumbent Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay."

2nd update: -- Conrad de Quiros on the Pablo Glean murder. Yup, I also believe it's politically motivated and a message to Binay.

-- Lito Banayo: Is there a Philippine "king" na katulad sa Thailand?

-- Conrad de Quiros: Only a counter-coup can end the coup already in place. I admit that that may be the only way to realistically dislodge Arroyo and Pidal from their stolen presidency at this point.

-- Ano ang revision at ano ang amendment? Eto sagot ni Fr. Joaquin Bernas:

Under the 1935 Constitution, it was not necessary to make a distinction between amendment and revision because only Congress and a Constitutional Convention could propose changes then and they could propose either amendments or revision. Even then, however, experts on Constitutional Law already made the distinction. The eminent constitutionalist Vicente G. Sinco, former dean of the UP College of Law and whose book on Political Law was for a long time the textbook used in law schools, explained the distinction thus:

“Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations of different portions of the entire document. It may result in the rewriting whether of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps only some of its important provisions. But whatever result the revision may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the constitution to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new one.”

This definition is also clearly reflected in the deliberations of the 1987 Constitution. What Sigaw ng Bayan and company have been advocating fits neatly into Sinco’s definition of revision.

Sinco proceeded to define amendments:

“The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect.”

This, too, is reflected neatly in the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. Sigaw and company’s proposals, on the other hand, fit neatly into what a mere amendment is not.

Briefly, the thrust of revision is to search, destroy and replace. The thrust of an amendment is to search and improve.

But why limit initiative and referendum to simple amendments? The answer, which one can easily glean from the rather long deliberations on initiative and referendum in the 1986 Constitutional Commission, is practicality. In other words, who is to formulate the revision or how is it to be formulated? Revision, as concretely being proposed now, is nothing less than a rebuilding of the Philippine constitutional structure. Who were involved in formulating the structure? What debates ensued? What records are there for future use in interpreting the provisions which may be found to be unclear?

-- Terrell Owens reportedly tries to commit suicide.

-- I agree with MLQ3 about Tony Abaya's assessment:

But the most important lesson to be learned from the latest Thai coup is that the parliamentary system does not immunize a sitting government from being overthrown by a military coup, contrary to the naïve claims of its champions.

So if the parliamentary system cannot dismantle political dynasties, cannot eliminate or even only reduce government corruption, cannot guarantee economic progress, cannot shield a sitting government against coups d’etat and people power uprisings, why are we being stampeded into changing our Constitution in order to shift to it?

There seems to be only one answer: To allow Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to remain in power beyond 2010, either as prime minister in a Westminster-type parliament, or as president in a French parliamentary model. ChaChaCha!

Indeed.