Monday, August 29, 2005

Are they serious?

By Sec. Rigoberto D. Tiglao

ARE the opposition congressmen really serious in their move to include the amended complaint as part of an impeachment trial against the President? Only if they think the Senate will be willing to be tied down for a year-even years-of impeachment trial.

The amended complaint constitutes seven different charges against the President. Of course, Marcos lawyer Oliver Lozano's 13 charges will have to be included as well.

What will happen in the trial?

For starters, take one of the amended complaint's charges: alleged "human rights violations," obviously a complaint designed to get the Left on board the impeachment. (Fifteen out of the 47 impeachment signatories are party-list representatives, 10 from the Left.) The complaint claims that the President "acquiesced in and provided impunity to the killing of political dissenters or infringed their freedoms of expression and assembly."

The complaints' specifics? Totally based on a report of Karapatan, an NGO: "411 assassinations, summary executions and (cases of) indiscriminate firing, 130 victims of involuntary disappearance, 245 tortured, and 1,563 illegally arrested." That's a total of 2,349 people, all of them alleged victims of human rights violations.

The accused here is not only President Macapagal-Arroyo, but the Armed Forces of the Philippines which, the complaint alleges, was the main perpetrator of these crimes.

How will the Senate deliberate this charge? Investigate, of course, every single one of these incidents. Can you imagine the number of witnesses and documents necessary to prove each and every one of these 2,349 instances of human rights violations? I've seen a PNP report on the Hacienda Luisita incident. It contains the affidavits of 43 policemen and laborers.

Assume that it would take the Senate one day to evaluate each case. That would take them 2,349 days, or six years. OK, there could be a proposal to take just a sample of, say, just 10 cases. But could the Left and the President's lawyers come to an agreement as to which cases to include in the sample? Would the Left give up should, after the 1,000th case, no human rights violation be established?

Another charge in the amended complaint: The President did not implement Piatco's Naia III contract. It took the Supreme Court a year and a half to study and decide that the Piatco contract with the government was anomalous. It took roughly a year for the Office of the President to go through the roomful of documents to get to the bottom of the case. Would all the top men of the transport and communications departments under three administrations be summoned as witnesses? Would the Senate call to the witness stand Fidel Ramos and Joseph Estrada, since the former first approved it and the latter amended it?

Another charge in the amended complaint: The President approved the North Rail project, even though it was overpriced and the interest rate on the Chinese loan for the project was high. This would require going through a procedure similar to the one used in connection with the Piatco contract-and that would include studying or reviewing the voluminous documents pertinent to the case.

Who would be the witnesses here? House Speaker Jose de Venecia, who convinced the Chinese government to finance it? The governor of the Export-Import Bank of China, who signed the loan agreement? Chinese President Hu Jintao, who witnessed the signing ceremonies? And the Chinese ambassador to Manila, who has publicly stated that the contract is "above-board, we have nothing to hide"?

Another charge which could have an interesting twist: The President used the Road Users' Tax projects to promote her candidacy. Would all the congressmen-including those in the opposition-who were partners in road maintenance projects be called to the witness stand? How about the thousands who were employed in these projects?

We'll be seeing of, course, a replay of the hearings on the jueteng and wiretap controversies, which lasted nearly four months (two months for Sen. Manuel Villar's committee and two months for the congressional committee). No, not just a replay, but many, many more episodes.

Contrast the shotgun, scatty approach of this impeachment move to the focused, reasonable charges in other impeachment cases. The one against Nixon involved not the Watergate break-in, but only the specific instances when the US president asked officials to cover up its links with the White House. The case against Clinton involved not his alleged sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky but perjury (on Aug. 17, 1998 before a federal grand jury) and obstruction of justice (six specific instances). The case against Estrada involved the charges of getting jueteng money and part of the tobacco excise tax proceeds through Chavit Singson.

Read the charges in the amended complaint, and visualize how they will be deliberated by the Senate-then, Fr. Joaquin Bernas' theory that there is only one impeachment proceeding with an extended bill of particulars isn't convincing. There will be entirely new proceedings-entirely different sets of documents, entirely different groups of witnesses-for the fraud charges, the Piatco issue, the human rights violations charges, etc.

The Senate isn't exactly just a debating club. To operate, the chamber costs taxpayers about P1.3 billion a year, or P7 million each session day. With the plethora of different charges in the opposition's complaint, the Senate would probably work as an impeachment court-and forget its law-making work-for an entire year or even more.

Through the many, many months of an impeachment trial, live television and radio will day after day be broadcasting-and newspapers will be publishing-the charges against the President again and again. That's exactly what the Gloria Ibagsak crowd wants out of this impeachment move. With this daily-even hour-by-hour barrage (courtesy of cable TV), the anti-GMA forces hope to see the President buckle under pressure, and resign.

That kind of harassment against the President is exactly what the framers of the Constitution feared, and sought to prevent with the constitutional provision mandating that only one impeachment complaint-with substance-may be attended to within a year.

Give the President her day in court, the opposition and NGO types keep repeating. What they really want is to tie her down in court for years.

Well, yes, the opposition is serious in having the amended complaint in the impeachment trial-but for a rather different reason.

Who Won the Elections?

By Sec. Ricardo Saludo

In its impeachment charges and its media offensive, the opposition has sought to discredit not just President Gloria Arroyo, but the May 2004 election which made her the democratically elected and internationally recognized leader of the country until 2010. Armed with allegedly forged election returns, tales of collusion with election officials, and tapes that are illegal, manipulated, or both, the accusers are trying to conjure in the public mind the scenario of a nationwide conspiracy to subvert the national will.

Amid this confusing cacophony of accusations, legalese, evidence and hearsay, this article aims to help the quest for truth and justice by recounting the actual events, data and assessments of the election, particularly those with great bearing on its outcome.

The Candidates. Both Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Fernando Poe Jr. were formidable candidates with strengths that put them way ahead of their other rivals. Senator in 1992, topnotcher in the 1995 senatorial race, and landslide winner as vice-president in 1998, Arroyo wielded unmatched nationwide political backing. The dominant Lakas-led coalition was behind her, as were most governors, mayors and legislators. And she enjoyed the equity of the incumbent, gaining support from beneficiaries of state programs.

What Poe, the country’s most popular action film star in the 20th century, lacked in political experience and clout he made up for with his irresistible mass appeal untarnished by corruption allegations and political compromises. Backing him was the major opposition grouping under his lifelong friend, former president Joseph Estrada, and former Senate president Edgardo Angara. Poe’s tandem with Loren Legarda offset the media and masa clout of Arroyo's popular broadcaster running mate Noli de Castro.

The Campaign. The two camps adopted predictable strategies. The President highlighted her achievements and vision for the nation, along with her governmental and economic knowledge. Poe’s messages harped on the widespread hardship in the land and unsavory allegations against the administration, while projecting him as the hope of the poor. Notably, throughout the campaign period, there were no reports of the President meeting with Comelec officials anywhere anytime for whatever purpose.

Poe shot ahead early in the surveys (see table below), but the movie star's reluctance to speak at length about national issues and his program of government raised concern about his readiness for the presidency. A few spats with reporters further alienated some media, while a legal battle over his citizenship slowed his drive for political and funding support.

Meanwhile, the incumbent steadily climbed the survey rankings, as her governance message and accelerated programs persuaded more and more voters to go for Gloria. The tragic illness of the late Raul Roco, who had to leave his campaign to seek treatment in the U.S., shifted more of the affluent and the educated to the President’s fold.

Then two mammoth religious groups, the Catholic El Shaddai and the Iglesia Ni Cristo, threw their vote-rich congregations behind the President. Days before the elections, she led Poe by a statistically significant 6-7 percentage points in surveys by the two most reputable polling firms, Social Weather Stations and Pulse Asia.

Philippine Voter Preferences, 2004


Jan. 16-22

Jan. 28-Feb. 8

Feb. 17-25

Mar. 11-19

Mar. 21-29

Apr. 10-17

May 1-4

















Pulse Asia

Jan. 23-Feb. 8

Feb. 16-20

Mar. 27-Apr. 4

Apr. 26-29











The Economy. Besides the vicissitudes of the campaign, the economic surge during the Arroyo Administration also had a bearing on the outcome of the election. In a range of economic indicators, the President excelled among the past four chief executives:

The Philippine Economy, 1986-2003

Annual averages









GDP growth










Job increase thousands





Moreover, under President Arroyo, the poor and middle class share of national income rose 1.3 percentage points, in contrast to stagnation or decline in the past. The bottom 40% among income groups saw their per-capita earnings rise between 22% and 38% from 2000 to 2003. Meanwhile, the very rich saw their share of national wealth shrink 1.5 points, while their average income fell 9.3% between 2000 and 2003.

Notably too, in the presidential elections of 1986 and 1998, the administration candidate lost when GDP growth in the January-March quarter before elections fell well below 2%. But he won in 1992 when expansion from the same period a year before was 2.2%. Year-on-year growth in the first quarter of 2004 hit 6.4%, a good omen for the incumbent.

A final bit of data showing how economics affects election politics: the President was strong in regions where poverty incidence declined the greatest: ARMM (down by 8.7 percentage points), Region 12 (-8) and Region 7 (-7.8). These are the same areas where massive cheating is now alleged. But economic data suggests it was not dagdag-bawas in the polls that helped the incumbent, but bawas-hirap for the poor.

The Election. With 50,672 candidates vying for 17,717 positions and the nods of 43,551,281 eligible voters in 216,725 precincts, the polls were bound to be fractious, messy, and in many places, fraudulent and violent. On the whole, however, the voting on the second Monday of May 2004 was deemed little different from past elections in terms of irregularities, confusion and bloodshed, as gauged by most seasoned poll watchers, reputable watchdog organizations like the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel), major religious groups, and some 100 foreign observers.

The 322 violent incidents counted by the Institute for Popular Democracy from campaign to canvassing were exceeded only by the 405 clashes in 1986. But the 77 deaths recorded were the fewest in two decades. Namfrel estimates possibly more than a million people were not able to vote due to mistakes in the new computerized voters’ lists in many precincts. But independent commentators including Namfrel did not see this or any other problem as major enough to matter in the contests for national positions.

On May 22, 2004, Namfrel declared: “The results of the elections are credible and reflect the vote of the people. We did not see enough electoral anomalies at the national level to have a material effect on the national results.” Ten days later, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) agreed “that there were some instances of cheating and violations of election law by political parties in their areas, but these did not affect the voting in general.”

The tapes controversy did not change the CBCP assessment. At the prelates’ conference on July 10-11, 2005, their president Davao Archbishop Fernando Capalla affirmed, following consultations with clergy all over the country: “It is the view of the bishops that the results of the elections reflected the will of the Filipino people.”

The results of pre-election surveys, exit polls, and the Namfrel, Comelec and official Congress canvassing were consistent. Gloria Arroyo was victorious by substantial margins in all these tallies. As she did in the last few surveys before May 10, the President beat Poe in the four exit polls conducted by media (see table below):

Philippine Election Exit Polls, 2004


(4,627 respondents)



Radio Veritas














Arroyo eventually garnered about 40% of the vote in the Congress tally, which varies from nearly all surveys, exit polls and Namfrel’s quick count by less than the statistically significant three percentage points. The close numbers prompted some in the opposition to charge that the President’s K-4 coalition, the survey companies, and the media had conspired to rig the results. There is a simpler explanation: the survey and election results were the same because they all reflected the same sovereign choice of the electorate.

Philippine Presidential Election Results, 2004

Final Official Congressional Canvass



Votes won

% of total

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo




Fernando Poe, Jr.




Panfilo Lacson




Raul Roco




Eduardo Villanueva




Total valid votes cast



NAMFREL Quick Count (based on 82.98% of precincts reported)



Votes won

% of total

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo




Fernando Poe, Jr.




Panfilo Lacson




Raul Roco




Eduardo Villanueva




Total valid votes cast



A final set of numbers buttressing the President’s triumph and the consistency of results were the victories of most of her fellow candidates in the K-4 coalition. De Castro won with 49.8% of the vote in the Congress tally and 50.1% in Namfrel’s. With candidates for nearly all positions, K-4 captured close to 90% of the congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral positions. These overwhelming successes in districts, provinces, cities and municipalities nationwide could not but have helped the coalition’s presidential standard bearer to also garner big votes among most of those constituencies.

The K-4 Landslide


Won by K-4

Share of total

















City Mayors








The Protests. No Philippine election is complete without charges of vote-buying, count-rigging, intimidation and violence hurled by the losers against the winners. In the 2004 presidential races, the protests reached fever pitch during the nationally televised canvassing of votes in Congress using 176 Certificates of Canvass (CoCs) containing tallies from provinces, cities, and special voting centers here and abroad.

Any political party worth its salt can dig up evidence of counting irregularities, especially in an election with more than 32 million votes tabulated by hand in 216,725 precincts late into the night and the following morning, then transported across vast distances to provincial capitols and city and municipal halls, and finally sent as CoCs to Congress and the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in Manila for national canvassing.

Claiming massive fraud, Poe’s Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) and the Bangon Pilipino Movement (BPM) of Eddie Villanueva demanded the opening of ballot boxes to check CoCs against statements of votes (SoVs) and election returns (ERs). KNP listed 25 tallies it wanted reviewed. Rebuffed, it asked that only three or even just one CoC be recalculated based on SoVs and ERs, just to see if there was major cheating.

The demand put Administration congressmen in a bind. If they refused to break with the decades-old constitutionally mandated practice of canvassing only the COCs after verification with copies held by contending parties, then the opposition would charge and many people would think that K-4 was hiding irregularities.

On the other hand, if Congress agreed to check even one CoC at KNP’s request, it would have to do the same for other parties. K-4 would feel compelled to come up with its own list of suspect CoCs, if only to show that any fraud it was accused of was offset by the opposition’s own cheating. No doubt too, each SoV and ER would have been fiercely contested, with countless witnesses paraded in the Batasan to affirm or dispute anomalies.

The endless delay in canvassing would have created an unstable situation on June 30, 2004. Arroyo would cease to be president but no successor and no vice-president would be proclaimed. Indeed, the tabulation of results might have stopped, since the terms of congressmen doing it would also end. And letting anyone other than the duly elected president run the country might have spurred coup plotters to exploit the leadership crisis.

So the ruling coalition in Congress decided to follow the tried and tested canvassing practice stipulated in the Constitution, braving the barbs of oppositionists and critics that irregularities were being concealed in refusing to open ballot boxes. Poe and Legarda filed election protests with the Supreme Court in its capacity as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. They demanded a recount of votes from selected areas using SOVs and ERs contained in ballot boxes stored in Congress.

Last December, Poe passed away, and K-4 lawyers weeks later asked for the dismissal of his election contest. Reason: a protest is pursued only if it has interested parties who may rise to a contested office depending on the decision. This is to avoid cases being filed by just anybody who doubts the official results. De Castro and Legarda were the only remaining parties with legitimate interests in Poe’s petition, since either could become president if it prospered. But neither took up the case contesting President Arroyo’s mandate, and the Tribunal dismissed the protest early this year.

The Tapes. In early June 2005 there began circulating CDs alleged by the opposition and believed by many to contain wiretapped conversations of the President and Comelec commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, who subsequently went abroad. Versions of the audio material were broadcast, distributed, transcribed, published, downloaded, played in Congress, and turned into cellphone ringtones. Certain portions have led to suspicions and charges of collusion to commit election offenses.

On June 27, after weeks of maintaining silence on the tapes due to their illegal provenance, President Arroyo apologized for calling an election official to safeguard her votes during the canvassing. The nationally broadcast statement was misconstrued by many, including Poe’s widow Susan Roces, to be an admission of election fraud. There is also an uncorroborated, widely denied accusation that Comelec officials received bribes in the President’s family home.

The tapes have led to precipitous declines in the President’s trust and approval ratings, calls for her resignation, and the filing of impeachment complaints. It gave new life to the opposition’s claims that the elections were rigged. While no investigation and no due process have been undertaken to verify the suspicions and charges engendered by the tapes, surveys suggest that millions of Filipinos have already judged President Arroyo.

The Issue. The nation is now pondering two questions relating to the tapes: Was the presidential election rigged and the official result fraudulent? And did President Arroyo commit impeachable offenses during the polls? Only the second can be addressed by Congress, which does not have the power to decide presidential election contests. But a yes or no to impeachment would have the same effect as a yes or no to electoral fraud: the removal or retention of the President.

Some legal experts have opined that the impeachment process, being a political exercise, need not be as stringent in its proceedings and evidence as a court trial. One wonders why. The latter would take a convict away from family and friends who love him; the former would remove a leader from the nation that elected and empowered her.

Impeachment would cancel a six-year democratic mandate forged by the combined, often heroic and Herculean efforts of 43.5 million eligible voters, 650,175 election inspectors, more than 200,000 citizen poll watchers, respected survey and media companies, revered religious communities, and the builders and defenders of our democracy since 1898. Our nation and the Constitution demand that it be done only with the strictest due process and ample, unimpeachable evidence, in the service of justice and the good of all.

It's the economy, stupid

By Sec. Rigoberto D. Tiglao

Quezon City (22 August) -- A CLICHE - that may seem to be. But other than the weaknesses of the charges against President Macapagal-Arroyo, it's one answer to the question why the Gloria-Ibagsak crowd-despite all the sophisticated and well-funded plots and propaganda it has made against her-can't prod a People Power revolt.

The economy is important in understanding our past two Edsas. Because of massive Marcos cronyism, the economy was in crisis by 1984, making almost inevitable the first Edsa in 1986. On the other hand, Erap's (Joseph Estrada's) drinking and mahjong sprees kept him away from decisively leading the economy out of the Asian-wide financial crisis that started in 1997. The political crises that broke out under Marcos and Estrada, because of entirely non-economic reasons-the Ninoy assassination in 1983 and Chavit Singson's exposé in 2000-only further weakened the troubled economies of each period. These, in turn, deepened the political crisis that confronted them, resulting in their ouster.

In contrast, despite the plots against the President since 2001, the economy in the past four years under her has become stronger.

Take a look at the figures: the rate of economic growth, measured by the growth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and inflation rates, in percentages:


Average GDP Growth Rate (%)

Average Inflation Rate (%)













The economy registered its highest growth under Arroyo's presidency compared to the preceding three administrations; inflation, the lowest. There is an unmistakable economic momentum. Growing only 1.3 percent in the first quarter of 2001 when she assumed office, the GDP growth rate has accelerated to 6.4 percent by the first and second quarters of 2004, slowed down this year only by the oil crisis.

Jobs generated annually, measured by year-on-year increases in the number of employed persons, have seen the biggest number under Arroyo:


No of years

Total during term

Average per year

















The economic growth under Ms Arroyo has helped the poorest. Poverty incidence has gone down, from 27.5 percent in 2000 to 24.7 percent in 2003. This means 1 million Filipinos getting out of the poverty quagmire in just three years. Wealth distribution has also improved, as shown in the percentage changes in the shares of the different economic groups in the national income. Under Arroyo's watch, the percentage share of the richest 10th decile has declined by 1.5 percent, with the nearly corresponding increases in the share of the poorest deciles.

But it's not that the rich are being terribly impoverished under Gloria's term. Take the case of our stock market's performance, compared to those of others in the region. We're the third best performer this year. In contrast, massive stock manipulations involving the SSS and other state funds occurred in 2000, triggering a near-meltdown of the bourse.


2004 Price Index

2005 May Price Index

Growth (%)

























The two economic values that react immediately to political disturbances-the exchange and interest rates-behaved quite differently during Erap's and now Gloria's troubled months.

During Erap's crisis that started mid-2000, the peso's exchange rate fell from P43 to the dollar to P51, a huge P8-loss in our currency's value, foreboding a chaotic period unless Estrada was ousted. That certainly convinced the elite to junk him ASAP. In contrast, since the current turmoil started in June, the peso's exchange rate has held steady at the P56-level. This, despite the fact that crude oil prices have zoomed up to their highest levels in 20 years, putting tremendous pressure on the peso's value.

Interest rates, represented by the 91-day Treasury bill rates, remained high at the 10-percent levels in the months before Estrada's fall. In contrast, this year, T-bill rates have even softened, from 7.7 percent at the start of the year to the latest 5.8 percent.

And the coming months?

Business firms are expecting that the political storm will be ending soon.

A Bangko Sentral poll of 839 firms-that's more than double the 300 respondents in Pulse Asia's surveys-showed that businessmen are forecasting a better business climate in the fourth quarter, with the outlook index for that period measured at 18.3 percent. This is a reversal of the negative (i.e., pessimistic) 10.4-percent index for the third quarter of the year.

It's the economy under Gloria which is helping thwart all the Ibagsak plots.