Rational Sphere

Let the Numbers Speak

2006-07-27T19:03:00.000-07:00

It's time to move forward
We are winning the war against corruption
Our economy is on the upswing

Sabwatan sa Kataksilan

2006-07-27T18:50:00.000-07:00

Click here to download video file

Paglaban sa Kataksilan

2006-03-04T09:03:00.000-08:00

Click here to download video file

Economy unscathed

2005-09-25T23:38:00.000-07:00

by Sec. Rigoberto Tiglao

The Sept 22 Social WEather Stations' Press Release blared: "Hunger rises to 15.5%." Media, of course, echoed the line. Practically buried in the press release was the more fundamental trend emerging from its opinion survey.

For August (or more accurately from Aug. 26 to Sept. 5, the survey period), 49 percent of those polled perceived themselves to be poor. This was a sharp decline from 57 percent reflected in the SWS survey in May.

Significantly, the 49-percent, self-rated poverty incidence is the third lowest since 1983, or in the 22 years the SWS has been polling on this indicator.

The lowest self-rated poverty incidence in the SWS series was recorded at 43 percent in March 1987, during President Cory Aquino's term. But that was quite obviously a fluke or a polling error. Except for March 1987 and the succeeding poll in October that year, the self-rated poverty incidence in the other 11 polls conducted during Aquino's term always went over 60 percent.

The second lowest self-rated poverty incidence was recorded by SWS in March 2004 under President Macapagal-Arroyo, at 46 percent.

The drop in self-rated poverty incidence isn't really surprising, as President Arroyo has been continuously pushing her bureaucracy to accelerate anti-poverty programs. For instance, from July 2001 to May 2005, government provided some P20.8 billion in micro credit to 2.2 million borrowers nationwide. That would certainly have had an impact on poverty incidence.

And even at the height of the political storm, new anti-poverty programs were being pushed. For instance, the President prodded government financial institutions to allocate P900 million for microfinance starting early June. By July, these GFIs had got their boards to approve P600 million.

Despite all the whining and noise of the political mob, there have been improvements in our nation's fight against poverty. The following figures are data from the SWS (www.sws.org.ph):

President SWS Poverty Incidence % Official Poverty Incidence %

Marcos 65 44
Aquino 67 40
Ramos 60 33
Estrada 56 28
Arroyo 51 25

Note: Second column figures are the average of the findings in the last three SWS polls vis-á-vis each president; except for Marcos, with respect to whom only two polls were made.

The SWS' latest data are also quite significant in the fact that the lower self-rated poverty incidence was registered during a period of political turmoil-that is, during the big push to overthrow the President. Although self-rated poverty incidence is by definition the personal perception of respondents, it often reflects the level of national pessimism, which understandably was expected to be high at a time of political turmoil.

The fact that there was instead optimism during that period-lower self-rated poverty incidence-could mean two things. On the subjective level, Filipinos simply disregarded all the political noise which the elite in Manila were all so absorbed with.

On the objective level, our economy was unscathed by the political storm. This was remarkable considering that crude oil prices doubled this year from its 2000 levels. The decrease in the number of people saying they were poor simply reflected the impact of an improving economy.

Another way of looking at it is that there was such a growth momentum before the political storm hit that the economy just shrugged off all the doomsday scenarios.

This is borne by economic figures in the past several months. In particular, two major macro-economic trends show the improved conditions in which the SWS respondents found themselves in.

Gross Domestic Product, or economists' term for the total value produced by an economy, grew by 4.8 percent in the second quarter of 2005, stronger than the first quarter growth of 4.6 percent. Our country fared better than that of Malaysia (4.1 percent), South Korea (3.3 percent), and Taiwan (3 percent).

The unemployment rate decreased in July 2005 to 7.7 percent from 8.3 percent in April 2005. This meant a million more Filipinos getting jobs since last year.

When the impeachment proceedings against Estrada started in the third quarter of 2000, the peso's exchange rate fell from P43 to the dollar to P51 just before he quit the Palace, a huge P8-loss in the peso's value that certainly forebode a chaotic period. In contrast, the peso exchange depreciated only by 3 percent since June this year, the consensus among analysts is that this was due not to capital flight-as in the case of Estrada's impeachment-but to the surge in oil prices which required more dollars for crude imports.

It is what is called the international balance of payments (BOP)-the net of our transactions with the world-which is the biggest factor in pressures leading to the depreciation of the peso. A build-up of deficits-which means we are spending more dollars than we are receiving-leads to the fall in the peso's value.

This didn't happen in the past three months. In fact, the BOP posted a huge $2-billion surplus in the first seven months of the year, a complete reversal of the $93-million deficit in the same period last year. This was due mainly to the following developments:

Exports for the period January-July 2005 increased to $23 billion, up by 4.6 percent from $22 billion last year

Foreign investments in the stock market and other short-term instruments registered as of Sept. 9, 2005 a net inflow of $2 billion, 13 times more than the $153 million registered in the same period last year and 4.1 times more than the $486.8 million total for the whole of 2004.

Remittances from Filipino workers overseas grew to $5.8 billion in the January-July 2005 period, up 22 percent from the $4.7 billion for the same months last year.

The number of tourists grew to 1.5 million for the first seven months of the year, up by 13.5 percent from the 1.3 million recorded in the same period last year.

The Philippine stock market also showed resilience in the face of the political storm. The Phisix, the stock market indicator, even strengthened and peaked at 2,038.10 points on Aug. 12, 2005. It declined though in mid-August because of the surge in oil prices which threatened the global economy. It has started to recover though, moving again to the 2,000-point mark in the past two weeks.

Finally, despite all the political noise, government has kept firm control of its purse. The budget posted a surplus of P1.8 billion in the month of August, its third surplus in a month this year. Revenues from January to August amounted to P530.2 billion, 1.6 percent above target, while expenditures amounted to P610.9 billion, 5 percent below the program.

Re: CBCP Statement on Sept 13, '05

2005-09-13T19:23:00.000-07:00

Statement of the Cabinet Secretary

The CBCP statement affirming the central role of prayer, sobriety and rule of law in the continuing search for truth, provides wise and enlightening guidance to our people.

The call for the nation to move on and to turn our attention and energies toward alleviating proverty is a sorely needed direction also taken by government and the great majority of our citizenry.

In the quest for truth, it is important to recall the CBCP's warning in its July 10 statement:

"In this grave situation, various groups take advantage of one another, manipulate situations for their own agenda, and create confusion among our people sometimes by projecting speculation or suspicion as proven fact, with the aim of grabbing power." (CBCP)

Let us all heed the preaching of the Bishops for peace, truth, sobriety, rule of law, and the upliftment of our poor kababayan.

Flaws in Polls

2005-09-11T22:15:00.000-07:00

by Sec. Rigoberto Tiglao

"Polls: Either the 'echo-chamber' for the media, or the views of political leaders and media without sufficient information and examination to represent any meaningful popular control." -J.S. Fishkin, US political scientist

Other than their sanctimonious invocations of "morality" and "truth," the anti-Gloria personalities proclaim as a mantra their claim-based on polls-that most Filipinos want her out. These anti-Gloria forces no longer even refer to the actual surveys; they merely state cavalierly-or casually write in innumerable opinion columns-that "Filipinos" want President Macapagal-Arroyo to step down from power.

For starters, the names of the two notable polling surveys should be instructive enough: Social Weather Stations; and Pulse Asia Inc. Polls capture a period-or even just a moment-of the public's perception. Boracay at the height of a typhoon is a hellish place. That doesn't mean though that Boracay isn't a great resort. A person's pulse quickens during moments of agitation and danger; that doesn't necessarily mean that his heart is breaking down.

And the people's pulse can change quickly, and not necessarily as a result of reasonable deliberation.

In early March (1995), despite the dramatic resolution of the country's power crisis, then President Fidel Ramos' popularity steeply fell, with his satisfaction ratings dropping to zero by mid-1995. (Should FVR have resigned then?) The reason for this was the Flor Contemplacion controversy. The decline in Ramos' popularity wasn't even caused by an action of his. Public outrage broke out because of a statement made by his foreign affairs secretary, a statement which, the people felt, was callous.

In November 1999, Estrada's satisfaction ratings, which were zooming up to the 70-point level, suddenly crashed to net 5 percentage points. Why? In that month there was a barrage of media exposes against him: front-page photos of the mansions allegedly owned by Estrada's mistresses, and reports of his drinking sprees in Malacañang. However, Estrada recovered his popularity to the 19-point level by September the following year.

The polls were invented by media, when the American newspapers Harrisburg Pennsylvanian and the Raleigh Star organized crude straw votes in 1874. The dialectic-maybe even the conspiracy-of media and polls continues. In the United States, other than political parties during election periods, US media outfits also commission poll surveys.

This prompted a noted American US political scientist J.S. Fishkin (in his book "The Voice of the People") to remark: "Polls are no more than the superficial means by which newspapers have come to speak for the people." Indeed, if newspapers do not publish polls, the latter will be as insignificant to politics as academic dissertations.

Other than capturing only a moment of public sentiment, the basic flaw of opinion polls is this: They report opinions even if the opinions are uninformed or misinformed. "Modern polling can give us back only what citizens know the moment the phone rings," another US political scientist, Robert Weissberg wrote.

And with the power of television and newspaper in the modern world, media images are enough to suddenly shift public perception. The sudden change in public opinion on the Vietnam War wasn't really due to the Pentagon Papers or student revolt or extensive debates. It was the images on television, such as the ones showing wounded US soldiers screaming in pain, and a young Vietnamese girl burnt in a napalm bombing.

With Congress turned into a venue for deliberating the impeachment issues, opposition demagogues were able to speak day in, day out-with full media coverage-with all venom and vitriol against the President. Rep. Alan Cayetano was even devious enough to keep repeating in every interview: "All we want to find out is whether the President is a thief and a liar." After people kept seeing and hearing congressmen saying for nearly three months that the President is a thief, what opinion would an ordinary Filipino express if he were suddenly interviewed by a pollster?

One pernicious impact of opinion polls is the bandwagon effect, and this is the reason why, in many countries, the publication of pollsters' findings on voting preferences are banned several weeks before elections.

A poll survey shows that a big percentage of respondents want Gloria out. "Middle forces" interpret this as the voice of the people. Therefore, they want Gloria out, too. The next month the percentage of Filipinos wanting Gloria out increases.

That is exactly what happened in recent months. "I look at the figures," former secretary Juan Santos said in a TV interview, referring to Pulse Asia's findings on the popularity of the President, "and they keep falling." Therefore, Santos joined the Hyatt 4-to increase the cabal's numbers.

A more insidious use of polls in the guise of objectivity is when introductory statements to a series of questions are posed to the respondent. Consider the following approach:

Introductory statements by pollster: President Arroyo admitted she called a Comelec official. There are some who claim that Ms Arroyo cheated in the elections.

Q 3: Do you think President Gloria cheated in the elections?

Q4: Do you think she should resign?

The questions might appear objective, but note how the responses would have totally changed if the introductory statements were different.

For example: Introductory statements-President Arroyo won in 2004 by a margin of more than 1.5 million votes over FPJ. Most of the Catholic Church, the Iglesia ni Cristo, El Shaddai, and business groups clearly supported Arroyo in that elections. It was Congress which determined that President Gloria won.

Question 1: Do you think President Gloria won only because she cheated?

Question 2: Do you think she should resign?

SWS and Pulse Asia would never have used such an approach.

The introductory statements were actually worse in their recent polls. The statements and questions were in Filipino. Their translation of the sentence "President Gloria admitted calling a Comelec official" was: "Inamin ni Pangulong Gloria na kinausap niya ang isang Comelec official."

The common usage of "inamin" is "confessed," as to a crime. But the President never confessed to a crime. And if you were an ordinary Filipino being told by a pollster that your President admitted to a crime, wouldn't you agree that he or she should be ousted?

Polls, with their flaws, can never be the basis for political action. They can never substitute for representative, republican democracy.

Some 236 representatives of the people studied in detail the impeachment charges and debated over them for weeks. The majority, 158 of them, decided to junk the complaints, and only 51, less than a fourth of them, wanted her impeached. Contrast that to Estrada's case, when 115 members of Congress voted for his impeachment.

Why the Opposition Lost

2005-09-07T19:48:00.000-07:00

by Sec. Ricardo Saludo

The opposition and their civil society allies depict their failure to get 79 votes for impeachment as an unjust defeat for the outnumbered forces of truth. The real story is not so black and white. Back in June, the self-proclaimed apostles of truth were not interested in it. They wanted a democratically elected head of state to relinquish her constitutional mandate without the benefit of a full investigation and a fair trial of the charges against her. Even their latest attempt to unite their fractious ranks, Bukluran para sa Katotohanan, has one aim: “President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo must go.”

The opposition’s obsession with resignation led to multiple blunders on the way to defeat. For starters, they ignored a suggestion from Makati Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr. back in June to file an impeachment complaint before anyone else did. They feared it would weaken their push for the President to step down without due process.

Only when the people clearly rejected the call for People Power did the opposition file the Amended Complaint on July 22 —weeks after not just one, but two complaints had been initiated. They knew the late filing could be barred by the constitutional limit of one impeachment proceeding against the same official in a year. So they crafted their petition as amendments to the Lozano Complaint filed first on June 27.

Then came Opposition Blunders 2 and 3. The Lozano Complaint lacked specific acts underpinning the charge of election fraud. But instead of just addressing that deficiency, the opposition added other accusations. The Amended Complaint was so different from Lozano’s that it amounted to a new petition altogether. Moreover, while the new charges won support from the Liberals and party-list groups, they made it harder for other congressmen to sign up.

If one saw poor evidence for some allegations, he might not endorse the whole lot. There were other problems. The mountain of charges made the Amended Complaint look like an instrument to launch months of propaganda against the Administration, right into the year before the 2007 elections. “Impeachment is a tool against the incumbent,” said Davao Oriental Rep. Joel Mayo Almario.

The jueteng accusations might have incensed the House, having tarred some leading congressmen. Allegations of human rights abuses antagonized the military and its lawmaker friends. The charge of anomalous contracts threatened projects benefiting a good number of congressional districts.

In sum, the Amended Complaint was even harder for congressmen to support than the Lozano Complaint. To that Blunder No. 2 the opposition added No. 3: Taguig-Pateros Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano opposed rules proposed by the majority which would have allowed complaints to be amended and amalgamated. Thus, the Lozano and Amended Complaints were deemed separate petitions initiated on different days which could not be combined. The opposition also insisted that complaints need not mention evidence. Result: they could be dismissed with no evidence presented.

As if these legal and tactical blunders weren’t enough, the opposition committed the biggest no-no in selling anything, be it insurance or impeachment: insulting the buyer. The opposition declared in so many words that congressmen who did not endorse the Amended Complaint were bribe-taking, unprincipled Malacañang stooges hiding the truth. “They called us sordid names,” bristled Ilocos Sur Rep. Salacnib Baterina.

Even some who voted with the opposition saw its mistake. Batangas Rep. Hermilando Mandanas said: “No one here has a monopoly on truth. No one here is the final arbiter of justice. And no one can judge the motives of any of us.” For his part, Teddy Boy Locsin wondered days before the plenary deliberations: “How can you ask them to vote for the truth after you have called all of them liars?”

More than opposition miscues, however, it is the lack of a clear, hopeful post-impeachment program of action which doomed the anti-Arroyo campaign. Yes, people want truth, but not if they have to leap blind into a dark, dodgy future.

The factions targeting Malacañang cannot agree on one post-Arroyo scenario. Corazon Aquino, some resigned Cabinet members, and many Liberals favor Vice-President Noli de Castro’s takeover. The Erap-Susan camp disputes Kabayan’s election victory. Sen. Panfilo Lacson wants snap elections, while rightist ex-generals and leftist militants demand a transitional revolutionary regime. (Moreover, some of these factions are discredited in the nation’s eyes.)

With no definite plan for post-Arroyo rule, let alone a full program of government to address economic, energy, security, poverty, and corruption challenges, Gloria-resign forces offer no path to a better tomorrow. Sulu Rep. Hussin Amin feared a fight for power among opposition factions if the President goes.

Many of his colleagues worried about impeachment itself. “Our country cannot continue to be hostage to this political crisis,” fretted Alipio Cirilo Badelles. “Debating endlessly will not help my people in Lanao del Norte.” Jose Salceda of Albay, Negros Oriental’s Herminio Teves and Rodolfo Valencia of Oriental Mindoro all believe impeachment would hurt the nation, especially the economy.

The nation and the great majority of its lawmakers now hope to give more sorely needed attention, time and effort to addressing everyday concerns about rising prices, job creation, terrorist threats, and better health services and education. “People are suffering because we don’t respond to their needs,” laments Sulu’s Amin. Speaking toward the end of the House plenary, Parañaque Rep. Eduardo Zialcita said the 158-51-6 vote meant: “Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is our president . . . and we must all work together as a team.”

Conciliatory final statements by administration stalwart Rolando Andaya of Camarines Sur and his regionmate from Sorsogon, Minority Floor Leader Francis Escudero, bode well for advocates of national unity and advancement. The entire republic can only hope that all sides in the political arena will indeed heed the dictum, salus populi est suprema lex (“the people’s welfare is the supreme law”), and march together toward a brighter tomorrow for all.

The Search for Truth

2005-09-05T02:07:00.000-07:00

by Sec. Ricardo Saludo

“Is there no one else who will sign for the truth?” With those words, Marinduque Rep. Edmundo Reyes Jr. made a final plea for fellow representatives to support the Amended Complaint against President Gloria Arroyo. As of Sept. 2, the opposition needed 30 signatures to reach 79. Then it could call on 23 promised endorsements of congressmen who Reyes said would sign up if the complaint gets the nod of one-third of the House to propel it to the Senate.

The opposition insists that only through a Senate trial can the truth about allegations against the President emerge. Fortunately, the situation is not as black and white as “no impeachment, no truth.” If the House does not vote to impeach, there are other due process venues to uncover the facts. Here are some of them, all non-partisan and independent bodies, along with the accusations they can probe and prosecute:

The Amended Complaint alleges a conspiracy to cheat in the May 2004 elections. While President Arroyo cannot be sued now, the people who allegedly colluded with her can be investigated and charged by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) or the Ombudsman.

Among those who could be probed and prosecuted is former Comelec commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, believed by many to be implicated in the alleged wiretaps now circulating. If he does not return from abroad, he can be tried in absentia, and his purported collusion with any candidate, administration or opposition, can be recounted and proven in court.

The opposition has accused members of the First Family of receiving jueteng payolas. The Ombudsman can look into these accusations, and the President has, in fact, requested it to do so. A former Palace functionary claims that Comelec officials received bribes from the wife of a reputed jueteng lord after a dinner at the President’s family home. The Ombudsman can investigate the widely denied story and file charges in the Sandiganbayan against anyone found to have given or gotten payoffs.

The opposition contends that the President acquiesced to violations of human rights and election laws, including alleged army actions and the supposed use of state funds and programs to buy votes. The Commission on Human Rights and the Comelec can probe these allegations and, if warranted, file charges against those implicated in civil and military courts. In such proceedings, the President’s involvement, if there is any, can be detailed and made public.

Another impeachment charge is the approval of contracts purportedly disadvantageous to the government. The Commission on Audit (COA) and the Ombudsman are empowered to look into all public transactions, and the latter can prosecute officials involved in the Sandiganbayan.

Again, while the President cannot be brought to court at this time, her actions can be reported by the COA or the Ombudsman in any trial or preliminary investigation of officials who recommended contract approval. Lawyers of the Department of Justice cleared these transactions on legal grounds, while the inter-agency Investment Coordinating Committee chaired by the National Economic & Development Authority, affirmed their economic rationale and financial viability.

All the evidence and testimony from the different proceedings would go through strict due process, making them highly credible and legally affirmed. If there are any findings about the President, they could be incorporated in future proceedings that may be undertaken against her.

Moreover, the multiple accusations in the Amended Complaint could be investigated and prosecuted at the same time in various venues, making the search for truth much faster than if the Senate were to receive evidence one charge at a time. Media could sum up proceedings and findings from all investigative and judicial bodies every day. And Congress would be free to do its main job: legislation.

Of course, some of the material the opposition might have wanted to present in Congress could be ruled inadmissible or given little weight by the constitutional commissions and the courts. Hearsay testimony, illegal recordings, and uncorroborated claims might have been fair game in a Senate trial, but not in criminal proceedings. (One wonders why impeachment should have looser evidentiary standards, considering that unseating a nationally elected leader is far graver in its consequences for the republic than jailing a convict.)

Moreover, some congressmen may balk at letting investigators and prosecutors of the constitutional bodies, as well as justices of the courts, take the credit and hog the cameras in the struggle for truth and justice. One Makati congressman recalls that several of his colleagues were keen to impeach Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. in 2003, hoping to bask in the media limelight as prosecutors during the Senate trial. “They wanted to do a Joker,” he says, referring to Joker Arroyo’s telegenic performance in the Estrada impeachment which boosted his successful senatorial bid in 2001.

A third objection the opposition may have is that the commissions and the courts, being impartial, non-political bodies, would not be focused on removing the President. They would not be making special efforts to build up evidence against her; nor would they give much time and attention to partisan filibusters and propaganda not very helpful to investigation and prosecution.

Indeed, the constitutional bodies and the courts should resist becoming battlefields for contending political factions, the way the impeachment process is. They should be intent on unearthing hard evidence and unimpeachable testimony, not playing to Congress, media and public. Their processes should be marked by sobriety, impartiality, strict due process, and careful evaluation of all findings and allegations.

In short, the constitutional commissions and the courts should be arenas for facts, not factions. But then, isn't that what the search for truth is all about?

Naivet‚ or hypocrisy?

2005-09-04T16:16:00.000-07:00

by Sec. Rigoberto D. Tiglao

There has been a display of naivetè (some call it hypocrisy)-contrived or not-by the so-called Black and White Movement, over the political war that has raged in the past three months. The people behind the movement portray their stance merely as a search for truth.

But the election-fraud charges, which led to the drive for President Macapagal-Arroyo to resign and-after that failed-for her impeachment, didn't evolve just out of the blue. The core of the campaign to unseat the President (the so-called "Garci" tapes) didn't surface on its own. The jueteng witnesses (all admitted bagmen[woman] of gambling lords) didn't get conscience-stricken just suddenly in June, the reason they turned whistle-blowers. This mix of "exposès" and people is a major element of a political strategy.

The metaphor of a political storm is a bit misleading. The turmoil in the past months represents the big offensive initiated by three major political forces determined to unseat President Macapagal-Arroyo at all costs. The turmoil is not just the result of a confluence of factors and events. These camps have been ranged against her since Day One of her first term, continuously plotting to overwhelm the administration's democratic ramparts.

1. The Erap (deposed President Joseph Estrada) and FPJ (Fernando Poe Jr.) forces. They cannot accept the fact that a once popular president is in detention while the court deliberates on the corruption allegations against him. Indeed, for the first time in our nation's history, a former president has been put in jail. This unprecedented development-a quantum leap toward the strengthening of our institutions-has not been without cost. It is a major factor that explains the continuous political turbulence since 2001.

FPJ in the 2004 elections was their big hope to free Erap. They failed, and so they proceeded to implement their Plan B: discredit the elections and, they hope, in the resulting public outrage, pressure the President to resign. Who was the main disseminator of the alleged "Garci" tapes? Alan Paguia, Erap's lawyer.

2. The Communist Party and its front organizations. The Leninist-Maoist dogma calls for a two-pronged political strategy to capture power. First (the Leninist contribution) is to undertake moves to worsen the political situation, and especially "to split the ruling class." The strategy, which Lenin proved effective in Russia in 1917, is to create political chaos, allowing a well-organized party to easily capture power, with the middle forces acquiescing in fear or in the spirit of political opportunism.

Second (the Maoist contribution) is the so-called "mass line": Assume leadership of all anti-establishment causes in order to expand your organization and forge alliances with other political forces.

What has particularly incensed the Communist Party has been its belief that the President worked for its classification by the US government as a terrorist organization. This has reportedly wreaked havoc on the party's international network for fund-raising and transfers.

Jose Ma. Sison's strategy of a rural-based rebel army, combined with "parliamentary struggle," certainly has borne fruit. For the first time in any modern nation's history, Marxist-Leninist cadres are able to hurl vitriol against a democratically elected President, demanding her ouster in the halls of Congress.

3. Sen. Panfilo Lacson's forces. Having left Estrada's shadow and having grown out of his former role as Erap's chief enforcer, Lacson has emerged as a political leader in his own right, drawing Erap's ronins into his camp. At least, unlike the civil socialites hypocritically claiming they are only after the truth, Lacson never kept secret his desire or goal to have Ms Arroyo overthrown. As regular as the seasons, Lacson has continuously launched intense political blitzkriegs to crush the President's credibility with the end-view of unseating her.

The disclosure that Lacson had asked an Australian outfit to authenticate a three-hour tape before its existence was alleged by an ex-NBI officer bolsters suspicions that the "Garci" tapes were his project.

Other smaller forces have wanted to unseat Ms Arroyo since 2001; they are lesser predators like hyenas trailing the main pack: the remnants of the Marcos dynasty intent on preserving the wealth it amassed over 20 years; elderly, long-retired generals hallucinating over the Latin American, vintage-1960s juntas; and breakaway groups from the Sison-controlled Communist Party.

Look closely at the main features of the current political battle. What made the current campaign politically possible? The "Garci" tapes could have been acquired-and digitally manipulated-only by someone with an extensive intelligence background. What constitutes the main force of the impeachment camp in Congress? The leftist party-list representatives (10 of them) and prominent figures of the Erap camp, such as his former executive secretary Rep. Ronaldo Zamora. What is the main force in the street rallies, which are held with all agit-prop gimmicks? The Communist Party cadres and activists.

Miscalculating that the political war waged by these veteran forces was moving toward victory, a sector of civil society joined the fray. On July 8, hypocritically claiming it merely wanted to spare the President from further pain, its members carried out a blitz of press conferences to pressure her to resign. They thought the move would give them the leadership of the anti-GMA forces.

In this conflict, political clerics, civil socialites and greenhorn congressmen have pretended, or naively thought themselves, to be noncombatants out only in a spiritual search for truth.

He who rides the tiger cannot dismount, lest he be devoured, an old Chinese proverb says.

The three forces-Erap's, the Communist Party's and Lacson's-are the three tigers in the Philippine political jungle, out to devour the President. On Friday evening at La Salle Greenhills, it became obvious that former President Aquino, Dinky Soliman et al., some clerics and civil socialites have, wittingly or unwittingly, mounted these tigers.

Their group's name, Black and White Movement, fits them to a tee. They have chosen to be politically color-blind, and thus unable to discern the predators in the political jungle.

They will find it difficult to dismount. We hope that on the backs of these tigers, they will not be witnesses to the devouring of our democracy.

Are they serious?

2005-08-29T19:40:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-08-29T19:37:00.000-07:00

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

SWS

Jan. 16-22

Jan. 28-Feb. 8

Feb. 17-25

Mar. 11-19

Mar. 21-29

Apr. 10-17

May 1-4

Arroyo

26.5%

28.7%

31.8%

32.9%

31.4%

35.3%

37%

Poe

36.3%

37.5%

30.5%

34.9%

32.0%

30.8%

30%

Pulse Asia	Jan. 23-Feb. 8	Feb. 16-20	Mar. 27-Apr. 4	Apr. 26-29
Arroyo	33%	32%	34%	37%
Poe	35%	32%	31%	31%

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	Aquino 1986-92	Ramos 1992-98	Estrada 1998-2000	Arroyo 2001-03
GDP growth	3.7%	3.7%	2.8%	4.6%
Inflation	10.4%	7.6%	6.0%	5.2%
Job increase thousands	800	686	162	1,214

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

ABS-CBN/SWS

(4,627 respondents)

GMA7/AMA

(24,865)

Radio Veritas

(4,800)

DZRH

(20,000)

Arroyo

41%

39%

38.1%

36.8%

Poe

32%

29%

26.7%

31.7%

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

Candidate	Party	Votes won	% of total
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo	Lakas-CMD	12,905,808	40.0%
Fernando Poe, Jr.	KNP	11,782,232	36.5%
Panfilo Lacson	LDP	3,510,080	10.9%
Raul Roco	AD	2,082,762	6.4%
Eduardo Villanueva	BPM	1,988,218	6.2%
Total valid votes cast		32,269,100	100.0%

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

Candidate	Party	Votes won	% of total
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo	Lakas-CMD	10,400,401	39.4%
Fernando Poe, Jr.	KNP	9,719,479	36.8%
Panfilo Lacson	LDP	2,818,704	10.7%
Raul Roco	AD	1,816,832	6.9%
Eduardo Villanueva	BPM	1,609,073	6.1%
Total valid votes cast		26,364,489	100.0%

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

	Positions	Won by K-4	Share of total
VP	1	1	100%
Senators	12	7	58%
Congressmen	210	182	87%
Governors	79	67	85%
City Mayors	117	102	87%
Mayors	1,493	1,278	86%

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

2005-08-29T19:35:00.000-07:00

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:

President	Average GDP Growth Rate (%)	Average Inflation Rate (%)
Aquino	3.8	10.4
Ramos	3.7	7.6
Estrada	2.8	6.0
Arroyo	4.0	5.2

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:

President	No of years	Total during term	Average per year
Aquino	6	4,800	800
Ramos	6	3,774	686
Estrada	2+	405	162
Arroyo	3.5	3,643	1,214

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.

Country	2004 Price Index	2005 May Price Index	Growth (%)
Indonesia	1,000	1,088	8.8
Korea	895	970	8.3
Philippines	1,822	1,929	5.8
Singapore	2,066	2,161	4.6
Malaysia	907	861	-5.1
HongKong	14,230	13,867	-2.6

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.

The Challenge of Due Process

2005-08-29T19:33:00.000-07:00

By Ricardo Saludo, Secretary of the Cabinet

In this grave situation, various groups take advantage of one another, manipulate situations for their own agenda, and create confusion among our people sometimes by projecting speculation or suspicion as proven fact, with the aim of grabbing power.

— Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, 10 July 2005

With the ongoing Congress deliberations on the impeachment complaints against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, due process on the allegations against her has finally begun. After months of accusations aired in Congress and media, including what the CBCP described as “speculation and suspicion [projected] as proven fact” both accused and accusers will at last present and cross-examine all their evidence and arguments.

Due process is supposed to evens the odds for the accused, yet the odds are far from even for the President or for due process itself. Millions of Filipinos have already judged the First Family without the benefit of a fair trial, if recent surveys reflect public opinion. Due process too may have credibility problems, not because it is flawed, but because its even-handed proceedings and strict rulings will surely present a very different impression of events than the largely unchallenged accusations aired in current controversies.

One thing is therefore imperative for the impeachment and its rulings to win acceptance and bring stability. Proceedings should not only be conducted with unassailable fairness, but also be clearly explained and justified to a public already steeped in allegations and materials intended to incriminate. These claims have faced little opposition; lawyers of the accused have rightly kept their evidence and arguments hidden till due process starts.

It is good that our people had shown willingness in past celebrated cases to give due process its due, despite widespread belief in the guilt of personages implicated. When the five-member Agrava Fact-Finding Board was created in 1983, the running joke then was that only five people in the country did not know who killed Ninoy Aquino. Yet the nation followed the board's proceedings. In 2000, resignation calls resounded after Chavit Singson made his accusations. Yet people were glued to each episode of impeachment TV and only went to the streets when most senators voted to hide evidence.

Still, there are special problems in gaining credibility for the current impeachment. The dominance of the administration coalition is portrayed as a factor that could compromise the proceedings, especially if congressmen vote largely along partisan lines (as the U.S. Senate did in the Clinton impeachment trial). And there is the President’s trial by publicity in which many Filipinos have already passed judgment.

Believing a person guilty makes it easier to accept testimony against him, and harder to take in exonerating facts. Those who think President Arroyo culpable do not question a widely denied claim that at least 15 people participated in bribery at her home in the presence of so many possible whistleblowers, even though there was not a single rumor about the supposed event nearly one and a half years since. Her detractors are also persuaded by an alleged fraudster quoting the purported rantings of a drunken man.

By contrast, evidence and statements for the accused are disbelieved or even deemed incriminating. Susan Roces’s fuming words twisted the President’s apology into an admission of poll fraud. A leading newspaper headlined a story suggesting it was evasive for Malacañang to “clam up” after denying charges. Yet it is the accusers who must respond to denials by producing solid proof, not the accused who is presumed innocent. When jueteng witnesses regretted their testimony, the First Gentleman was blamed, even though Archbishop Oscar Cruz admitted that he had not stringently screened witnesses.

Also hard to impart at this time is the admissibility and validity of evidence. So much supposedly incriminating material, including weeks of hearsay testimony and different versions of the tapes, has proliferated and gained some credence among the public. It may prove difficult to justify why some of that has to be set aside.

The tapes are either falsified, manipulated, illegal, or some combination of the three. They may not be admissible as evidence in judicial, legislative and impeachment proceedings. And for any recording to be given evidentiary weight, it must be certified by impartial experts to contain real conversations of the parties said to have been wiretapped, and to be free from alterations. The CBCP has urged “a credible, independent process for authentication.” The same can be said for election documents released by the opposition.

Of the many people making accusations against the First Family, only two have offered more than just hearsay. Sandra Cam claims to have personally given a payoff to the President's brother-in-law, and former Palace functionary Michaelangelo Zuce alleged the bribing of election officials. But both have not produced indisputable corroborating evidence (Zuce’s scribbled lists require authentication). Still, if some widely broadcast testimony are deemed inadmissible or weak, would people devalue them in their minds?

A third issue demanding clear explanation would be the legal and technical aspects of the impeachment itself. Overruled congressmen can decry decisions based on what they consider trivial technicalities. Opponents of due process can exploit the public’s limited legal knowledge to cry injustice over hard-to-explain rulings. Some issues that may be controversial: Should congressmen consider only one complaint? Can the impeachment include actions and events prior to the current term of the President? Can electoral fraud be covered, or should it be left to the Presidential Electoral Tribunal?

Will rulings on such issues unleash thousands into the streets, as the Senate’s refusal to open the second envelope did in January 2001? Will the people accept an honest-to-goodness vote by the House to reject the complaints due to weak evidence?

The bottom line for the nation is simple: the current political controversies, particularly the tapes and jueteng issues, must be addressed through credible processes that obtain truth and justice. Besides Congress, other venues may be used, including the Sandiganbayan, civilian and military courts, and the proposed fact-finding commission. In this democratic endeavor, our people must be given a truthful explanation of all issues and decisions in the proceedings, not distortions designed to trigger EDSA 4.

The nation must also take to heart the central imperative of due process: allowing accused and accusers to present all evidence and arguments, and to fully assert their legally mandated rights, before judgment is passed. Only with careful deliberation and ample evidence in accordance with the law should a leader chosen by nearly 13 million voters in elections widely affirmed as credible, be prevented from fulfilling her sworn duties to the nation.

In this historic quest for truth and justice, which will again test the integrity and resilience of our national institutions, all participants must put the rule of law and the country’s welfare above personal and partisan interests. Will our leaders deliver this indispensable statesmanship? Will the media do its part in due process by educating the public about its tenets and presenting a balanced, impartial reportage of all contending arguments and evidence? And will the people accept and support a judgment based on the facts and the law, rather than unproven suspicion and speculation? The answers will determine not just the fate of the President, but the future of the

Philippines

Witches' brew

2005-08-29T19:30:00.000-07:00

By Sec. Rigoberto D. Tiglao

IF you think the heated discussions of the congressmen tackling the mechanics for the impeachment are all garbage, take a look at the garbage-in.

Other than election fraud, many of the over a dozen charges against the President are indeed mind-boggling. For starters:

The President’s approval of the E-VAT Law: “The oppressive E-VAT Law is another act of betrayal of public trust,” according to former Marcos lawyer Oliver Lozano’s Fifth Supplemental Affidavit. So, will all the legislators who voted for the passage of the E-VAT Law also face impeachment?

The President’s refusal “to meet one-on-one with Mrs. Imelda Marcos” and “re-negotiate the 75-25 compromise agreement on the Marcos wealth” (Fifth Supplemental Affidavit). I’m sure Imelda is dying to be a witness in this charge.

The following six charges are in the “Amended Complaint” filed July 22 by the opposition and other Gloria Ibagsak people:

“Human rights violations”: “Killings of political dissenters and infringement of their freedoms of expression and assembly…perpetrated by the members and agents of the AFP.” The Left must be jolted out of its time-warp, that we’re in 2005 now, not in 1985 when people under the Marcos dictatorship certainly believed that party line. Obviously, other than the President, the armed forces will be the accused here. The AFP has maintained in investigations by the Commission on Human Rights that the alleged killings were casualties in the anti-insurgency campaign. With this charge, the Gloria Ibagsak conspirators can kiss goodbye their wishful thinking that the military will one day join them.

Implementing the North Rail Project. Why not file this in the Ombudsman where it logically belongs, if the charge had any merit? Because the charge recruits into the impeachers’ camp every congressman who hates Speaker Jose de Venecia, who convinced the Chinese government to invest in the project. This charge intends to torpedo what could be an epochal project that would link Manila to the northern provinces in the same manner that railways became the arteries for the US economic expansion at the turn of the 20th century. Exasperated, the ambassador of the People’s Republic of China said: “Please keep endless politics out of NorthRail.”

Not implementing Piatco’s Terminal III contract: But it was the Supreme Court itself which ruled the contract anomalous. The respected Gloria Tan-Climaco, a former SGV chair, should file a libel case against those who signed the impeachment complaint. It makes the ridiculous charge that she asked for $20 million from Fraport for the government to open the terminal. Coincidentally or not, the Piatco lawyers are the same high-profile lawyers for the purported jueteng witnesses.

PhilHealth Cards: Only in the Philippines will a head of state be impeached for making available health insurance for 69 million of its citizens, 30 million of whom are the poorest in the land.

Road Users Tax Projects: Only in the Philippines will a head of state be impeached for implementing a law (RA 8794 of June 2000) to maintain roads.

Deactivation of the Southern Philippines Development Authority and the downsizing of the National Electrification Administration. Huh?

Another impeachment charge, over which Dinky most probably will be teary-eyed over:

That the President “permitted the First Gentleman” to stay away from the country (Third Supplemental Affidavit).

The impeachment charges look more like an obnoxious witches’ brew wherein everyone in the coven wants to add his or her own special poison ingredient.

The ingredient for the Erap-FPJ-Lacson forces that were defeated in 2004: the election-fraud charges. Big, big problem here. This relies 100 percent on what the opposition admits are illegally acquired wiretaps. These are inadmissible in any proceeding according to the Anti-Wire Tapping Law. In the first place, are they really accurate recordings of conversations? Last Friday, local and foreign experts concluded that the tapes were either spliced or had serious anomalies.

The ingredients for the Left: “human rights violations” and the E-VAT.

Throw in the ingredient that the President should be impeached for not negotiating a settlement with the family of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. This would bring in the remnants of the Marcos forces.

It is not surprising therefore, that many in Congress would not want to gulp this witches’ brew—intended not for anything else but to drug people’s minds to join another lynch-mob.

Analyze the sequence of events of the past two months, and the word conspiracy jumps out. The jueteng hearings started in early June and then the alleged tapes surfaced a week later. The impeachment complaints were made between June 27 and July 22. The Gloria Resign campaign reached its peak July 8, when on that day the following events occurred: the Hyatt 10’s melodrama, the resign calls by Cory, by a faction of the Makati Business Club, and then by the Drilon wing of the Liberal Party. Jojo Binay’s Makati rally that evening was supposed to be the culmination of that coup-through-press-conferences.

That offensive fell on its face, and people have started to ignore the Ibagsak hubbub. On to Plan B: Camouflage the agitation to oust a President elected by 12.9 million Filipinos through an impeachment process, wherein everything but the kitchen sink will be thrown against her.

The plot’s next scenario: Trigger a People Power when Congress throws out the impeachment complaint.

The Constitution’s framers had the wisdom to realize that the impeachment process could degenerate into a harassment weapon for an immoral opposition hurling a plethora of baseless charges against a President, and tying down Congress away from its primordial law-making duty. So they put up a check on the process: Congress can consider only one impeachment complaint per year. A technicality that may seem, but only rules can put scheming scoundrels at bay.

“Fair is foul, foul is fair,” the witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth intoned. Things are seldom what they seem.

For Congress to tackle all of the complaints seems fair. Yet it runs foul not only of the Constitution, but of sheer common sense. Not meeting with Imelda Marcos as grounds for impeachment? The Piatco and NorthRail issues?

For Congress to limit the inquiry only to the first Lozano complaint may seem foul. It is really being fair to Congress’—and to all Filipinos’—time and energies.