Civility in the Senate #cj trial

By Elmer Ordonez

I knew it was coming. Did we expect the public to just accept what the Senate did, holding in contempt a private prosecutor for cupping his ears during the senator judge’s abusive tirade against the prosecution in last March 1 hearing of the impeachment trial. I had already submitted my last column that day and could only comment on it today. No editorial or column had appeared on the subject until last Sunday with Randy David’s “The ‘upper’ house” (PDI). On the night of March 1 the social media was already astir with opinions largely against the lady senator. Now it’s the talk of the town.

Defense counsel Serafin Cuevas himself said in effect: I sympathize with Atty. Aguirre but what he did was in contempt of court. The first part of his statement shows his sensitivity to verbal abuse inflicted on anyone and incivility in court; the last part is a recognition of the importance of having order in the court. He was after all a trial judge for 20 years.

Senator Miriam Santiago took on a Jesuit priest Catalino Arevalo, a close friend of the Aquino family, for having said that the senator’s insulting remarks directed at the prosecution panel were worthy of the “fires of hell.” The senator, invoking the constitution on separation of church and state, said the priest had no right to meddle in politics. As expected Conrad de Quiros launched a withering attack on the senator’s conduct at the hearing.

Just a week before that fateful hearing, I already commented: “The ‘terrors’ of academe live on in the trial. But after the constant barrage of legal technicalities, pomposity, ex cathedra statements, incivility, grilling, grandstanding, ego-tripping and other antics in the trial, tedium and frustration started to set in. I now prefer following the progress of the trial through video footages and print media reports and analyses. I miss the cool and unruffled manner of Chief Justice Hilario Davide presiding over the impeachment trial of President Estrada.”

Presiding officer Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile can do more in setting the decorous tone of the trial than just calling on the participants to speak calmly. He himself was given to outbursts directed at the prosecution and some witnesses. I have also seen too many Senate investigations that turned out to be medieval inquisitions.

I hope civility returns to the Senate and respect be accorded to all witnesses, private counsels, and the prosecution panel who are after all co-equal members of Congress.

While the senator-judges were unanimous in citing the lawyer for contempt, many of them, I believe, were embarrassed with the whole affair. Just as well they meted out just an admonition as penalty for the disrespectful lawyer. If they take up their colleague’s intemperate behavior in the ethics committee, they shall thereby also hold up a mirror at their own lapses.

Whither impeachment?

Early on (1/7/12) I already wrote that the impeachment was a “manifestation of the rifts between rival elite factions” and that eventually the two sides would come to terms – on the notion that historically factions of the ruling class do not annihilate each other. This is of necessity to preserve the playing field of the local oligarchies and their dependency on foreign (mainly US) capital and support. In fact, foreign intervention has manifested itself in many ways. For one, economic programs are tailored to neoliberal requirements of development. The oligarchies have long wanted to amend the 1987 charter to suit foreign investments, now focused on mining. Furthermore, the ruling classes need the protection of US military support (e.g. Operation Bayanihan) against threats to their investments.

The alleviation of poverty is foisted by foreign investors well represented by local oligarchs as the objective of the big mining companies but Atty. Christian Monsod, an advocate for responsible mining, said these firms are interested in profit not poverty. A UP study has shown that poverty levels are higher in mining areas.

The outcome of the impeachment trial – acquittal or conviction – will be decided in the playing field of the ruling establishment and US interests. The senator-judges may be talking about “cold objectivity” and impartiality but are saddled with IOUs, utang na loob to patrons, party and personal loyalty, even pending litigation in the courts. Ultimately they will rationalize their vote.

Hacienda Luisita is said to be at the bottom of this exercise. This is a view shared by many who have become skeptical about the anti-corruption drive of President Aquino. Partisans of Chief Justice Corona and the former president harp on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, but have we not seen how the judiciary including the highest court has been corrupted during the Marcos regime and subsequent governments? How can a damaged judiciary be independent? The rule of law has also been twisted by the ruling class to suit their interests. The constitutional authoritarianism of Marcos is just one example. More in past and present regimes.

Unless President Aquino disengage decisively from all interests in Hacienda Luisita and institute genuine land reform, his credibility will continue to suffer, putting in doubt his daang matuwid campaign including his desire to see his bête noire removed.

aleli & grace #women’s month

in the war between the legal wife and the mistress significant other of the late iggy arroyo, i find myself wondering how i’d handle it, in either one’s place.

i’d like to think, if i were in the place of aleli — given that six years na since the hubby packed up and left, an annulment good as done, already practically in the bag, except for some filing technicality that has nothing to do with the case — that i would settle for a low-profile kind of grieving, no media interviews, if only for the sake of our daughter.  i would also try very hard to be glad that my ex was well cared-for and well-loved through his illness and last days.

i’d like to think, if i were in the place of grace, that i would have given aleli more space and consideration, since lamang na lamang naman ako, having had iggy to mysef in his last years. i would give aleli the benefit of the doubt, baka naman mahal pa talaga niya si iggy, and perhaps she was not entirely to blame for the breakup of the marriage.  again, if only for the sake of the children, i would have tried to keep to my part of the agreement re wake attendance, and not call more attention to myself than was necessary.

of course there’s more to it — the animosity, the one-upwoman-ship — than meets the eye. there’s the fortune that iggy left, most likely some of it to grace?  which may be why aleli insists on behaving like the grieving legal wife — she will insist on her share, never mind the annulment?  and she will contest grace’s right to administer the estate, as reportedly willed by iggy?

on women’s day / month, it’s hard not to wish that aleli and grace felt and behaved more kindly towards each other.  after all, it’s a sad enough time for them and the children without the negative vibes.  but yes, easy for me to say. and yes, animosity between the women, in cases like these, can get really deep and intense, lalo na when there’s money involved.

it’s not new, of course, a dead man’s mistress girlfriend, sometimes mistresses girlfriends, making an appearance at the wake, to the distress of the wife and children, sending titillated tongues wagging.  but iggy having been a public figure, the spectacle of wife and mistress girlfriend vying for public sympathy, televised for all the nation to see, has been rather disconcerting, colored by all sorts of speculation as to the motives of the women, and neither coming out of it smelling good (so to speak).

a proper divorce law would have settled the break-up of the aleli-iggy marriage much sooner.  then maybe iggy could have married grace and her rights would be unassailable.

but we don’t have a divorce law, the exception in a civilized world, thanks to bishops and priests in cahoots with predominantly male congressmen and senators legislators still living in the dark ages, with little respect, or real love, for women.

ironically enough, both aleli and grace seem to be in the good graces of the church, both women being equally accommodated in all church rituals.  it’s like saying the church condones the kabit-system, which, in tandem with their opposition to the RH bill, is like saying, go forth, men, and multiply, with multiple women yet!  male chauvinism rules, alas!

miriam’s hell #cj trial

i am neither anti- nor pro-corona.  if he’s convicted, fine.  if he’s acquitted, fine.  i didn’t like him from the moment he accepted the midnight appointment, but that’s not a high crime, ‘no?

nothing will change, anyway, if corona is removed, except that whoever replaces him will be beholden to the president and his cohorts and not to gma.  and of course there’s the hacienda luisita ruling of the corona court; the cojuangcos would have a good chance of getting the whopping 10B in compensation they want that justice sereno recommends instead of 800M-something lang.  and yes, gma’s goose would be cooked, no matter how weak the evidence of election sabotage against her.

nothing will change either if corona’s not removed, except maybe he’ll inhibit or try very hard from then on to be impartial vis a vis gma cases lest he get impeached again next year.  and that, inhibiting and/or judiciously working at impartiality, would not be a bad thing.

so i am prepared to accept the verdict of the senate impeachment court.  i like it that presiding judge enrile, while bending backward to accommodate an ill-prepared complaint and prosecution, has drawn the line at subpoenaing members of the supreme court and challenging judicial privilege.  while there is much that needs reforming in the judiciary, weakening the institution and rendering it vulnerable/subject to the whims and caprices of the executive and legislative branches that are already too too too powerful would be disastrous for the country in the short-term and in the long run.

of course, there is every possibility that in the end, even if the corona camp were able to mount a credible defense, that the senator-judges would vote still according to their individual political agendas, usually connected to whoever’s in the palace.  pero kanya-kanya nang perception yan, and kanya-kanya ring diskarte, to vote or not to vote for them or their sons / daughters / spouses / siblings, in the next elections.

having said all that, in the spirit of disclosure, here’s my take on senator-judge miriam’s latest lecture that had vitaliano aguirre playing the fool.

i simply cannot find it in my value system to denigrate, condemn, or even criticize senator-judge miriam defensor santiago — as many many anti-corona peeps in social media are doing, waging a hate-miriam campaign, complete with down-dirty cussing ang isa — for lecturing the prosecution and using the words “gago” and “kagaguhan” to characterize how the prosecution has been handling the impeachment case.

neither can i find it in my value system to declare volunteer private prosecutor vitaliano aguirre a hero — as many of these anti-corona peeps are doing, complete with we-are-behind-you graphics – for daring to cover his ears during miriam’s lecture, and when called out, instead of apologizing (as his fellow prosecutors urged), daring to express in no uncertain terms, his contempt for the senator-judge, so to speak, for stridently lecturing the prosecution.

to me it’s clear that these hate-miriam love-aguirre people would be cheering miriam if miriam had been scolding the defense, and they would be angry instead with aguirre for covering his ears if he had been part of that defense.  to me it’s obvious that anti-corona anti-gma peeps are being unreasonable, i suspect out of a real if unspoken fear that corona might be acquitted, either because they have a stake in his conviction or because they have already judged him guilty, like the palace and their favorite media have.

miriam had reason, every time, to lecture the prosecution.  again and again she was provoked by the prosecution’s ineptness and panggagago.  whether or not we like her demeanor or her voice or her language or her scolding style, the prosecution deserved the scolding, every time.

this last, she was scolding the prosecution for dropping five of eight impeachment articles, and they had it coming to them.  to me they were like schoolboys who enrolled in 8 units but “dropped” (that’s the word tupaz used) 5 units kaysa ma-singko, kaysa bumagsak, dahil kulang sa requirements, and then had the gall to cover their ears when scolded by their elders.  kagaguhan indeed.

and no, gago does not mean “stupid.”  “tanga” is the equivalent of “stupid,” and there’s nothing stupid about the prosecutors.  in fact, it takes smarts, craftiness, guile, to be gago, that is, to break rules and brazenly try to get away with it — yan ang panggagago: iniisahan tayo, ginagawa tayong tanga, akala makakalusot sila.  kagaguhan is largely what the prosecution has been up to from the start, railroading, practically overnight, a badly crafted complaint that 188 signatory-reps didn’t even have time to read, and for which they had no evidence.

malaking kagaguhan din ang ginawa ni aguirre.  he was being gago, impertinent, pa-defiant, when he covered his ears in an insolent ploy to attract attention to himself and away from the senator-judge’s lecture.  in any courtroom, especially this one where the fate of a supreme court chief justice is being decided, it is kagaguhan for a prosecutor to consider himself equal to a judge.  the stakes must be so high, he was willing to play the audacious anti-hero, resort to dirty tricks to distract the public from the painful truths that miriam has been revealing about the prosecution.

so really, this front page item on the inquirer quoting cory’s spiritual adviser, that Miriam is ‘worthy of the fires of hell’?  for speaking the truth?  what the hell!  then that goes for me, too.

*

No Plan B to fall on by Solita Collas-Monsod
The inane, the insane, the profane Manila Standard Today Editorial
Your Honors… by Alex Magno
The Aquino-LP agenda by Carol Pagaduan-Araullo

Demystifying the “brod” mystique #cj trial

By Elmer Ordonez

Sociologist Randy David was impressed when presiding officer Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile addressed prosecutor Rep. Raul Daza as “brod” and quickly turned to defense counsel Serafin Cuevas to address him too as “brod.” Enrile and Daza are both fraternity members (Sigma Rhoans), but Cuevas, as far as the 1952 Philippinensian shows, did not list any fraternity affiliation. If he is not a “brod” then Enrile may well have used the term as an honorific, designed perhaps to avoid any apprehension that he might be partial to the prosecution. “Brod” has been used loosely like “pare” but not normally by frat members.

UP law graduates abound in the impeachment trial, many of them fraternity members. Other than the Sigma Rhoans are members of Upsilon Sigma Phi (Senators Joker Arroyo and Francisco Pangilinan), and Alpha Phi Beta (Senators Chiz Escudero, Aquilino “Koko” Pimental, and Alan Cayetano), to name a few. I do not know the fraternity affiliations of those in the prosecution and defense panels. I am sure there are several.

As a frat man I may say something about the “brod mystique” and its provenance. At core of this mystique is pride and sense of belonging. In my time before one was mustered in the Upsilon Sigma Phi, he was required to know about its traditions like its founders (young Freemasons), its heroes and martyrs like Wenceslao Vinzons and Jose Abad Santos, and distinguished alumni in public service, its history particularly leading positions held in the student council and Philippine Collegian. The frat recruited members with leadership, writing, debating and oratorical skills, and candidates for honors. For instance, there were two summa cum laudes, Florentino Feliciano and Shen Lin, among Upsilonians from Class ’52. Some masters impressed us neophytes to say that the Upsilon was the only fraternity in UP, the rest were sororities. Gender sensitivity was unknown then but we treated the chauvinist line as a joke.

Before I joined I was told that the frat’s initiation was the toughest; no paddles then, only ingenious methods of mental and physical hazing.

When my turn came to be a “master” I never hazed any neophyte who had to introduce himself. And when I was asked to become its adviser in the early 60s, I set one condition that physical hazing be abolished. The officers balked apparently to maintain the “mystique” of being the toughest frat to get into. Today I understand physical hazing has been abolished on campus—after decades of mindless violence on hapless neophytes.

Fraternity connections have indeed played a role in politics, governance and business.

Outstanding “brods” are found in almost every area of endeavor including science, the arts, literature, media, education, music, sports, entertainment, fashion, and even the mass movement. Fraternities open to students from all colleges are most likely to make a wider range of achievement other than law– like the Upsilon Sigma Phi founded in 1918 by members of the Order of DeMolay. Its rites have Freemasonic touches. Many Upsilonians later become Freemasons or join the ruling establishment. A good number came from old dynastic or elite families–Roxas, Laurel, Yulo, Araneta etc. Hence its reputation of being a “sosyal” frat.

Fraternity brods in public service do not always see eye to eye – like SC justice Presbiterio Velasco and SC justice Antonio Carpio, both Sigma Rhoans. But not as spectacular or lethal as the struggle between Senator Ninoy Aquino and President Ferdinand Marcos, both Upsilonians.

The fraternity was divided then – from the time of the Jabidah massacre in the late sixties to Aquino’s assassination in 1983 and its aftermath. Many Upsilonians refuse to believe that it was Marcos who ordered the assassination. They hint at the “usual suspects”—a few who were interested in succeeding Marcos, said to have a terminal illness.

I remember Aquino and Marcos in a frat reunion in the late 60s at Wack Wack country club where the two protagonists were brought together to shake hands and embrace each other, muttering “brod.” To say “brod” to another is supposed to establish the fraternal ties among senior and junior fellows forged during final initiation rites. But Senator Aquino (from the same batch as mine, ’50) was unstoppable in his attacks on the President (of a pre-war batch) until his last expose of Oplan Saggitarius for the declaration of martial law in September 1972, said to be crafted by two brilliant legal minds, Sigma Rhoan Enrile and Upsilonian Marcos. The rest is history, but what a history! And many like myself did not see anything commendable in putting the whole country under a dictatorship. Here’s one instance where the “brod mystique” goes out of the window. Like what I said, the brods were divided into pro-Marcos (some enjoying the perks or largess under the “New Society”) and pro-Aquino (many joining the people’s resistance against the Marcos dictatorship).