Category: cha-cha

Senate Prez Chiz

Surprise, surprise, Sen. Bato got his 4th PDEA hearing last Monday (so much for my fearless forecast), and former LizaMarcos-law-partner Paquito Ochoa made an appearance and denied having anything to do with the aborted PDEA investigation. Short and sweet.

Then came the contempt citations on Jonathan Morales and Erik Santiago, which didn’t really surprise — napuno finally ang salop nina Bato at Jinggoy. What was curious was Chiz dropping in with a weird rather out-of-place smile on his face, which only made sense later in the day when I heard of the plenary session and caught him delivering his first speech as Senate Prez. Kaya pala. What a coup.

Of course my first thought was, the Palace must be pleased: the first couple was surely unhappy that Migs allowed the PDEA hearings at all, and that the chacha train has yet to get moving.

But Chiz says tuloytuloy ang PDEA probe, and he is still against chacha and does not plan to change his position.

And then again, what’s left ba for Bato to probe? The alleged threats to harm Morales? But the source Erik Santiago has already testified that he was lying, kathang isip lang yung kuwento niyang pinapatahimik ni Liza Marcos si Morales via a James Kumar who has already issued a statement denying it all. I guess Bato is simply leaving no bato unturned in case he gets lucky and some legit info turns up?

As for charter change, Migs has pointed out that not all the senators who voted for Chiz are also anti-chacha. “Strange bedfellows” indeed.

But knowing Chiz, a very public figure (more so since Heart entered his life) who’s impressively smart, sharp, and politically savvy, I can believe that the coup was on his own initiative, and, even, that he has a game plan in aid of restoring the independence of the Senate.  The shining example, of course, is 1991 when, against President Cory’s wishes, the Senate led by Jovito Salonga voted against the US bases.

“The proposed treaty is overwhelmingly one-sided and lopsided in favor of the United States,” said Sen. Agapito Aquino, the president’s brother-in-law, who voted against the treaty.

“I love my country more than I love my president,” he said. https://www.latimes.com/archives/

*

“Orocan moments” by Ana Marie Pamintuan
“The beheading” by Lito Banayo

The Senate’s Turn: NO to Chacha #7of10

Check out Pulse Asia’s March 2024 Nationwide Survey on Charter Change and weep for joy! Marami pala tayo!

Opposition to charter change is the predominant sentiment among adults in the country (74%) and becomes more notable from March 2023 to March 2024 (+43 percentage points)

Around three-fourths of the adult population do not see the need for charter change, regardless of timing. This opinion is echoed by small to big majorities in the various areas and classes (69% to 82% and 58% to 89% respectively). https://pulseasia.ph/updates/march-2024-nationwide-survey-on-charter-change/

The House of Reps, as expected, is screaming (in a manner of speaking) na black propaganda lang ang survey results, misleading daw and biased ang mga tanong, at kung ano-ano pa. To which Pulse Asia President Ronnie Holmes coolly replied:

“We have been running the questions for 20 years,” he said. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/04/01/2344369/pulse-asia-stands-survey-results

Of course the HoReps are defensive: they just practically railroaded the HoR’s Resolution of Both Houses #7 (RBH7) allegedly because econchacha is what the people want and need.  Introduced on Feb 17, the House got it past public hearings, debates, first reading, second reading, and third reading, and approved it 288-2 with two absentions by March 20. Pwede pala ‘yon, just ONE MONTH to process a resolution into approval by 3/4 of all its members! Amazing race ba?

EASTER MONDAY morning I caught a Teleradyo newsclip of a Rep perorating on why he doesn’t believe Pulse Asia‘s numbers and that a plebiscite is still the way to go. Hmph! Hindi naniniwala sa scientific findings ng Pulse Asia on chacha 2024 pero bilib na bilib sila sa Pulse Asia noong 2022 nang inilabas ang high numbers ni BBM vs. Robredo. C’mon, Reps, be consistent naman. This insane chacha mission isn’t doing the House (Lower nga) or Nation any good. Take off the blinders.

SAMANTALA, SA SENADO

“Eye-opener” ang Pulse Asia survey, sey naman ni Senate Prez Migs Zubiri. A sign that the Upper House is right not to make chacha madali.

“This survey shows it is an unpopular move, with almost nine out of 10 Filipinos opposed to changing the Charter,” Zubiri said.

Meanwhile, those supportive of charter change drastically went down from 41 percent in March 2023 to just eight percent in the latest survey.

“These are things to be weighed in and carefully put into consideration by the subcommittee and the Senate as a whole,” Zubiri said.

Zubiri said the Senate will conduct hearings around the country to gauge the public’s sentiments about charter change. https://politiko.com.ph/2024/03/30/dapat-di-minamadali

I’m not sure I get what the Senate Prez is saying. More hearings in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao will only tell the Senate what we’ve all already heard from the “experts” pro and con, ad infinitum, all through the first three months of the year. Pulse Asia has just given us already a gauge of public sentiment — 7 of 10 Pinoys don’t want chacha EVER. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to vote, and show us that the Upper House is one with the People at this critical point in time.

Surely it’s not possible that 18 of 24 senators would dare defy public sentiment, not when midterm elections are imminent.  And if the Senate insists on more public hearings, and more time to “gauge public sentiment”, and more time to woo anti-chacha senators with ex-deals and the like, it would be like the Upper House were hoping over time to sway public sentiment to a YES, and, even, that the Senate were set on pandering to the Palace and, yes, to the Lower House.

What happened to the independence of the Upper House? Suddenly I’m missing Tito Sen. I’m not sure why, but I imagine HE would have said NO to econ chacha from the first, walang nego-nego, walang miting-miting sa palasyo.  Of course there’s still also the People’s Initiative card that HoR-PIRMA is forever threatening the Senate, us, with. But saying YES to econchacha just because parang it’s a done deal, what the prez wants the prez gets, is like the Senate saying conceding that We the People have no say on the matter. C’mon, senators, level it up naman!

THINK AGAIN

I dare say that the spike in numbers of Pinoys saying NO to chacha, from 31% to 74% over the period March 2023 to March 2024, was actually triggered by the President’s embrace of the first cousin’s chacha campaign in December 2023.

On the matter of Marcos and chacha, we have long memories.

We haven’t forgotten that in the tatay’s time as president, we saw the 1971 Constitutional Convention hijacked, and the result was the unlamented 1973 Martial Law Constitution, complete with term extensions galore and the walang-kamatayang Amendment 6.

THIS time, the anak as president played hard to get muna, then changed his mind, even asked the Senate to do it without the “fuss” that attended the House’s fake People’s Initiative. All in aid lang daw of lifting economic restrictions, the better daw to adjust to a globalized world, never mind that it’s not what the economy needs. Like father like son.

Nakaka-deja-vu, di ba.

*

Charter change does not address the binding constraints https://www.bworldonline.com/

Why won’t they heed people’s voice vs Cha-cha? https://www.manilatimes.net/

Pulse Asia Survery: Filipinos Prefer Foxtrot Over Cha-cha!  https://adobochronicles.com/

38 years after EDSA #marcostake2

Read Manolo Quezon‘s “Edsa in the post-restoration era” and find out, or be reminded, kung bakit nga ba nakabalik at nabigyan pa ng “second chance” sa politics and public service ang mga Marcos. It’s all about vindication, absolution, and restoration, preferably under a changed charter. But yes, the Charter Change debate has become predictably unpromising, even as that House of Reps P.I. TV ad dares blame EDSA for the nation’s woes. 

… The story of the battle over the Marcos money deposited in Switzerland runs parallel to that of the battle waged by the Marcoses to achieve political restoration and thus, political and social vindication: ideally, legal vindication or at least, an end to their prosecution, would logically follow. To my mind, this was, and remains, the sum total of the ambitions of the First Family.

What seems a cause of surprise and even friction within the President’s extended family is the moderation of this ambition: by this I mean, the political and social vindication that a Restoration by election provided; legal experts will have to figure out if an end to decades of legal cases will be another concrete manifestation of electoral absolution. An explicit revision of the national narrative is not yet included, beyond these implied achievements.

Even after trying to reduce things to a mere family feud hasn’t led to the abolition of Ninoy Aquino Day, the scrapping of the Edsa anniversary, the destruction of monuments, or the repealing of the law granting restitution to the victims of the dictatorship.

Now, the Edsa anniversary will become a time for the coming together of groups opposed to amending the Constitution, which tells us a thing or two about the democratic space that exists, the durability of factions and movements thought as entirely down and out, and the rickety, but surprisingly enduring, survivability of the political system no one seems to respect, admire, or even particularly, love, but which seems preferable to any effort by any subset of the political system, to change it. As I mentioned in this space last time, the whole Charter change debate has become predictable in its arguments and their inability to inspire, one way or another, an actual resolution of the problem everyone seems to sense, but no one has the confidence to risk trying to actually resolve: the inability of our political system to update itself or at the very least, modify.

Since it’s already much-abused, the often-cited quote of Karl Marx is useful here: “History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce.” He was responding to another restoration, in his time: that of the dynasty of Napoleon, when the French Emperor’s nephew, Louis Napoleon, was elected president of France only to make himself emperor when thwarted in his ambition to extend himself in office. Napoleon III’s reign ended in defeat and exile—but after 22 years in power, and having made the country in many ways, modern, rich, and with a larger empire. I’ve argued before, that the Marcos Restoration became, in many ways, a banality, being preceded, as it was, by two others—the Macapagal Restoration in 2001 and the Aquino Restoration of 2010. A similar thing has just taken place in Indonesia, where the former son-in-law of Suharto, a general for decades under a cloud of human rights suspicion, achieved a landslide by being transformed into a cuddly old grandfather with the backing of a popular predecessor.

 

Cha-cha crazy?

Feb 8, Constitution Day, the President declared unequivocally that he is in favor of the Lower House’s push to alter the charter’s economic provisions. As expected, the honourable Reps have since gotten even more aggressive, nagging the Upper House to pass RBH6 ASAP. It’s as though they’re sure that in separate voting, the Senate would oblige, say yes to inserting UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW in three provisions. It’s as though they’re still sure that it can all happen very fast, including a plebiscite (raise your hands?), maybe even preempt the 2025 midterm elections, pasensiya na kung totoo ang nababalitang balak ni VP Sara na tumakbong senador. 

It’s all so convoluted, layer upon layer of issues and agendas, and so many unfamiliar faces, in presscon after presscon, telling us why they’re right and the Senate is wrong to slow down the chacha process, whether through People’s (Politicians’) Initiative or Constituent Assembly. My kneejerk reaction everytime is, sino kayo? Why should I take your word for anything? I’d rather hear from people I know of,  like Rep Joey Salceda, who has been for chacha since GMA times (if memory serves). I’ve always wondered why, really. I’d love to know kung anong sagot niya sa mga anti-chacha na nagsasabing ang problema ay hindi ang econ provisions na nagawan na ng paraang luwagan; ang problema ay high power rates, poor infrastructure, bureaucratic red tape, policies that change midstream, atbp. 

Feb 15, Senate Prez Migs Zubiri in that interview with Karen Davila, said na sa ibang bansa, ang economic restrictions ay legislated, hindi nakasaad sa konstitusyon, so dapat daw siguro, gayahin natin para pumasok ang mas maraming foreign investments, or something like that. Ganoon? I’m sure that’s debatable. 

I gather from the Senate hearings na merong mga senador na pro-chacha. Si Sen. Imee Marcos mismo has nothing daw against chacha, but questions the timing and, kailangan pa ba?  Are there 17 who might say yes to the Senate prez? When are we going to hear from the Senators themselves?

Meanwhile, here’s an excerpt from must-read essay,“Machiavelli’s The Prince“ by Business World columnist Amelia HC Ylagan. Reminds not to believe everything we’re told by politicians, let’s not be deceived by appearances, self-serving press releases, warring dynasties atbp. Read also “Marcos Jr. explains in what sense he’s Machiavellian” by Inquirer‘s John Eric Mendoza.

Machiavelli’s The Prince

By Amelia H. C. Ylagan

… To celebrate the book’s 500th anniversary, the Boston University College of Arts & Sciences history department discussed why Machiavelli’s masterwork continues to resonate. “Some say he wanted to empower tyrants; others say he listed their crimes the better to expose them. Readers across the ages have found support for all kinds of causes: monarchists, defenders of republics, cynics, idealists, religious zealots, religious skeptics. Whatever its intent, one thing is clear. The book follows its declared purpose fearlessly and without hesitation: to show rulers how to survive in the world as it is and not as it should be” (bu.edu, Feb. 6, 2013).

Machiavelli himself was a “survivor.” He from whose name comes the pejorative “Machiavellian” qualifier, quite cunningly maneuvered himself in critical government posts (foreign service) through the changes among the powers-that-be in the turmoil of the 16th century flux of the Renaissance. He has been given the honorific title of “father of political science” by some admiring political analysts.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince just after he was forced to leave Florence as a political exile. Dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the book is Machiavelli’s advice to the current ruler of Florence on how to stay in power. It was also his effort, though unsuccessful, to gain an advisory post in the Medici government. Yet The Prince was not even read by the person to whom it was dedicated, Lorenzo de Medici (insights.som.yale.edu).

“The advice espoused in The Prince led his name to become shorthand for cunning, manipulation, and self-serving behavior— one of the few eponymous adjectives to strongly convey an abstract idea. His open appeal to guile and his subversion of Christian norms were regarded as so abhorrent that, in 1559, the work would be listed in the Catholic Church’s Index of Prohibited Books” (natgeo.com, Oct. 23, 2020).

But Machiavelli’s ideas on how to acquire power and glory as a leader had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern west, helped by the new technology of the printing press.

Leaders as diverse as Oliver Cromwell, Frederick the Great, Louis XIV, Napoleon I, Otto von Bismarck, and John F. Kennedy read, contemplated, and debated Machiavelli’s ideas. “The most one can say about The Prince in this regard is that Kissinger and Nixon preferred it as their bedtime reading” (penguinrandomhouse.com). Napoleon I of France wrote extensive comments to The Prince. After his defeat at Waterloo, these comments were found in the emperor’s coach and taken by the Prussian military. According to their biographies, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini wrote a discourse on The Prince and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin read The Prince and annotated his own copy.

Does Machiavelli, therefore, share some blame for the violence and brutality that has wracked the globe since he first wrote? No. “People don’t need The Prince to be inspired to commit every atrocity it names and more,” the forum at BU for the book’s 500th year anniversary concluded. “The impact of the book has instead been to force countless readers over the past 500 years to confront, in the starkest terms possible, the most important questions about politics and morality.”

And time must be looping, as in an automatic replay video, livestreaming strong-man rules in countries big and small, young and old.

“In order to get a secure hold on new territories,” the book advises, “one need merely eliminate the surviving members of the family of their previous rulers.”

It is terrifying how “the end justifies the means” is the backdrop of the to-the-death fight between Russia and Ukraine for territory. Ukraine claims that Russian casualties since February 2022 were 386,230, staggeringly high, but broadly corresponding with estimates from the US military and intelligence officials that Russia has suffered 315,000 dead and injured troops in the full-scale invasion. If accurate, this means Russian casualties are equivalent to almost 90% of the total personnel it had when the conflict began in February 2022. A New York Times report in August cited US officials who estimated the Ukrainian death toll at close to 70,000, with another 100,000 to 120,000 wounded. “Ukraine’s goal is not liberation of the territory. Ukraine’s goal is the elimination of the military threat from Russia, and the liberation of territory would be only a sequence of the main goal,” Ukrainian officials said (Newsweek, Feb. 1, 2024).

“Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself,” Machiavelli says in The Prince.

More than the liberation of territory for the sake of the people, the goal of the leader is to keep his power. The great leader, Machiavelli says, must be able “to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people.”

And in our own little country, we live in fear at not knowing the truth, not knowing where we are being led to.

Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that “while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public” (ipl.org).

And we, the “vulgar” masses, must bow to the fathers and sons/daughters of warring political dynasties like in Machiavelli’s time.

“The vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar,” Machiavelli taunts us all. [emphasis mine]

*

Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines. ahcylagan@yahoo.com