Category: elmer ordonez

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.

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).

The pitfalls of remembering

By Elmer Ordonez

Writing a remembrance piece is a challenge to memory. I said this much to reader Benito Valeriano, nephew of Col. Napoleon Valeriano whom I mentioned in my last column “First UP Diliman Rally after the War” as the commander of the Nenita Unit that trucked out of their camp in Diliman early that morning of March 29, 1951 headed for the anti-Huk campaign in Central Luzon. Valeriano’s nephew wrote:

“The Nenita Unit which was known for its Skull and Bones symbol was dissolved in June 1947 after he was designated Provincial Commander of Pampanga. In 1948 he organized the First PC BCT (stationed in Diliman) and also used for its emblem the Skull and Bones, hence it was nicknamed “the Skull Battalion,” having most of its men originally from the Nenita. After 1949, the use of the Skull and Bones emblem was no longer authorized due to political controversy. By early 1950, the Philippine Army was already employing the Battalion Combat Team (BCT) in the anti-Huk campaign. This development coupled by a highly efficient military intelligence organization, led to the capture of the Manila politburo headed by personalities you mentioned, Lava, Baking brothers, et al. It also paved the way for my uncle’s 7th BCT (Tapat) to conduct three major operations in Central Luzon and the Sierra Madre that resulted in the complete destruction of two dreaded Huk Recos. In the last major battle at Biak Na Bato, Bulacan on 3 December 1950 he lost his Recon company commander, the intrepid Capt. Oliveros. My uncle who was beside him leading the final assault of the caves was wounded. By 1951 the Army had the upper hand in the campaign, since Magsaysay was a hands-on SND. He remained in Central Luzon up to 1952 as Task Force commander. Therefore it could not have been his unit that figured in that incident in 1951.”

My friends from Pampanga recalled that the “Markang Bungo” unit was feared by the people for the summary punishment of any hapless civilian for just staring at the soldiers trucking by. This terror tactic apparently did not succeed in intimidating the people and outlaws led by Kamlon in Jolo. This I learned from older brother, then a scout ranger officer with the 8th BCT, whose men included survivors of the purported “Nenita Unit” assigned to defeat Kamlon. It is also common knowledge that Col. Valeriano worked closely with Col. Landsdale of the CIA in counter-insurgency projects not only in the Philippines, but also Vietnam, Panama, and the Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban exiles in the early 60s.

On the prime ministership

Former finance minister/prime minister Cesar Virata clarified that Salvador “Doy” Laurel (whom I mentioned as the second prime minister from our Class ’52) was not elected prime minister by the Batasan Pambansa since President Cory Aquino “threw away the 1973 Constitution.” She replaced it first with a “Freedom Constitution” under a “revolutionary government.” She later convened a constitutional commission composed of 50 members who drafted the 1987 constitution which was ratified at a referendum conducted that year. Doy then may well have been designated prime minister during the euphoria following EDSA in 1986. Unfortunately for Doy, the Batasan never convened because of the abolition of the 1973 constitution.

UP alumni in the impeachment trial

Since the impeachment trial began, I have not commented on the subject beyond saying that former SC justice Serafin Cueva, a UP law alumnus of Class ’52, has figured as the brilliant defense counsel for the accused Chief Justice Renato Corona. The only other member of Class ’52 celebrating its Diamond Jubilee this year is senator-judge Joker Arroyo. Contemporary with Cuevas and Arroyo are presiding officer Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile who belonged to Class ’53, and senator-judge Edgardo Angara, Class ’58.

UP alumni, lawyers and non-lawyers are the more visible actors in the impeachment drama – sitting as senator-judges or standing as prosecutors and as defenders of the accused. Listening to the lead players who are UP alumni, and observing their style or manner of questioning witnesses, I could not help but recall the “terrors” in the classrooms of UP Diliman not only in Malcolm Hall but in other colleges as well. A few professors were famous in the early 50s for their unorthodox ways of teaching their subject. After the war, “terrors” could be at risk. I remember a mature law student (an ex-guerrilla fighter who shared quarters in a faculty college) packing his .45 to class, “just in case,” he said, his professor, “acts up” – like heaping verbal abuse on students. In the English department, students majoring in literature waged a strike in the 60s against a few professors with sharp tongues–one of whom did not give a grade higher than “3.” With the student revolt in the late 60s, “terrors” became more careful.

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 have 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.

First UP Diliman rally after the war

By Elmer Ordonez

March 29, 1951. The military and police were on red alert. The date marked the 9th anniversary of the founding of the Hukbalahap (Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Hapon) renamed after the war as Hukbong Magpapalaya ng Bayan (HMB). Early that morning the troops of Col. Napoleon Valeriano trucked out of their camp (now UP Bliss) flying their black flags with white skull and bones heading for Central Luzon where the HMBs were waging people’s war and preparing for an offensive to take Manila. The leaders greeted each other with “See you in Malacañang” despite a severe setback with the arrest the year before of the “In politburo” including several UP alumni – Jose Lava, Angel Baking, Sammy Rodriguez, and the roundup of reported members of the Communist Party and brought to military camps for interrogation. Among those “invited” were journalists like Jose A. Lansang, executive editor of the Philippine Herald, and writers and reporters like Macario Vicencio, Rafael de Tagle and Juan Quesada. Popular bookstore owner Joaquin Po himself was detained by the Military Intelligence Service (MIS) who suspected that his bookstore was a message center of the movement. The writ of habeas corpus had been suspended. Lawyers of the Civil Liberties Union rose to defend those arrested and charged in court with “rebellion (complex with murder).”

Read the rest here