Category: enrile

Enrile, Zaldy, 3-day rally

Nov 13. The centenarian Juan Ponce Enrile finally breathed his last, lingering a couple more days in ICU after it was announced that he had “slim chances of surviving”, which no one really doubted, given his age, whether 101 or 103. I wondered though why the family didn’t wait to announce until he was truly gone. Tuloy, the news generated all sorts of long-life and masamang-damo memes but also some serious vlogs and essays, mostly reminding of his notorious part in our nation’s history as architect and implementor of martial law and top Marcos crony (which he denied in his memoir), at marami pang iba. Pero okay din, I guess, to get all the sorry stuff said already… get it out of our systems… though it could take forever…

The ones who try to be fair invariably note his heroism in 1986 when he defected from Marcos and “sparked the EDSA revolution”, while others go on to ask why nothing changed, and why, how, he was never made to account for all the wrongdoing as well as the awesome wealth. Tanong pa ng isa, bakit sila-sila lang ang yumaman, bakit hindi binitbit ang taong-bayan?  https://www.youtube.com/

I only know enough about EDSA, and I concede that Enrile was an EDSA hero, but not because he defected from Marcos, rather, because he gave way to Cory. For sure, there was an ex-deal, maybe immunity from suit, atbp., who knows, but for some critical moments there, Enrile was touched by, and bowed to, People Power.

But it’s not true that if Enrile had not defected, Marcos would not have been ousted. February 22 was the 7th day of Cory’s nonviolent civil disobedience and crony boycott campaign to compel Marcos to resign. The economy was reeling and the banks were running. Cory was already in the Visayas, next stop, Mindanao, spreading the word, adding to her list of crony companies to boycott. The people were already in the throes of non-violent revolution. Marcos’s inauguration on the 25th would have brought the people out into the streets anyway, marching to Mendiola most likely, there to face the tanks and the Marines as bravely.

***

Nov 14. The missing Zaldy Co, whose Sunwest Construction and its joint ventures were awarded P86.1 billion in govt infra contracts from 2016 to 2025, suddenly showed up on our digital screens, alleging that only PBBM and former Speaker Martin Romualdez benefitted from the P100 billion insertions in the 2025 national budget, and that he could be killed for saying so. Nov 15. Zaldy struck again with another video confirming the Guteza story, and showing bags and bags purportedly full of money…male-maleta ng pera…na idineliver daw sa Forbes Park at sa Malacañang.

Napaka-obvious naman na sinadyang ipalabas ang mga video, at magpalabas ang Zaldy, just before the 3-day DDS INC JIL KOJC UPI anti-corruption protest rallies sa Edsa at Luneta whose fervent desire is to oust the president and install the VP.

Which makes Zaldy Co what? A DDS hero? For defecting from the BBM-Romualdez admin? Pero dati nang DDS si Zaldy, nagbalik-loob laang, kumbaga. Siguro’y pinangakuan ng immunity from suit kung sakaling mapababa si PBBM? A la Enrile in 1986 kunó? At least Enrile had the grace, and the smarts, to seriously woo Coryistas, admitting that in the snap election they cheated Cory out of 300,000 votes in Cagayan, and that the 1972 ambush was staged.

Zaldy should just come home, face the music, testify under oath, let the chips fall where they may. History just might remember him more kindly.

***

Juan Ponce Enrile: impeachment “impasse”

I had wondered how Juan Ponce Enrile, who performed impressively as Presiding Judge circa Corona in 2012, would have handled the Senator brats of the 19th Senate who succeeded in remanding the impeachment complaint to the House, were allowed privilege speeches to defend the VP, took their oaths “with reservations”, even refused to don their robes, as well as the rest of the 18 who supported them shamelessly. Now we know that JPE wouldn’t have allowed any of it. Thanks to Inquirer.net for this interview where he talks about the impeachment and the Senate’s role. I chanced upon it on YouTube and bothered to transcribe most of it, for the record. Not bad for a centenarian. And good to know that he acknowledges and agrees with the People’s dismay and agitation over the Senate’s rule-bending ways. 

Q. Sir, you have presided over impeachment trials in the past. Do you agree with the way the Senate Impeachment Court is handling the case of Vice President Sara Duterte…

A. I do not know whether they’ve changed the rules but the Constitution is very clear. You must forthwith try and decide… Of course, when you say try, you must hear the evidence, and then decide to acquit or to convict. And the conviction [is not to punish]… the punishment is removal and disqualification to hold public office, but not jail.

I don’t know whether they have changed the rules. We never had the experience or precedent like what they have done now to return the impeachment complaint to the impeaching authority which is the House of Representatives. To me that is not done because the Senate is the co-equal body of the House. The House cannot perform its job without the performance of the Senate, and in the same way the Senate cannot do anything that is valid until the House also performs its function. There is a symbiosis between them.

Q. Would you say that that move to return the impeachment (complaint) is unconstitutional?

A. I think there is a misunderstanding along the way. I do not know why they have to tarry. You know, once an impeachment is filed with the Senate we have no other choice except to hear it, to try it, and decide it. And it will not lapse. Once it is within the jurisdiction of the Senate, it has to discharge its duty to judge the case. It’s sui generis.

Q. Why do you think there are these kinds of moves to return the impeachment case back to the House….

A. Well, frankly I think there is a semblance … that Sara does not want to face an impeachment trial. That is my opinion.

Q. But that’s from the perspective of VP Sara. How about the senator judges, they have a duty to perform, right?

A. The trouble with that is that the Congress of the Philippines will put the Constitution on a very peculiar situation. They are now locked into an impasse. Now, who can unravel that? Either you go to the Supreme Court if there’s a case, and get an interpretation.  But to me there is no need because we have the precedents of Erap and Corona’s impeachments. And the resolution of Senator Bato, with due respect to him, is unparliamentary. You cannot dismiss, you cannot move to dismiss, a case. You cannot even do that in a bill coming from the house changing the name of a street or a cat or whatever. More so, in an impeachment case. An impeachment case is not an accountability to the senators. It’s not an accountability to any impeachable officer. It is not an accountability to the government. It is an accountability to the sovereign people of this country, from whom all powers of the government, including all powers of the senators, emanate.

Q. Should Senator Bato recuse himself or inhibit himself from the trial?

A. A senator who shows his bias and partiality I think can be censured, even, by this chamber, if they want to censure him. … This is the first time that a senator had the temerity to ask for the dismissal of an impeachment case. I’m not sure of the answer to that question.

Q. What goes through your mind when you see these senators introducing new rules that you mentioned are not in the Constitution?

A. Well it goes without saying that they are not familiar with the Constitution… and second, that they do not know the meaning of their role as jurors in an impeachment trial. They’re not there to legislate. … They are there as juries, as judges, to listen to the evidence and to form a conclusion in their mind regarding the weight and gravity of the evidence presented against the respondent. …

Q. The question now is how do we get the impeachment back on track? How do we fix this?

A. Well, let it continue. Did the House accept the remanding of the impeachment case?

Q. They have not….

A. That is the dilemma … but my opinion is that it continues. Now you see the only institution of the government that has members that remain during an election in this country is the Senate. Under the 1935 constitution that was also true but the number was reduced by the 1987 constitution and I do not know why. The purpose of the two-thirds number under the 1935 constitution … is that there must be an institution, just like in the United States, that remains all the time to make a decision in case something happens to the president and the vice president or the House, so that we will not collapse… as a country. Two thirds is more than a quorum of the Senate. That was its purpose. I do not know why they removed the two-thirds and made it one-half. Nothing can function without a quorum. And in case of war, or something happens like this, we are a country without a government. It’s a very dangerous situation. I think we have to change the Constitution and restore the old two-thirds of the Senate that was written in the 1935 Constitution.

You know, what is happening in the Senate, with this event, I’m afraid that the people might be prepared to revamp the structure of  government and abolish the senate. Because it has become…. It has been disturbed very much by what has happened.

Q. Someone said that some senator judges are acting like lawyers for the VP. Do you share that opinion?

A. The rule of impartiality is a hallmark of the role of every senator in an impeachment trial. That is why impeachment of an impeachable officer, and there are only a very few of them, is separated from Article VI of the Constitution. It was treated in Article IX because that is the article that governs accountability of high government officials wielding high powers of government. Who are the impeachable officers? The President, the Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of Constitutional Commissions, including the Ombudsman. Those are the only impeachable positions. The president cannot do anything because he is also an impeachable officer. He has a conflict of interest if he will intervene, apart from the separation of powers. The president is locked out from the fray.

Q. How do we go beyond partisan politics and make it about accountability?

A. The only two ways that I can see would be for the Supreme Court to make an interpretation which will become a part of our jurisprudence and in turn become a part of the law of the land to define and clarify that portion of the Constitution. The second one is, amend the Constitution… there’s no other way.

Some people might think that this is a very light problem for the country. No sir. We are in a very dangerous situation right now because if there is an impasse the Senate cannot command the House to do anything. They are co-equal. Neither can the House command the Senate to do anything. The House did its function — they conducted hearings, they found something wrong, you may not agree with them but they found that, and they submitted it to the Senate for resolution. The Senate is supposed to do its job with reasonable speed or, as the Constitution says, forthwith, anybody can understand that English, and they did not do it, they tarried and dillydallied and worse they turned it back to the House… which is improper and unparliamentary…. You must give a presumption of regularity to the other house. You cannot demand or command the other house which is your co-equal.

Q. With all the moves that we are seeing from the senator judges, do you think it’s just because they have no numbers to convict the vice president?

A. I do not know whether there are no numbers to convict or acquit the vice president but in an impeachment trial…  I give you myself as an example. I was going to vote for Corona but I changed my mind when I heard the evidence coming from his own mouth. How do you know that those people who will hear the evidence will not change their minds? Because if they’re going to act in a way where the public feels that they’re not performing their jobs they’re subject to punishment through election. If they’re not going to run again, maybe, but they’re politicians, they cater to the desires … of the voting population

Q. Kumbaga, the people will remember.

A. Im sure. I’m sure some people will get hurt with what happened.

Q. I want to go back to the impeachment trial of President Estrada . Do you see any similarities between the trial of President Estrada and the trial of Vice President Duterte given that they are both from the executive branch?

A. In the case of the first impeachment that happened, I don’t think that anyone can say that we delayed. As I told you the process that we followed was, when the impeachment was received by the secretary general of the senate, that official sent it to the committee on rules, the committee on rules immediately, the following session day he puts it in the order of business for first reading, and the plenary will send it to the proper committee for processing immediately, and we did that in the case of Erap, and the head of the committee that handled it was Renato Cayetano, and we prepared the rules of impeachment, how the senator judges will comport themselves, how time is allotted to each clarificatory question, and that there must be no debate. You cannot debate with the witness, you cannot debate with each other .

Q. If you have a chance to have a conversation with the sitting senator judges, what would you tell them?

A.  With due respect to them my (first advice) is to be reticent, keep quiet. … Go to the session hall during the trial, sit down and listen to the proceeding, listen to the presentation of evidence. Let the defense lawyer and the prosecution handle each other but never interfere unless you want to ask a clarificatory question. Understand the meaning of the evidence that is being presented or the words uttered by the witness.

Q. How about the Filipino people.  What would be their role in this impeachment trial?

A. Im sure the Filipino people who have a little understanding of  these things will wonder why things are happening this way. Im sorry to say this but even I was a little bit taken (aback) with the events that transpired because (it was) very evident that there is a desire to prevent the trial to go through.

Kailangan maintindihan ng ating bayan na kung itong proseso  ng impeachment na nangyayari ngayon ay masusunod, wala nang sasangga sa corruption sa buong bansa. Ibigay na lang natin yung pera … ng mga nagbabayad ng buwis … sa gobyerno, at bahala na sila. Hindi na pupunta sa mga tao. Libre na eh. Wala nang magbabawal sa kanila. Wala na silang barrier o yung sasangga sa nakawan ng kaban ng bayan. Nalulungkot ako dahil karamihan nitong mga nasa senado ngayon , marami sa kanila mga kaibigan ko. Pero yung mga bago, dapat mag-aral naman sila sana, at malaman nila kung ano talaga ang ibig sabihin nitong trabaho na pumasok sa kanila na dapat nilang sundin.

tete-a-tete on EDSA

juan ponce enrile’s EDSA story has come in installments.  three (3) so far.  the first via presscons during EDSA and a lengthy interview soon after.  the second via his published memoir (2012).  and the third via that one-on-one with bongbong marcos on social media.

in the first installment in feb and march 1986, enrile consistently denied the RAM coup plot that marcos accused him of all through the 4 days, the one that would have installed him in the dictator’s place as head of a ruling junta.  enrile denied the coup plot because he knew that it would win him no sympathy from the public, given his architect-of-martial-law image, not to speak of marcos-crony tag.  instead the two bandidos slanted their statements to better call, vie for, the people’s attention.  there was cheating in cagayan, said enrile; they did not consider marcos a duly constituted authority any longer, said fvr.  at kiliting-kiliti naman ang mga coryista, who were already in the throes of non-violent revolution — the first day of EDSA was the 7th day of the crony boycott: banks were running, the economy was reeling.  the defection was icing on the cake, na parang hulog ng langit, wow, may armed force na si cory?!?  that he lied, and we believed him, is part of the EDSA story; if he had told the truth, that he sought to install himself in the place of marcos, coryistas would have left him to Ver’s tender mercies and ousted marcos without his help.

in the second installment 26 years later, enrile finally confessed to the failed coup plot, yes, he was all set to topple marcos, he really wanted to be president, kaya lang nabuking ni ver ang sabwatan, and fearing that orders for their arrest were out, he decided that, rather than run and hide, he and his men would hole up in aguinaldo, resist arrest, and die fighting — not that we didn’t know this already, thanks to historian alfred mccoy  and his research team whose exposey came out in 2 veritas extras in october 1986) — but then EDSA happened, umeksena at nangibabaw ang people power, and the “courageous and patriotic” rebel military was outshone, to enrile’s great chagrin.

in the third installment, enrile shares something “new”, sort of: that at the time he and the RAMboys plotted the (aborted) coup, it was to preempt “a group of generals who had also a political plan.”

ENRILE.  I’m sure your Father did not know, or your Mother, but they [the generals] had a political plan for the country.

actually it is quite likely that the father and the mother knew and were behind such plans, given facts such as this: (1) marcos started planning for the succession of imelda as early as june 1975 (the same month primitivo mijares testified in the u.s. congress on the conjugal dictatorship) when he wrote presidential decree no. 731 (never published): in case of his death or grave illness, he was to be succeeded by a commission headed by imelda [Waltzing with a Dictator 156], and (2) in august ’82, before leaving for the u.s. state visit, he had the batasan approve a law providing for a 15-member executive committee, including imelda, that would succeed him if he were to die or fall ill. [Marcos File 243]

ENRILE.  … to be truthful at that point [july 1985] we were organizing because I received an information that there was a military junta, and that I was supposed to be executed by that junta if something happens to the president.  I did not know that the president was sick at that time.

medyo hard to believe that he did not know marcos was sick.  it was kind of common knowledge even in 1983 when ninoy decided to come home, hoping to stop another military take-over, whether by imelda-ver or enrile-RAM.

E.  From my point of view, I had to do something about it at that point in our history because I was involved with the military, I was the head of the Department of Defense. I did not involve the generals of the military because they were involved, and so I had to work with young people in the military who were idealistic enough to agree to protect the interest of the country and the Filipino people without involving the people themselves. You see?

ah, yes, the young people in the military, the famous PMA’ers led by gringo honasan, I suppose?  this, from ninotchka rosca:  leftists, former political prisoners went to EDSA “only to be confronted by the faces of those who tortured them.” a heavy trip indeed.  [Endgame 144]

BONGBONG.  Why were you on the kill list of that junta?
E.  Probably because I was a hindrance to their political objective.
B.  So unbeknownst to many or most people, there was a plan for a military take over already?
E.  Correct.
B.  And the Junta was already organized?
E.  Yah.
B.  Can you tell us who the members of the Junta were?
E.  You will be surprised. The Chief of Staff, the head of the Philippine Army, the head of the Philippine Air Force, the head of the Philippine Navy, the head of the Philippine Coast Guard. Those were the members of the junta.

not surprising at all that it was afp chief of staff fabian ver’s cabal.  the head of the philippine army was josephus ramas whom ver appointed to lead the anti-EDSA ops in ’86.  the head of the philippine air force was vicente piccio whose son philip was married that saturday afternoon with ver and imelda standing as ninong and ninang.  the head of the philippine navy brillante ochoco was among the senior officers ver summoned to fort bonifacio for a tactical conference even while the enrile-ramos presscon was going on saturday evening.  can’t find anything on the head of the Philippine Coast Guard, not even a name.  twould be nice to hear from them all whether to corroborate and elaborate or to deny.  let’s hear it too from imelda.  what were ferdie’s instructions?  who else would have been asked to join that 15-member executive committee/ruling junta?

B.  How were they going to take over the reins of power?
E.  According to the information I received, if your Father died, they were not supposed to announce it at all.  They will keep it away from the knowledge of the public.  They will invite all the members of the cabinet in the name of your Father for a cabinet meeting.  And once we are in the Palace we will be quarantined, but in my case I will have to be executed.
B.  This is something that, again I don’t think… Maybe this is the first time that this information has seen the light of day.
E.  Well.
B.  So the uprising of what became EDSA was not a break with my Father, it was an opposition to this Junta.
E.  Correct.

hmm.  in the time of EDSA, maysakit si marcos pero alive and kicking pa, so to speak.  lumalabas pa sa TV, in-control pa rin daw, palaban pa rin.  ibig sabihin, imelda’s junta of generals was not yet operative, a non-entity to the end.

to my mind, enrile’s uprising that “became EDSA” was both a break with marcos whom he wanted to replace AND an attempt to preempt cory or, at the very least, to negotiate an end to the boycott (kahit hindi naman daw siya crony, wala siyang lll-gotten wealth, say niya sa memoir).  and to a certain extent he was successful.  he managed to get on the good side of cory, thanks to the people, and he helped freak the marcoses out of the palace, and that was the end of the boycott, mission accomplished.

B.  EDSA … this popular uprising has become already a part of the political narrative or the political methods of unseating a government or bringing a government down. In your view is that a good development? Should it be part of the narrative?  Should we choose our leaders this way?

E.  We cannot avoid prevent people from marching in the streets to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances, that’s constitutional.  But in the case of the first EDSA, the question is, why EDSA?  Who decided that the event must be in EDSA? Cory did not decide that, none of the Liberal Party people decided that. They were all gone, they were In Cebu. … It was there because we went to Camp Aguinaldo and that is where the confrontation took place.

this is enrile still laying a claim on EDSA.  the way he sees it, kung hindi sila nag-defect, walang EDSA.  totoo naman, to some extent.  kung hindi sila nag-defect, nag-people power pa rin tiyak, hindi nga lang sa EDSA, so we’d be calling it something else.

on that 7th day of the boycott, cory was in cebu rallying the people to join her civil disobedience campaign and adding to the list of crony products and services to boycott.  next stop davao.  the clamor for marcos’s resignation would have spread nationwide by the 10th day, and marcos’s inauguration would have brought out the people marching to mendiola, most likely, if not into the palace mismo, there to face tanks and the Marines as bravely, to stop the oathtaking.

if anything, the military defectors owed their lives and status, post-EDSA, to the people who not only saved their lives but also prevailed upon cory to avail of their armed services.

B.  Tito, All this time since 1986 I have been wanting to ask you a question and I have never found the opportunity to do it, and I think this is a good time.  After all that happened in EDSA, after all this uprising etc. … bakit hindi kayo ang nag-Presidente? You knew the characters that were involved and you were much more qualified than any of them.

E.  You know, your Dad was giving me the government in the morning of Tuesday February 25.

B.  I remember, Tito, I was there when he made the phone call to you.

E.  Corrrect.  He was asking me to ask Cory to postpone her oathtaking.  I told him I will try.

uy.  bago yang “I told him I will try.”  in earlier accounts it was more like, it’s too late, ang say niya kay marcos.  day 4 na iyon noong tawagan siya ni makoy; papunta na siya sa inagurasyon ni cory sa club filipino.

E.  You know, Bongbong, I did not intend to take over power, in the first place.  But while I was inside Camp Aguinaldo, and Camp Crame, I was thinking about what will happen.  I said if the military will take over, I will involve the country into a possible civil war.  Because the election was just finished. There was a big block of votes that voted for Cory, there was a big block of votes that voted for your Father, and I was not exposed to the electoral process at that point. I’m sure that if I did, if the military took over and I assumed power, I will have enemies inside my military organization also, then I will… There is a possibility that the two forces that fought in that election will combine. … And then you have the bulk of the military at that point who did not know where to where they will situate themselves. All of that I thought about it.

that is enrile being noble-kuno about giving way to cory to avoid bloodshed.  in fact, he had no choice, the people gave him no choice.  he didn’t even get a chance – there was simply no opening – to offer himself to the coryistas as the one better equipped to replace marcos.   and if he had dared, cory’s people would have withdrawn their support, i think, and watched him and ver wipe each other out.

E.  By the way Monday night I called for Jimmy Ongpin to come to Camp Crame and I said, with this event that is happening now, will be a protracted event, let us organize a provisional government to handle the running of our revolutionary government. I proposed five cabinet positions.  Defense, Finance, Local Govt, Justice and Foreign Affairs.  Sa inyo yung apat kako na posisyon, sa amin yung Defense. Because I wanted to balance their political forces against the military forces.  Alam mo ang ginawa nila, that night?  That is where I started to suspect them.  They filled all the positions in the Cabinet, they organized their own Cabinet.

B.  But you had an agreement previous to that.

E.  Yah, I had an agreement with Jimmy Ongpin. Eh kako hindi pala totoo na tao itong kausap ko.

this is enrile most unclear.  what kind of revolutionary government was he thinking of?  on day 2 he is said to have proposed to doy laurel a military-civilian junta that would include cory and doy and other civilians.  cory, of course, would not hear of it.  a junta arrangement was always more military than civilian.  why should cory allow herself to be sidelined when she had won the votes of 10 million pinoys, and enrile had not.

B.  It’s always been a mystery to me, because you were positioned perfectly to take over the reins of power and we were all a little surprised, watching this again from far away, and we were saying for sure I’m sure si Minister Enrile…

E.  I was afraid not for myself but for the country, that it will cause a bloodbath.

B.  I think you were similar in thinking to my Father because one of the reasons, and I asked him this directly: Why were you so hesitant to use force in 1986? Nung talagang papasukin na yung palasyo, binobomba na tayo, binabaril na tayo, ganon, marami naman kaming tropa, we were very well prepared, because as I said we received the information about imminent attack to on the Palace one week before you and General Ramos went to Crame and made your stand in Crame, so we had the chance to prepare.  So we were wondering why did we not fight back with force.  And he said, that would have been the beginning of a civil war.  Which I think is exactly the way you saw it.

E.  … GOD was with us because that event turned out to be bloodless because your father restrained himself.

no no no.  EDSA turned out to be bloodless not because marcos restrained himself but because certain officers defied, refused to follow, orders that would have harmed innocent civilians.  read untrue story, unsung heroes, of EDSA.

towards the end, enrile alleges that history was “totally distorted to favor one group.”  i submit that that’s exactly what enrile and bongbong are doing, totally distorting history to favor the memory of marcos.  i look forward to bongbong’s next, hopefully a tete-a-tete with imelda herself.  that would be one for the books.

enormous cost of shift to federalism

ALEJANDRO DEL ROSARIO:  At the 365 Club at the Holiday Inn Hotel in Makati, former senator Juan Ponce Enrile expressed his concern about the enormous cost of a shift from the presidential to a federal form of government.

“I don’t know where the government will source the money for this big shift when funds are already scarce for the administration’s Build, Build, Build infrastructure projects and the taxpayers are already groaning from rising cost of living,” Enrile said.

Enrile also said that regions under a federal system would also have the power to secure loans from other nations, making the country’s foreign debts even bigger.