Category: senate

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

Maharlika moromoro

moromoro  Sp. n. stage play depicting struggle between Moros and Christians. Syn. komedya. [Panganiban 1972]

“Magmoro-moro na lang kayo,” President Marcos the Senior is said to have instructed the Tanodbayan and a Sandiganbayan justice, once upon a time. As in, just put on a show. His parting words: “Thank you for your cooperation. I know how to reciprocate.” [G.R. 72670]

Iyan mismo ang datíng sa akin ng final deliberations on, amendments to, and passage of the Senate version of the controversial Php 500 billion Maharlika Fund bill na madaliang naganap Monday and Tuesday sa Senado. Madalian din ang bicameral conference na naganap Wednesday kung saan agad-agad inaprub ng Lower House ang Upper House version “in principle — subject to style.

Para bagang nagpalabas lang ang mga senador, a show of resistance, with pahabol “safeguards” that may or may not work, may or may not be applied, but at least they tried? What’s for certain is that the 19 didn’t have the heart to say no to the president’s “urgent” request, bahala na si Batman, ehe, si BBM. Super galing naman kasi ang timing ni presidente: he certified Maharlika as “urgent” May 25, giving the senators exactly a week to get it passed and bicammed before the senate adjourned June 2 for a 50-day break.

ANA MARIE PAMINTUAN: Do lawmakers know the exact nature of the Maharlika fund that they have approved with impressive speed?

Investors will want to know where their money will be placed. International investment banker Stephen CuUnjieng says the measure was so hastily passed that provisions allow Maharlika to function both as a national development fund and a sovereign fund that can be invested in “everything everywhere all at once.”

It clearly didn’t matter to lawmakers. Proving (again) that it’s not only the House of Representatives that is a Malacañang rubber stamp, the Senate dutifully passed the bill creating the Maharlika fund in record time. The House, no surprise there, immediately adopted the Senate version. Truly, the two chambers are as thick as thieves. [https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2023/06/02/2270795/everything-everywhere]

Salamat kay Senator Koko Pimentel for doing the research and taking the time to explain his objections in very practical terms sa turno en contra (indeed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions). His pointed questions, many left unanswered, in the interpellation of the bill’s sponsor, were also most enlightening. 

Salamat din kay Senator Chiz Escudero for the amicus curiae moment, warning his colleagues that certain requirements of the Constitution re the creation of a Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation (GOCC) such as the Maharlika Investment Fund were not fulfilled. For the public good nga ba?  Economiically viable and sustainable nga ba?

Salamat na rin kay Senator Risa Hontiveros for her lone categorical NO vote, even if largely symbolic.

As for Senate Prez Migs Zubiri, I would very much like to hear him defend the MIF in Plaza Miranda, warts and safeguards and all.

DIWA GUINIGUNDO:  [T]he MIF is many things. One, it is untimely; two, its method of sourcing funds could destabilize public finance and ultimately raise our national debt; three, the BSP could be compromised as an autonomous and independent monetary authority; and four, it could further worsen governance and patronage. In other words, there is a great likelihood of market failure. [https://mb.com.ph/2023/02/17/maharlika-fund-some-fundamental-issues/ ]

Under the one single fund concept, whatever public money is earmarked for the Maharlika Investment Fund and away from the national budget, the national government will have to compensate for that. And to be able to do that, the national government will have to borrow or to impose higher taxes or more taxes. There is no other way [https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2023/5/31/Guinigundo-diverting-public-funds-to-Maharlika.html]

ALEX MAGNO: Through all the debate, supporters of the MIF never arrived at a clear statement of purpose for setting this up. If it is to grow capital for future generations for Filipinos, then it should be primed with enough nimbleness to outwit and outmaneuver the giant institutional investors out there. It should be enabled to roam all the world’s markets scouring for the biggest returns. It must be super profitable to make it worthwhile. Then the money it accumulates from its smart operation as an institutional investor should be locked in for future generations to enjoy. In which case, it contributes nothing to our near-term development goals.

If the purpose is to serve as a source of project funding for development projects, then it must be able to offer cheaper loans than other alternatives such as official development assistance (ODA) granted by friendly entities. Remember that most ODA earn nothing but goodwill for the countries and multilateral institutions lending them out. To provide a better option for ODA borrowing, the MIF must earn nothing. [https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2023/06/01/2270657/useless]

MARENG WINNIE MONSOD.  What projects are this fund going to finance? If they want to finance what’s in the Philippine Development Plan, fine. … but this fund, what are they doing? They’re going to invest in blue chip stocks? What will that contribute to development? … What they’re trying to do, in investing in bluechip stocks, is supposedly to make a profit higher than government agencies can make…. I don’t understand it. Medyo confused sila eh. Martin Romualdez is confused, talking about the stock exchange etc.

Where are we going?  From one confused person to another confused person to a confused public. I mean, is that a way to pass a law? Why didn’t they make it transparent to everybody so that everybody could find out what is going on? You know. Now it’s such a well-guarded secret because they just want to pass it. Isn’t that terrible?  [“Winnie Monsod: Passage of MIF strictly a political move, not an economic move” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzz68LDtT9Y]

And then, again, the 19 senators may know something the rest of us don’t know, maybe some inside info that’s particularly reassuring for their vested interests?  Maybe it was as much a moromoro as it was an exercise in realpoliitik, moved by practical rather than moral considerations — a matter of political survival in this heavily toxic times? eyes on 2025 and 2028?  Perhaps that’s why the whole affair smacked of suck-up politics. No doubt the prez would know to reciprocate.

sanchez, the senate, and the supremes

not surprised that convicted rapist-killer antonio sanchez had his family lobbying hard for his release by whatever means.  plan A: win a grant of clemency from president duterte through the intercession of imeldific political ally, imelda marcos herself, among other luminaries, helped along by his former legal counsel, now presidential spokesman sal panelo’s FYI (for-your-info) to the bureau of pardons and parole (BPP).  but, of course, now that the shit has hit the fan, panelo and imee marcos (for imelda) say their offices are swamped by letters of request for this and that, and everything is simply forwarded / referred to the offices concerned.  really?  no sifting the grain from the chaff, the valid from the invalid, the bongga from the  basura?  walang due diligence?

plan B: avail of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law that the good senators of the 15th congress so conveniently enacted in 2013, and in such ambiguous terms that even an unrepentant sanchez just might qualify, and he almost did, thanks also to the it-would-seem just-as ambiguous implementing rules and regulations (IRR) crafted by then DOJ sec, now detained senator, leila de lima and then DILG sec mar roxas.  in the first senate hearing DOJ sec menardo guevara didn’t beat around the bush:  the law is not clear and needs to be amended.  read Guevara wants GCTA law amended amid controversy.

Guevarra’s proposed amendments include a clear classification of whether the law should be on reformative and rehabilitative side, or punitive or retributive, and clear definition of “heinous crimes.”

“We came to a conclusion that the intent of the law was to exclude those convicted of heinous crimes, as well as habitual delinquents, escapists, recidivists. But that came only after a tedious and laborous harmonization of the various provisions of this law,” he said.

“Had it been clearly stated in one single provision — stand alone provision — that the benefits of this law shall not apply to these classes of people, then we’ll probably not have a conclusion such as what we have now,” he added.

so.  sino nga ba ang mga senador na ito ng 15th congress who are, at bottom, responsible for the crappy GCTA law.  philstar‘s jess diaz did the research and found that some senators who have been holding forth in the senate hearings, fuming now over the almost-release of sanchez, are among the law’s authors.  such as senators frank drilon, ping lacson, bong revilla, francis pangilinan, and tito sotto.  read ‘Expanded good conduct law was Senate idea’.

Senate Bill 3064 was contained in Committee Report No. 82, which the committee on justice and human rights, and the committee on constitutional amendments, revision of codes and laws submitted on Nov. 17, 2011.

The Senate version consolidated eight similar measures on counting the period of detention as part of a prison term and expansion of GCTA as provided in the Revised Penal Code.

The authors of the eight measures were then senators Manuel Villar Jr., Francis Escudero and Miriam Defensor Santiago.

Villar, Escudero, Santiago, and colleagues Loren Legarda, Antonio Trillanes IV, Franklin Drilon, Ramon Revilla Jr., Sergio Osmeña III, Francis Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Panfilo Lacson, Manuel Lapid, Alan Peter Cayetano, the late Joker Arroyo and Edgardo Angara, Jinggoy Estrada, Teofisto Guingona III and Vicente Sotto III signed Report No. 82.

the four who did not sign: then senate prez juan ponce enrile, senators gregorio honasan, ralph recto, and pia cayetano. it would be interesting to hear why not. did they think it was badly crafted?  did they perhaps foresee that the likes of the incorrigible antonio sanchez could take advantage of the ambiguities?  or did they share marcos sol-gen estelito mendoza’s opinion that the GCTA law undercuts sentences handed down by courts?

Mendoza told senators in Thursday’s hearing that the GCTA, a law enacted in 2013 to fast-track the release of well-behaved convicts and decongest the country’s jails, could create a constitutional crisis.

… “Once rendered, it ( a sentence) is not subject to change. It is immutable. It must be implemented and rendered as executed by the court,” said Mendoza..

“If the congress which grants excessive time allowance which undercuts the judgments of courts, that might be subject to constitutional question because of our basic principle of separation of powers,” said Mendoza.

read also philstar columnist alex magno’s Sloppy.

The good conduct time allowance law, being so sloppily crafted, allows bureaucrats a wide margin of discretion. That is, we know, always bad.

The vulnerability of any bureaucratic unit to corruption correlates with the width of the margin of discretion of its bureaucrats. This is why administrative reforms in the BIR and the Customs Bureau focus on reducing the margin of discretion and increasing transparency of transactions.

The badly crafted good conduct time allowance law, aggravated by even worse crafted implementing rules and regulations, is more than an invitation to corruption. It is an invitation to an orgy.

It is not surprising that early releases of prisoners have become commodities for sale to the highest bidders. The bigger the bribe, the more expeditious the processing.

clearly, sanchez was trying to buy his way to freedom, one crooked way or another, and without paying up the php12 million plus owed the sarmenta and gomez families, as ruled by the supreme court.  i wonder what the supremes have to say about that.

by the way, di ko gets ang prescriptive period of 10 years, which i am willing to assume is meant to favor the victims’ families – they shouldn’t have to wait longer than that? – but what if it turns out to favor instead the convicted rapist-killer who dares defy the supremes and refuses to pay?

di ko rin gets kung bakit hindi napilit, na-obliga, na-compel si sanchez na magbayad, never mind his continued protestations of innocence.  hindi daw siya, si kit alqueza daw ang mastermind sa pagpatay kay gomez; later, si allan jun sanchez daw, anak niyang kauuwi from london studies ang niregaluhan ng eileen, or so says mon tulfo who heard it first from a “prison official” na inuutangan daw ni sanchez para sa nurse who visited him regularly for his health na nabuntis daw niya.  yeah, it gets murkier and sleazier by the day.

so, whose responsibility was it to make sure that the supremes’ ruling was executed?  the executive branch?  or the judicial branch?  both of the above?  senator drilon is right: it is not for the DOJ to invoke the lapsed prescriptive period.  let the DOJ file a case and let the supremes decide.  i’d love to hear “prescriptive periods” defended when it works in favor of the convicted criminal instead.  i wonder what marcos sol-gen estelito mendoza would say about that.

and here’s hoping that former senator juan ponce enrile also weighs in; after all he was the senate prez when that slapdash slipshod law was passed.  and he sure could use the pogi points, too.

the 18th congress

it’s too soon to be  arguing over the senate presidency, or the speakership for that matter, is what i gathered from outgoing senator chiz escudero on headstart.   but why aren’t we surprised.  these are different times.  and pundits are keeping track.  will add to list, newest op-ed first.

A society in decay? Pinoy vs Pinoy? by Rene Saguisag
Rumble in the house Inquirer editorial
Cayetano’s zombie victory by Manolo Quezon
Isumbong mo kay Inday Sara by Manolo Quezon
Unsettled by Alex Magno
Business and politics make strange bedfellows by Ernesto Hilario
Arroyo’s successor; Sotto to succeed himself by Yen Makabenta
Passing the baton by Gary Olivar
Lightweights for Speaker by Oscar P. Lagman, Jr.
Fond send off for 6 outgoing senators by Federico Pascual
Cuckoos in Duterte’s nest by Segundo Eclar Romero
Termed-out senators threaten to form Senate majority by Yen Makabenta
In search of leaders for 18th Congress by Malou Tiquia
Disaggregating the incoming Senate by Rudy Romero