Ninoy wasn’t perfect but he was one bright star!

First posted November 2019

And he was for real, nothing like the three “brightest stars” kuno … “shining” in the sky … that Duterte claims himself, Go, and Cayetano to be.  Hello.  Not one of them, not all of them together — kahit isali pa natin si Inday Sara at ang buong Konggreso — can hold a candle to Ninoy.

Were he still alive, Ninoy would be 87, retired na siguro but still nakiki-alam malamang, still holding forth with his ten-centavos worth on every issue under Sun and Moon, leveling up popular discourse at the very least.  What I’d give for some informed intelligent talk about Nation, with wisdom that comes from age and experience, with credibility that comes from integrity and love of country.

One thing his political opponents couldn’t fault Ninoy for, ever, was corruption.  And so they hit him hard with the communist card, tagged him a godless enemy of the state, without evidence other than that he was friendly with certain anti-America anti-bases Huks and communists, but then so was Marcos, friendly with certain other anti-America anti-bases communists but secretly, of course, in the run-up to martial law.

Which is not to say that Ninoy couldn’t have played his cards better.  I can understand, for instance, that he thought it a great idea to facilitate, hasten, a meeting (which would have happened anyway without his help, it is said) between the communist ideologue Joma Sison and the rogue Huk Bernabe Buscayno, but did it have to happen in / around Hacienda Luisita?  Of course nakarating ang intel kay Marcos, and of course Marcos exploited it to the hilt.  Ninoy laid himself wide open for that.

I like to think that Ninoy didn’t have to die just so we could topple Marcos.  I like to think that we would have toppled Marcos with Ninoy himself leading the way.  But i guess that would have been a different kind of battle.  Enrile, for one, might not have given way to Ninoy the way he did to Cory.  And then, again, who knows.

Ang nakahihinayang sa lahat, Ninoy never, it would seem, considered the possibility, in case he was killed, that Cory might take up the struggle in his place.  Because if he did he might have prepared Cory better, and Noynoy too?  Or did he try sharing the Christian Democratic Socialist ideology with his family but their eyes glazed over?

Maybe they would all have tried harder had they known how much Ninoy was loved and admired for standing up to Marcos, even in exile, and had Ninoy known how eagerly we awaited his return.  But then how was he to know, when Marcos controlled all media, and he continued to denounce Ninoy as communist, and we had learned to keep our mouths shut, or else.  Almost like now.

We had no idea then how many we were (legion! pala) who believed in Ninoy and trusted him to lead the way forward, that is, until he was taken from us, murdered on the tarmac, our one great hope.  No wonder the love and the hope spilled over and embraced Cory and the children in grief.  The rest is history, ika nga.

Nowadays, we have no idea, either, how many we are who desperately desire a better life for the marginalized and impoverished masses and a just and equitable social and political order for all.  But little do we really know what it would take to achieve these goals.

What we need is a Ninoy, nay, we need many Ninoys, who have the welfare of the masses at heart, and who have the expertise to pick up where Ninoy left off, craft a credible and sustainable development program (beyond BuildBuildBuild and PPP) toward systemic change that would be worth uniting behind. 

In an interview with Nick Joaquin, Ninoy said that in 1967, when he ended his gig as manager of Hacienda Luisita to run for the Senate, it took eight men to take over his job. [The Aquinos of Tarlac page 278]

Eight is a good number, for starters.  But, yeah, Ninoy is a hard act to follow.

*

Kwatro Alas & Mercury Retrograde

My mistake, giving Chiz Escudero the benefit of the doubt all through the “forthwith” furor. I imagined that he had valid reasons for delaying the trial. I actually thought that when the time came, he was capable of rising above the political fray and leveling up as presiding judge of the impeachment court a la Davide in 2000 and Enrile in 2012.

Instead, August 6 saw him and the bulk of 18 senators all set to dismiss the case. Puro pala sila DDS. Kapani-paniwala tuloy ang chizmiz that he seriously wants to run for president in 2028. Politics much?

Mabuti na lang at kumontra nang bongga sina Tito Sotto, Ping Lacson, at Risa Hontiveros, armed with arguments that forced the 18 to back down, though only a little, as in, archive na lang (mas maigi sana if they tabled it), habang hinihintay ang final ruling ng Supremes, hopefully only after hearing oral arguments of complainants and friends of the court.

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW

To people who are into astrology, the August 6 drama did not surprise: Mercury retrograde kasi — seen from planet Earth, itsura’y paatras ang galaw ng Mercury, the planet associated with the rational mind and everyday communications, kayâ paatras din at hindi pasulong o paabante ang galaw ng mga isip natin, senators and magistrates not exempted.

Siyempre nagulat ako, at naaliw, nang ungkatin ang Mercury retrograde sa Kwatro Alas kahapon. Diyatat “woke” pala these machos to cosmic and occult vibes? https://www.youtube.com/

MICHAEL FAJATIN: Maraming nagsasabi — di ko alam kung alam niyo ‘to, guys, kasi millennial ako eh. Yung mercury retrograde, have you heard about it?

ALAN GERMAN: Of course I have …

FAJATIN: Simple explanation, ang mercury retrograde daw, hindi ka dapat nagde-decide ngayon dahil affected ka …

GERMAN: Because of the tides, because of the tides, the planetary alignment, naaapektuhan ang ating mga tides, pati yung liquid sa ating brain daw, naaapektuhan ng tides daw, at sa ating utak…

FAJATIN: So ibig sabihin hindi magiging sigurado ang desisyon mo pag ngayon mo na [ginawa] ‘to?

GERMAN: Parang you are confused, ayon sa mga naniniwala.

RONALD LLAMAS: Kaya pala ganon yung August 6 sa senado! Naapekto yung ibig pahiwatig!

“Because of the tides … the tides … the planetary alignment”?!? The effects of Mercury retrograde have nothing to do with “tides” that are caused by the Moon’s gravitational pull kapag full moon (that came three days later pa, August 9 mismo while Kwatro Alas was broadcasting līve) when the alignment of Sun, Moon, and Earth heightens emotions and yes, brings on high tides and howling egos, but it’s fleeting, peaks quickly, and then dissipates.

Mercury retrograde, in contrast, is some three weeks long. Mercury has been moving paatras since July 18 and starts moving paabante today, August 11, though quite slowly for another week or so, bumubuwelo kumbaga, before moving on at its usual speed.

Fajatin got some of it right. When Mercury is retrograde it’s not a good time to make certain decisions. Lalo na on old issues, na akala natin ay tapos na, settled na, e hindi pa pala. Tipong paulit-ulit lang yung problema dahil paulit-ulit din lang, same-old same-old, ang solusyon natin. Mercury retrograde nudges us into rethinking, reviewing, reconsidering, how to handle things differently, break out of patterns that trap, para maiba rin ang patutunguhan, toward possibly better outcomes, when Mercury again moves forward.

BUT THEN AGAIN

Unfortunately, our issues are so deep-seated and find us so divided, there are no quick and easy solutions. Even if all the planets were wonderfully configured, kung hindi naman tayo handang kumilos as a united opposition for systemic change vs dynasties and oligarchs atbp., wala rin.

Which brings me back to Kwatro Alas and their kind of political commentary. For what it’s worth, hearts in the right place naman, these men, but stick to the stuff you truly know, guys. Otherwise, nakakahinayang ang loss of credibility. Also, we could do with a lot less self-approbation, na nakaka-turn-off. And a lot less laughter, please. The sad state of the nation is no laughing matter.

Activism, impeachment, dynasty

There is judicial activism when a court undertakes any of the following: a court invalidates the constitutional action of another branch (e.g., legislature, executive); a court fails to adhere to a precedent; a court engages in judicial policymaking; a court departs from accepted interpretive methodology; or when a court engages in result-oriented judging (Kmiec, 2004). In judicial restraint, judges limit their interpretation to the text of the law; whereas in an activist court, members delve into broader societal issues and make themselves architects of legal and social change. Courts as Policymakers: Untangling Judicial Activism in the Philippines by Alicor Panao 22 March 2024 up.edu.ph

To my mind, “activism” is always associated with social-political movements seeking to improve the status quo and make life better for our marginalized majority, i.e., social justice kumbaga. But as it turns out, the Supremes’ kind of “judicial activism” is differently minded, as shown by the Supreme Court’s decision on VP Sara’s impeachment. Parang mas pinahalagahan ng Korte ang kapakanan at kahilingan ng VP na ipa-walang-bisa ang  Articles of Impeachment kaysa ang kapakanan at kahilingan ng taongbayan (represented by the Lower House) na ituloy ang trial (sa Upper House) kung saan Duterte can defend herself and even possibly clear her name. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/

Nakakagulat ba itong desisyon ng Supremes? Nakakadismaya pero hindi nakakagulat. Siyempre sumagi sa isip ko ang 1973 decision na nagpa-walang-bahala sa pagkaka-“ratify”-kuno ng Martial Law Constitution ni Marcos via raise-your-hands “Citizens Assemblies” — wala na daw magagawa, in effect na daw kasi, or something like that. And then there was Gloria Arroyo’s midnight appointment of CJ Renato Corona in May 2010 even it was against the law. And what about the burial of Marcos Sr. sa Libingan ng mga Bayani noong November 2016, na kahit ang mga Marcos ay tila nahiyâ — behind closed gates and by-invitation-only ang naganap na seremonyas.

BUT HERE’S A SILVER LINING

Check out this convo of a couple of hopeful young thinkers: rappler‘s senior legal reporter and a UP law prof: https://www.youtube.com/

LIAN BUAN: Can SC be judicial activists, too, for the pending anti-dynasty case?

JOHN MOLO:  If we can create guidelines for impeachment, which is the sole prerogative of both Houses of Congress, I’m pretty certain we can finally order Congress to finally pass a law that’s 40 years delayed as required by the Constitution. That’s the silver lining perhaps here .. Kung ito, hindi lang nag-act … hindi gumalaw yung sec-gen … is already grave abuse of discretion … e mas lalo pa kaya the pending political dynasty issue … na required legislation, na 40 years in-ignore. … Kinda gives me more confidence that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Quite a long dark tunnel it’s been, with the Supremes dismissing petitions (since 2013) to compel Congress to enact an anti-dynasty law because daw Congress is a co-equal branch of government … to do so would be to “violate the principle of separation of powers among the three branches of government.” Still pending is the last one filed March 31 2025 by the 1Sambayan Coalition of former justices, retired military officials, priests, academics, and lawyers, calling it a “desperate attempt to give life to the 1987 Constitution” and a “relief from the chokehold political dynasties have placed on this nation.” https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/

And guess who was quick to anticipate the Supremes, forthwith, at the time:

The Supreme Court cannot compel Congress to enact a law banning political dynasties, Senate President Francis Escudero said, citing constitutional limitations.

His remarks come in response to a petition filed by 1Sambayan and other civic groups urging the SC to mandate Congress to fulfill its constitutional obligation under Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has said that Congress cannot be forced by a mandamus from the court to pass a law. The legislative process is a political question,” Escudero said at a press briefing on April 3.

I don’t get it (because I’m not a lawyer?).  The Supremes can’t order them around on the matter of political dynasties, sabi niya noon, pero ngayon, on the matter of impeachment, puwedeng puwede?

“The Supreme Court’s ruling is final and immediately executory,” Escudero said. “Whether we like the Supreme Court’s decision or not, we might be called a banana republic (if we do not follow it).”  https://www.manilatimes.net/

And it doesn’t seem to matter na ayon sa OCTA Research, based on a July 12-17 survey:

RANJIT RYE:  A significant number of Filipinos, 8 of 10, feel that the Vice President is innocent and want the impeachment trial to continue. A lot of people don’t see the impeachment just as pananagutan or accountability. A lot of people think of it as due process, a chance for the VP to clear her name.  Storycon 31 July https://www.youtube.com/

Senator Tito Sotto says he will object vociferously if when the Duterte bloc rushes to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment on August 6 without waiting for the Supremes to rule on the Motions for Reconsideration because daw the Supremes just MIGHT hear oral arguments and even reverse their ruling. “We will object!’ Sotto papalag kung may mag-mosyon i-dismiss ang impeachment ni VP Sara
https://www.youtube.com/

But then again, what if the Supremes stick to their guns? Next year na lang uli? But given all those new rules? Asa pa!

Are the Supremes and the Senate in cahoots?

Puwede namang hindi na lang naki-alam ang Korte Suprema, lalo na’t they practically changed, and added to, the rules, in a hair-splitting kind of way, by unanimous vote yet, which has lost the Court a lot of credibility. What if they had stayed out of it instead, left it to the Senate to deal with the Articles of Impeachment, dismiss it with or without a hearing, and let the Senate thereafter be answerable, accountable, to the people who elected them.

We have no such recourse with regard to the Supremes, and that is so unfair. We’re expected to just take their word for it — null and void, ab initio — no matter what we think, kahit may pinag-aralan at nag-iisip at nakakaintindi rin naman kahit hindi tayo abogado.

The mindset is, the Supremes know best when it comes to the rule of law, and that it is best, too, for the country that we all bow to the the wisdom of “the gods of Padre Faura” because theirs is the final say, never mind if we’re not quite persuaded (more like blindsided) by the ponente’s looooong-winded arguments [97 pages of text and footnote], because to insist daw that the Senate ignore the Supremes is to be a “banana republic” kasi ang ibig sabihin, wala tayong “rule of law”.

Thank goodness that former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna have weighed in:

CJ PANGILINAN: … I would have favored – if I were still an incumbent – the issuance of a Status Quo Ante order requiring the parties to maintain the current situation. … As part of due process, I would have asked for Oral Argument before promulgating any decision. If the Court had patiently heard Oral Argument on less important problems like the recognition of foreign divorces and the PhilHealth petitions, why not on this monumental case? In the least, if only to accord respect to a coequal branch of the government, the HOR, I would have called for Oral Argument before making up my mind and casting my vote.

J. AZCUNA:  THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE THE ONE TO CRAFT THE RULES TO ENFORCE ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION. … the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in one’s own case. [CAPS Azcuna’s]

Beyond that and more, from the likes of Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and lawyer Christian Monsod, a framer of the ’87 Constitution  https://www.youtube.com/, my beef is with the timing. February 18 pa noong nag-file ang bigtime abogados ni VP Sara ng petition to nullify the Articles of Impeachment. What took the Court so long?

Check out SP Chiz‘s July 29 statement to the press re the July 25 null-and-void sound effects from the Supreme Court that I bothered to transcribe, for the record. He sounds like he’s feeling quite vindicated about redefining “forthwith” and allowing the “remand”. Totoo kaya ang chismis na linigawan niya at ng isang DDS senator ang Korte Suprema to intervene when, and in the way, they did? Perhaps to spare not just VP Sara but also the Senate from the inevitable intramurals? Or coincidence lang, synchronicity baga, na on the same wavelength siya at ang Supremes?

SP CHIZ: Personally, ang posisyon ko, bilang abogado, ay ito. Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema. Sang-ayon ka man doon o hindi, dapat ito’y sundin. Kung hindi, magkakaron tayo ng constitutional crisis at baka tingnan tayo ng mga karatıg-bansa natin at ibang tao na isang banana republic kung saan sinusunod lamang natin ‘yung mga gusto natin.

Bilang pananaw pa sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Lima sa labing-isang pinag-utos ng Korte Surpema na isumite ng Kamara ay kabilang sa order o kautusan ng Senate Impeachment mismo, kaugnay sa compliance ng Kamara sa one-year ban. Sabi nga ng isang kritiko ng Senado nung mga panahong ‘yon: Wala daw karapatan ang Senado utusan ang Kamara, na tanungin ang Kamara kaugnay ng one-year ban. Sabi ng kritikong ‘yon, desisyon daw ‘yon ng Korte Suprema. Ngayong nagdesisyon naman ang Korte Suprema, ang sinasabi ng parehong taong iyan ay: the Senate is the sole judge of impeachment cases, dapat ‘wag pansinin.

Ano ba yan. Talaga bang nagbabago kung anong tama at totoo ayon sa batas depende sa gusto natin? Hindi ba dapat, ano man ang gusto natin, dapat ang sundin natin ay ang batas at ang Saligang Batas. At ayon sa Konstitusyon, Korte Suprema lamang ang bukod tanging may kapangyarihan magbigay-buhay at mag-interpret ng ating Saligang Batas. May mga parte din ng desisyon na hindi ako sang-ayon, pero kung babasahin natin ng lubusan, kabilang yung mga separate opinions …

Nakasaad din sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema: hindi nagkaroon, mula’t-mula, ng jurisdiction ang Senado doon sa impeachment complaints dahil sa paglabag sa Bill of Rights, partikular, due process of law.

… kaugnay sa paglabag sa due process kinlaro din nila yon. Na kapag violation ng due process ang pinaguusapan, ay wala na tayong puwede i-review o ibalik pa dahil nawalan na ng jurisdiction mula sa simula ang anumang korte o husgado, ayon sa majority at unanimous decision. https://www.youtube.com/

Violation of due process nga ba?

J. AZCUNA: The Constitution provides that NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (Art. III, The Bill of Rights). Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules IN ALL PHASES OF IMPEACHMENT?

None.

***

Is the Supreme Court facing a perfect storm? by Joel Ruiz Butuyan

Firestorm over impeachment authority Inquirer Editorial 

The Supreme Court betrayed the people by Tony Lopez