EDSA 2 as a scripted event

Raul Pangalangan

YESTERDAY, THE 10th anniversary of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s oath-taking at EDSA came and went virtually unnoticed.

I’m not fond of conspiracy theories to explain historical events. So when I say that EDSA 2 was deliberately engineered, all I mean is that though the public outrage was genuine and not staged or faked, it was fostered by events that were deliberately calculated to provoke such outpouring of indignation.

Consider this. Had the impeachment trial been allowed to take its course, it was clear that—given the political alignments in the Senate then—President Joseph Estrada would have remained in power. The constitutional threshold of two-thirds of the senators needed to convict Erap was quite formidable; in other words, assuming a full Senate line-up of 24 senators, a minority of nine votes can effectively veto an impeachment. Erap knew that already in November 2000 when he gave his allies in Congress the go-signal to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Let the case go to trial, let the impeachment charges be heard fully, and let Erap be acquitted in a proper proceeding. That way, Erap remains in power completely in accordance with law. Stated otherwise, once Erap is acquitted, it will be too late to oust him through People Power.

In order to unseat Erap, it was therefore imperative not to let the trial be completed. People Power must take place before the impeachment court adjourns. In other words, the anti-Erap forces desperately needed a trigger to abort the trial and shift the arena from the proverbial court of law to the court of public opinion. Providentially for them, the pro-Erap senators furnished that trigger on a silver platter: the now famous “second envelope” that 11 senators voted to suppress. The evidence was supposed to show that Erap was the owner of the questionable “Jose Velarde” bank account. (Ironically, when the envelope was eventually opened, its owner was not Erap.)

This was the perfect moment to incite rebellion. One, it was a legal issue clothed with moral overtones. The pro-Erap Senators insisted on bank secrecy laws. The anti-Erap senators deprecated that as mere legal technicality (remember the term “legal gobbledygook”?) that shouldn’t hinder the search for the truth. Two, this logic, once embraced by the public, is the same logic by which they can countenance another EDSA. In other words, if you can sell this idea to the public, namely, that moral imperatives trump legal niceties, then you have laid the rational groundwork for a repeat of People Power that relies precisely on that reasoning.And three, appealing to the pragmatic side of the Pinoy, if Erap can get 11 senators to suppress the second envelope, that is a preview of how they will vote at the end of the trial. Why wait till then when you already know how they will vote?

There was a second reason it was important to provoke EDSA 2 when it happened.  If the EDSA logic was indispensable that we must read the rules liberally so that the law will not stand in the way of the truth, that logic would soon begin working in Erap’s favor by the next stage of the trial. That logic worked against Erap only during the first stage of the proceedings, namely, the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. The next stage would have been the presentation of evidence by the defense, which should have transpired sometime around February 2001. All of a sudden it would be Erap’s turn to claim to cast off technicality so that he can tell his story. The shoe is then on the other foot. That would’ve placed the Erap haters in a moral quandary when Erap takes his turn to invoke all the lofty principles invoked by the prosecution. In other words, if as I assume EDSA was a rational event, the flip-flopping between rules and truth-seeking will actually expose the anti-Erap crowd’s partisan side that was hidden in their lofty rhetoric of accountability and anticorruption.

Foreign observers couldn’t explain EDSA 2. Was it impatience on our part, they asked? But we are otherwise a patient people, they said. Was it part of a morality tale? Probably, they answered, given the presence of Cory Aquino and Cardinal Sin. But the “more disturbing, albeit most plausible, theory … involves a conspiracy. …. Was this a revolution of the Filipino people-or of a few hundred thousand Filipinos prompted by a few hundred powerful individuals?”

In May 2001, I noted in the Supreme Court Centenary Lecture Series the “constitutionalawkwardness of EDSA 2” that “had barely, pushed People Power within the pale of constitutional legitimacy.” Commentators abroad were more condemnatory: It was either “mob rule or mob rule as a cover for a well-planned coup [b]ut either way, it’s not democracy.’’ Others agonized that the end, namely, the restoration of public accountability—was betrayed by the means, namely, the weakening of legal institutions. That seemed like a Faustian bargain even then, and much worse today. Would the “hooting throng” have gathered at EDSA 2 had they known what Arroyo would wreak upon our country?

cha-cha crazy

there they go again, chattering about charter change, as if it were even do-able, what a waste of time.   read fr. joaquin bernas’s Finally a new Constitution in 2011?

In my view, one major obstacle to attempts to revise the 1987 Constitution is structural. It has a built-in unintended obstacle to change. And I do not know how this can be overcome this year.

Inmany respects the 1987 Constitution consists of significant borrowings from the 1935 Constitution. Unfortunately, however, the provision on the amendatory process is a carbon copy of the provision in the 1973 Constitution. Year after year since 1987 this has been the major obstacle to change. Why so?

The text says: “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) a constitutional convention. . . . The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.”

The provision is one formulated for a unicameral legislative body but it is now meant to work for a bicameral Congress. This was not a tactical product designed by an evil genius. It is merely the result of oversight. But the oversight has spawned major problems.

First, must Senate and Housecome together in joint session before they can do anything that can lead to charter change? The 1935 Constitution was very clear on this question: Congress could not begin to work on constitutional change unless they first came together in joint session. The 1987 Constitution is non-committal.

Second, since the text of the Constitution is not clear about requiring a joint session, can Congress work on constitutional change analogously to the way it works on ordinary legislation, that is where they are and as they are? I have always maintained that Congress can, but this is by no means a settled matter. There are those who believe that the importance of Charter change demands a joint session.

Third, should Congress decide to come together in joint session, must Senate and House vote separately or may they vote jointly? The 1935 Constitution was very clear on the need for separate voting; the present Constitution is silent about this. But I am sure that the Senate will not agree to a joint voting where their number can be buried in an avalanche of House votes, an avalanche of votes which can mean the abolition of the Senate! How will this issue be settled? Howsoever the matter might be settled by agreement of the majority of both houses, someone in the minority will run to the Supreme Court to challenge the decision.

What about a constitutional convention? But the business of calling a constitutional convention is fraught with the same problems. Should Congress choose to call a constitutional convention, must the two houses be in joint session? And if in joint session, should they vote separately?

Briefly, constitutional change in 2011 or later can happen only if the members of Congress can agree to work in harmony and if the Supreme Court will not throw a monkey wrench on how Congress decides to do it. Can the members of Congress rise above self-interest and work together harmoniously? Or are we waiting for an extra-constitutional change?

i like it, this obstacle not designed by some evil genius, rather an oversight of cory’s constitutional commission.   it means that charter change can happen only if and when our legislators get their act together, and that’s just so NOT in any one’s agenda.

extra-constitutional change?   another edsa, he means?   but a successful edsa, a successful revolutionary government, one that brings about deep-seated change, is soooo not in the stars, not until a true leader rises, one in the mold of rizal or bonifacio but wise to the ways of the world today and highly-biased for the filipino.

the state of the zodiac

woke up at noon to an email from my son joel asking, “so am i a virgo now?   seems to be all over the news — but no mention of it on any astrology sites :-)”   followed by an email from my brother louie:  “am i now a virgo!  did you know about this?”   both with links to last night’s breaking news:   astronomer park kunkle reveals that because of earth’s wobble our zodiac signs as we know them may no longer be our signs.   according to his calculations, i would be a leo, but i know i’m not ;))

the good news is, libra pa rin sila, virgo pa rin ako.   and to all katrina’s friends who have been asking, stressing out, having identity crises, including two whose birthcharts i recently read, relax, nothing has changed, this is nothing new.   it’s an old issue that astronomers have long been throwing at astrologers to debunk derogate diminish the celestial grounds of astrology.   and really, it’s not that astrologers don’t care to know the earth, stars, and constellations as astronomers do, it’s just that we have a whole different way of viewing the whole.   read astrologers kevin burk and dane rhudyar, if you have the time and the inclination.   it’s all there.   (i love the web!)

i will admit that the first time i learned about the precession of the equinoxes, nagdalawang-isip ako for a while and cut down on readings (this was back in the 80s) while getting my bearings.   so far my experience had shown astrology to be compatible with the psychology, traditional and new age, that i had i learned in and after diliman, but suddenly i wasn’t sure…

it was around this time that direk ishmael bernal gave me his birth time and asked for a reading.   couldn’t say no to ishma, so best efforts na lang.   to my dismay he mostly took my reading with a blank stare.   but a month or so later he phoned, apologizing, he had given me the wrong birth time.   this time he was sure, galing mismo sa kanyang birth certificate that he had to get from his mother.   vastly different a birthchart it was, and so was his reaction.   i got a lot of vigorous nods, a sparkle in the eyes, and in the end, say niya, yes, ako yan mismo.   it was validation enough.

the precession problem i came to terms with via the basic principle of astrology, the moment of birth (whether of a person, or an idea, or a project) as the crux of the matter.   i found i could live with the original zodiacal elliptic and its properties codified by the greeks over 2000 years ago as reference point.   just because it works.

but i’m not talking sun-sign astrology which is what daily horoscopes are about.   there’s more to it than the sun-sign alone.   there’s the moon, too, and at least eight planets, their signs and configuration (the angles / aspects they make with each other) at the moment of birth, to take into consideration.   the sun is the most significant of them but always taken in the context of what the sign represents in the 12-step process of personal growth and development — from individual to collective concerns — that the zodiac wheel offers the seeker.

this is not to say that i don’t read daily horoscope columns.   there are a couple that i follow because they keep accurate track of the moon, which moves very fast, just two days or so in a sign.   they give me a sense of the day’s vibes without having to check out my ephemeris.   also i send joel daily readings for his sun-sign, moon-sign, and ascendant-sign (based on birth time) whether he reads them or not.   today i also sent him the reading for virgo, with a smiley, just in case.   and this was his response:

I’ve always been aware that there was theoretical and proven science out there that just probably totally messes up the foundation of astrology. Earth spinning off its axis, moon drifting farther away by the decade, expanding universe, uh, Pluto’s planetary status (although that’s arguably more a matter of semantics)… but between its hit-and-miss record and generally vague advice, I’ve pretty much settled on viewing my daily horoscope as reminders of proper conduct, patience, managed expectation, tempered behavior, etc…

More than anything else, the daily horoscope you send is like motherly advice. Be good, be cautious, show enthusiasm, start something, be diligent, watch out for opportunities, etc. That they’re copied off a newspaper or a site doesn’t make much difference to me — this is part of your personal value system which I respect and, considered responsibly, hasn’t ever steered me wrong.

o di ba.   sulit na sulit naman.

and finally, can’t help wondering why it’s taken astronomers all this time to go mainstream on this.   or maybe it’s mainstream media that just never cared to pick up ’til now?   maybe astrology’s getting too popular in these troubled and much-too-interesting times?   incidentally, the church has always frowned on astrology but i hear the vatican has the best and biggest library of astrological materials dating from ancient times ’til the present, under wraps of course.   so there.

eat bulaga! vs. RH?

Sotto stakes post in anti-RH fight.   hmm.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III Wednesday said he was willing to risk his position in the chamber if his colleagues would insist on passing the reproductive health (RH) bill, which is said to be on the Aquino administration’s list of priority measures.

… “I cannot guarantee that it will be in the order of business,” he told the Inquirer by phone. “They rather replace me as the majority leader. They might as well find someone else.”

As the majority leader and chairman of the committee on rules, Sotto is instrumental in the preparation of the chamber’s order of business, in consultation with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.

ah so.   akala ko his post as senator.   yun pala his post as majority floorleader and chairman of the committee on rules lang.   tipong he’s saying na it’s up to him whether, if at all, the RH bill is ever included in the senate’s order of business.   and, reading between the lines, tipong the RH bill gets tabled over-his-dead-body, that is, he would have to be replaced first.   aba, naghahamon, ang lakas ng loob, bakit kaya.

“There are many issues and questions to hurdle before the RH bill is even placed in the actual priority list of the Senate,” Sotto said.

Sotto, for instance, rejected the idea that proponents of the measure wanted a national policy that would impose their position on the use of contraceptives even among people not amenable to them.

“Why do they impose their choice on us? Suppose I file a bill banning all contraceptives in the country, would they like that?” he said.

hmm again.  who’s talking ba about imposing anything on anyone?   the idea is to make all these contraceptive measures available.   it’s up to individuals, couples, given adequate information, to decide what kind of contraception they want to use, IF ANY.   maybe he doesn’t understand english?

At present, he pointed out that contraceptives were available around the country to anyone who wished to purchase one. A national RH policy would require the use of taxpayers’ money to buy contraceptives and make them available to all, he added.

naku, sounds just like roilo golez of the lower house.   so contraceptives are only for those who can afford them?   paano na the 80 percent poor, let them multiply and multiply, the better to keep augmenting a cheap labor force?

and what’s wrong with using taxpayers’ money to help out couples who want to plan their families, the better to feed clothe and shelter them?   taxpayers’ money is used for obscene pork barrels that build basketball courts and waiting sheds and sub-standard roads, not to speak of the commissions that line their pockets for every government contract they approve, or how else do these public servants get so rich?

what really intrigues me is, who’s behind sotto?   who has tasked him to kill the RH bill in the upper house?   and in exchange for what?    who, what makes him so uncaring of the wishes of 7 out of 10 pinoys who want an RH law?   bosslady gma?   the bishops?   is he katoliko sarado pala?   kailan pa?

what about his fellow commedians vic & joey kaya?   anti-RH din ba sila?   the better for eat bulaga!?   ika nga, habang may bata, may eat bulaga!?