day one kababawan

woke up late, missed charice and ryan c. (that’s all i regret missing).  kumakanta ang APO.   ang labo, parang nangangampanya pa rin.  why not Handog ng Pilipino sa Mundo, ‘yon ang winner, ke-pro o anti-cory ka, maganda yung kanta.   doon pa ba nagpigil ng lantarang pagka-maka-EDSA One?   as for that highly touted ogie alcasid song, it was nothing memorable (i missed janno).

and what about all that waiting time.    i’ve worked on enough grand live productions to know that the sequence guide can be fine-tuned to the very last second to 12 noon for the perfect segue to the president’s oath-taking.   heh.   amateurs.

and what about the breach of protocol that says the president-elect should be the last one to mount the stage — pag nandoon na lahat ng bisita at ibang opisyales, para pag-akyat niya, umpisa agad ang programa.   nauna daw kasi dumating si aquino, nahuli si binay, and i suppose aquino didn’t want to wait for binay so nauna na lang siya umakyat?   josko.   sino bang in-charge of protocol???    did anyone warn binay that he had to arrive earlier than aquino?   did anyone warn aquino that he should arrive and mount the stage after binay?   hay naku.  as if the noy-binay relationship weren’t messed up enough already.

and speaking of amateurs, when i heard that prez noy was gonna oblige with a song, groan, i just deliberately ignored the street party and happily settled for wimbledon’s day 9, berdych defeated federer in 4 sets, whatta show.   but of course the next day’s tv newscasts just had to rub it in, share footages of the new prez singing, karaoke style.   i know i know he was nakikisama, natuwa ang masa, he’s one of us and all that.  but really?

and what about the biggest booboo of all, memorandum circular no. 1, oh my.   a blooper by any other name is still a blunder.   did any one ask karina constantino-david’s advice first?  none of it augurs well for the near future.   expect more confusion until the newbies get the hang of things.   oh well, at least no palace chandelier fell in noynoy’s wake.

***

read too:  lourd-de-veyra-campaigns-for-the-separation-of-kris-and-state.   joel’s “wang-wang” as baby talk.   and jb baylon’s mixed feelings.

truth commission

FERRETING OUT THE TRUTH
By Solita Collas-Monsod

P-Noy Aquino’s decision to establish a Truth Commission, judging from the crowd’s reaction when he broached it during his inaugural speech, struck a very responsive chord in the Filipino people. So I am willing to go along with it, particularly since former Chief Justice Hilarion Davide, Jr. is chairing it.

But a lot of issues have to be cleared up first: is this going to be a truth/fact-finding body, or will it be prosecutorial in nature as well? What “unresolved issues” are involved in this commission? Because if these include graft and corruption in the previous administration, particularly those attributed to former President Arroyo and her family, then surely there exist agencies which already (at least in principle) have the mandate to do it: the Office of the Ombudsman, the PCGG, maybe even the Department of Justice.

It must be noted that most, if not all of the Truth/Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRC) — or at least those I looked into, including the South African TRC which Justice Leila de Lima says we will model ours after — were set up to uncover the truth about past abuses — human rights abuses. The South African TRC was unique, because it had the power to grant amnesty (and did — to some 12% of petitioners) to perpetrators who admitted their guilt and asked for forgiveness. This, by the way, did not sit well with a lot of the victims, who wanted “justice,” i.e., that the abusers should all be punished — not just the truth. It is also noteworthy that the South African TRC not only condemned the apartheid government for its abuses, but also the African National Congress (ANC) as well, because indeed both sides were guilty.

And this evenhandedness is probably one of the reasons the African TRC is being used as a model. On the other hand, I have the feeling that a lot of Filipinos, including some of the original advocates of a Philippine TRC, are actually thinking more of Nuremberg-type trials (and other star-chamber proceedings) — and may be very disappointed at the results of a TRC, and may then take their ire out on the Aquino government. This whole thing is a double-edged sword.

One of the interesting results of my (admittedly superficial) research is that some of the TRCs were set up by the United Nations. East Timor, in 2001, and El Salvador in 1992 are examples. In the latter case, the TC was established to investigate and report on human rights abuses during their civil war (1980-1992), saying that “acts of this nature, regardless of the sector to which their perpetrators belong, must be the object of exemplary action by the law courts so that the punishment prescribed by law is meted out to those found responsible.” Sounds like what we want, right?

The UN Secretary General, appointed former Colombian President Belisario Betancur (How much more impartial can you get?) as chair, together with a Venezuelan and an American. Its report, finished after eight months of investigation was about as hardhitting as they come: 85% of all acts of violence were attributed to “state agents,” 5% to the rebel group FMLN, and the rest to the death squads. The assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero was laid at the door of the death squads, and the killing of six Jesuit priests at the door of the Armed Forces. Interestingly, TC did NOT call for prosecution of incriminated perpetrators — because it saw the Salvadoran legal system as incapable of executing such prosecutions effectively! Instead, it recommended dismissal of culpable army officers and civil servants from government employment and disqualifications of other persons implicated in the wrongdoings from public office. Talk about being realistic.

But the report was rejected by the country’s civilian government and the armed forces — in any case, five days after the release of the final report (after rumored threats of a military coup), the legislature granted amnesty covering all crimes related to the civil war.

Another interesting result: in Liberia, the TRC included in its list of 50 names of people who should be barred from holding public office, elective or appointive for 30 years for being associated with former warring factions, the name of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the head of government who created the TRC in the first place. Closer to home, South Korea has its own Truth and R Sirleaf in a list of 50 names of people that should be “specifically barred from holding public offices; elected or appointed for a period of thirty (30) years” for “being associated with former warring factions.” The Liberian parliament, in August of last year, decided to have a year’s consultations with their constituents, before deciding to implement the TRC’s report or not.

We could also learn something from Peru’s experience: the TRC there was chaired by Salomon Lerner, who was then the rector of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Peru (the equivalent of our UST). Its report pointed to the Shining Path as the major violator — torture, kidnapping, assassinations — with the military coming in second and the MRTA (Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement) third. But it also criticized the performance of the Catholic Church, specifically the Archbishop of Ayacucho, Juan Luis Cipriani, an Opus Dei. Presumably, when Lerner said that “The report we hand in contains a double outrage: that of massive murder, disappearance and torture; and that of indolence, incompetence and indifference of those who could have stopped this humanitarian catastrophe but didn’t,” he was referring, in the latter case, to people like Cipriani.

South Korea’s TRC, charged in 2005 with examining human rights violations from 1910 (by Japanese occupation forces) to the end of authoritarian regimes — including civilian massacres by US military forces — is supposed to come out with its report anytime now (it was given an annual budget of about $19million a year). That should be interesting too.

Given all these country experiences, perhaps CJ Davide and his TRC, in tackling “unresolved issues,” should focus on the media killings first. Arguably, these have given the Philippines as much of a black eye as corruption. And certainly, if the killings continue, the enthusiasm of media to blow the whistle on corrupt practices will be even more impaired.

juana change calls out edwin lacierda

via Harvey Keh

Dear Atty. Edwin,

Tumaya at nangampanya ako para kay P-Noy! Pero aaminin kong meron akong interes na gustong isulong sa pagvo-volunteer sa kanya-ang makakita ng tunay na pagbabago sa gobyernong papalit kay GMA na kinasuklaman ko ng over. ‘Di na dapat maulit!

Ngayon panalo na si P-noy at boksingan na para sa mga posisyon. Kaya nga ako tumaya para may karapatan akong magsalita at tungkuling magbantay! Kahit na anong galing at kahit gaano kakailangan ni P-Noy ang serbisyo ng mga pinakamalalapit na kaibigan, kaklase o pamilya, dapat sila na mismo ang magparaya para makapasok ang mga sariwang mukha ng pagbaBAGO! Bagong dugong may kaalaman, eksperyensya at integridad. Sa pag-ikot ko, nakasalamuha ko ang napakaraming Pilipinong marangal at handang maglingkod kaso ‘di mga makakapal ang mukhang makipagbrasuhan sa posisyon.

Sa interview sa akin ng GMA tungkol dito ay iniwasan kong magbigay ng mga pangalan. Pero nasa isip ko na nuon ang mga Abad, Montelibano, at Juico.

Imbes ay pinili kong magpangalan sa isang artikulo ni Joy Aceron sa Facebook kung saan binanggit ko ang pangalan ng mga Abad dahil sila ay derechong makakabasa ng comment ko. Hindi ako kailanman nagalit sa mga Abad! Sinabi ko doon na sana ‘di naman mga pamil­ya ang nasa gobyerno gaano pa man sila kagagaling at kakailangan. Pwede din silang tumanggi!

Nakupo! Pinutakti na ako ng pangungutya ng mga tao ni P-Noy sa Facebook sa pangunguna ni Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda. Bakit daw galit ako sa mga Abad? Gusto daw nyang marinig ang punto ko pero ang pinakamatinong maibibigay nyang comment sa akin ay naiinggit lang daw ako! Sinabi ng writer ng presidente na masahol pa daw ako sa mga trapong kinasusuklaman ko! At sabi naman ng taga new media na mahusay mag inggles na ako daw ay isang weasel. Pinagtanong ko pa ang ibig sabihin ng weasel dahil ang alam ko lang ay hayop yun! Tinatawag palang weasel ang taong tumitira ng patalikod!

Pinagtatanggol lang daw ni Lacierda ang kanyang kaibigan. Usapin ito ng mga prinsipyo para sa tunay na pagbabago! Hindi ito kampihan!

Dahil sa aking pagsasalita, nagalit ang mga tao ni P-Noy sa akin. Ito ba ang uri ng mga taong nakapaligid sa kanya? ‘Di makuha ang isyung pinag-uusapan? At nagkakampihan?

Kami sa Pinoy Power ang humingingmakipag-usap sa kanila kung saan si Lacierda ay tahasang tumanggi! ‘Di na daw kailangang makipag-kape! Ganun? Kasi volunteer lang ako? Kasi sila naman ang nasa pwesto? Kasi takot siyang humarap dahil nagkamali sya sa banat nya sa akin ng patalikod? Dahil ‘di sya dapat bumitaw ng ganung mapagparatang na salita dahil spokesperson sya ni P-Noy? Walang b____? Gusto kong malaman!

Sa proclamation nag-abot ang aming mga tingin. Inabot ko ang aking kamay sa kanya at sabi ko, “Edwin magkape tayo.” Pautal syang umoo sa akin.

Tagapagsalita ka ng pangulo ng Pilipinas. Ako nagpaparating ng sentimyento ng taumbayan. Bakit ka galit sa akin?

Ganunpaman, ang anumang gusot ay dapat na napag-uusapan. Kaya ko yun Edwin. Dapat kaya mo rin! Kaya mo ba? Usap tayo!

Para sa bayan at mamamayan,

Mae Paner aka Juana Change

dinky soliman, NGOs, peace bonds

Peace Bond ghost to haunt Soliman
by Alvin Capino

When returning Social Welfare and Development Secretary Dinky Soliman goes through the wringer at the Commission on Appointments, we can expect her to be asked interesting questions not only about her record during her first stint in the department during the Arroyo Administration but on the controversial Peace Bond.

President-elect Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III should be interested too in Soliman’s explanation on the Peace Bond since it his cash-strapped administration which would now have the burden of finding the funds to pay the whopping P35 billion of maturing obligations for the P10 billion bonds issued in 2001.

So why should Soliman be asked to explain her role in the issuance of the controversial Peace Bond?

The Peace Bond, according to reports, was a fund raising scheme for non-governmental organizations cooked up by the NGO of NGOs, i.e. Code-NGO (Caucus of Development of NGO networks). Soliman and her husband lawyer Hector Soliman, as well as another member of the Arroyo Cabinet who is now returning as a key official of the Aquino administration, Ging Deles, are prime movers of this group.

Of course mention should also be made of Marissa Camacho-Reyes, sister of then Finance Secretary Lito Camacho, and Danny Songco as the principalsof the influential Code-NGO.

Just to highlight the influence of Code-NGO at that time, just a month after the issuance of the controversial Peace Bonds in October 2001, Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was the guest in the Code-NGO 3rd National Congress held at the UP Diliman where Mrs. Arroyo acknowledged the key role of Soliman, Deles and Songco in EDSA 2 and in her administration.

It was a very profitable scheme for Code-NGO. As the pre-designated conduit for the sale of the Peace Bonds, the secondary market Code-NGO earned a windfall of P1.48 billion in profits.

Remember this was in 2001. P1.48 billion then is even bigger than P1.48 billion now if you factor in inflation.

So what happened to the P1.48 billion windfall of Code-NGO? What Code-NGO did was to retain 10 percent for its endowment fund. The remaining 90 percent or P1.318 billion was transferred to the newly created Peace Equity Access for Community Empowerment Foundation (PEF).

In the Senate hearings conducted at the height of the controversy in 2001, Senator John Osmeña questioned the transfer of funds from Code-NGO to PEF. Osmeña observed then that the people behind PEF included Soliman and her husband.

Perhaps the members of the Commission on Appointments should ask Soliman ifshe was or is in any way involved with the Peace Foundation because in fairness to her and to her husband, their names do not appear in the list of members of the Board of Trustee of the Foundation.

Some people might ask: what’s wrong with civil society and non-government organization profiting from a government bond offering like the Peace Bond?

We remember an insightful and incisive article of Angela Stuart-Santiago on this issue which appeared in the defunct Today newspaper in May 18, 2002 title “Code-NGO, Fake NGO”.

Stuart-Santiago observed that availing of government funding as what Code-NGO did results in a “conflicted situation” where the NGO is placed in a position of “condoning government’s unsustainable development strategies” and “worse, it would mean changing from a purely non-government to a government organization (GO) or, at best, NGO ng GO, or NGONGO, how freaky.”

Looking at the Peace Bonds, Stuart-Santiago observed: “Certainly it was a remarkably creative capitalist coup, the way Marissa Camacho et al, using their connections, managed to exploit the government treasury and the banking system to make more than a billion out of thin air for poverty alleviation. But there is nothing heroic or evolutionary about it because it changes nothing in the long term. Bottom line is, it is just another two-handed scheme of the rich – helping the poor and, at the same time, shafting them by helping get the government even more deeply into debt that eventually the poor will be made to pay.”

She said the rich in the country as well as the Church is mired in a situation and she quoted the late environmentalist and NGO pioneer Maximo “Junie” Kalaw who founded Haribon Foundation and Green-Forum Philippines who talked of “the internal contradiction of donating to the poor with one hand and contributing to their poverty with the other.”

Indeed now that sh*t will hit the fan next year when the government pays P35 billion for the P10 billion Peace Bond, we can only imagine where the government will get the money and what projects would have to be shelved to pay for this huge obligation.

Perhaps it is timely for the Senate or the House of Representatives to take another look at the Peace Bond issue.

Seeing all the people behind the Peace Bond back in the saddle again, so to speak, in the Aquino administration makes us apprehensive. They might try a Peace Bond part 2 in order to pay for the maturing P35 billion for Peace Bond part 1.