spinning the walkout & the waiver #cj trial

wikipedia: In labor disputes, a walkout is a labor strike, the act of employees collectively leaving the workplace as an act of protest.

free dictionary: walk out 1. To go on strike. 2. To leave suddenly, often as a signal of disapproval.

merriam-webster: WALK OUT  1: to leave suddenly often as an expression of disapproval 2: to go on strike

was just listening to atty tranquil salvador on dzmm.  he gets A for eyffort, but i don’t buy the illness excuse, that corona was feeling so sick he didn’t know what he was doing, and that he may have thought nakapagpaalam na siya nang maayos.

what happened, what we saw, was a walkout, consistent, of a piece, with the belligerent barako tenor of his 3-hour performance statement.

if it were true that he was feeling ill, he couldn’t have stood up so easily, stepped down from the witness stand without a pause, or walked out so quickly and steadily without help.  if he were truly feeling hypoglycaemic, it would have made more sense to remain seated, ask for a coke, then ask to be excused and helped out of the place rather than risk the indignity of a collapse while walking out.

if he were truly feeling ill, but he was sure he could manage to walk out with dignity, then the first thing he or his wife or daughter should have sent for was a coke, whatever, instead of heading straight toward an exit where his car was waiting, motor running (o baka naman may coke doon), to take him away who knows where, possibly the supreme court, for the next phase of the battle.

i daresay that the illness set in only when he realized that his ploy had failed and so nag-regroup, asked for a coke and then a wheelchair.

i daresay that if the chief justice had gotten away before the lockdown, it would be an entirely different story unfolding.

and so the spin that it wasn’t a walkout but force majeure, coming from some senator-judges, only betrays how their trapo minds work and, of course, how they’re going to vote.  why else would they be making excuses for him.

Senate Majority Floor Leader Vicente Sotto III said there was no walkout because Corona sought the court’s permission before leaving. His only fault, he said, was that he did not wait for Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding judge, to discharge him.

“You cannot call it walkout, although it was not the proper procedure,” Sotto said.

Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. also believed there was no walkout because the Chief Justice returned to the session hall later in a wheelchair.

as for the conditional waiver: the spin is that it’s merely a diversionary tactic.  hmm.  read Corona’s challenge by rene azurin:

Regardless of how one feels about Mr. Corona and his alleged crimes, the words with which he ended his statement at the Senate last Tuesday accurately reflect what many Filipinos feel at this point: “…I beg you, ladies and gentlemen of the prosecution, not to engage me in argumentation about who is on trial here. We — you and me — are on trial here. Let’s stop all this posturing and show the Filipino nation what we’re made of…This is an invitation, a challenge for public accountability made only with the hope that we can all together give our nation one shining moment in public service.” Very well said.

The Filipino people have not hitherto been able to do any wholesale cleaning up of our messed-up government, mainly because the political and economic elite who run this country have been careful not to provide us (the powerless masses) with the means or the opportunity. Mr. Corona’s challenge opens the door a crack. If we are serious about wanting reform in this country, we should all add our collective voice to his and loudly insist on implementing what he has proposed.

senator judge drilon finds corona’s challenge ‘funny’ (as in, more fun-ny in the philippines?) while also warning that opening all government officials’ foreign currency deposits for scrutiny would be “disastrous to the banking system.”  the fear, i hear, is that government officials with unexplained wealth would be constrained to move their funds to “more hospitable jurisdictions” (as an fb friend puts it), which would be bad for the banks, baka magka-bank run pag na-tense rin ang ordinary depositors.

hmm.  but our banks are awash with cash: Philippine banks very liquid–BSP.  and if what my fb friend says is true, that “there are more prosperous business men and professionals than public officials in the banking system,” then it would seem that the banking system should be able to withstand the disaster drilon warns of.  a proper information campaign addressed to, and assuring, ordinary if rich depositors that they would not be affected would go a long way towards preventing bank runs.  it’s time the banking system took a stand against corruption, and for the legitimately private-citizen rich to stand by their banks.

the hitch, correct me if i’m wrong, is that under the bank secrecy law, we have no way of knowing who these crooked government officials are who would move unexplained wealth out of the country.  and even if we demanded a law that makes it mandatory for all government officials, appointive and elective, to waive privacy rights to their bank accounts upon assuming office, again, there would be nothing to prevent them from bankng unexplained wealth abroad.  hayyy.  paano na nga ba.

but first things first.  the latest from anc is that corona will attend the trial tomorrow and that he will submit an unconditional waiver, his way of proving that it is not he, but drilon & the reps, who have something to hide.

if true, then maybe he still has a chance of being acquitted.  although according to ellen tordesillas, the palace already had enough votes (16 of 23) to convict even before may 22.  we will know soon enough.