It is asinine to compare the impeachment trial of Renato Corona to a case pending before a court of law.
An impeachment is a political process exclusive to the legislative branch of government while a court trial is a judicial process exclusive to the judicial branch of government.
Second, guilt beyond reasonable doubt is the bar in a court of law, while Aye and Nay votes that may or may not have anything to do with the guilt of the accused and do not even require an explanation from the senator/judges determine the outcome of an impeachment.
Third, the penalty for conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office. There is no imprisonment or fines that go with it whereas conviction in a court of law can carry a sentence of imprisonment plus fines.
Fourth, what is absolutely forbidden is to try to influence a proceeding in a court of law. It is a crime. But it is okay for anybody from the president on down to try to influence the outcome of an impeachment because it is a political process and the entire body politic has a stake in its outcome.
And so those who say that Pres Aquino committed an impeachable offense because he tried to sway senator/judges into voting to convict Corona are confusing a political process with a judicial proceeding, it is akin to mistaking a hole in the ground for one’s ass.
Sen Bong Revilla delivered an hour-long privilege speech at the Senate claiming politics was behind the plunder charges filed against him in connection with the PDAF scam. After listening to his protestations of innocence, he convinced me that he is guilty.
“The guards volunteered to go with the police. The video bears this out,” said Joey Salgado, Binay’s spokesman and chief information officer.
Mayor Binay passed through the Banyan Gate because he wanted to personally invite the gate guards to a Christmas party at Makati City Hall.
0:45 seconds, you see the mayor alighting from his tinted SUV to invite the guards.
1:39 The security guards do not recognize the mayor so some of the mayor’s bodyguards try to convince the guards that the man talking to them is who he claims he is.
1:55 One of the mayor’s bodyguards goes to the SUV and gets the party invitations for the guards. He tucks one invitation in his waistband.
2:44 Two Dasmariñas Village security guards arrive in motorbikes asking if they can come to the Christmas party too.
3:05 The mayor’s bodyguards tell them to wait for the mayor to invite them. “Kortesiya lang po kay mayor, hintayin ninyo ang imbitasyon niya,” they said
3:35 The mayor approaches the late arrivals and apologizes for not inviting them to the Christmas party. He promises to invite them to the New Year’s party instead.
3:55 Sen. Nanct Binay gets impatient. “Junjun, kung ayaw nila sumama sa party, let’s go na lang, we’re late.”
4:20 Makati cops arrive to give the invited security guards a ride to the party.
Let’s be fair to the Binays. Stop the hate.
“It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” – Abraham Maslow
Mama gave her 12 year old child a laptop because he needs it for school. One day she catches him watching porn. She freaks. So she installs all sorts of parental controls in the laptop. But the kid is a horny techie and breaks through mama’s walls easily.
Mama catches the kid again. This time she is super freaked and takes the laptop away.
“Absolutely no more internet for you until you are 18,” she says.
“But I need it for school, mama.”
“Not anymore,” she replies, “I’m moving you to another high school where they don’t use the internet.”
“You’re moving me to Flintstones High?”
“Yes, because as far as I’m concerned that’s the only way to keep you away from porn,” she said with finality.
Later that evening mama is watching the news and she learns about Janet Napoles. She is aghast.
“My God! Those crooks should be jailed!”
Cynical papa who is sitting beside her on the couch replies,
“Honey, you can jail those crooks but others will just take their place.”
“But we cannot tolerate corruption. We have to do something,” she protests.
Papa replies, “You could ask the government to put in stricter controls.”
“Good idea,” she says.
She gathered her friends the following day.
“I’m sure you saw the news. You must be as outraged as I am by the Napoles scam,” she said.
“Yes, how awful,” they replied. “We have to do something about it. We can’t have our children growing up in that kind of world.”
Someone stood up and said, “Let’s make our voices heard. Let’s march. Let’s call for plugging the leaks and jailing the crooks.” And they all began to chant, “Plug the leaks, plug the leaks, jail the crooks, jail the crooks.”
The problems of the world were solved and they all went home happy. Over dinner, mama told papa about the meeting.
“But you’ve been overtaken by events,” he said
“What do you mean?” she asked.
“The administration announced it is adding stricter controls,” he told her.
“That’s great news!” she exclaimed.
He replied, “I hate to be the one to tell you this but I’m pretty sure crooks will still find a way to get their hands on the money.”
Mama was appalled. She called another meeting to tell her friends the ugly reality she learned from papa.
“It seems that we can’t eliminate stealing just like that,” she told them.
“What do we do now?” they asked each other.
“We need to learn more about the issue,” one observed.
“Let’s invite experts to explain it to us,” another proposed.
And so experts were invited to a series of merienda lectures. Scholars from academe, political analysts, economists, lawyers, politicians, clerics, business and civil society leaders, communists, columnists, and anybody who had an opinion on anything showed up. And they lectured. And they ate. Between bites, one said this, the other said that, and on and on and on. There were so many opinions expressed and so many nuances pointed out that no one came out any wiser, only fatter from gorging on too many meriendas.
Halfway through the merienda lecture series, mama told her group, “No more lectures! I have a simple solution. Let’s just take away the money!”
“That’s right!” the group replied. And they began to chant,
“Take away the money! Take away the money!”
At long last the final solution to the problem of corruption was found. Take away the money. Everyone would be going home happy and self-satisfied. And then it happened.
There is always, in any gathering, someone who has to say the most uncomfortable thing at the worst possible time. She said, “Take away the money, take away the laptop. That’s how we solve problems?”
The theme of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s interminable privilege speech, “The untold PDAF story that the people should know”, is selective justice is injustice or as we say in Tagalog, “Bakit kami lang?”
He said, “We have been singled out, Mr. President, as our people should know, in the so-called 10-billion peso PDAF scam.”
As proof of being singled out, he pointed to 82 foundations, numerous local government units, and other members of Congress mentioned in the COA report as also having engaged in questionable transactions.
“What makes us so special Chairman Pulido-Tan?” he asked the chair of the Commission on Audit.
Yes, Madame Chair, what makes him and his co-accused so special?
Nothing except that they were stupid enough to get caught. The others who remain uncharged had enough smarts not to partner with Janet Napoles. As we would say in Tagalog, Oo maraming gago sa gobyerno, hindi lang kayo, ngunit mukhang kayo lang ang gagong bobo. Sa karami-raming questionable NGOs na pagpipilian ninyo na maka-partner, bakit si Napoles pa ang pinili ninyo? Stroke of genius po ba yun?
Contrary to what Sen. Estrada believes, he and his friends were not singled out by “certain institutions, like the media, the Commission on Audit, the Department of Budget and Management, and even the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Senate”, they were singled out by whistleblowers who provided the authorities with a truckload of documents detailing their transactions. And so they became the low-hanging fruits in a vast orchard of crooks.
Sexy, Pogi, and Tanda will not be the only ones charged, there will be others, but the distinction of being the first fruits picked will belong to them. They could also earn a further distinction – if they pursue the line that they did not know that their most trusted staffers were engaged in unauthorized criminal activities – of being the first senators to be charged with plunder complexed with stupidity.
There was also another interesting, and probably unwitting, revelation by Sen. Estrada, one that raised the question, “on which side of the political fence was he during Gloria Arroyo’s nine-year rule?”
He said, “During the administration of President Gloria Arroyo, it was a known fact that those who were not friendly, or allies of her government had to beg for the release of their PDAF and infrastructure funds. Some of us just totally gave up and chose not to avail of our allocations because we knew that we will not get any releases because we are from the opposition. We know too that the executive has used the releases for PDAF and infrastructure projects as a form of reward or incentive to secure the support of legislators for or against certain pet legislations or for other political purposes.”
Ano ba yan pinagsasabi mo, Senator?
Sen. Estrada was with the opposition and yet he received hundreds of millions in PDAF from Gloria Arroyo. How did that happen? Was he or was he not with the opposition? Furthermore, did he recieve PDAF from Gloria “as a form of reward or incentive to secure the support of legislators for or against certain pet legislations or for other political purposes”?
Finally, I feel sorry for impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona who rejoiced when he heard Sen. Estrada say, “Hahayaan ko na ang taong bayan ang gumawa ng konklusyon kung ito ay totoo o hindi, pero ito ang aking maidadagdag sa kwento — after the conviction of the former chief justice, those who voted to convict were allotted an additional 50 million pesos as provided in a private and confidential letter memorandum of the then chair of the senate finance committee.”
Corona immediately issued a statement, “Nagpapasalamat ako sa Diyos sa bindikasyon na ibinigay niya sa akin sa araw na ito. Hindi ako nagulat sa rebelasyon ni Sen Estrada sapagka’t kinompirma lamang niya ang alam namin at ng marami sa ating mga kababayan.”
Sorry Chief but Jinggoy God took back whatever vindication He gave you.
During the interpellation period, Sen. Enrile, who as Senate President presided over Corona’s impeachment trial, asked Jinggoy God (JG) if He was making bribery accusations. JG said He was approached by someone but was not offered a bribe. Sen. Drilon then asked, “But categorically, You can state it was not a bribe?” JG replied, “It was not a bribe. It was never a bribe.” Then Enrile asked, “It was simply an appeal?” And JG replied, “It was simply an appeal. There [were] no talks of giving a reward.”
And so ex-Chief Justice Corona still awaits vindication. That’s what he gets for elevating Jinggoy Estrada to Godhood.
Now can we move on and let the NBI and the Ombudsman do their jobs? Jails are waiting.
In his Manila Standard Today column, Kit Tatad wrote
- Contrary to what the nation and the rest of the world have been led to believe, President Benigno S. Aquino III spent several hours in “closed- door conversations” with Janet Lim Napoles, the suspected mastermind in the alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam involving selected opposition lawmakers, before showcasing to the media her formal “surrender” to “the only person she trusted,” on the evening of August 28, 2013, authoritative sources have revealed.
The revelation is certain to be denied, for obvious reasons, but it comes from highly authoritative sources whose loyalty to Aquino is exceeded only by their loyalty to the truth and who shared the story with extreme pain and sadness. They just could not bear what to them is a “grand deception,” a deliberate and cold-blooded attempt to mislead and deceive the people on Malacanang’s real role and interest in the Napoles case.
To them, it affects the whole fabric of morality in government, and ultimately Aquino’s moral fitness to remain in office.
The Palace responded calling Tatad’s allegation a “tall tale”
- From the Office of the Presidential Spokesperson
The claim of Marcos-era Public Information Minister Senator Francisco S. Tatad that the President spent several hours in “closed-door conversations” with Janet Lim Napoles on Wednesday, August 28, 2013, is pure fiction.
Tatad has asserted the following in public statements on different media:
Napoles arrived at Malacañan Palace at 10:27 a.m. accompanied by Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda;
She remained in a room for the next six hours, meeting behind closed doors with the President, Secretary of the Interior and Local Government Mar Roxas, and Lacierda; and
Other cabinet members joined the meeting, namely Cabinet Secretary Rene Almendras, Secretary of Budget and Management Florencio Abad, and Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa.
This administration believes in truthful and transparent reportage, which the former Marcos-appointee may not be accustomed to. As such, we are publishing below the President’s official working schedule for that day as sent to the Malacañang Press Corps:
10:00 a.m. – 8th East Asia Conference on Competition Law and Policy
(Venue: Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila)
1:30 p.m. – 27th Apolinario Mabini Awarding Ceremony
(Venue: Heroes Hall)
3:00 PM – Meeting with ES, DBM, DOF
(Venue: Study Conference Room)
4:00 PM – Meeting with SOTC, et al
(Venue: Study Conference Room)
The storyline pushed by Tatad is an obvious fabrication. The President was at two high-profile events at 10:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. with hundreds of attendees. At both events the President also delivered speeches, the videos of which are now collectively embedded on the President’s Day page for August 28, 2013.
Meanwhile, Secretary Abad denies having gone to the Palace at all on that day. He was at his office from 12:15 p.m. until having to leave for a 3:00 p.m. meeting in Quezon City and from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. was at the DILG to meet with some organizers and attendees of the One Million People March.
This grandiose conspiracy theory peddled by Tatad is symptomatic of the old order that has been swept away. He represents what is wrong with our politics, and over the last decade, the Filipino people have made that abundantly clear by denying his return to public office twice.
Let’s have a televised face-off between Tatad and Lacierda.
He thought the president had gone back to Manila so he went to Zamboanga City, with his Jun-Jun in tow, to show the nation that they did not have to wait for 2016 for him to become their Commander in Chief. He came armed with a press release that claimed he had brokered a ceasefire between Nur Misuari and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin.
“Both sides agreed to stop the fighting while pursuing a peaceful settlement. They agreed to implement a ceasefire as soon as possible tonight,” said Binay when reached by phone at midnight Friday.
But a Cabinet official speaking on background said, “He is trying to insert himself. He’s jeopardizing the safety of the troops because of politicking.”
Zamboanga City Mayor Isabelle Climaco-Salazar, who heads the Crisis Management Committee (CMC), asked the people of Zamboanga “to help defend your communities and coordinate with the police and military. Set-up early warning system and report sightings. We do not want them (MNLF) to get out scot-free. We do not want them to leave with a free pass.”
Binay returned to Manila Saturday night. Empty-handed, except for a tattered unpublished press release hailing him as a hero and peacemaker.
I predict Tanda will be acquitted. Pogi will admit he is Pogi. Sexy will also admit but he will face an additional charge of perjury.
Tanda has from the very beginning stated that he does not know Napoles, that he has had no dealings with her. In addition, he said that due to his age his doctors have advised him to stay away from pork. And so he passed the pork to his chief of staff. He is off the hook. But that has placed his chief of staff on the spot.
Prosecutor: “Madame, who is the Tanda referred to in the code book of Mrs. Napoles?”
Chief of Staff: “I don’t know.”
Prosecutor: “A number of witnesses testified that Tanda was Mrs. Napoles’ code name for your boss.”
Chief of staff: “My boss does not know Mrs. Napoles, he has never had any dealings with her.”
Prosecutor: “But documents show that his PDAF went to NGOs controlled by Napoles. If he never had any dealings with Napoles then that leaves you, Madame. Are you therefore the Tanda in the code book of Mrs. Napoles?”
Chief of Staff: “How dare you! I am not tanda, excuse me, may asim pa ako!”
Sandigan Judge: “May asim pa nga siya. (Stage whisper: “Miss, pwede mo ba ako i-friend sa FB?”) Not guilty! ”
Pogi was next on the stand.
Prosecutor: “Senator, are you Pogi?”
Pogi: “I hear that a lot, sir.”
Prosecutor: “So you are admitting that you are Pogi?”
Pogi: “Hindi naman po sa pagyayabang pero hindi lang si Janet ang tumatawag sa akin ng pogi.”
Prosecutor: “Aha! Meron pa palang iba maliban kay Mrs. Napoles?”
Pogi: “Of course, hindi lang siya, box office king ako, sir, malakas akong tumabo sa taquilla.”
Prosecutor: “Malakas kang tumabo?”
Pogi: “Yes sir.”
Prosecutor: “The State rests, Your Honors.”
Sandigan jusdges: “Guilty!”
It is Sexy’s turn.
Prosecutor: “Are you Sexy?”
Sexy: “Well, I have been called sexy ever since I lost a lot of weight.”
Prosecutor: “Mr. Senator, remember that you are under oath, let me ask you again and I advise you to weigh your answer carefully, are you Sexy?”
Prosecutor: “Your Honors, I would like to cite the senator for perjury.”
Sandigan judges: “Kuya, are you sure you want to stand by your statement that you are sexy?”
What will have more profound impact on society, Janet Napoles going to jail or a bunch of senators and congressman going to jail?
Media has been fueling speculations about the Napoles surrender as if it was a privilege that was accorded to her because of her irresistible influence and connections or that it fits with some kind of Palace masterplan to destroy the opposition.
It was not a privilege. Napoles surrendered to the president because she believed he could guarantee her safety. She had accused the NBI of extortion. Who in their right mind would surrender to the very people you accuse of extortion?
She was also a threat to those legislators who are suspected of conniving with her. She could bring them down with her.
She tried to surrender to Cardinal Tagle but he, unlike other bishops, knows the line between church and state. He refused to become involved.
Ultimately, Napoles was the only one who could decide whether to surrender or not and to whom to surrender. When she decided to surrender to the president, he was left with one of two options, accept her surrender or keep looking for her. If you were the president what would you do?
The more important issue is the speculation that the surrender of Napoles was some kind of masterplan to destroy the opposition. The spin fits perfectly with the attempts of the suspected associates of Napoles to deflect the people’s anger.
Remember the initial reaction of the suspects when the Napoles case first hit the front pages? They asked why only us the opposition; what about administration allies? They also decried the drip-drip of information coming from the Commission on Audit and the Justice Department.
They had a good propaganda line until the COA report finally came out and the entire list of legislators and NGOs were published. That forced the suspected legislators to shift gears. They began to point to the P3B error involving Rep. Zamora and the Luis Abalos who turned out to be BenHur, as if those minor errors that the COA clarified immediately were enough to discredit the report in its entirety. They began characterizing the report as riddled with errors, asking how it can be trusted if such blatant mistakes were not seen right away. Well, you can’t blame suspects for exploring every avenue to save their asses.
As early as the midnight presson of DILG secretary Mar Roxas one reporter already tried to put a negative spin on the Napoles surrender. She was so insistent on injecting doubt that an exasperated Mar Roxas asked her, “ano ba ito, sala sa lamig sala sa init?”
The reporter who I assume was only trying to put a dramatic angle to the story unwittingly plowed the field for Jinggoy Estrada to plant seeds of doubt in an otherwise straightforward surrender.
Today Jinggoy Estrada faced media and said, “I’m not saying that she will be used. But there are chances since she is already in government custody. As I mentioned earlier, some unscrupulous elements might just put words into her mouth.” In other words, it’s all part of a script?
It would be great if everyone involved in the scam were to land in jail, but what if you had to plea bargain with Napoles to get the senators and congressmen, would you? I would.
I would allow her to plea to a lesser sentence, even probation, if she can give testimony that will lead to a conviction for those senators and congressmen. Because that will have a more profound impact on the national psyche. In a few years, Napoles will just be another crook convicted of corruption but a bunch of senators and congressmen going to jail is for the history books.
Napoles could turn from a heel to a hero, if she makes the right choice.
We have become too fixated on the corruption relating to pork barrel and we have lose sight of the fact that there are people who really need help. There are plenty of them. And many of them have been helped.
Unfortunately, we have this black and white approach of “Let’s abolish pork. Period.” So everybody pays for the sins of the few.
But the only question worth asking is, did the intended beneficiaries get what they were supposed to get?
If the answer is yes, then don’t take their assistance away. If the answer is no, then look at why they did not get it and find a way to ensure that they get it.
The fault lies with the senator or congressman. The legislator requested the allocation, identified the beneficiaries, picked the implementing agency and recommended to it the NGO that will receive the funds.
Puno at dulo ang importante. All that matters is for the beneficiaries to get what they need. In full.
It is not the existence of pork that is wrong, what is wrong is the way that some have used it. The problem is the pigs not the pork barrel. What is there to complain about if assistance goes to those who really need it?
The million people march on the 26th asks (1) for the abolition of pork barrel; (2) for the investigation and prosecution of those involved in the scam.
I agree with the second reason. As to the first, let’s give it more serious thought -for the sake of those who have been helped and continue to be helped by small-scale infra-projects like irrigation systems, safe drinking water, waiting sheds, small bridges so that school children don’t have to balance themselves on makeshift bridges crossing streams on their way to school, rural clinics, etc.; and those who have been helped and continue to be helped by soft pork like medical assistance, vaccination programs, feeding programs, livelihood training programs, farm implements, scholarships, help to bury their dead etc.
It is the micro-level assistance provided by good pork that makes me hesitate adding my voice to the clamor for the outright abolition of all types of pork. Many of those who call for the abolition of pork are a step removed from the lives of the intended beneficiaries of pork. They can take the long macro-view.
Don’t get me wrong. I too beleieve that looking at the big picture is good. However, while we think big and long, let’s also not forget that millions of our people simply have to make it through the day.
Let’s make sure that those who live day to day, hand to mouth, can live long enough to benefit from the long-term all-encompassing solutions that we are cooking up for them.
There is a simple way to make pork work. Hold the legislators accountable. First and last. No fingerpointing to implementing agencies or NGOs. If something goes wrong along the way then it is the legislator’s fault. He has to fix it himself.
Because there is no excuse in the world that will justify why a legislator’s pork goes to other than his intended beneficiaries. The only way pork can be lost is if the legislator steals it or does not keep a watchful eye over it. If he does not have the resources to monitor his projects then he should not embark on them. He will just be throwing away money that can be spent on those who need it. He should just give his pork projects to some other legislator who can make it happen.
The important thing is for pork to get to intended beneficiaries. In full. It does not really matter how it gets to benficiaries as long as it gets to them. Beneficiaries don’t really give a shit how it gets to them as long as they get it, right?
Let’s call for full transparency on the part of the legislators. Every allocation, every project, every distribution, must be reported in detail, progress and completion reports, all readily available to the public as they happen. That way responsibility is clear and accountability can be exacted.
Let’s fix the problem without hurting those who need it most.