Newsbreak reported that Executive Secretary Ochoa was “drunk as a skunk just days after the Luneta bloodbath”

MANILA, Philippines–We’d probably let this pass if it didn’t happen three nights after the Luneta bloodbath. After all, public officials–even those closest to President Aquino, are entitled to their own personal time outside office hours.

But Executive Secretary Paquito “Jojo” Ochoa Jr. should have known better.

According to people who saw him at around 2 a.m. of Friday last week, Ochoa was very drunk at the lobby of the Manila Peninsula, oblivious to the other few guests who were still there, and apparently unmindful of what the rest of the grieving and depressed metropolis was feeling in the aftermath of the bloody hostage at the Luneta.

According to Newsbreak informants, Ochoa was slumped in a chair at the lobby, having the grand time of his life with a popular singer-actress, who was with two lady friends. Malacañang security aides hovered around while their boss continued to drink with his lady guests.

Our informants were shocked to see him there. “At the very least, it’s so unbecoming of a Little President. He should have been more circumspect,” they said.

But what did we expect? This is the same guy who, as Newsbreak reported earlier, celebrated President Noynoy Aquino’s inauguration by having a drinking spree in Malacañang with his deputies.

Newsbreak’s beef is that Ochoa was “apparently unmindful of what the rest of the grieving and depressed metropolis was feeling in the aftermath of the bloody hostage at the Luneta.”

Now why tie the two together - public drunkenness and the Luneta tragedy?
“We’d probably let this pass if it didn’t happen three nights after the Luneta bloodbath.”

No sirree, Newsbreak. There’s a bigger issue out there and it shouldn’t get muddled up, tied to something that will eventually fade from the headlines.

The real issue is Ochoa is the Little President and he should not behave like a Little Erap, not in public, hostage tragedies or none. Period.

He holds a very sensitive position in the administration and he cannot afford to behave in a manner that would undermine the public’s confidence in his ability to function efficiently at all times. He should be aware that any doubts about his character and abilities reflect on his President.

Now I am not criticizing Ochoa for enjoying his drink. Some people actually perform better when they are “under the influence”. Churchill was a notorious drunk but he seems to have steered the British Ship of State quite well during WWII. So it’s not the imbibing that bothers me.

What bothers me is that Ochoa did not seem to care that public drunkenness, specially when it involves a government official, is not sweet. Maybe he was just too drunk to give a shit.

PNoy must tell Ochoa that he is not anymore just some lawyer in a hole in the wall law firm.

How?

From the Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines – The missing P711 billion in automatic and continuing appropriations from the proposed P1.645 trillion budget for 2011 had the minority bloc in the House of Representatives raising a howl over what it said was the Aquino administration’s attempt to “demean Congress.”

At the start of deliberations on the proposed budget Wednesday, Minority leader and Albay Representative Edcel Lagman riled against the omission of the amount in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) submitted to Congress.

“It’s obvious, they wanted to demean the power of Congress to go oversee these expenditures,” Lagman told reporters in a news conference, adding that this was impliedly admitted by Budget officials during the hearing.

“That should not be the case,” he added.

Sounds reasonable. No?

Here’s the PDI report on Budget Director Butch Abad’s response:

In his presentation, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad said the amount was not submitted as part of the NEP because “automatically appropriated items have already been given continuing authority.”

Abad said this prevented a repeat of what happened in the 2010 budget “where Congress adjusted downwards the interest rate assumption to save P64.6 billion for interest payments, and transferred the same to the general appropriations for Congressional initiatives.”

This was, however, vetoed by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and was reverted back to debt payments.

So Jabba kept quite when Gloria did the same thing Aquino is doing to them now? But Gloria always had paper bags handy whenever the crocodiles were restless.

But that’s beside the point. Let’s leave Jabba’s double-standards for another day.

The real issue here is Jabba is crying over P711 B that would have gone to members of Congress. He has the gall to do the “separate but equal” song and dance just so he can feast on more pork Ang taba na nga ang takaw pa din.

And now on to Thelmo Cunanan, the former chairman of the Social Security System ( SSS) who made millions exercising stock options offered by Philex Mining to its board members.

Cunanan was on the board of Philex Mining as a representative of the SSS which had substantial investments in Philex. So it’s clear he was not there because he personally owned a huge block of Philex shares.

So why did Cunanan avail of the stock options and pocket the profits from the sale of the stocks he purchased as a representative of the SSS?

Here’s his reason:

“Art. 8 of the Philex Corp. Stock Option Plan states that ‘no rights may be transferred, sold, exchanged, pledged, disposed of or otherwise hypothecated or encumbered by a Participant or any beneficiary thereof…’ If (I) did not avail of them … the SSS couldn’t have either because of this provision.”

So sa madaling salita, Cunana said he would have given it to SSS if he could but since he couldn’t he decided to keep it for himself. Ayus ba?

“A curious, but probably correct, thing was that there was a negative reaction in Beijing to the news that Hong Kong’s Donald Tsang had called President Aquino of the Philippines about the hostage crisis. Beijing considered it as a breach of state protocol regarding international relations: Beijing strongly felt that Tsang did not have the prerogative to do that because Beijing reserved that privilege for itself.”

Read more HERE

Too many experts

“Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair.” – George Burns

I agreed with most of the expert opinion regarding the Luneta tragedy but I disagreed with two in particular: criticism of the Palace aide who screened the call of Hongkong chief executive Donald Tsang and criticism of the negotiators for not giving in to Capt. Mendoza’s demands.

The Palace aide did the right thing. He referred a cold call from someone claiming to be Donald Tsang to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). He was screening a call to the president not hiding behind bureaucratic procedure. Was he expected to verify the authenticity of the call himself? Was he supposed to recognize Mr. Tsang by his voice (Dapat bang nabosesan niya si Tsang)?”

It could have been a prank call similar to the one Sarah Palin fell for when she was a candidate for US vice president - a radio talk-show jockey pretending to be French president Nicholas Sarkozy called her up and aired their conversation live. What if that happened to President Aquino because some Palace aide decided to cut through red tape this one time, do we have a jolly laugh at his and the country’s expense?

You can blame the DFA for not getting in touch with Mr. Tsang immediately - it could have ordered the Philippine consul general in Hongkong to see the man personally if, as the department claimed, his phone was busy. Or you can blame Mr. Tsang for not following protocol, ignorance is no excuse, but that would be rubbing salt. But you cannot blame the Palace aide for screening calls to the president. Those who knock him for following protocol do not know the meaning of the word and why it’s there in the first place. They should look it up.

The same so-called experts also faulted the negotiators for not giving in to Capt. Mendoza’s demands. “Lives could have been saved,” they said.

Let’s play out that ideal scenario:

Negotiator: “Capt. Mendoza, I’m happy to announce that your demands have been met. Will you now let the hostages go, please?”

Capt. Mendoza: “Yes, of course. And thank you for giving me justice… and lunch.” (Turns to hostages) “Sorry for the inconvenience, you can all go.”

Negotiator: (Shaking hands with Capt. Mendoza) “You’re a reasonable guy after all. Let’s all pose for a group picture in front of the bus.”

Hostages: (Chanting) “Group hug, group hug…”

Seriously folks, hostage situations do not usually end well. For hostages, it’s hope for the best. For hostage-takers, it’s surrender or be killed. How many hostage-takers have you seen walking away scot-free? Well okay, with the exception of those bandits who kidnapped tourists in Dos Palmas, Palawan.

Anyway, hostage negotiations are mind games; that’s why their outcome is always “iffy”. There is no sure-fire way to deal with hostage-takers. Although there are some methods that serve as models, everything, at the end of the day, has to be done by “feel”. That’s why there is not much negotiators can do other than humor a hostage-taker to exhaustion and peaceful surrender or to distraction and neutralization.

Last Monday’s negotiators risked their lives by going to the bus and trying to talk some sense and humanity into Capt. Mendoza. They didn’t make him kill innocent people; he chose to kill them.

There is one other thing I disagree with and that is blaming Gloria Arroyo for the tragedy because she didn’t leave President Aquino with a well-equipped and well-trained police force. Aquino is now in charge, not Gloria; he must do with what he’s got.

Still Gloria’s minions need not seize on last Monday’s tragedy as proof that Gloria is better at hostage situations. Remember Dos Palmas? How long did that take and, in addition to Guillermo Sobero who was beheaded, how many hostages and soldiers were killed before Gloria got Gracia Burnham rescued?

Apropos my column on “More than a tragedy” some Charter change advocates called to say I should have spelled out the reforms needed so that Monday’s disastrous fiasco might not have happened. There are other reforms. What is clear is we have a system that gave rise to the incompetence. Indeed, in the personality based presidential system that we have, the election and appointment of incompetents is an expected hazard.

It would not be so if we had a party-based parliamentary government. The choice of a leader will depend on his ability to see the program through if the party is to remain in office. Even before he assumes office he is already under scrutiny for capability by his peers. He is a first among equals, not a popularity figure.

There are no bungled hostage situations in countries that have a parliamentary system. Their leaders do not mess up because their selection system is fool-proof. Wow.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda sums up what those morning-after quarterbacks are saying about Monday’s tragedy. And it’s the same refrain I heard after the attack on WTC, the hostage-taking in Russia, the assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas and a whole host of incidents that did not have a happy ending.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda is not for those who only know what they saw on TV. That was only a part of the entire thing. Viewers did not see what went on behind the scenes, what went on in the bus etc. etc. There are so many things to be looked into before anyone can say woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Authorities must do a post-game analysis so that mistakes made are not repeated. Monday’s incident is not the first nor will it be the last.

In situations like last Monday’s, the public needs to be assured that authorities know what they are doing so that even if things turn out badly there will be no loss of confidence in the capability of law enforcers.

No one can predict the outcome of a hostage situation so authorities have to look like they are ready for anything. Recall the Entebbe hijacking and the Israeli rescue operation. Some hostages were saved and others were killed but because the operation looked very efficient, the public focused on the hostages saved instead of those killed and the rescue was deemed a success.

Last Monday, unfortunately, it looked like the cops didn’t know what they were doing. And so experts mushroomed and the blame game became the most popular sport in town.

“Where there’s smoke, there are mirrors.”

On July 30 President Aquino signed Executive Order 1 creating the Truth Commission. Maj. Gen. Juancho Sabban, Marines commandant, immediately declared that his men would testify about cheating in the 2004 elections.

Col. Angel Querubin, the highly decorated soldier charged with trying to overthrow Gloria Arroyo, welcomed the good news. “The statement of General Sabban, that the Marines will cooperate, will snowball….”

All of a sudden Rear Adm. Feliciano Angue, former head of the National Capital Region (NCR) Command, came out of the cold to reveal that a “group of politicians” offered him money and rank to cheat for them in the 2004 elections.

“That’s millions, and this has a corresponding statement that you will be given an assignment that you want. That is not a laughing matter,” he said.

Nobody laughed. Instead, the media pressed Angue for details. And Angue obliged.

“They wanted me and my command to just let them do their machinations to attain the election results they want. They wanted to assign soldiers as board of election inspectors; assign soldiers and policemen of their choice to specific polling places to carry out their instructions; control the provincial and municipal election officials to submit to their wishes; control the distribution and retrieval of election paraphernalia and electoral personnel; and control the canvassing processes at precincts, municipalities and province-wide.”

Angue said he refused, and thus paid the price. He was relieved of his command.

“Why is it that one is punished for doing what is right?” he lamented.

And so the media asked Angue to identify the crooked politicians. Angue did not oblige.

“Let’s not make any assumptions, especially on personalities involved. I have named those involved in my testimony [before the Mayuga board]. It may be unfair to others who may be unjustly assumed to be behind the attempt,” he said.

However, he revealed that a certain “Captain Ball” was behind the cheating.

“He was a very influential person. He personally went around to talk to people. He went to see me. He came to see me to give me a dressing down.” He added, “He [Captain Ball] said, ‘If you do not do as I say, then look for the farthest place where you will be banished.’ After the elections, there was a threat of physical elimination.”

The media asked Angue to identify Captain Ball. Again, Angue did not oblige.

“For now I don’t want to talk about personalities. When I testify [before the Truth Commission], I will reveal who this person is.”

And then it happened, after Angue had the media and the public eating out of his hand.

Angue the incorruptible soldier who was going to tell all suddenly changed the topic from cheating to finding fault with the new administration’s goal of righting past wrongs. He alleged that soldiers who supported Mr. Aquino shafted him, that he was being punished for maintaining neutrality.

“It’s a reduction from three-star position to two-star. What do you call that? Is it a promotion? Is it a demotion? Is it lateral? They would reduce me to a two-star position so that I cannot claim the third star, that is the case.” He was furious.

He warned that the promotions and assignments system in the military was being ignored, and that it could lead to demoralization in the ranks. As expected, a congressman immediately called for a probe “into the sufficiency of rules and regulations for the selection of the Armed Forces of the Philippines for promotion or assignment to major positions.”

Congress will now focus on the alleged injustice done to Angue. Never mind that he was a midnight appointee chosen for a command that would have had him holding the nation’s capital if the plan to “fail” the election succeeded. Gloria Arroyo’s House allies will proceed on the assumption that Gloria appointed Angue NCR commander because of his professionalism and sterling service record. They will feast on the AFP brass, Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, and Mr. Aquino. Putting closure to the cheating in 2004 will be left out in the cold. Say bye-bye to Querubin’s snowball.

Well done, Mister Angue.

“PLEASE DON’T ask me to defend Hacienda Luisita,” was the late President Cory Aquino’s tart retort in an interview with her shortly after she assumed office. At that time, the “Stock Distribution Option” or SDO had just become the most controversial provision of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Critics alleged the alternative of distributing stocks of ownership in the company instead of distributing land in a plantation was created precisely to benefit the President’s family which owned Hacienda Luisita.

Actually, there was a point to President Cory’s assertion. Hacienda Luisita and the SDO had enough defenders, and anything she said would have been construed as self-interest and interference. Her son P-Noy faces the same situation today. There are those clamoring for him to get involved, to take sides and to live up to his campaign promise to distribute the hacienda’s lands. Some will not be completely happy unless he actually starts handing out land titles to the more than 10,000 farm workers in Luisita.

But what if this isn’t what the farm workers truly want? Politically, overriding the concerns and preferences of the other Cojuangco family members who own shares in the hacienda and the sugar mill would be the most convenient for the President. The hacienda, after all, has been a political and PR problem for the Cojuangcos for close to 30 years, a symbol of their feudal roots.

And yet to hear Fernando Cojuangco, a cousin of P-Noy who manages Luisita, and other members of the family say it, the reason they don’t just dismantle the plantation and turn the property over to the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution is that it will not solve the basic problems confronting the people who depend on Luisita for a living.

* * *

WINDSOR Andaya and Jose Julio Zuñiga represent the supervisory group of Hacienda Luisita Inc. in the case filed by, among others, the Hacienda Luisita management and the farm workers in the case filed before the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of the DAR order rescinding the SDO and ordering the distribution of land parcels.

Our media group had dinner with them and representatives of Hacienda Luisita the night before they were to appear at the Supreme Court for oral arguments in which they were to present their case before the justices.

Both men were born into families working the sugar fields of Luisita, but they managed to earn degrees in agriculture which may have factored in their rise to supervisory rank. Zuñiga is strongly in favor of the SDO, explaining that he sees owning shares in the hacienda as a form of investment. “The value of our shares will surely rise once we get over the legal problems,” he declares. “If we are able to get investors to set up factories inside the hacienda, then we will not only be able to provide jobs for our people, but we will also see the value of our shares rise.”

The land in three barangays inside Luisita was distributed some years ago to some of the workers, recall both Andaya and Zuñiga, but unable to afford the inputs necessary to turn the land into productive farms, most chose to sell their property and move away. “And now only a few families have ended up owning the land in those barangays,” observes Zuñiga.

* * *

WHAT befuddles both men, they say, is how the situation in Hacienda Luisita is being painted as a “social justice” issue when to the workers themselves what matters more is jobs and income.

This may be the reason the majority of them, in a referendum conducted recently, opted for stock distribution over owning parcels of land. Referring to militant leaders who had some years ago talked a workers’ group into calling for strike, Andaya asks: “Where are they now? Where were they when the people were going hungry after they lost their jobs?”

These people, “ang magagaling (the skilled ones),” as they dub them, essentially agitated the workers and then abandoned them even after the strike became violent (in the “Luisita Massacre”).

But such viewpoints only rarely get aired in media stories about Luisita. Both Andaya and Zuñiga now say they will talk with the media only in interviews which will be aired live. Says Zuñiga: “I talk with TV reporters for hours, and then I see on TV only a few seconds of me, saying only the things the reporter wanted to hear.” Complains Andaya: “And that’s only when they choose to use our interviews. Once, I alerted all my relatives to watch out for my interview on a TV news show. We all waited all night, and none of my footage was used!”

Cojuangco recalls a farm worker complaining to him that after a reporter asked for an interview the next day, he spent P40 for a haircut, only to wait the entire day without seeing even the shadow of the reporter.

* * *

WELL, it is true that writing about Hacienda Luisita as a social justice issue is more “sexy” than writing about it simply as a labor dispute, or a question of interpreting the law.

But I guess it’s a basic requirement that before we paint the Luisita situation, we work first from the point of view of those most affected, those who will have to live with the arrangement: the farm workers and their families.

Perhaps those who criticize the plebiscite and the way it was conducted have a point, that farm workers would cling to the easiest option and the immediate monetary reward rather than trust their ability to carve out their future on the small farm plots.

But those who say they are behind the farm workers should perhaps also respect their opinion, and not foist an option on them, when they are the ones who must live the rest of their lives with the chosen alternative.

The Wrong Suit

“I have an agreement with the houseflies. The flies don’t practice law and I don’t walk on the ceiling.” – Groucho Marx

“Gloria Arroyo’s House allies asked the Supreme Court to nullify Pres. Aquino’s executive order creating the Truth Commission.”

“Why, don’t they want to know the truth?”

“That’s not the point. They claim that Pres. Aquino violated the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches of government.”

“If that’s their only problem then why don’t they just file a bill creating the Truth Commission using the same language as Aquino’s Executive Order?”

“You’re missing the point. Besides, they found another problem.”

“What?”

“They said the Executive Order violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.”

“Why?”

“Because it targets Gloria Arroyo and cohorts only.”

“What’s wrong with that, whom else do they want the commission to investigate?”

“Everyone. They said, ‘as if corruption is their peculiar species even as it excludes those of the other administrations, past and present, who may be indictable’.”

“So, in effect, they’re saying that Gloria and her cohorts are not the only thieves around.”

“Well, they also said the Truth Commission duplicates the Ombudsman’s functions.”

“They want the Ombudsman to be the only one to investigate Gloria?”

“Yes.”

“That does not surprise me at all. Anyway, have you read Aquino’s Executive Order and Gloria’s Administrative Order creating the Feliciano Commission?”

“No, have you?”

“Yes, with a little help from the blog of Raissa Robles. She pointed out that ‘Both the Truth Commission and the Feliciano Commission use the Administrative Code as basis for their creation. Their powers and functions are the same’.”

“Show me.”

“Under the powers and functions provisions, Aquino said the Truth Commission shall have ‘all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987…’ and Arroyo said ‘The (Feliciano) Commission is hereby granted the power of an investigating body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987’.”

“And?”

“And Aquino said, the Truth Commission has the ‘power to invite or subpoena witnesses and take their testimonies and for that purpose, administer oaths or affirmations as the case may be;’ and Arroyo said the Feliciano Commission had ‘the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to the investigation…’.”

“But…”

“Wait, that’s not all. Aquino said, ‘Any government official or personnel who, without lawful excuse, fails to appear upon subpoena issued by the Commission or who, appearing before the Commission refuses to take oath or affirmation, give testimony or produce documents for inspection, when required, shall be subject to administrative disciplinary action. Any private person who does the same may be dealt with in accordance with law’ and Arroyo said, ‘Any person who, without lawful excuse, fails to appear upon summons issued under the authority of the preceding paragraph or who, appearing before the Commission, refuses to take oath, give testimony or produce documents for inspection, when thereunto lawfully required, shall be subject to discipline as in the case of contempt of court upon application of the Commission before the proper court, in the manner provided for by law’.”

“So?”

“So why are Gloria’s House allies okay with the Feliciano Commission but not with the Truth Commission? The two are same-same, buddy.””

“Because two wrongs don’t make a right.”

“True, and that’s why Gloria’s House allies would have looked less hypocritical if they had used plagiarism instead of mumbo-jumbo as grounds for their suit against Aquino’s executive order.”

The overwhelming majority of HLI stockholders voted for the latest plan. The overhowling minority represented by Christian Monsod, his wife, and Joma’s party list groups now say the will of the majority should be disregarded for this or that reason.

Well, I think the only correct solution for all is for those opposed to the deal to buy out HLI and then distribute the land to the farmers, whether they like it or not, at gunpoint if necessary. Call it the Utrecht-Dasmarinas Village Initiative.

1) separation in fact: parties separated for 5 years wherein reconciliation is highly improbable;

2) legal separation for at least 2 years wherein reconciliation is highly improbable;

3) when the grounds for legal separation cause the irreparable breakdown of the marriage; 

4) psychological incapacity; and

5) when parties suffer from irreconcilable differences that cause the irreparable breakdown of the marriage.

I think the bill does not go far enough.

There should be court proceedings only when the divorce is contested and/or when issues regarding division of properties and child custody arise.

Otherwise, couples who agree to divorce and to the terms of their split need only notify the civil registrar and other concerned government agencies about their change of status.

A friend of mine asks, what about the children?

Well, they lose either way. They hurt when they see their parents not getting along and they hurt when their parents separate. But they’ll get over a divorce faster than living with parents stuck in an unhappy marriage.

Note that current law allows legal separation. The real difference between legal separation and divorce is that divorce allows remarriage.

Current law also allows annulment. And that means remarriage. Or if we remain true to the fiction then it allows for either party to get married. But the legal fiction also brings with it a whole new set of problems in addition to the embarrassment of meeting legal grounds for it. One reason why a couple would bother with annulment is that it eliminates the problem of dividing conjugal property because nothing was ever conjugal.

Opponents of divorce should realize that the divorce bill is not intended for happily married couples. They need not meddle in the issue.

What about objections on religious grounds? Divorce involves civil law not canon law or the bible. It does not bind any religion to recognize it. It does not obligate any religion to allow a divorced person to remarry under its rules. So the religious sector need not meddle.