 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Corruption Unlimited
By Antonio C. Abaya Written on April 02, 2008 For the Standard Today, April 03 issue Not being a lawyer, I do not enjoy reading lawyers� briefs and court decisions, which I often find as interesting and engrossing as a telephone directory in Chinese.. But I managed to force myself to read the Supreme Court�s decision � as summarized by the Philippine Daily Inquirer of March 26 - on Romulo Neri�s petition or whatever to block the Senate from executing an arrest order on him for his refusal to give more details about his conversation with President Arroyo on the ZTE broadband contract. Voting 9 to 6, the Supreme Court ruled in Neri�s favor, saying that the Senate committed �grave abuse of discretion� in issuing a contempt citation against Neri and nullifying the arrest order that the Senate had issued. As far as I can figure out, the nine (affirmative) justices of the Supreme Court based their decision on three technicalities: one, only a minority of senators were present during the hearings on the ZTE contract, two, the Senate did not publish its rules of procedures and thus the hearings were infirm; and three, the Senate did not first rule on the invocation of executive privilege and then inform Neri about it. The Supreme Court also said that the Senate failed to show a �compelling need� for the disclosure (by Neri) of the information it was seeking. The senators also failed to show , says the Supreme Court, that the information they were after could not be obtained elsewhere. Pardon my legal ignorance, but isn�t the need to get to the bottom of a major scandal �compelling� enough? And since there were only two parties involved in the telephone conversation that was the focus of the inquiry � Neri and President Arroyo � could the Senate have reasonably expected to summon President Arroyo to the hearings to supply, under oath, the information that Neri refused to give, under the cloak of executive privilege? The Supreme Court also said in its decision that �the authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence of the legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence.� No one will dispute that. Added the Court: �A fact worth highlighting is that petitioner (Neri) is not an unwilling witness,� pointing out that Neri had appeared before the Senate for 11 hours in September�..He refused to answer the three questions because he was ordered by the Presiodent to claim executive privilege�� These three questions were: 1) What did President Arroyo say after he (Neri) told her that he had been offered a P200 million bribe, allegedly by Comelec Chair Benjamin Abalos, to endorse the ZTE broadband project? 2) Did President Arroyo follow up on the project? And 3) Did President Arroyo direct Neri to prioritize the project? (Whether or not President Arroyo directed Neri to prioritize the project is probably immaterial. The fact that she left the next day for Boao , China , to witness the signing of the contract, despite having been informed that it was corrupted by bribery, shows that the project WAS a priority to her.) This non-lawyer agrees with the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Reynato Puno that the answers to those three questions were not covered by executive privilege; that it �was self-evident� that those questions were pertinent to the Senate inquiry because they were directly related to pending bills and to the inquiry. �When there is abuse of power by any of the (three) branches of government, there is no victor, for a distortion of power works for the detriment of the whole government, which is constitutionally designed to function as an organic whole.� Puno said the Senate would be hampered in fulfilling its responsibilities if it failed to get the information its was seeking from Neri, which is why he should be compelled to answer the three questions,� Puno said. (Inquirer, March 26). Even more devastating, to this non-lawyer, was the dissenting opinion of Justice Antonio Carpio that Neri was discussing a bribery scandal with President Arroyo and so could not properly invoke executive privilege to cover up the alleged crime. �The invocation of executive privilege on the three questions dwelling on a bribery scandal is clearly unjustified and void. Public office is a public trust and not a shield to cover up wrongdoing. Petitioner (Neri) must answer the three questions asked by the Senate committees, � Carpio wrote. All this calls to mind one of the most perceptive comments made by Engineer Jun Lozada during the Senate hearings on the ZTE scandal, which no one seems to have paid much attention to, to wit, that �in the Philippines, with our abundance of lawyers, there is more emphasis on legality than on justice, and that we have a legal system but not a justice system � How true, how sadly true. To this non-lawyer, if this landmark decision is left as is, it means that government bureaucrats, favored businessmen and predatory politicians can now conspire with the Malacanang tenants and their relatives to raid the public treasury with more impunity than ever, or to enter into contracts clearly disadvantageous to the national interests, fully confident that they would be safe from investigation by Congress or prosecution by the courts since they can always invoke executive privilege to cover up their crimes. This would make the Philippines , already adjudged the most corrupt among 13 economies in East Asia for two consecutive years by the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risks Consultancy Ltd., truly the undisputed center for Corruption Unlimited. And President Arroyo had the gall to tell investors and multinational agencies gathered in Clark for the Philippine Development Forum that �On our part, we will hold officials accountable if they are found to be corrupt after due process. Let the chips fall where they may as investigations are concluded and friend and foe alike are brought to account for their actions in the proper courts�� Pardon me while I puke. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles at www.tapatt.org and in acabaya.blogdspot.com. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Corruption Unlimited� More Reactions to �A Post-Arroyo Scenario� �GMA�s next move is Charter Change� Dear Tony, When I was a young boy growing up in the Philippines one phrase I heard quite often was "lutong Macao " meaning it is not up and up or simply put, there's irregularities. I suspect it is embedded so deeply into the culture that it has become acceptable in practice without question. The existence of the three branches of government, the executive, house of congress and Judicial is to ensure.the rules of maintaining checks and balances are in place. I think many believe setting up the structure meets the intent of democracy. Structurally it may appear okay but in practice the three branches are in cahoots from time to time for reason or expediency. The Supreme Court action and flawed decision is a testament of a grave decision exposing the lack of credibility. This a very serious misuse of the judicial system in the Philippines . The absence of justice invites total chaos in the country. I agree with Lozada's perspectives. Having too many lawyers do not guarantee justice will be served. What I find is this, lawyers in the Philippines have become so adept in finding loopholes than the spirit of justice. The mind set among lawyers in the country is to produce up-manship which is tantamount to being sleazy with bragging rights. And unfortunately, many buy this sort of sleaze. The recent Supreme Court decision is best described as lutong Macao . Based on technicalities? Oh please, give me a break. Many of the judges were drinking cool aids. Too bad. Such blatant disregard of the Filipino people has opened the gate of irresponsibility and callousness. That is low, too low. Thank you, Tony.. Stay happy and healthy, Renaissance Man. Oscar Apostol, (by email), Roseville , CA ,.April 03, 2008. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Sadly enough, Jun Lozada said it right - a country full of lawyers but there's no justice in this country. May I further add that the "wheels of justice still needs a spare or vulcanizing" because it�s dead-out flat and not moving. We graduate an average of 5,000 wanna-be lawyers of which less than 30% pass every year or a maximum of about 60% per graduated year pass. If I'm not mistaken, the latest results showed 20%++ who passed. Majority of those who become lawyers are still in their idealistic stages but once the required rates for lawyers kick in - which is more important to these lawyers - justice or get paid for their services? I know of a lot of cases that have dragged on and on and on due to lawyers who do delaying tactics or judges who don't show up or both lawyers don't show up. The legal fees alone in this country is ridiculous that ordinary people would rather not consult with a lawyer or be stuck with free legal assistance that's only confined to criminal law - excusing out family law, estate laws, corporate laws, civil cases, etc. It�s one of the reasons why people who opt for legal separation prefer to just physically separate and not file legal documents because its too expensive plus - there's no guarantee that certain laws like Child Support will be implemented without any contest from the paying party. There really is no justice, no law that protects and implements, no service to people who need justice immediately. One would need to pay 5,000 or more up front even before he/she can talk to a lawyer and that's the going rate now - and then they'll refer you to someone else... or they'll refuse your case upfront simply because both parties are not wealthy enough to use delaying tactics to earn more, or you're not popular enough like celebrity couples who have filed annulment cases or legal separation cases. I expect more from lawyers whom people look up to. I personally got the 'cold shoulder' from a well-known lawyer who's handled celebrity divorces and annulments in this country. Going back to your article - the nerve of a leader to say : "On our part, we will hold officials accountable if they are found to be corrupt after due process." I am very fearful of the future of justice in this country. Right now - people in power use the legal system to suit their own agenda and actually hide behind the robes of justices who prefer to do things by the book than to think outside of the box. Forget there was even talk of corruption - the Senate failed to submit papers. Forget if there was immense commissions being given to every Tom Dick and Harry in government - there was "failure to show" just cause. The 'items' in discussion are heavily weighing on the future of this country than mere documents or terms of references one or both parties failed to show - too boxed in while every injustice happens outside of their boxes. If the Supreme Court - the next line of defense of the people - failed to put weight on the issues and preferred to go by the book than think outside of the box - then this country is really doomed. From a non-lawyer's point of view like myself - if the Supreme Court acted on its own without any external influence but still came out with this kind of a ruling - then maybe the laws of the land are fallible, weak and useless and only applies to those who have the money to buy justice. Because with this ruling - at the end of the day - if you have the money and the power - you're untouchable, even from the Highest Court in the land. The Highest Seat in the land should be transparent to generate Trust among its constituents. With a trust rating of -65% - I strongly feel that if the Supreme Court justices indeed felt for their countrymen and for their country - they should have ordered Neri to speak up and told the President of this country to allow Neri to answer any questions thrown at him - but this is not what happened. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if some opinion poll rates the Supreme Court in the same league as the President of this country - in the negative ratings game. Untrusted, unworthy of trust, unworthy of the positions they hold which the People of this country pay for with their hard-earned money. Please allow me to join you while you puke as well. Regards. Jennifer Xavier, (by email), April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww To quote: "�..He refused to answer the three questions because he was ordered by the Presiodent [isn't this being sly, alluding to the idea that the president has a price or presio?] to claim executive privilege� These three questions were: 1) What did President Arroyo say after he (Neri) told her that he had been offered a P200 million bribe, allegedly by Comelec Chair Benjamin Abalos, to endorse the ZTE broadband project? 2) Did President Arroyo follow up on the project? And 3) Did President Arroyo direct Neri to prioritize the project?.." If the questions were taken individually and not used to support a set premise that PGMA ordered, condoned and followed up a deal riddled with anomaly, then the answers to these questions are logical. The President is expected to follow up on the project and I suspect, any other project that is a priority in her list (Question 2) and it would be then normal to ensure that the party (NEDA) responsible for handling the project to be directed to prioritize the project (Question 3). Unfortunately, the line of questioning sets the stage for the Senators to create sound bites that will lead to the conclusion that the President knew about the anomalous deal, followed it up with Neri and directed the project to be a priority. We thrive on selective hearing and opinionated journalism (I guess that applies to me when I quoted part of the article) but we have got to focus on the bigger picture. Do I believe that the ZTE deal is anomalous? An absolute YES. Corruption exists, there's no denying that � what's more reprehensible is the evident grandstanding the Senators are doing in this mediocre imitation of an investigation. I say take it to the courts and leave the posturing for the next elections in other avenues. To believe that there is foundation for a legal system without the corresponding justice delivered opens up the platform for anarchy. Senate is primarily a legislative group, the best way to get around this "executive privilege" stumbling block is to address this in amendments or bills or what-have-you, sadly their efforts are reserved for TV appearances and interviews with just about anybody willing to hear their rhetoric. Has anyone ever questioned the fact that the national budget for the 13th Congress was the highest at Php 12.5B (taking into consideration devaluation etc) while producing the lowest number of bills (84 versus 1,000 of the 8th Congress) in terms of productivity? Thank you Mr. Abaya for these articles � it surely gives me a break from all the boring corporate research work I do ha ha ha. God bless, Dennis Ponce Tagamolila, (by email), ASpril 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww From your above article, I quote: "And President Arroyo had the gall to tell investors and multinational agencies gathered in Clark for the Philippine Development Forum that �On our part, we will hold officials accountable if they are found to be corrupt after due process. Let the chips fall where they may as investigations are concluded and friend and foe alike are brought to account for their actions in the proper courts�� �Pardon me while I puke. ***** " DO YOU HAVE ROOM FOR ONE MORE? Bert Peronilla, (by email), April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, It is sad, what you wrote is a shame to us as a people to allow corruption to continue. Many have lost confidence and trust with our reigning president and her people both in and out of government service. Many have lost respect to many bishops who are out to protect their blessing from tainted money. Many have lost trust in the Judiciary and find the lawyers make more money at the misery of others. Many have no more trust and confidence on the politicized arm forces and police force. Many have long been victims of oligarchs close to the administration. Many are victims of Land Reform and CARP. Their children cannot hope for any better with the unjust laws of our land. Many will grow hungry as the days pass with the brilliant economic strategy of the President and her economic experts. They get richer, people poorer. Oh God, please save the Philippines and the Filipinos from oppression of their own leaders. Rex Rivera, (by email), Gen. Santos, City, April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww We�ll puke together What happened to the Supreme Court? Not only did the legislative branch of the government become a laughing stock of other countries but also the judicial branch of the government. The Supreme Court that is, which supposedly interpret and explain the laws of the land, can't be swayed by the right of the citizens to know what's going on in the executive branch. Pure and simple, a corrupt president can get away with her crime with the help of corrupt judges(appointed by the president), who are interpreting/explaining laws that were made by corrupt house of congress. Executive Privilege my "foot"!!!!!! [email protected], April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: Your title aptly describes GMA's Philippine government. The Executive branch is corrupt. Its head, the evil bitch, is the main source of corruption. Although her defender, Mad Miriam, tried to transfer the onus of inventing corruption to China, the stench of her shady and shameless deals readily trace these back to her. This is again the case in the "babuyan" that has led to Quedancor's default on its bond redemption: the funds in question were used in the "Hello, Garci" operations of 2004, when so many favored local candidates were given funds to ensure their victory and their patron's extra votes to steal the election from FPJ. But GMA is spreading corruption as zealously as the apostles did the Faith. She has already also corrupted the majority of the Legislative and the Judiciary. See the recent 9-6 Neri decision of the Supreme Court - and the difficulty the Senate faces in investigating deals like ZTE-NBN and Jocjoc's fertilizer. While there may still be six principled Justices and a Senate majority that continues to fight, it's only a matter of time before the Legislative and the Judiciary are totally overwhelmed. Already, other sectors outside the government are now also infected. Many CBCP bishops, media, businessmen and many others are already co-opted. What is the remedy for body parts so badly diseased? Amputation. Any one who can take that solution to the obvious party will be the saviour of the Philippines ! Tito Osias, (by email), April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, A non-lawyer myself, I could not help but feel incapacitated. I, as citizen of this country, have the right to know on what is really going on with our country. But because of the stonewalling of dirty politicians, citizens with self-interest and their ilks, it would be a day in hell before anything becomes transparent. As of this moment, everything's as clear as mud. The SC decision only proves that ordinary citizens will remain powerless. Power corrupts and that is the absolute truth that I have learned throughout the fact-finding processes engaged to thresh out the truth. Perhaps, I will never learn about the truth in my lifetime. Money and privilege are powerful instruments to divert the truth. The incorruptible falls prey to the corrupt all the same. In this country, the rule is if you have no clout, might as well shut up and rage in silence. Grace Santos, (by email), April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww How true... how true... we have an excellent legal system but a lousy justice system. Lawrence See, (by email), April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, The decision of the Supreme Court in favor of the Neri petition, in my opinion, is out of line. The ultimate purpose of said petition was to hide an anomalous transaction - not to hide an issue that involves national security matters. Any constitutional executive privilege is never intended to insulate deceptive acts of the president. All the prima facie evidence so far in the ZTE-NBN deal points to a highly questionable transaction involving the husband of the president and apparently consented to by the president. The problem is that the Supreme Court is loaded with the appointees of the President and, as you know now-a-days, each of those appointees is just a cell-phone call away from the vocal cord and ears of the President "thanks" to the courtesy of the exclusively government owned and controlled Philippine justice system. Unless and until we are able to adopt the Grand Jury system, the sovereign power of the people to scrutinize anomalous government transaction by the president is nothing more than a meaningless theoretical shadow of the people's power which the president can ignore at will in the name of executive privilege. The power of the people exercised through a grand jury as derived under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution cannot be bound by the so-called interdepartmental courtesies. If adopted, the president cannot hide behind his/her executive privilege to justify corrupt practices in office. In a "Neri" situation, such a president can even be criminally charged for obstruction of justice by the grand jury and tried before a trial jury like the American people did with Richard Nixon that eventually impelled him to resign from office.. In reality, the Philippine "venerable" justice system is absolutely all for the benefit of the president - nothing less. Any plea by the people to the president to stop government corruption is like asking the president to starve from his/her bread and butter. For an elaboration of this comment, I request the reader to click HERE. Marlowe Camello, (by email), Homeland, CA, April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya: Is executive privilege absolute under a RULE of IMPERFECT LAW? The very first point that the Supreme Court should be asked to resolve on the Neri case is a policy issue, that is, whether the bone of contention, executive privilege, is ABSOLUTE or not. If it is ABSOLUTE, it will not admit any exception. It can be invoked at all times for any reason whatsoever--whether for or against public interests. Worse, it can be used to hide even HIGH CRIMES against the people, such as TREASON. In other words, it will cease to be a PRIVILEGE, it will become an unbridled double-edged RIGHT of the Executive Branch that can be used anyway wanted--and how it will be actually used, whether for good or evil, the people can no longer control. Under the situation, there will be no more flexibility in the handling of future cases, whether of TREASON or of staggering CORRUPTION--Executive Privilege will ensure that dark secrets are carried to the grave while corrupt government officials are laughing all the way to the bank--at the expense of the people. This is the far-reaching IMPLICATION of the Supreme Court decision on the Neri case, which upheld executive privilege even on a matter already known as involving massive corruption--a most cruel CRIME if viewed against the backdrop of millions of poor and starving Filipinos. The decision unduly places too much trust and power on Executive Branch officials, without providing SAFETY NET against their using the executive privilege as tool of CONCEALMENT for their crimes, especially corruption. As the successful perpetration of big-time corruption committed by high Executive Branch officials involves planning, execution, and CONCEALMENT, then the Supreme Court decision may become an unwitting "accessory" in the CONCEALMENT phase of such successful corruption in the future. Why does the Supreme Court let loose an uncontrollable monster--absolute executive privilege--that can undermine the investigative powers of the Senate and destroy the time-honored checks and balances in government? Is it because Supreme Court Justices take for granted the propensity of high government officials to commit EVIL--like staggering corruption committed left and right as reported by media--so that they loosen their guard against it? Have they forgotten the lessons to be learned from highest government officials' EVIL acts in the past MARTIAL LAW regime, among the first victims of which were Congress and the Supreme Court itself? If the Constitution does not explicitly provide that executive privilege is absolute, then, obviously, it should not be so. (If this policy decision is reached, it will be easy to dispose of the issue on the Neri petition.) In which case, it should admit exceptions, among which are cases of CRIME, otherwise we will have a RULE of IMPERFECT LAW that PROTECTS rather than exposes CRIMINALS. If so, does not the alleged P200-million ZTE-NBN deal BRIBE offer (a tip of the iceberg, the alleged $130-million ZTE contract over-pricing where the bribe will come from)�admitted by no less than an alter ego of the President--constitute a CRIME grave enough to qualify as exception to executive privilege? Considering that the amount involved is four times that of the threshold for PLUNDER, I suppose so, otherwise what will? ***** The excuse that fully divulging the alleged anomalies in the ZTE-NBN deal may strain our good relations with China is untenable. If ZTE officials committed acts of corruption just to clinch a favorable business deal with us--as can be gleaned from the testimony of Mr. Leo San Miguel who in effect affirmed that ZTE in fact sought the help of a Filipino group to expedite matters--China has no moral ground before the international community to condemn us for taking steps aimed at curbing large-scale corruption in government contracts. On the contrary, if the alleged bribe offers are true, China should even apologize to us for the shameful acts of its nationals. What's more, the Chinese government does not condone corruption among its officials. As reported by international media and posted to the Internet, two Chinese officials convicted for corruption--one for receiving bribes exceeding $475,000--were executed in year 2000 (Kyodo News International, April 24, 2000), while another one, convicted for taking $850,000 in bribes, was executed in middle of last year (BBC News, July 10, 2007). Marcelo L. Tecson, (by email), San Miguel, Bulacan, April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony Abaya, Your column is deeply depressing and seems to indicate the necessity of radical action. May I propose a Philippine Patriot Act? �Whereas it is necessary for the for the proper exercise of democracy, the stability and continued existence of the nation, and the safety of the Filipino people that the governance of the nation be wholesome and unsullied; �It is the paramount duty of every Filipino to ensure the integrity, honesty and proper functioning of all public offices and agencies and to take all necessary actions to protect them from improper use and subversion. This duty supersedes all other obligations or considerations of loyalty, fealty or privilege. �To this end: �Any office-holder or employee of national or local government, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, any branch of the Police Service, public enterprises or agencies, and any person conducting any business with them, who in the pursuit of self-interest or the in the interest of a third party acts in such a way as to undermine the integrity, honesty and proper functioning of any public office or agency or acts in any manner deliberately to subvert the wholesomeness of governance shall, upon conviction, be found guilty of treason: �Any office-holder or employee of national or local government, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, any branch of the Police Service, public enterprises or agencies, and any person conducting any business with them, shall have a mandatory duty to report to a competent person or authority any incident or occurrence of which he may reasonably be expected to have knowledge or reasonable suspicion that might adversely effect the wholesomeness of governance. Any person failing to do so shall, upon conviction, be found guilty of treason; �Any competent person or authority, including the President of the Republic, who, being in receipt of a report of any incident or occurrence which may reasonably be expected to effect adversely the wholesomeness of governance, fails to act properly on it shall upon conviction be found guilty of treason.� Such a law, properly drafted, might be expected to bring terror to the corridors of power � but the country and its institutions are in such a sorry state that only the terror of certain apprehension, prosecution and awful retribution can hope to bring rapid change. Yours Tom Hewitt, (by email), Essex , England , April 03,2008 (In the present context, such an Act cannot be expected to be passed by the incumbent Congress. Only a revolutionary government can force that issue. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Yes, puke we all must! And rant, and be outraged! Gosh, these 9 are justices that make the Supreme Court become the highest Sinful Court of the land! Truly this is a crime against the whole country!, against simple common sense! Even an uneducated person will not decide the way they did! With this kind of a decision, this country is truly in the pits! Jose Luis Yulo, Jr., (by email), April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww SOBRA NA TALAGA. ANY FRESH IDEAS ON WHAT WE CAN ALL DO TO CHANGE THIS G.D. INGRAINED CORRUPTION IN OUR SYSTEMS? NAKAKA-SAWA NA. Cita Abad Dinglasan, (by email), April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, On many instances legal cases are lost in appellate courts in the Philippines because of sheer technicality than in the administration of justice. I absolutely agree in the indictment that the legal system in the in the Philippines renders opinions that defies logic and common sense. I see no clear lines of demarcation in the doctrine of separation of powers. The executive branch has become so powerful that the other branches have become mere rubber stamp. In the case of ZTE, summoning members of the executive branch in testifying is not breaching the issue of national security. In fact, getting to the truth takes precedence over anything else for it is ."essential in the enforcement of criminal statutes." If GMA asserts a generalized confidentiality, the court held in US vs. Nixon (Watergate case) that "... larger interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence." My question is: "What is the Supreme Court thinking?" Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, (by email), New York City , April 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww NOTE: Due to limited space, this post may be truncated in acabaya.blogspot.com. It appears or will appear complete in www.tapatt.org. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, Since Cheap Justis Dividi sold the autonomy of the Supreme Court to GMA in 2001, I do not believe it exists anymore. I would rather believe a Hall of Justice with Superman and Batman exists than justice in the SC. Robbie Tan, (by email), April 04, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, As one columnist has said, Arroyo has reduced the Ten Commandments to Eight. She deleted/removed the two: Thou shall not kill and Thou shall not Steal. She not only removed the last one but, justified it by claiming executive privilege after stealing. Oh what a life! Thanks and more power. Bert Celera, (by email), April 04, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Perhaps, if you gave the benefit of the doubt that the President is sick and suffering from some kind of psychological illness, then you might be able to keep the food in your stomach. ( I, also, am not a doctor). I have found two world lists which can explain the President�s behavior and maybe, rid you of that nauseous feeling. Imagine she�s trying to make it to these two world lists. The magnitude of the NBN/ZTE scam and others under her administration makes her entry into the first list a cinch. In the process, she would join two Filipino world class title holders and easily dislodge the current tenth placer who is also a Filipino. Assured of having this list under her belt and just like Pacquiao trying to earn a title in another division, the descriptions of Neri and Salceda of their benefactress gives us a clue of what that next world list might be. Check the current rankings on these two world lists: � World�s Ten Most Corrupt Leaders � World�s Ten Most Evil People If successful, there would be the added distinction of being the first woman leader to hold titles in these two divisions. This performance would be a perfect counter-balance to Pacquiao�s if he wins his next fight. One multi-titles holder cancels the other. Tet Gambito, (by email), Cebu City , April 04, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww That's right, Tony. What else can we say has not been tainted by the Arroyo influence? Now it's clear no more institutions are left to depend on to stand for truth in this country. I go for suggestion of Cong. Golez to amend the procedure for appointing SC judges: Let it not by the President but by independent representatives properly elected by the people. Amado Cabaero, (by email), April 04, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Prof. Antonio Abaya For a non-lawyer, your analysis of the Supreme Court's opinion on the Neri case is both trenchant and logical. This decision will become as notorious as the Dred Scott case- that case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Negroes are not human beings. Don't park your critical pen..... we all need your dose of intellectual and fearless advocacy. From a lawyer to a non-lawyer, you are a remarkable writer. Ricardo Magtibay, (by email), April 04, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony Abaya, First of all thank you so much for picking me as one of your internet friends by sharing some of your writings. Regarding the decision of the Supreme Court about the Executive Privilege, I really don't see any big deal, because in our government nowadays under the GMA administration, it is very hard for any ordinary Filipinos to say that they are telling the truth. We are now living in a culture of lying and denying, GMA since the beginning of her political career has been already lying to the people, but still people voted for her to the top position of the land. Even our Bishops and priest who are beneficiaries of the graces from GMA also supported her administration by also lying to the faithful. In my own opinion everyone or lets say every Filipino needs some real and true conversion in life, because if not in the next election we will still be voting people like GMA and her crooked, abusive political supporters. For the moment under the GMA administration, people should pray harder and harder and ask God for enlightenment for all of us, and to minimize our blaming each other, and maximize our time in trying to think the best way we could survive in this very complicated country we have. Everything is going up, if we will not concentrate in ourselves, in the end we will be the one to suffer. Let�s continue to be with our life the spirit of the Lenten Season which is to live in prayers, doing sacrifices for ourselves and others, be generous to what ever little we have. God Bless you, my friend! Ed del Rosario, (by email), April 04, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, mabuhay ka. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Fortunato U. Abat, (by email), April 04, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, You "begged for pardon" while you puked. Halfway through reading your article, I had to rush to the kitchen sink to puke! What is happening to our country? Jeremias Decena, (by email), April 04, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, Tony. I told you in one of my emails long time ago, that what is wrong with our country is that everybody thinks he or she is brighter or better than the president, whoever that president is. Even the barbers and the tricycle drivers think they can do a better job. Now I tell you everybody in the country thinks he or she is brighter or better than the supreme court justices whenever the body's ruling goes against their opinion. Now I tell you everybody in the country thinks he or she is more morally correct than the CBCP whenever her decision goes against their opinion. Oh well... too much talking is what makes our country less productive than it should. Cheers! Bobby Tordesillas, (by email), April 04, 2008 (And I tell you that in the years before Edsa 1, everybody believed Ferdinand Marcos was corrupt, that Imelda Marcos was corrupt, that the Interim Batasan was corrupt, that the BIR and Customs were corrupt, that the Fernando Supreme Court and the lower courts were corrupt, that most of the line departments were corrupt, that the military and the police were corrupt, that the Marcos cronies were corrupt, etc. Was everybody wrong at that time, just as you think everybody is wrong at this time? ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Okay. So the Executive is checked by the Legislative, who in turn is checked by the judiciary. Now who checks the judiciary? Dobbit Palacios, (by email), April 04, 2008 (The checks and balances are gone. The Supreme Court decision shows the Executive � meaning, Malacanang - controls the Supreme Court, just as it controls the Ombudsman and the Sandigambayan. It also controls the Lower House, the military and the police, the Comelec, and most of the mayors and the governors and the barangays. The only institution that it does not yet control is the Senate. But give it time. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww SIR ABAYA, First of all, let me express my 101% agreement with you on your previous article �Obama, Osama, O Mama�. I am sorry I couldn�t agree with you less with all your manifestations and analysis for that piece, which I know smart critics and analyst like you, prefer to see and read dissenting opinions of your work to sharpen your skills further more. But I can agree with you more, with the +1%, that�s for the �O Mama�, kudos to you sir. With due respect for �Corruption Unlimited�, let me borrow your closing remark as a starter, �Pardon me while I puke��and here�s why; First, I don�t see any valid argument the senate or anybody who is in their right faculties can give, to justify the �crying foul� on the three technicalities the SC�s majority presented. Only stubborn and �spoiled brat� kids (senate) have that attitude and won�t accept mistakes readily even when their hands were caught on the mouth of the �bitch� cookie jar. I know, I saw them on ANC live, and thanks to ABS-CBN. Second, I believe that answering the question, whether GMA told Neri to prioritize the NBN project is immaterial (not probably). The same thing is true with the other two questions which by mere common sense, everybody should know the most logical answer. If I were the �Boss�, I would ask my staff to prioritize all efforts for huge and important project like that. I would also say, don�t accept the bribe, giving the benefit of doubt that the bubbling I heard in the kitchen is true. However, I would also give the benefit of doubt to the accused (considering they have not done anything against me yet either), and not stir the pot until I have proof of eminent overflow (I will consider ordering a low profile investigation though which GMA may have or can claim she ordered). Anyway, forget the three questions, they are not critical to legislate a bill or law, and I don�t think it can hold water too to kick GMA out. Of course the brat pack can always spin the answers and I agree, it�s related to the inquiry, specially the motive being played behind it. Third, all this bribery, corruption, he said, she said things are yet to be backed by hard evidence. All that have been exposed so far were just allegations, insinuations, �surprised witnesses�, kidnapped victims who were allowed to hold press conference and ate in a steak house during captivity, so what crime is being covered up, the �ALLEGED CRIME�? As far as I understand, if the senate wants to fool the whole Pinoy Nation (not export quality), they have to come up with a more realistic story. The burden of proof is more on their shoulders than the judiciary or the executive branch. They are the ones who first stirred the pot after all and to act like cry babies (as JP Enrile said �nakuryente�), cannot beat J.Lozada to the Oscars. Fourth, �let me wear my Engineer hat..�, as per Jun Lozada�s quotation about our abundance of lawyers�..etc., which by the way I agree on the abundance of lawyers. But that�s only half of the truth. The other half is, there are a lot of non-lawyers who are acting more than lawyers do by playing with words. The fact is, what is legal is justified and vice versa. The problem lies where the lawyers, �acting lawyers� and sometimes preachers don�t follow what is legal and set their own �permissible� style of justice system. Nth & a lot more, yes R. Puno is the Chief Justice, but no matter how tall is his chair in the SC and how long his dissenting opinion is, it�s still an opinion and cannot be more than that. The majority rules and that�s what is important, what is right and what should be accepted by a civil society. Very clear that the same brat pack ignored now the fact that even the dissenting justices, most of them were GMA appointees. How can one praise Puno and not the others for doing their patriotic duty as they see fit. What kind of justice and legal system do we want? Does it exist or can be defined at all? I�m also a non-lawyer, much less read of great interest any distinguished legal document, book or any reading material for that matter. I am, just another simple, hard working and peace loving person who fortunately able to escape the �crab islands� but continously try to live through the guidance of the rule of law (of God & of man). Well of course, until those laws, and the people or some who think themselves holier than though, create new ones, break and criticize them (in that order), then finally decide to change them again or spin them to suit their ways better. I rest my case & more pounding of the gavel. Ador Ramoso, (by email), Atlanta , Georgia , April 05, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I used to respect and consider: the Supreme Court as the last bastion of democracy in this country. But the 9/6 decision favoring Gloria's regime will forever change people's confidence in our system. Whatever happens later, this verdict will not change our distrust in the belief that in the Philippines , we have TWO LEVELS (OR EVEN MORE) OF GOVERNMENT - ONE FOR THE CORRUPT-ABUSIVE-ABOMINABLE-MALCONTENTS, and the other level is for us. the majority who are the abused, the supposed ignoramus - who, although already hungry, still pays taxes shoulder our foreign debts, (the foreign loans which are never utilized for the purpose they were intended, but were pocketed by the FIRST LEVEL GROUP). Now this SC decision?!%&^#. . . . .! If anarchy rears its ugly head now, this counry is surely headed into hell. GO AHEAD AND KICK US SOME MORE! Jose Regino, (by email), Zamboanga City , April 13, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I'm sending again my column below (slightly edited) because from our perspective the most troubling impact of the SC decision re: Neri. It could be GMA's dry run for people's initiative for Charter-change. The House might railroad Charter-change against the Senate's objections which will surely reach the Court. This should be of concern to all patriotic Filipinos. FLASH! I just received advice from a confidential source Arroyo is in deep trouble. Her indictment is in the works at the International Criminal Court in The Haque for human rights violation and crime against humanity relative to over unsolved 800 extrajudicial killings under her watch. Mrs. Edith Burgos is now on a 7-city U.S. tour pleading for the return of her son, Jonas, or at least know what happened to him. Mrs. Burgos is expected to testify at the U.S. Congress on Arroyo administration's human rights violations. It is probable Arroyo would follow the footsteps of former Yugoslavia 's President Slobodan Milosevic who died while on trial at the ICC. Arroyo knows the fate awaiting her as soon as her immunity ends. Be on guard because like a caged lion she can be expected to do everything to escape such fate. Francisco Wenceslao, (by email) April 04, 2008 President, Philippine Anticorruption Movement USA, Inc. http://www.pamusacorp.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FRANKLY SPEAKING By Frank Wenceslao GMA�s Next Move is Charter-Change The nine justices that upheld Romulo Neri to invoke executive privilege, namely: Teresita de Castro (ponente), Eduardo Nachura, Dante Tinga, Renato Corona, Presbiterio Velasco, Minita Chico Nazario, Ruben Reyes, Leonardo Quisumbing and Arturo Brion have wittingly or unwittingly encouraged Gloria Arroyo to try Charter-change anew. Thus prolong her stay as prime minister beyond 2010. The decision is a dry run of Arroyo�s evil scheme to subvert the last remaining Philippine institution many thought has not been politicized. Every good-thinking Filipino should protect the Supreme Court. The nation needs it to remain reliably impartial in adhering to the rule of law and democratic processes long after Arroyo and her evil administration are sad memories. What if the House of Representatives railroaded people�s initiative for Charter-change by a combined vote of members of Congress with the Senate not able to vote separately which will surely be elevated to the SC? I�m wary of Arroyo�s appointees especially Nachura with whom I�ve worked for Charter-change. But I withdrew when I found out then Speaker Jose de Venecia was in control of our Coalition for Charter Change Now (CCCN). De Venecia and Nachura were full of praise for my research on why parliamentary government was better for the country than the present presidential system. People would recall the papers I published to support my thesis. The Leagues of Provincial Governors, City Mayors, and Municipal Mayors accepted my thesis to maintain an upper house modeled after the British House of Lords. When De Venecia insisted on abolishing the Senate I saw through his personal agenda and quit. Only the Senate stood on the way. I�m sure though Senior Justice Quisumbing and at least three or four other justices would not go along Charter-change as they did in Neri. The latter should be reversed because it's symmetrical to U.S. v. Nixon decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the limits of presidential executive privilege during the Watergate scandal. Below are notable quotes from the oral arguments in the Nixon case, as follows: "The President (Nixon) wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment." - James D. St. Clair, Richard Nixon's counsel, arguing before the SC. "Mr. St. Clair, what public interest is there in preserving secrecy with respect to a criminal conspiracy?" asked Justice Lewis Powell. In the same sense, above justices should also be asked if Neri or any Cabinet official even Arroyo herself should be allowed to cover up a criminal enterprise like the ZTE-NBN deal. Let's hope the nine justices wouldn't make the Court worse than the Fernando Court in infamy. The Watergate scandal began during the 1972 presidential campaign. On June 17, months before the election won by Nixon, burglars broke into the Democratic Party�s HQ at the Watergate building in Washington , D.C. The Washington Post alleged the break-in could be traced to Nixon administration officials. Public and congressional pressure forced Nixon to appoint a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, to look into the matter. Cox issued a subpoena to secure the tapes Nixon used to record conversations in the White House Oval Office which was believed would shed light on the Watergate burglary including Nixon�s complicity. Furious, Nixon refused the request and fired Cox. Public outrage forced Nixon to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski. In March 1974 a grand jury indicted Attorney General John Mitchell and six other persons, all senior Nixon officials or members of the Committee to Re-elect the President. They were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice by covering up White House involvement in the break-in. In April 1974, Jaworski obtained a subpoena ordering Nixon to release certain tapes and papers related to specific meetings between the President and those indicted by the grand jury. Those tapes and the conversations recorded were believed to contain damaging evidence involving the indicted men and perhaps the President himself. Hoping Jaworski and the public would be satisfied Nixon released edited transcripts of forty-three conversations, including portions of twenty conversations demanded by the subpoena. James D. St. Clair, Nixon's attorney, then requested Judge John Sirica of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quash the subpoena. Sirica denied St. Clair's motion and ordered Nixon to turn the tapes over. Both St. Clair and Jaworski appealed directly to the Supreme Court which heard arguments on July 8. St. Clair argued the matter should not be subject to "judicial resolution" since the matter was a dispute within the executive branch which should resolve the dispute itself. Also, he claimed Special Prosecutor Jaworski had not proven the tapes were absolutely necessary for the trial of the seven men. Besides, he claimed Nixon had an absolute executive privilege to protect communications "between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them" in carrying out their duties. Less than three weeks later the SC issued its decision. The justices struggled to write an opinion that all eight could agree. Newly appointed William Rehnquist recused himself which Brion should�ve done. The stakes were so high in that the tapes most likely contained damaging evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Nixon and his men, that the justices wanted no dissent. All contributed to the opinion and Chief Justice Burger penned the unanimous decision. After ruling that the SC could indeed resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an absolute, unqualified executive privilege from the judicial process under all circumstances. The unanimous decision held that the Court hasn�t only the power to rule a law invalid for conflicting with constitutional provisions but also power to decide how the Constitution limits the President's powers; that the Constitution provides for laws enforceable on a president; and that executive privilege does not apply to "demonstrably relevant" evidence in criminal cases. As the saying goes, the rest is history and Nixon became the first U.S. President to resign, otherwise he�d surely be impeached and found guilty. ***** wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to �A Post-Arroyo Scenario� (March 27, 2008) Fortunato Abat wrote: How to change. Traditional politicians shall lay off for the meantime and let the head of the court of last resort act and do justice to the people�s cause. And exactly who, pray tell, is going to ask these crocs to stop eating? Gerry Kaimo, (by email), April 05, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, So much can happen in three years time. Some events of world significance can occur and change the way we even look at our own national situations. So many things can be out of our controls that no president, sitting or otherwise, can machinate no end. There are just too many imponderables. Perhaps the other way to see it is that it is us people who reacts to the occurrences and opportunities opening to us, rather than us making them opportunities. The US problems may not seem very big today, but wait till after a few months or years, and the significance of all these worldwide would become apparent. The food shortage being exacerbated by the oil price increases causing logistics and transportation costs to spiral beyond the regular will no doubt produce situations that we have not even thought about. How shall the Philippines fare in all of this? We might be in better or lesser/weaker situations than others, but surely, our survivalist instincts and ways will make us stand up amidst all trepidations, despite of ourselves and our errant ways. The OFW phenomenon is itself a silent yet necessary reaction of our people to the lack of opportunities in our own land. Whatever our politicos have done and are doing till now, may or may not strategically change our positions in the worldwide economy, but as ever before, the Filipino will remain a survivor. Our political problems may just solve themselves out in time, who knows. Let us not be so hard on ourselves. Rene Pamintuan, (by email), April 05, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, I too advocate a revolution to change a country that has been soaked in a poison of corruption, ineptness, and apathy for more than half a century. The EDSA I revolution would have been a very good starting point. A period of destruction should have been pursued with vigor where the abusive, the arrogant, the indifferent, and the depraved elements of society would have been eliminated. Martial law should have continued for many many more years; perhaps another 5-6 years Thereafter a transitional stage should have been pursued where the constitutional rights of its citizens are restored slowly. Finally the last stage of reconstruction would have followed for another decade or so. Unfortunately, the country went into the reconstruction phase immediately leaving all cancer cells untouched. The level of corruption that people complain about now is the end result of that reconstruction process that was done in haste. Sad to say, Cory Aquino, did not have the spine to lead the country during those delicate transitional stages that could have changed the course of Philippine history-economically and politically. Cory Aquino was not that agent of change! Those that followed Cory after her term ended were a joke. Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore stayed in power for three decades to transform Singapore , if we were to draw a parallel and use that experience as a model. Come to think of it. Knowledge is so deficient in the country. No lesson was ever learned from the past and neither from its neighbors. Just a thought. Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, (by email), New York City , April 05, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww SUCH A POST-ARROYO SCENARIO IS, I BELIEVE UNTIL 2010, NOT POSSIBLE. THE PRESIDENT IS STRONGLY ENTRENCHED AND THERE IS AN INCREASING COMPLACENCY AMONG THE PEOPLE ABOUT ANOTHER EDSA OR ANY OTHER METHOD THAT WILL ONLY RESULT INTO ANOTHER SCANDAL-RIDDLED ERA. THIS IS BECAUSE TWO EDSAS OF RECENT PAST HAVE YIELDED ONLY A CHANGE OF FACES WHILE THE CAUSE FOR THESE UPRISINGS WERE ONLY MINIMALLY PARTLY ACHIEVED. THE IDEA OF JUNTAS, JUSTICES AND THE LIKE TAKING OVER MAY BE TOO COMPLICATED A PROCESS FOR THE MORE SIMPLISTIC ATTITUDE OF OUR PEOPLE. AS FOR OUR OFFICIALS YOU ONLY HAVE TO OBSERVE THE DEBATES AND INQUIRIES OF THE PAST MONTHS TO CONCLUDE THAT ANY MAJOR UPHEAVAL IS MET WITH DILATORY OR SQUID TACTICS. THE DISLIKED OFFICIALS, CORRUPT OR NOT, HAVE A WIDE BASE OF FOLLOWING THAT YOU FACE BOTH THE UPPER ECHELON'S STRENGTH AGAINST CHANGE AND ON THE COOLING OF HEADS ON THE OTHER END OR BELOW. I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT THERE IS NOT ONLY A "TRAPO" GROUP OF POLITICIANS BUT ALSO "TRAPO" GROUP OF VOTERS AS WELL THAT COMPOSE THE MAJORITY -- IN THE SENSE THAT THE WAY THESE GROUPS VOTE HAVE NOT CHANGED. LIKE A SCHOOL OF FISH WE MAKE QUICK TURNS WHENEVER THE LEAD FISH DOES. SO LONG AS THAT LEADER KNOWS WHICH BUTTONS TO PUSH THERE GOETH THE CLOWNS WITH THEIR MINIONS. THIS IS OF COURSE VERY UNFORTUNATE. THE CONCEPT OF POST-ARROYO SCENARIO STEMS FROM, OF COURSE, A DESIRE OR PROPOSAL TO UNSEAT HER OVER REASONS OF CORRUPTION PARTICULARLY THE ZTE SCANDAL . BUT WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT THE OPPOSITION HAS TAKEN POLITICKING INTO THIS OTHERWISE SEEMINGLY TRUTHFUL REVELATIONS BY LOZADA. ITS EXPLOITATION BY POLICITIANS HAS TURNED A CRIMINAL ISSUE INTO A POLITICAL WAR AND THEREFORE RENDERED OR OPENNED AN ACHILLES HEEL IN THE CAMPAIGN. POWER GRAB ALSO SURFACED AS A MOTIVE AND IN ALL OF THESE, TRUTH TRULY SUFFERED AND WHATEVER GOOD CAUSE SOME WELL-MEANING PEOPLE HAD WAS TERRIBLY LOST. MALACANANG WON OVERWHELMINGLY. I NEVER SUBSCRIBED REVOLT OR GMA'S RESIGNATION AS A SOLUTION. RATHER, I SUGGEST VIGILANCE AND CONSTANT MEDIA BARRAGE ON EVERY STEP THE GOVERNMENT TAKES -- NOT AS AN ANTI-GMA STRATEGY BUT SIMPLY AS AN ANTI-CORRUPTION CAMPAIGN TO KEEP OFFICIALS ON THEIR TOES. WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THE SENATE'S INVESTIGATION. EPISODES DID CREATE LINKS TO MOLD A PICTURE OF ABDUCTION, KICKBACKS ETC.. IF INDEED ARROYO IS AS CORRUPT AS MANY BELIEVE THEN SHE IS , FIRST AND FOREMOST, OUR FAULT. IF HER FAMILY AND STAFF CANNOT BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF LACK OF EVIDENCE THEN IT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM'S FAULT (IF "FAULT" INDEED IS THE RIGHT DESCRIPTION), AND SO FORTH. BUT WE HAVE AT LEAST A MORE OR LESS PEACEFUL COUNTRY WHERE WE CAN VENT OUT FRUSTRATIONS. OTHER THAN THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED VIOLENT MEANS OR SHORTCUTS. ARROYO IS HERE TO STAY, AND THIS WE HAVE TO ACCEPT, LIKE IT OR NOT. Victor Manalac, (by email), April 06, 2008 (In the future, please abstain from using all-caps as these are very hard to read, and they take up too much space. ACA) OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOTE: Transmissions to yahoo.com and mydestiny.net addresses are sometimes delayed or blocked by the servers for one reason or another. If you are experiencing these delays or blocking, we suggest that you move to a hotmail or a gmail address. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subje4ct heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe |