www.soriano-ph.com

We are urged by media and civil society organizations to ‘vote wisely’ without telling us who to vote for and why. I find this a dead statement, an empty appeal.

For me, voting wisely means letting others know how I will vote and my rationale for it. If others agree with me, at least I can find comfort that perhaps I am voting wisely. If they don’t, it could mean that those who oppose my views are themselves exercising suffrage wisely because they too have rationalized their choice.  Either way, I think we owe it to our country to help our political siblings to arrive at an informed choice, or maybe a guided judgment.  It is in this context that I am making public what would appear in my ballot come election day.

For President, my vote goes to NOYNOY AQUINO.

I don’t believe that this election should be judged based on the platform of the candidates or their political parties. Most of these campaign promises are just that anyway, pure motherhood statements. After all, no one can make a valid claim that he or she has the singular solution to our country’s perennial problems, even just on poverty and corruption.

I also remain unconvinced that the people’s vote in the forthcoming polls should be gauged on the basis of the candidates’ track record as former public officials. I do not see anything extraordinary or exemplary in what they did while in office. As public officials they were expected to do their jobs well. It would have been worse if they didn’t.

Even the so-called “rags-to-riches” story failed to impress me especially so that there are indications that this wealth was acqured through some surreptitious means. When there’s smoke there’s fire as they say. It also defies logic and psychology to conclude that a rich man would not steal. Many times in fact, those who cheated on their way up gain public approval because their experience made them perfect the craft.

Having an intelligent and very well-educated president is also not what this country needs right now. Of the past presidents this country had, who can be more intellectually superior than Ferdinand E. Marcos? Cory Aquino, a plain housewife, and Ramon Magsaysay, a simple mechanic, had a special place in our nation’s history not because of their brilliance but because their hearts were genuinely for the people. In a volatile political condition, intelligence without virtue almost always leads to abuse and exploitation.

Our beloved Philippines at this point in her history needs for her next president, a leader whom she can trust, a leader whom she can look up to as an exemplar of accountability and honesty in public governance, a leader who truly listens and assumes full responsibility for his or her actions, a leader with an uncompromising political will, and a leader who truly loves this country and its people next to God. Regrettably, I find that none of the officially declared candidates can satisfy all these qualities.

Every candidate would have their own issues, personal or otherwise. I understand though that we are not electing someone for sainthood. Some say that we just have to choose the lesser evil, and they may be right. But even if we have to do just that, we have no other choice as a people but still to make a choice on election day.

If we take away the persona of the presidential candidates, we will see that the 10 May polls would be a contest among the following elements: ancestral-driven public trust, self-serving claim of success stories, self-proclaimed performance in public office, intellectual superiority, and a nebulous moral platform. Of these, I would bet my chips on ‘trust’.

We all envision a nation whose people rely less on government for their sustenance. We need to evolve a society with a strong stratum of the middle class. And to have this nation move forward in general, I would like to believe that government needs to pursue and implement a viable economic program; which in turn would require a prudent management of scarce public resources in order to put up the infrastructure needed to stimulate economic activity and investments; which in turn would require a state policy of equal opportunity and a consistent and even playing field operating within a national strategy framework; which in turn would require fast, efficient, effective and proactive delivery of government services where the public is king and queen; which in turn would require role models and servant leaders who would uphold decency in public office and would not convulate the law for what it should not be; which in turn would require public support, faith and confidence. And this chain of governance would not hold together if this country does not begin with the basic element of having a leader who is committed to keep public trust vibrant at all times.

Who would argue that even in the ordinary scheme of things, relationship – be it in love, family, friendship or occupation – does not endure unless there is trust, so too between government and the governed.

It is true that Noynoy has to live under the shadows of his great parents, Ninoy and Cory. Obviously, he would not have been a presidential candidate now if not for them. I hold the view that it is the sacred name of his parents that would more or less guarantee that Noynoy would not breach or renege our clamor for a clean, honest and accountable government while in office. It not an absolute assurance but it is good enough. It is certainly Noynoy’s competitive advantage over the rest. Call it destiny but that is the political reality. Personally, I am convinced that Noynoy in his heart and in his mind would take off from the legacy of his parents. I have my own reservation if track record, personal success, platform or even intelligence could precede trust in our choice for the next president.

Maybe for some people, public trust can also be derived from a De Los Reyes, Perlas or even a VIllanueva presidency. Unfortunately, they failed during their campaign to captivate the imagination of the personality-oriented character of the Filipino electorate. And from the practical point of view, I would rather throw my hat in favor of someone who would realize the very reason why I am casting my vote. Otherwise, my vote would be an exercise in futility.

I am not expecting a rose garden under a Noynoy presidency. It is a matter that would be six years in the making. All I desire for now is to start from where this nation should begin – public trust in government.

I am also voting for MAR ROXAS as Vice-President not only because it is inevitable with my choice of Noynoy but more importantly because I admire his magnanimity – which he demonstrated when he surrendered his personal ambition over a more compelling interest of political unity.

For Senators, my personal choices are the following: NERIC ACOSTA*, OMPONG PLAZA*, RISA HONTIVEROS BARAQUEL, ARIEL QUERUBIN, DANNY LIM, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, FRANK DRILON, ADEL TAMANO, TEOFISTO GUINGONA III, SERGE OSMENA III, REGALADO MAAMBONG AND SUSAN OPLE. I chose them for varied reasons ranging from personal acquaintance (*and so I could also vouch for personal integrity) to track record, qualifications, and stand on various issues. Most of them are new faces and I personally think that the Senate needs fresh faces. One thing is sure though, I know that they can all competently handle the delicate craft of legislation.

For Mayor of Quezon City, my heart goes for HERBERT BAUTISTA, with whom I became personally acquainted when we were classmates at the National Defense College of the Philippines. I know him personally as a good man with a constant appetite for public service and new ideas.

And so I urge all of you not to squander your vote this coming elections. Vote wisely and make them known.

“When your values are put to test, go with your values” – Cora Guidote (as she advises Bea Soriano about life, 6 May 2010)

Judging from the President’s spiritless endorsement of Gibo Teodoro as a presidential candidate and her party’s languid campaign performance, rocked by shifting party loyalties, it would appear that GMA is not keen on, or perhaps has abandoned the idea of, having a partymate succeed her reign. On this premise, I think GMA knows her politics too well.

It will not serve any practical purpose for GMA and her lieutenants to plot electoral cheating in a national scale, or worse a takeover using the armed forces. It would not matter to her who wins, although from many indications she seems to prefer a Villar presidency. It would matter to her though if she can prove and proclaim to one and sundry that the first automated election in this country is perceived as orderly and credible. This is crucial as a last minute attempt to save the sullen image of her presidency once it ends. Yes she will step down – but the credibility of the results of the 10 May 2010 polls is consequential in the pursuit of her post elections agenda.

And what is the agenda?

When GMA filed her certificate of candidacy as a congressional candidate for the 2nd District of Pampanga, she said that “after much contemplation I realized I am not ready to step down completely from public service” – a traditional politician’s favorite tagline as if elective officials have the monopoly of public service.  Obviously, the statement only meant – “I will stay or be back in power“.

She needs to be in the mainstream of political authority, first to avoid a repetition of an Erap-type prosecution for the sins of her administration, and second to take another attempt as Chief Executive of this country working within the limits of the Constitution.

Is it not a source of wonder why GMA did not run as Vice-President or Senator or Governor of Pampanga? The simple answer is that these offices would not serve her hidden but evident agenda. She opted to run for Congress because she wants to control the House of Representative by being its Speaker.

But why the House of Representatives?

We all know that impeachment cases are initiated in the House of Representatives. In case of a GMA prosecution, the case will begin at the Office of the Ombudsman. And there is a public perception that the incumbent is an ally, who cannot be replaced except by impeachment. In the unlikely event that prosecution proceeds, it will surely go all the way up to the Supreme Court, whose members including the Chief Justice would be her appointees by virtue of a recent decision. I would like to believe though that our Supreme Court would assert its independence when confronted with a legal controversy involving the matter. Justices of the Supreme Court cannot also be removed except by impeachment.

We all know also that there is an open constitutional question whether or not amendments to the Constitution may be done by a vote of 3/4 votes of all its members, the members of the House and the Senate voting jointly – which makes the vote of the latter totally insignificant in the process. Again, this issue would eventually fall on the lap of the High Court and its collective judgment would say with finality what the law is.

If GMA and her colleagues in the House succeed in this effort, we might have a parliamentary government with her as Prime Minister holding office side by side with the elected President depending on the quid pro quo and the terms of the charter amendments. The only remaining stumbling block for this is the ratification of the people in a plebiscite. Here, GMA needs to restore the trust of the people. But how?

The key is to make the 10 May polls credible as she gracefully exits the presidency come noon of 30 June 2010. Equally important to realize her political agenda is to ensure the election of her stalwarts in local elective posts for governors, mayors and congressmen, regardless of their party tag.

GMA’s intent is evident when she started releasing the pork barrel of allied solons during the campaign period; was reported to be supporting sympathetic party-list groups; insisted on appointing the Chief Justice and even the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan; tolerated shift of party affiliations if that’s the practical way to ensure that her candidates would win in their localities. This maybe the reason also for the reported scarcity of campaign funds for national candidates but not necessarily for local candidates, particularly her congressional aspirants.

While many sectors of society are worried about fraud in the national results of the automated polls. They could be barking at the wrong tree because at the end of the day GMA might have her last laugh and stand taller over the issue. It could also be a diversionary tactic to cover up for a possible retail electronic cheating in the poll results for local candidates. This could be the reason why Defense Secretary Norberto Gonzales found out for himself that “some people were already trying to bribe polling officials“. Offhand, this seems to be a modus operandi confined at the local level.

Needless to say, there is no pre-proclamation controversy in congressional posts and it is no longer a viable legal option when a winning candidate for other local position is already proclaimed. The sooner GMA’s congressional allies are proclaimed the better for her – and this can be facilitated by the unparalleled speed of electronic transmission.

I hope that this political insight is totally amiss because if it is true I do not see how the results of the coming polls will bring about change and a better life for our people. It would still be the business of politicking as usual.

I do not want to be a pessismist. Thus, I welcome your comment and tell me why I could be wrong.

“Before, I dreamed and loved. Then, I loved and dream. Now, both love and the dreams that went with them are gone. What’s left are just memories.” – JNS (His Facebook post, 11 April 2010

“Power should be exercised for the people, not over people.” – SC Justice Eduardo Antonio Nachura (During his commencement speech for the 1st batch of eight [8] graduating law students of the Angeles University Foundation School of Law, 10 April 2010)

“I avoid making promises I can’t keep because I dislike being the harbinger of false hopes. For me, that meant taking advantage of another.” – JNS (His Facebook post, 19 March 2010)

“I won’t expect, it breeds disdain. I refuse to hope, half of it is despair. I’d rather dream so I can just open my eyes when reality bites.” –  JNS (His Facebook post, 18 March 2010)

“Broken roots, broken past, broken ties, broken dreams, broken self, broken heart. Still, here I am collecting the pieces. I call it faith.” – JNS (His Facebook post, 18 March 2010)

Latest:

20 April 2010, the Supreme Court en banc in a Resolution upheld its 17 March 2010 Decision and denied all motions for reconsideration filed.

6 April 2010 Inquirer.net breaking news on my motion for reconsideration – click here

On 31 March 2010, I filed a motion for reconsideration of the 17 March 2010 Decision and for a full court deliberation sans recluse. Read the copy of the motion by clicking here.

On 17 March 2010, the Supreme Court en banc promulgated its Decision upholding the power of the President to appoint the Chief Justice vice Chief Justice Reynato Puno during the prohibited period against midnight appointments.

On 10 February 2010, I filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief docketed as G. R. No. 191032 against the Judicial and Bar Council before the Supreme Court docketed as G. R. No. 191032.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

There is no provision in the 1987 Constitution that says that the President should appoint the Chief Justice.

All the Constitution provides is that “Members of the Supreme Court x x x” shall be appointed by the President from a list of nominees submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council” (Sec. 9, Art. VIII).

But the Constitution also says that the Supreme Court has the power ”to appoint all officials x x x of the judiciary” (Sec. 5 [6], Art. VIII). And there is no iota of doubt here that the Chief Justice is an “official” of the judiciary, in fact the highest official thereof.

In short, the appointing power of the President extends only to the associate justices (or members) of the Supreme Court, not necessarily to the post of Chief Justice, which the Supreme Court En Banc may legally designate.  Thus, the selection and nominating powers of the Judicial and Bar Council under the Constitution and the consequent appointing power of the President may be exercised only in this case if the person sought to be appointed Chief Justice is not coming from among the incumbent justices of the Supreme Court.

This interpretation is in keeping with the principles of separation of powers and would best serve the independence of our judiciary, free from all political and vested interest.

This is the gist of my letter dated 11 January 2010 to the Chief Justice copy furnished all the associate justices of the Supreme Court. In reply, I received a letter from the Judicial and Bar Council dated 19 January 2010 stating that my constitutional view was duly noted during its en banc meeting of 18 January 2010.

I pray that the Supreme Court asserts its constitutional power to select its own leader upon the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno on 17 May 2010 to put to rest all the current debate and constitutional controversy about his replacement that continue to undermine or taint judicial independence.

The Supreme Court En Banc declared unconstitutional in Quinto vs. COMELEC (G. R. No. 189698, 1 December 2009) the second proviso in the third paragraph of Sec. 13 of RA 9369, Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678. Consequently, appointive public officials are no longer ipso facto resigned when they file their certificate of candidacy for an elective post.

With the ruling, justices, judges, election officials, military and police officers, members of the cabinet and all appointed civil servants may continue to exercise the functions of, and hold on to, their appointive office while campaigning to get elected for an elective position.

If they lose, they just continue occupying their appointive posts without even violating Sec. 6, Art. IX (B) of the Constitution that says “No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government of any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of its subsidiaries”.  Why? It is because they have already been appointed before they lost the elections.

The decision does not seem to prevent the evil that the Constitution, in so many words, seeks to prevent. Next elections, should the Filipino people be wary that the Chief Justice, the Chairman of the COMELEC or the Chief of Staff of the AFP becoming a candidate for President, Vice-President or Senator while serving the office to which they were appointed?

Just asking, in the meantime that this decision is not yet final and executory.

NOTE – In a Resolution of the Supreme Court en banc dated 22 February 2010, it granted the motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC and set aside the foregoing Decision. Thus, the constitutionality of Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code were upheld.