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.

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.

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.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 27 May 2007 Issue

The aftermath of the May 14, 2007 midterm election is not actually different from previous polls.
 
Name every provision in the country’s statute books on the conduct of a free, honest, and orderly election and chances are they were all violated. Unfortunately, this litany of poll irregularities is committed with impunity. 

The usual electoral scenario leaves an indelible question to poll observers whether there is still hope in Philippine democracy. Is there?

The interim results of the senatorial race shows that the voters are no longer excited about the celebrity status of the candidates. Tito Sotto, Richard Gomez and Victor Wood are losing miserably. The fact that Senator Ralph Recto is the husband of popular actress and now Batangas governor Vilma Santos did not seem to have much impact on his reelection bid.  Actress Sharon Cuneta on Senator Francis Pangilinan is an entirely different matter because people think that he stood for his principles when he ran independent.
 
The big publicity spenders in the senatorial race were also flatly rejected by the people while Oakwood mutineer Antonio Trillanes IV, who is languishing in jail and hardly had any media exposure, is still in contention. While there is no doubt that media can make or unmake a person’s good image, candidates should learn the lesson that there must be truth in advertising. And the Filipino people had just shown their capacity to discern the truth from falsehood or mere propaganda.

The so-called ‘command votes’ of incumbent political leaders, as well as the endorsements of religious groups who claim to have the strength of numbers by voting in block, also did not matter much in the outcome of the senatorial tally.  Somehow, this is indicative that given the opportunity the present generation of Filipinos tends to vote out of conscience, not out of sheer or blind obedience.

Apparently, candidates from the administration who are making it to the senatorial race are those who are known for their independence, like Senator Joker Arroyo, and performance, like Senator Edgardo Angara. Secretary Mike Defensor, a known loyalist of the president and who has been in the news all year round is in the losing circle.

It seems also that the people are starting to get tired of political dynasties. There is still a possibility that top-notch lawyer Aquilino Pimentel would not join his father and Representative Alan Peter Cayetano may not be with his sister in the Senate. If the people do not mind political dynasties they would have easily put both candidates in the sure winner lists.

On the party-list front, it is a source of wonder why the votes garnered by BANAT led by Raul Lambino, who led the so-called people’s initiative petition to amend the constitution last year, is nowhere the vicinity of the 6.3 million voters who he claimed signed the petition.  Even the BANTAY party-list of reitred General Jovito Palparan is still fighting for its life, maybe because of the alleged human rights violations associated with him while still in the military service.

On the local contests, it is true that there is no real big change in political leadership. This may be due to the failure of non-administration parties to put up candidates in many areas. Also, for the local constituency, it is always a case of who can best deliver the goods for them, a case of voting smart so to speak.

But given the option, like in the case of Pampanga, where Catholic priest Eddie Panlilio fought against the almost impenetrable political machinery incumbent Governor Mark Lapid and Board Member Lilia Pineda, the people would not hesitate to express their conscience on their votes.

Representative Darlene Antonino Custodio, who belongs to a political family in General Santos City, routed the most popular Filipino today, boxer Manny Pacquiao. And it was a choice between mere popularity without any real political agenda as against a political dynasty with a proven track record in public service.

All these point to the growing sensitivity of the Filipino people for political change.  Who knows, the world might be in for one big political surprise come 2010.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 4 March 2007 Issue

The mid-term election fever is very much in the air. And many of those vying and in competition to win the polls for another mandate are the same faces who made politics a life long career.

Despite the term limits imposed by the Constitution, it is rarity for these old guards in Philippine politics to yield their vested interests over an elective post to pave the way for fresh leadership. They will continue to perpetuate themselves in power through their alter egos in the persona of their spouses, children, siblings or immediate relatives, or maybe after ensuring themselves of getting appointed to another sensitive or juicy government post by virtue of a political tit for tat.

It is no longer a source of wonder why many of the country’s politicians would do whatever it takes to remain in power. They would spend a fortune to fund extravagant electoral campaigns and political dole-outs. Some would not mind employing dirty tricks and unlawful schemes or resorting to intimidation, force or even political killings just to ensure poll victory.

If there is any rational or logical explanation for all of this display of ‘political will’ on the part of the candidates, it is simply because politics is a lucrative career.

Of course, the standard line of the typical politician is to the contrary. They seek public office to serve the country and its people, or to alleviate the plight of the poor and the down-trodden, or get rid of corruption. All of these though are pure lip service. At the end of the day, nothing really significant would change in the lives of their constituencies. Proof of this is the fact that the usual problems and concerns facing the country that are being tackled every election campaign remains almost the same interminable and long-standing issues. 

But by taking a second look at many politicians and political families and comparing the extent of their wealth and fortune today from that of elections ago, there would be a remarkable difference in most cases. And this is a source of great wonder especially in a theoretical situation where statutory defined government pay and amenities for elective public positions are not really commensurate with the huge amount of political investments put in to earn the votes.

Notwithstanding the practical realities, no politician who has been in office for the longest time did ever become poor or miserable and would give up political ambitions for such a reason.

The return of investments in a political career is quicker, very tempting, and apparently much easier compared to a savvy businessman who would engage in serious entrepreneurship. And every ‘political entrepreneur’ would know that recovery at the very least of political investments is next to impossible, except through kickbacks or payoffs in government transactions, or in the form of protection, lobby or retainer money from unscrupulous supporters whose economic interest, legitimate or otherwise, might be in jeopardy, or via the various business opportunities using other people’s money that become easily accessible or instantaneously available to a person in power or authority.

Some would argue the point that when they entered politics they were already rich but would hide the fact that it also made them richer by a mile afterwards.

The motive is easily discernible why people would cling to political power, themselves or through their kin, or stage a political comeback after some period of hibernation from an electoral defeat.

On a positive note however, it is also comforting to know that there are also virtuous politicians in the midst of it all. But they are a rarity and would usually and understandably vanish from the public view as quickly as they get in.

There is no reason to get envious though. For those who are seriously thinking of starting a lucrative career, there are more than 17,000 elective positions at stake in both the national and local level on May 14, 2007.

But take note that the deadline for application is on March 29.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 28 January 2007 Issue

While the country gears up for the midterm national and local elections, the season for the race to the US presidency in 2008 also began.

The Democratic Party, perhaps one of the oldest political parties in the world whose origin can be traced back as early as 1792, is pitting two exciting figures in its election primary, senators Barack Hussein Obama Jr. of Illinois and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton of New York.

Either of them winning the party nomination and eventually the US presidency would make a first in that country’s history. 

Obama may yet become the first black president of his country and now at the age of 45 could be the second youngest after assassinated President John F. Kennedy. Clinton, on the other hand, could be the first woman president of the US, the first former First Lady to become one, and the first woman to be nominated to the presidency by a major political party.

Obama was born in Hawaii. He is only the fifth African American senator in US history and the only one of such breed serving at the US Senate at present. His father, a Kenyan, died in a car accident when he was twenty-one years old. His mother Ann Dunham of Kansas, who divorced Obama Sr. when he was two years old, re-married an Indonesian and died of cancer in 1995 several months after he published his book, Dreams from My Father. He has written other books one of which is about his political convictions entitled: The Audacity of Hope that remained in New York Times list of best sellers since its publication in 2006.

Four years of Obama’s childhood were spent in Indonesia attending Catholic and Muslim schools. He graduated magna cum laude at the Harvard Law School and first gained national recognition when he was elected as the first African American president of Harvard Law Review, the oldest operating student-edited law review in America. After becoming a lawyer, he briefly became active in a voters’ registration drive, worked for a civil rights law firm, and taught constitutional law in Chicago until his election as senator in 2004.

They say that many Americans are drawn by Obama’s everyman image and broad appeal because in his own words “people project their hopes on him”.

Clinton, as everyone knows, is the wife of former US President Bill Clinton, who involved herself in policy making primarily on health care during her husband’s tenure, departing from the traditional role played by First Ladies. When she won a Senate seat in 2000, Clinton became the First Lady to seek public office and became the first woman senator of New York.

Clinton was born in Chicago. As a student, Clinton had already shown her academic brilliance, her mettle as a student leader, and her passion for political life and causes. Like her husband, she graduated from the Yale Law School where she served on the Board of Editors of Yale Review of Law and Social Action.

In 1996, Clinton authored a book entitled: It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us that became a best-seller. Her 2003 memoir Living History sold more than one million copies in the first month following publication. In the latter book, she explained that love is the reason why she chose to stay with Bill during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998.

Magazines Time and Forbes had placed Clinton as among the most powerful figure in today’s world.

Just like the drama of world tennis championship, Obama and Clinton unfortunately will not battle it out in the finals because they will have to knock each other out early on.

Wanted: Obamas and Clintons in Philippine politics.