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.

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.

On 17 November 2009, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9775, also known as the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009”.

The law makes it a criminal act to (a) employ or use a child to perform in child pornography, (b) create or produce any form of child pornography and child pornography materials, (c) offer, sell or promote child pornography or child pornography materials, (d) possess, download, reproduce or purchase them for sale or distribution, (e) publish, post, transmit, distribute, exhibit or broadcast any form of child pornography or child pornography materials, (c) knowingly view, access, obtain or possess even for personal use child pornography materials, or (d) attempt to commit child pornography by luring or grooming a child.

A child is defined as one who is below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

The depiction of a child in child pornography or child pornography materials, regardless of age, or the child’s representation as such in digitally or manually crafted images, undeveloped films, videotapes, movies, drawing, cartoons, paintings, sculpture, audio, real time Internet communications, in written texts or materials, and similar means fall within the ambit of the penalties provided for by the law.

Under pain of imprisonment and/or fine, Internet service providers (ISPs) and Internet content hosts are required to prevent access or transmittal of child pornography materials and to preserve evidence for the purpose of investigation and prosecution by concerned authorities.

And with (a) Internet cafés, (b) private and public educational institutions, (c) public and private offices; and (d) service providers, such as telephone companies, are required to install blocking system or software to prevent transmittal of or access to child pornography materials.

The law also created an Inter-Agency Council Against Child Pornography.

You may also view the full text of the law  by clicking here.

I join our countrymen and the world in mourning the passing of Tita Cory. I learned about her death while I was in Naga City. And when I came back last night after a grueling land trip to Manila, I and my son, Jimbo, did not waste any time in paying our last respect for her at La Salle Greenhills.

Many great things have been said about Tita Cory and she truly deserves all the accolade.

But I love Tita Cory because she made us believe that what it takes to be a great leader and human being is neither education nor experience nor brilliance, just plain and simple sincerity, honesty, integrity, modesty, faith and the fortitude to rise above difficult circumstances – qualities that are rare these days and you can hardly find in any of our present day leaders.

I love Tita Cory because she made sure that we, our children, and hopefully the next generation enjoy the blessings of freedom under a regime of democracy. They say that absolute power corrupts but Tita Cory did not succumb to the temptation, when it was very convenient for her to do so. Her presidency had its own share of weaknesses but no one can deny that she served us well by making sure that every Filipino enjoy the fruits of liberty.

And I love Tita Cory because she distinctly made me proud to be a Filipino. The phenomenal and world-acclaimed People Power of 1986 was bloodless and peaceful simply because Tita Cory was its icon, its inspiration, its moving spirit. And I now reminisce that part of my life circa 1983-1986 with great pleasure which I want my children to cherish and understand well.

I dare say that Ninoy’s life and death was actually meant by God to prepare Tita Cory to be our own Joan of Arc. God must be on our side for giving us Tita Cory.

“I would rather die a meaningful death than to live a meaningless life”, Tita Cory once said.  You did, Tita Cory.

“I hope that history will judge me as favorably as our people still regard me, because, as God is my witness, I honestly did the best I could. No more can be asked of any man”, Tita Cory said in her last SONA.  We know you did, Tita Cory.

With your death, may the hopes of the Filipino people live again by tying that yellow ribbon ’round the old oak tree.

Thank you Tita Cory. Thank you. Farewell.

- – - – - – - – - – - – -

Below is a song composed by my best friend, Corazon Guidote, arranged by Roy Del Valle, performed by Lisa Del Valle and photoshow assembled by Mike Reyes.

This is under  CC-BY-NC-ND Philippine License 3.0

On 10 February 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc approved in a Resolution the Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers (Bar Matter 2012).

The rule, which shall take effect on 1 July 2009, shall govern the mandatory requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in all cases (whether, civil, criminal or administrative) involving indigent and pauper litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It shall also govern the duty of other members of the legal profession to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

For details and to view the complete text of Bar Matter 2012, click here.

On 3 June 2008, the Supreme Court promulgated a resolution in Bar Matter 1922 requiring all lawyers to indicate the number and date of issue of their MCLE certificate of compliance or exemption in pleadings (as well as motions) filed in courts and quasi-judicial bodies. MCLE stands for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education program of the Supreme Court for the members of the Philippine legal profession.

Failure to disclose may result in the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

The full text of the resolution, which becomes effective sixty days following its publication (or on 24 August 2008), may be viewed HERE.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 8 June 2008 Issue

Jessica Price is a nineteen year old lass from South Africa, a world-class and champion debater in her home country and participated in the World Schools Debating Championships in South Korea and Wales as part of her national team. Price is the daughter of the incoming Vice-Chancellor of the University of Capetown.

She visited the country as part of her educational tour before pursuing her college education in medicine. Before coming over, she knew of the Philippines but never had any particular impression of the country and its people except that perhaps this political territory is mostly rural in orientation.

After more than a week of stay, Price finds Filipinos as very family-oriented, hospitable and kind.  In the process, she was introduced and met new friends, hopefully to keep.

She was surprised with the enormous developments particularly in Metro Manila that at one point she gave up touring the malls and some entertainment centers feeling that she had enough of them..  She thinks that the average Filipino inulges more on consumer spending rather than on savings.

She finds Filipino dishes very much different from her home country, which were more European and American tasting. But the hamburger from this country’s very own Jollibee certainly suited her taste buds.  In fact, even her senses rated the smell of the metropolis in general to be like its food, sweet, tasty and spicy; although she did observe the heavy smog in the skyline during early mornings.

Like any other tourists who visited this country, Price had a taste of the rural areas and the beach front facing the South China Sea. For someone like her who loves to swim and scuba dive but lives in the landlocked city of Johannesburg, the sea puts a smile on her face.

Much as she wanted to visit the more than seven thousand islands of this beautiful country, she too got the caution from where she came from that Mindanao and some areas in the Visayas are not suitable for foreigner like her travelling alone because of the perennial terrorism tag brought about by kidnapppings for ransom of long ago.

She had been to historical places and museums particularly in Manila and saw first hand the richness of the country’s cultural heritage and traditions under colonial rule. After driving around some nook and corner of the Old City, she feels that it is still highly influenced by Spain.

Price shares her country’s problem on poverty and the quality of, and access to, public education which are almost akin here. She and her people are particularly proud of Nelson Mandela, a South African statesman who was released from prison to become his nation’s president during the first multi-racial elections in 1994. Old as he is, Mandela seems to be the moving icon of his country. Many of his countrymen like Price feels that his presence is something that continues to hold that nation together despite all the hardships a typical developing country have to brace. This country could only hope that it has a living icon like Mandela whom Filipinos would listen to like a father speaking to his children, especially in times of political uncertainties.
 
Except perhaps for our very humid weather, there was no doubt that Price finds the country and its people likeable. The Philippines is Price’s first taste of Asia and for sure she was not disappointed.

Jessica Price is a young tourist and her observations are as valid as any other foreigners who visited this country for the first time, many of whom in fact fell in love with it.

This nation may not be great in many respects. But certainly it is beautiful in many other aspects. And that is something Filipinos could be proud when they celebrate Independence Day this week.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 18 May 2008 Issue  

With fossil fuel getting scrimpy and prices of crude oil trading beyond $120 per barrel, governments have been pushing to replace a part of the current fuel mix with biofuels, essentially with ethanol and biodiesel, as an alternative.

Biofuel is any fuel derived from organic matter, most commonly from photosynthetic plants that capture solar energy. Unlike fossil fuel, which is derived from dead biological materials of long ago, or nuclear fuels, biofuel is renewable.

The process of creating biofuel as liquid fuel for transportation involves growing crops such as sugar and corn and using yeast fermentation to produce ethanol, or growing plants that naturally produce oil such as jathropa, palm or soybean which when processed chemically creates biodiesel.

Biofuels are regarded by many experts as environment friendly, a more affordable energy source and economically sustaining particularly to farmers.

The Philippines is among the many countries in the world that support and promote biofuels as an alternative source of energy. It is for this reason that the Biofuels Law was fast-tracked on May 6 a year ago.

They say the Philippines was the first country to legislate on the use of biofuel blends within its borders with the enactment of the Biofuels Law (Republic Act No. 9367). The law mandates all liquid fuels for motors and engines sold in the country should contain locally sourced biofuel components in order to reduce reliance from imported oil by providing certain incentives and punishments.

To avoid a potential clash with the issue affecting food security, the Department of Agriculture said that biodiesel would be produced from coconut, which is neither a food staple nor a major ingredient for animal feeds while bioethanol will not be sourced from sugar cane supplies destined for food and beverage application.

Right after Labor Day, BBC News reported that Belgian international law professor and special rapporteur on the right to food of the United Nations, Olivier de Schutter, urged a freeze on biofuel investment calling the blind pursuit of the policy as “irresponsible.” He said that the program drives food prices higher, threatening 100 million of the world’s poorest. His predecessor, Jean Ziegler, had condemned biofuels as a “crime against humanity” and called for an immediate ban on their use.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Rajendra Pachauri, a climate change scientist, cautioned the world in developing biofuels because of its perverse effects on the environment and higher food prices. Some environmentalists also blame biofuel programs for distorted government budgets and much of the deforestation in Southeast Asia and Brazil. Some scientists also claim that some types of biofuel generate as much carbon dioxide as the fossil fuels they replace.

In his article for Time magazine entitled: “The Clean Energy Scam,” Michael Grunwald reported that “new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous . . . Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves.”

With the unabated price of fossil fuel in the international market, there is definitely a need to shift to alternative sources of energy. The world obviously needs oil as much as it needs food and needs to protect the environment.

It cannot be said that the use of biofuels is all that good. But it cannot be said also that it is all that bad. Whether it would bear either pernicious or beneficial consequences would heavily depend on how the political management of every nation could strike the balance in terms of state policies.

Like money, biofuels need not be the source of all evil.