www.soriano-ph.com

Latest:  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.

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.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 24 February 2008 Issue

Tomorrow is the 22nd anniversary of the so-called ‘people power 1’ that toppled the authoritarian regime of former president Ferdinand E. Marcos and brought the country from a brief revolutionary regime to a constitutional democracy. Certainly, it was a fine moment in human history that the country can be proud of.

More than seven years ago, the strong political clamor to remove former president Joseph E. Estrada on charges of corruption gave rise to ‘people power 2’. Following a constitutionally-defined succession in which the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed the post of chief executive.

While both versions of people power are being held in high esteem by the international community for the bloodless takeover of political regimes, there is no dispute that they would have not succeeded without military intervention. People power 1 and 2 were peaceful and bloodless because the top guns of the military hierarchy chose to shift loyalties to a new regime.

The sad reality is that no amount of public expression and demonstration of protest and condemnation even by a majority of the citizenry would topple a political regime without military intervention. Political leaders are naturally driven by the desire to preserve authority and power until all the avenues are closed, which only the armed forces could bring about.

Take the case of the ensuing ‘people power 3’ to restore the Estrada presidency. It failed not because it had no popular support, as in fact, Estrada obtained the most convincing and strongest mandate of the electorate in the country’s history when he got elected to the office. It failed because former president Estrada no longer had the organized support of the military generals.

In the current political controversy hounding the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the shifting of loyalties of the military hierarchy seems close to impossible. The commander-in-chief is astute enough to make the military leadership tow her line. Should the disgruntled junior officers in the military establishment decide to take matters in their hands, ‘people power 4’ would certainly be bloody and does not deserve to be called one. It would either be a rebellion, a mutiny or a coup d’etat.

The only constitutional mechanism to replace a president who betrayed public trust is the process of impeachment. But then again, this political process would not have any chance to even take off because of the president’s political dominance of the House of Representatives.

The church is calling for a ‘communal action’ or for a more meaningful or a new brand of ‘people power’ whatever that means. Certainly, street demonstrations, prayer rallies, and similar expressions of public protests would not bring about a new brand of ‘people power 4’ and make President Arroyo give up her office, even if the cardinals and the bishops are able to physically gather a million Filipinos in Luneta to call for her resignation.  The minions of the president have mastered so well the Machiavellian art of ‘divide and rule’.

For people power 4 to succeed in the same context as people power 1 and 2, but without the usual military interference, there must be some collective political will on the part of Filipinos to show that they are the sovereign authority. This could be done perhaps by momentarily withholding government support in the form of taxes, or by exercising the framework of people’s initiative to constitutionally shorten the term of the incumbent president, or a mass resignation or leave of absence of government servants who still upholds morality in public service. All these would be done only to put pressure to the president to resign and allow the constitutional processes to take shape. But obviously these are arduous paths to take.

In the meantime, a long-drawn-out political deadlock is in the offing. This means some setback in the economy and some political instability and maneuverings here and there. The Filipino people need to sacrifice more in the ensuing tug-of-war because whoever of the opposing camps blinks first loses the game.

If there is still a chance for ‘people power 4’, it should be within the constitutional spirit that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Otherwise, people power 4 could be tragic.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 27 January 2008 Issue

The congressional proceedings on the cheaper medicine bill are in the final stages. The deliberations on the measure have been controversial, if not emotional, among the stakeholders since last year. The primary objective of the proposed law is to address the popular clamor for a more affordable health care by bringing down the exorbitant costs or the overpricing of medicines in the market.

Understandably, every time government is confronted with a pressing public demand the usual response is to come up with a law to respond or as a political reaction to the issue. Fortunately for the government, the cacophony would subside momentarily. But unfortunately to the public, the predicament almost always remains unresolved. Ironically, the law in many situations consequently aggravates the issue or becomes the source of a much bigger concern.

One of the promises of the proponents of the Generics Act of 1988 was to accomplish almost the same purpose as the cheaper medicine bill. Two decades after this law, the Filipino people are still suffering from same much higher prices of medicines.

Ten years ago, Congress passed the Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1998. The promise is to ensure a truly competitive market under a regime of fair prices, adequate and continuous supply of environmentally-clean and high-quality petroleum products.  Price control of fuel products, which have been blamed by some quarters for higher prices, became deregulated. But still, fuel prices are unreasonably high and worse, oil companies are accused of predatory pricing under a monopolistic arrangements disguising as deregulation.

Overseas Filipino worker Flor R. Contemplacion was executed in Singapore for the murder of another Filipino domestic helper. In response to the weeks of consistent public protests over the issue and the plight of Filipino workers abroad, former President Fidel V. Ramos pushed for the passage of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. The promise was to reform the overseas employment industry, provide better protection to the overseas workers, and pursue a state policy of deregulation. Twelve years after, another law was passed setting aside the deregulation policy and still the victims of illegal recruitment and exploitation continue to grow in number.

In 1989, the Magna Carta for Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprises (Kalakalan 20) was passed by Congress. In 2002, an almost similar law was also enacted called the Barangay Micro Business Enterprises Act. The promise of both statutes is to promote entrepreneurship outside of urban centers by providing a package of tax and credit incentives, simplifying business regulations, and hopefully, to ease poverty and unemployment. Judging from the almost a million Filipinos seeking employment abroad in last couple of years, it is doubtful whether these programs even got off the ground.

Time and time again, government professes that foreign investments are needed to spur economic growth. But even all the packages of government incentives accorded by various laws to foreign investors did not seem to really attract them. Otherwise, this country would not be talking now about poor economic conditions and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would not be breaking her back campaigning to foreign businessmen that the Philippines is an ideal haven for their investments.

Twenty years ago, landless farmers and farm workers were promised a more equitable distribution and ownership of lands through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. With the law about to expire in June 30 and Congress talking about its extension, farmers remain poor and locked in a tug-of-war with landowners.

Labor’s demand for higher wages and the turtle pace legislative reaction brought about the Wage Rationalization Act of 1989. But the nagging issue on minimum wage fixing and implementation before the enactment of said law remains.

Other countries should envy the Philippines for having one of the best Government Procurement Reform Act, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in the world. But corruption in government is a never-ending story.

And the list of these “false hope statutes” could be never ending.

As in most regimes, government’s stance to public issues is always reactive. Good, if the reaction provides the appropriate and lasting solution. What is worse is if the reaction simply offers a false hope.  

Sometimes it is a source of wonder why government still exists.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 16 December 2007 Issue

A recent study on global corruption released by Transparency International put the Philippines as among the top countries with high level of petty bribery, together with Albania, Cambodia, Cameroon, Macedonia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania and Senegal.

In the 2007 Worldwide Corruption Perception Rankings of Transparency International, the country ranked 131st and tied with Honduras, Iran, Libya, Nepal and Yemen, a far-cry behind the top three nations considered as the least corrupt, Denmark, Finland and New Zealand.
 
Just this week, pollster, Pulse Asia, announced the result of an October 2007 survey that shows the incumbent president of the republic being perceived as the most corrupt vis-à-vis her predecessors Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon C. Aquino, Fidel V. Ramos and Joseph E. Estrada.

Who would argue against the proposition that the Philippines is a corrupt country?

From the time the country gained its sovereignty and political independence, the battle against corruption has always been at the forefront of every electoral issue. Quite ironically, every incumbent political administration would always claim that his or her government is or was never corrupt, or at least doing every possible means to curb corruption. But really, none of them had the political will and temerity to do so.

How can the country get rid of corruption when the bigger majority of the supposedly honorable men and women in public positions put themselves or find their way in office in the first place by corrupting the voters, or by influence peddling? What is the economics required of such public official to recover an onerous investment through a low-paying job? How should these public officials keep their benefactors constantly gratified in order to repay every political debt owed?

When a lowly driver is caught for a minor traffic violation, should he or she pay a hundred peso to the apprehending officer to go scot-free or should the violator insists that a traffic citation ticket be issued instead? When a citizen is stuck with the time-consuming and nerve-wracking bureaucratic procedures to accomplish a public requirement, would not an honest-to-goodness cost-benefit analysis produce the conclusion that it is better to pay even when it is not due than to line-up until thy kingdom come?

Isn’t it that a public official or employee, who rose from an ordinary life to a questionable life of wealth, fame, and ostentatious lifestyle that marked every ‘very important person’ and later institutionalizes his or her social standing as a political dynasty, is a very good role model to the Filipino youth to emulate? Isn’t it better to get rich quick than to dedicate one’s toil and blood to get there?

How can a public official or employee refuse a favor being sought by a member of the family, or by someone who belongs to a close circle of friends and associates, or by a classmate or a fraternity brother or sister?  Would not he or she be judged as an ingrate, swollen-headed, indifferent, and untying the ties that bind if he or she fails to give assistance or at least cooperate in compromising situations? 

Is it fair to the Filipino people for public functionaries accused or criminated with corruption to turn the table to their side by invoking the rule of law and the majesty of their constitutional rights?  But obviously, they are entitled to due process, privacy, the right against self-incrimination, presumption of innocence, executive privilege and some legal immunities, the benefits of political questions, and invoke the name of national security, are they not?

Public corruption has become a multi-million peso business to some and a cottage industry to many Filipinos. And as the country’s political history would show, it seems to be worth the time and the effort. 

By the way, it seems that getting rid of corruption is not only anti-poor. It is also anti-progress at least to those who think that hell does not exist.

That government is corrupt is perhaps not a mere perception. Regretfully, being corrupt is slowly becoming a way of life because of all the crimes, it pays.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 9 September 2007 Issue

In the five thousand years of Korean history, there is only one ruler conferred the title or distinction “Great” by the people of Korea, who until today is being remembered with gratitude and respect for his great wisdom.

He is King Sejong the Great, the fourth king of the Choson Dynasty of Korean who ascended to the throne in August 1418 at the age of 21 and reigned for thirty two years until his death at a young age of fifty four.

Even though Sejong merely inherited his authority as a ruler of Korea, his entire regime was solely motivated by his firm desire to serve his country well without fear of even sacrificing himself for the sake of his people. His sole standard against which he measured his success as a ruler was the happiness of his people.

When Korea was struck with successive years of bad harvests because of continuous flooding and severe drought, he starved with his people and even issued an edict making provincial officials criminally responsible if even one person in their residential district dies of hunger.

At one point on the 5th year of his rule, King Sejong declared:  “The common people are the foundation of any country. It is only when this foundation is strong that a country may be stable and prosperous.”

King Sejong had also a great concern for the senior citizens of his country.  Those who worked for his monarchy were placed in cool areas in the palace grounds where they could work in comfort.  Over the objection of his Royal Secretariat, he was also the first king to invite the elderly of lowly origin to dine with him in person at the palace. He said: “I hold these banquets to honor the dignity of old age, not to measure rank and status.”

At a time when kings were generally cruel and brutal to their subjects, Sejong showed much concern over the rights of slave and prisoners. His forbade the detention of offenders below 15 or above 70. He would make sure that prisoners were kept in clean and maintained facilities. He pursued strict observance of due process even for slaves. He implemented policies that would give women giving birth, their maternity leave and their spouses, paternity leave.

As a King, Sejong was very frugal. He wrote his commands using used government papers. When not undertaking official business, he wore patched and threadbare clothing. He did not want local delicacies being sent to him as a tribute.

King Sejong did not regard his people as simple objects of care and governance. He believed that they should be equipped with a limitless potential to put them to a higher cultural and spiritual level. To achieve this, he put great efforts to develop a new alphabet, Hangul, and put up advance printing technology for the publication of books on various subjects and made knowledge accessible to the people. 

Even at a time when his health was seriously impaired, he fortified the defenses of his country by strengthening the army and improving its standard of weaponry. He also revolutionized sciences in the field of agriculture, medicine and astronomy simultaneously with arts and literature. And they say that because of this, his people’s standard of living rose substantially.

King Sejong’s political reign was characterized by a democratic forum founded on mutual respect and tolerance. He instituted the Kyong-yon, a formal weekly occasion for reading and debate between the king and his courtiers. Through this discussion, he was able to identify and resolve national issues and ensured that every voice was heard regardless of social position.

There were a lot of other things that Sejong did for his people that made his rule a golden age in Korean history.  He is the perfect example of the ‘benevolent dictator’ or the ‘enlightened despot’ which Greek philosopher, Plato, described in his “The Republic” to build upon an ideal society.

It is safe to say therefore that the greatness of a country would always depend on the extent of greatness of its ruler.  The Philippines never had a ‘golden age’ so to speak in its history and the reason is obvious.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 22 July 2007 Issue

Tomorrow, the 14th Congress of the Philippines begins its regular session with the State of the Nation Address of the President. 

Thereafter, both the Senate and the House of Representatives are expected to pass legislations that would address the pressing needs of the country or perhaps improve the lives of the Filipino people.

Hopefully in the next three years of the 14th Congress, it enacts legislative measures along these lines:

1.  A enabling law that would finally define, prohibit and dismantle political dynasties in the country’s political environment as mandated by the Constitution.

2.  A law that would strengthen political parties by prohibiting and punishing political turncoats, granting state subsidy and funding of major political blocks, and assuring transparency in electoral campaign spending and contribution.

3.  A law that would at least lessen, if not eliminate, red tape in government particularly in the delivery of frontline public services whereby the general public availing of the services of government is treated as kings and queens by the bureaucracy.

4. A law that would define the appropriate land use classification of every piece of the country’s territory taking into account local and regional profiles and settings and make land as a real engine for economic growth.

5. A law that would impose heavy taxation on idle lands to serve the ends of the economy, the environment and social justice. When land is unproductive, its economic and environmental functions are stifled. What is worse is when landowners derive undue profits from their idle possessions through sheer speculative activities.

6.  A law that would grant the Commission on Human Rights and the Commission on Audit quasi-judicial powers or even the authority to prosecute all cases involving government officials and employees that violate laws within their ambit.

7.  A law that would exempt from income taxation employees earning below the yearly poverty threshold as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), and not merely based on existing minimum wage structures as proposed, and lift taxes or prohibit imposition of charges on small time deposits and investments.

8. A law that would ensure prosecution of tax cheats by prohibiting taxpayers from entering into a compromise with the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs after deliberately evading the payment of taxes or duties.
9. A law that would automatically give scholarship to any or all students who demonstrated excellent academic performance in any school of their choice within the Philippines, private or public. 

10. A law that would support, finance, subsidize, or give incentives to Filipino inventors and their inventions.

Of course, this list can go on and on as if there is a shortage of laws in this country.  But the truth is there are tens of thousand of law in the country’s statute books. Many of them are in fact good laws which have long been forgotten or rarely being implemented.

Keen political observers in fact would often say that this country does not need more laws.  What it needs is the difficult task of better and more effective means of demanding obedience to existing laws.

Perhaps, one of the important things that this present Congress should also do is to take an inventory of all the laws of the Republic and start proceeding with the tedious task of codifying them for better implementation.

What Greek philosopher Arcesilaus observed as early as before the birth of Christ, when he said: “Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice” should also provoke the thoughts of Filipino solons. 

It is hoped that the people of this beautiful country still finds sense in the existence of Congress.

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) - 25 February 2007 Issue

Today is the 21st anniversary of the ‘EDSA People Power Revolution’ that toppled the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

But other than being a public holiday with government-sponsored festivities, this revolution is slowly losing its luster in the hearts and minds of the Filipino people.

“Regretfully, the prevailing view is that EDSA was no big deal … that EDSA is no longer that important seems more and more the conventional wisdom … as the event recedes into the fog of history,” said former President Fidel V. Ramos, a key player in this historical event. 

What is the big deal about People Power when there is unabated corruption in public governance, when government merely pays lip service to violations of human rights, when the economic conditions of the country continue to favor the rich than the poor, when the suffrage remains subservient to electoral cheating or political patronage and getting elected to public office is reduced to a mere popularity contest, in addition to traditional rule of political dynasties?

More than two decades after the EDSA revolution, many of the same faces under the Marcos regime are still in power, only death perhaps would make them vanish from the political limelight. The new faces on the other hand simply and conveniently assumed the ugly faces and the usual ways of their old counterpart.

Twenty one years is not even enough to sustain a final conviction of the so-called Marcos cronies and put them where they finally belong at the national penitentiary. The recovery of the alleged ill-gotten wealth is still mired in a complicated process of litigation. 

All of these are the promises that EDSA failed to keep. And as years go by, there is little hope that these promises will ever be fulfilled.

With People Power, the Filipino people had that once in a lifetime opportunity for dramatic social transformation and wide-ranging political reforms. But they missed the chance very miserably either because all the post-EDSA governments did not have the political will or the people of this country are morally weak or even innately lackadaisical in preserving their gains.

Perhaps some political observers are correct in saying that what this country needs is a benevolent dictator in the concept of an ‘enlightened despot’ of ancient Greek philosopher Plato. With a dictator, political will prevails over rules and people are driven to follow. The only problem with the set-up is that it is grossly subjective. A government of men and not of laws would always be a shaky condition.

Erstwhile President Corazon C. Aquino could have been the enlightened despot the country needed at the onset of her revolutionary regime. But it is not in her mettle and so she chose the difficult path of restoring and re-building democratic processes and institutions. In any case, it would also be difficult to imagine for the people then to accept a tyrannical rule after overthrowing a tyrant.

More than twenty years later, the 1986 People Power is simply just another historic fairy tale except that it did not have an ending where Filipinos lived happily ever after. Even its 2001 sequel did not make any difference on the status quo. 
  
The next time that the people wake up to call for social and political reforms, it could be a bloody confrontation among compatriots, a cleansing process that was wanting, they say, in the bloodless coup of 1986 for the Filipino people to hold sacred the value of freedom and democracy and everything that they represent.

People power – is there really such a thing? Or is it just a broken dream?

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.