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.

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.