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.

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.

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

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.