Go ahead, intensify the strife

      In the news story of Philip Tubeza, Inquirer, Oct. 31, 2006, p. 2, the reporter quotes GMA ally Congressman Prospero Pichay as saying: 1)that he (Pichay) has already gathered 194 signatures to a resolution calling for con-ass, one signature more than the required 193 (ok, I was two congressmen off, I said in yesterday’s blog it was 195 based on June 2006 record; 2)that he hoped “the high court will not encroach on our legislative function of amending the Constitution …otherwise it would be violating the Constitution. You cannot issue a temporary restraining order against a co-equal branch of government” (in yesterday’s blog, we said that only a TRO, or an uprising, can stop JDV’s con-ass); and that 3)they “have all the time in the world” to have the con-ass approved because they can hold the plebiscite even on the day of the May 2007 elections (in yesterday’s blog, we said that they have to hold the plebiscite before the start of the election campaign period Jan. 14  or before the start of the filing of certificates of candidacy Jan. 15; that means Jan. 13 at the latest. ).        

     

       There’s a long line of cases on the authority of judicial review of the Supreme Court. The authority is more a responsibility than a power on the part of the Supreme Court to see to it that the  Constitution is observed, and when the Supreme Court does this, it is performing a duty rather than flexing muscle. Pichay doesn’t know anything about this so I will leave him to his ignorance and let him go ahead with his plan.      

       

     Let him go ahead with his cluelessness. The Constitution requires votes, not signatures. The signatures appearing on Pichay’s resolution is not enough, the Constitution requires that members of Congress vote, that means that the three-fourths of each house should  be present in plenary and cast  votes in “yea’s” and “nay’s” (this is not to mention the more fundamental violation here of Pichay’s and JDV’s formula, that of voting unicameral when the Constitution created and designed a bicameral legislature). But if Pichay wants to go ahead with his plan of convening a constituent assembly based merely on signatures, and unicamerally, I say: go ahead . Continue GMA’s  losing streak in the Supreme Court. Go ahead, land in the Guinness Book of World Records as being an administration with the most number of losses in court. Do it.        

        

      On “having all the time in the world” to hold a plebiscite and conducting it on the day of the elections: that should be a spectacle:

     In Pichay’s resolution, the members of Congress will continue on as an interim parliament. It means therefore that he thinks he can cancel or annul or postpone the scheduled elections just by passing a resolution, then hold a plebiscite and an election in November, 2007.  Go ahead and make a fool of yourself. The date of the elections and the terms of office of the legislators are all written in the Constitution. If you think you can delete all of those provisions in the Constitution with just one resolution passed in Congress: Go ahead. Make  a spectacle. Land in Guinness. Be clowns. Escalate the conflict between GMA and the nation. Do it.

JDV’s illegal numbers game: Con-Ass

     JDV has called for a caucus next week to plan “their strategy in convening a constituent assembly and proposing Charter amendments even without the Senate’s participation (Inquirer paraphrasing Deputy Speaker Salapuddin, Oct. 30, 2006, p. 10). When Congress resumes session on November 6, they would be working on the timetable set in the Constitution that any amendments to or revision of the Constitution must be ratified in a plebiscite held  not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendments or revision by the constituent assembly or con-con.      

      Election period starts Jan. 14 and the filing of certificates of candidacy starts Jan. 15. This means that the JDV’s  plebiscite must be held before Jan. 14 or before Jan. 15. At the latest, JDV’s plebiscite must be held Jan. 13. Count 60 days backwards, because under the Constitution as stated there must be a period of 60 days between approval of the amendments or revision and the holding of the plebiscite. This means that JDV must complete the approval of  cha-cha not later than November 14, 2006.  (take or leave a day, if my math is wrong, please correct it. thanks).        Can they stop the clock on November 14, 2006 and continue their session up to December 21 and say they beat the deadline? It’s been done before (such that, the records would still reflect “November 14” even if it’s already Christmas; and that’s assuming they’re able to maintain the quorum.) There would be of course another case because in the first place, JDV is going to embark on an illegal numbers game – the entire session would be illegal, a rump constituent assembly, if JDV’s math is to be followed.        

     JDV’s math is: there are 236 members of the House of Representatives (as of June, 2006 records). Instead of following the constitutional mandate in convening a constituent assembly:  three-fourths of a bicameral Congress (three-fourths of the House and three-fourths of the Senate), he will compute it based on a unicameral Congress. So: 236 congressmen plus 24 senators total 260 persons. Three-fourths of 260 persons is 195 persons. So, by his method, he just needs the concurrence of 195 congressmen (more or less, please correct my math if it’s inaccurate.)      Without necessarily waiving their right to question the legality of JDV’s illegal numbers game,  concerned people in Congress can put together 42 congressmen (more or less) who will not agree to JDV’s design, and, even by his own methods, he doesn’t have a con-ass (without agreeing his method was legal in the first place).        

     But if he gets the 195, and go on with their rump con-ass and even if they don’t  finish by Nov. 14, they’ll just stop the clock on that day. Between the convening of the rump con-ass and the date of the plebiscite, the only thing that can stop them is a TRO; or an uprising. There goes Christmas. And New Year.

Opalescent

                                                      The day

 The opalescent orange disc

riding the sky

is like the iridescent cd-rom

spinning in my drive

or the bursting rays and flecks

of his brown restive iris

scrolling the shimmer of skin

of my perfect time livid

now tangerine before curtaining

four billion years four billion bytes

opalescent will burn four more billion

before it corrupts and combusts

my data, memory, design

all retrievable

but inconsequential

and definitely,

finite.

The JBC has the power to nominate and not to nominate

     Senator Francis Pangilinan in a phone-patched interview over ABS-CBN News Cable or ANC (the audio was so horrible he sounded like he was speaking buried under gravel and sand, anyway), suggested that the Supreme Court justices who would be nominated or who are nominated (i.e., Supreme Court justices who are interested in replacing Chief Justice Panganiban who retires this December) should inhibit themselves in the en banc deliberation this Wednesday on the Cha-cha Sigaw ng Bayan petition. Senator Pangilinan sits in the Judicial and Bar Council, which under the Constitution is tasked with submitting to the President nominees for appointment as justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, as Ombudsman, RTC judges, etc.          

    

     The JBC is composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio chair, the Justice Secretary, representatives of the House and the Senate as ex officio, a representative of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, a retired Supreme Court justice, a representative of the academe, and a representative of the private sector.          

    

          What were Senator Pangilinan’s reasons? He said that this was in order to insulate or prevent any Supreme Court justice from being unduly influenced by Malacanang at the present Chacha (charter change) deliberations with a vote in favor of Sigaw’s petition, since as we all know, it is Malacanang who appoints Supreme Court justices including the Chief Justice.          

         The recent appointments of Malacanang to the Supreme Court: appointments of Lakas partymembers/ politicians, presidential legal counsel, frat brods close to the Firm, etc. over and above those who may be more knowledgeable or steep in practice or theory, show that anytime any day of the week Malacanang would prefer to appoint anybody who has curried favors for it as reward, compromise, or promise, as part of the system of spoils.  Anytime.                 

      The suggestion of Senator Pangilinan is a not-so-subtle way of pointing out that at this Wednesday’s en banc deliberation, Malacanang might outbid everybody else for the votes by offering/ promising/ pledging/ mortgaging the position of Supreme Court Chief Justice to the justices in exchange for a favorable vote on Sigaw’s petition (they’re running out of time you know). They could even dangle it to more than one justice. And they could hint at a justice most qualified by reason of seniority, erudition, and academic qualifications, that his hope would be dashed if he voted unfavorably.                

       That’s way the game has always been played. We played it when it favored us but now that we’re on  the other end, we protest. Those members of the JBC are responsible for shortlisting the nominees to the submitted to Malacanang. It is within their power not to include a justice whom they perceive had been compromised, had  lost his/ her integrity, independence, his/ her soul. But do they do that? The composition our Supreme Court, the CA, the Sandiganbayan, appointments to the the Ombudsman, we owe in part, in large part, to the JBC. It has become part of the system of spoils, a conduit.            

              Those of us who endorsed Gloria in 2004,   who gave her our block votes, who carried her name in our sample ballots together with our slate, all in exchange for her favor and support, are responsible in large part for the quagmire we are in now. When the Erap loyalists and FPJ supporters take to task those who prosecuted Erap, they do not know that the many whom they are marching with had carried Gloria in their sample ballots in 2004 and gave her a million block votes.              

              And so, this system of horsetrading, influence-peddling, spoils, continues, and on Wednesday, we pay for it. We pay for it big.                

           It is not too late. Those members of the JBC should make sure that those justices who, when the ante was upped, named it,  are not included in the shortlist of nominees to be Chief Justice. What are the chances of that happening? One in a million? Ask Francis. Ask the person you are marching with.                          (sorry for this, I’ve seen too many costly horsetrading in the past; have been used in too many of them, I confess. So I hope honest and independent JBC members work on this. They have the power to nominate and not to nominate).