How Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo got caught in her own mousetrap – halo vest and all

My analysis

By Raïssa Robles
RaissaRobles.com

Have you ever set a mousetrap and then yowled in pain as you stepped on it because you forgot all about it?

Well, that’s what happened to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her cohorts. And as a result, she may not be seeing the Swiss Alps this Christmas as she had hoped to.

Do you recall that during the twilight of her administration last year, Arroyo and her officials issued over a thousand midnight appointments that included a hairdresser, a gardener and the current Supreme Court Chief Justice?

And alongside those midnight appointments were hundreds, if not thousands, of midnight orders?

Well, one such midnight order has turned out to be a sort of legal mousetrap that has caught Arroyo, her husband Jose Miguel and over 30 others.

This is Department Circular No. 41 signed by Arroyo’s own  Justice Secretary Alberto Agra on May 25, 2010 – at a time when the entire Arroyo camp should have been packing their bags in preparation for moving out of government by June 30.

DC 41 is Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s legal basis for banning Arroyo et al from flying out of the country.

This seemingly innocuous circular was issued by Agra to “consolidate” regulations pertaining to the use of  “hold departure orders”, “watch list orders” and “allow departure orders”.

But it did more than that. It noted that existing Supreme Court Circulars “clearly state that ‘Hold Departure Order shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.’ ”

Because of this, DC 41 said, these Supreme Court circulars left a gap because they were “silent with respect to cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the RTC as well as those pending determination by government prosecution offices.”

It is the last clause, which I posted in red, which De Lima is using to bar the Arroyo couple from traveling – because they have five complaints filed against them “pending determination by government prosecution offices.”

De Lima cited the following Arroyo pending cases:

Source: From Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s decision rejecting ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s request for travel

The short DC 41 circular states that the justice secretary

is in the best position to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice, without, however, sacrificing the individual’s right to travel;

The circular states that the justice secretary can bar anyone from traveling, not only “in the interest of national security, public safety or public health” but also if there is a request made be the following government officials:

• Head of a Department of the Government
• Head of a constitutional body or commission
• The Supreme Court Chief Justice
• The Senate President
• The House Speaker

Now here is where the situation becomes hilarious.

This Tuesday November 8, 2011, lawyer Estelito Mendoza filed an urgent petition with the Supreme Court on behalf of Arroyo to declare DC 41 unconstitutional and to void it.

Mendoza was quoted by reporters as saying that a person’s right to travel may only be “impaired” in the “interest of national security, public safety, or public health.”

Therefore, Mendoza said, it was wrong for De Lima to bar Arroyo “in aid of her prosecutorial authority.”

Mendoza’s petition asked the Supreme Court to strike down DC 41 because it violates the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

By the way, shouldn’t this make us really wonder why Agra issued such a circular AFTER Benigno Aquino had emerged as the clear winner of the 2010 elections but before Congress had proclaimed him?

What was the intent of the Arroyo administration behind issuing DC 41?

It could not have been issued in order to prevent Senator Panfilo Lacson from fleeing because the latter had already slipped out to Hong Kong four months earlier.

You know, this circular really reminds me of what the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos used to do with his “Amendment No.6″.

Amendment No. 6 was an amendment Marcos inserted into the 1973 Constitution to give himself secret law-making powers.

Implications of a Supreme Court ruling on DC 41

It will now be a race between the Supreme Court and the justice department. If the Office of the Prosecutor under the justice department is able to file the cases against Arroyo in court, then an SC ruling on DC 41 could become moot and academic.

It will then be up to the court to decide whether or not to bar the Arroyo couple from leaving.

But if the Supreme Court goes ahead and rules that DC 41 is indeed unconstitutional, then it will have a different dilemma in its hands – that of convincing the public that it is not an Arroyo court even if most of its justices were appointed by her.

And should it allow Arroyo to go abroad and she fails to return,  the Supreme Court would be totally blamed for it.

By the way, this is not the first time that a high government official has been caught in this manner.  Ex-President Joseph Estrada was convicted for plunder in 2007 – a crime that he had voted to approve into law when he was still a senator.

I think this is what it means when someone says a person was “hung by his own petard.”

Still, I’d like to console Mrs Arroyo with the music below:

___________________________

Here’s the entire text of DC 41 :

Republika ng Pilipinas
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
M a n i l a

DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 41 JUNE 07, 2010

CONSOLIDATED RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE ISSUANCES AND IMPLEMENTING OF HOLD DEPARTURE ORDERS, WATCHLIST ORDERS, AND ALLOW DEPARTURE ORDERS

WHEREAS, while several Supreme Court circulars, issued through the Office of the Court Administrator, clearly state that “Hold Departure Order shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts,” said circulars are, however, silent with respect to cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the RTC as well as those pending determination by government prosecution offices;

WHEREAS, apart from the courts, the Secretary of Justice as head of the principal law agency of the government mandated to, inter alia, investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders, and provide immigration regulatory services, is in the best position to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice, without, however, sacrificing the individual’s right to travel;

WHEREAS, the Department of Justice, therefore, issued Circular No. 17 on March 19, 1998 and Circular No. 18 on April 23, 2007 to respectively govern the issuance and implementation of Hold Departure Orders (HDOs), Watchlist Orders (WLOs), and Allow Departure Orders (ADOs), among others;

WHEREAS, in view of the problems that cropped up both in the issuance and implementation of said Orders, there is a need to review, revise and consolidate the two department issuances to ensure their effective implementation.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of existing laws, the following consolidated rules are hereby adopted:

Section 1. Hold Departure Order. – The Secretary of Justice may issue an HDO, under any of the following instances:

(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs).

If the case against the accused is pending trial, the application under oath of an

interested party must be supported by (a) a certified true copy of the complaint or information and (b) a Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned that criminal case is still pending.

(b) Against the alien whose presence is required either as a defendant, respondent, or witness in a civil or labor case pending litigation, or any case before an administrative agency of the government.

The application under oath of an interested party must be supported by (a) a certified true

copy of the subpoena or summons issued against the alien and (b) a certified true copy complaint in civil, labor or administrative case where the presence of the alien is required.

(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue an HDO against any person, either motu proprio, or upon the request by the Head of a Department of the Government; the head of a constitutional body or commission; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the Judiciary; the Senate President or the House Speaker for the Legislature, when the adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.

Section 2. Watchlist Order. – The Secretary of Justice may issue a WLO, under any of the following instances:

(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases pending trial before the Regional Trial Court.

The application under oath of an interested party must be supported by (a) certified true

copy of an Information filed with the court, (b) a certified true copy of the Prosecutor’s Resolution; and (c) a Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned that criminal case is still pending.

(b) Against the respondent, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases pending preliminary investigation, petition for review, or motion for reconsideration before the Department of Justice or any of its provincial or city prosecution offices.

The application under oath of an interested party must be supported by (a) certified true copy of the complaint filed, and (b) a Certification from the appropriate prosecution office concerned that the case is pending preliminary investigation, petition for review, or motion for reconsideration, as the case may be.

(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue a WLO against any person, either motu proprio, or upon the request of any government agency, including commissions, task forces or similar entities created by the Office of the President, pursuant to the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003″ (R.A. No. 9208) and/or in connection with any investigation being conducted by it, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.

Section 3. Completeness of Information. – To ensure the proper identification of the subject of the HDO/WLO and to avoid inconvenience to any innocent party, all applications or requests, including the HDO/WLO to be issued, shall contain the following information of the subject:

a. Complete name, i.e. given name, middle name or initial and surname;

b. Alias/es, if any;

c. Date and place of birth;

d. Place of last residence;

e. Passport details, if available;

f. Recent photograph, if available;

g. Complete title and docket number of the case; and

h. Specific nature of the case.

Section 4. HDO/WLO Validity. – The validity period of any HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular shall be reckoned from the date of its issuance. The HDO shall valid for five (5) years unless sooner terminated. On the other hand, the WLO shall be valid for sixty (60) days unless sooner terminated or extended, for a non-extendible period of not more than sixty (60) days.

Section 5. HDO/WLO Lifting or Cancellation. – In the lifting or cancellation of the HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular, the following rules shall apply:

(a) The HDO may be lifted or cancelled under any of the following grounds:

1. When the validity period of the HDO as provided for in the preceding section has already expired;

2. When the accused subject of the HDO has been allowed to leave the country during the pendency of the case, or has been acquitted of the charge, or the case in which the warrant/order of arrest was issued has been dismissed or the warrant/order of arrest has been recalled;

3. When the civil or labor case or case before an administrative agency of the government wherein the presence of the alien subject of the HDO/WLO has been dismissed by the court or by appropriate government agency, or the alien has been discharged as a witness therein, or the alien has been allowed to leave the country;

(b) The WLO may be lifted or cancelled under any of the following grounds:

1. When the validity period of the WLO as provided for in the preceding section has already expired;

2. When the accused subject of the WLO has been allowed by the court to leave the country during the pendency of the case, or has been acquitted of the charge; and

3. When the preliminary investigation is terminated, or when the petition for review, or motion for reconsideration has been denied and/or dismissed.

(c) All applications for lifting/cancellation of HDOs/WLOs must be under oath and accompanied by certified true copies of the documentary evidence in support of the ground relied upon.

(d) Any HDO/WLO issued by the Secretary of Justice either motu proprio or upon request of government functionaries/offices mentioned in Sections 1 and 2, when the adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, may be lifted or recalled anytime if the application is favorably indorsed by the government functionaries/offices who requested the issuance of the aforesaid HDO/WLO.

Section 6. Implementation of HDO/WLO/ADO Issuance and Lifting/Cancellation. – All Orders issued pursuant to this Circular shall be immediately transmitted to the Commissioner of Immigration for implementation, copy furnished the person/s subject thereof, to give the latter adequate opportunity to content the Order or request consideration thereof.

Section 7. Allow Departure Order (ADO). – Any person subject of HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular who intends, for some exceptional reasons, to leave the country may, upon application under oath with the Secretary of Justice, be issued an ADO.

The ADO may be issued upon submission of the following requirements:

a. Affidavit stating clearly the purpose, inclusive period of the intended travel, and containing an undertaking to immediately report to the DOJ upon return; and

b. Authority to travel or travel clearance from the court or appropriate government office where the case upon which the issued HDO/WLO was based is pending, or from the investigating prosecutor in charge of the subject case.

Section 8. Issuance of Clearance/Certification of Not the Same Person. – Any person who is prevented from leaving the country because his name appears to be the same as the one that appears in the HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular may, upon application under oath, be issued a Certification to the effect that said person is not the same person whose name appears in the issued HDO/WLO.

The Certification may be issued upon submission of the following requirements:

a. Affidavit of Denial;

b. Photocopy of the page of the passport bearing the personal details;

c. Latest clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); and

d. Clearance from the court or appropriate government agency, whenever applicable.

Section 9. Processing Fees. – Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 9279 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, there shall be collected and paid to the Cashier’s Office of this Department the following fees to cover the administrative costs for services rendered by the Legal Staff, to wit:

Issuance/Lifting or Cancellation/Extension of HDO/WLO
- P2,500.00

Issuance of Allow Departure Order
- P2,500.00

Issuance of Clearance/Certification of Not the Same Person
- P500.00

Section 10. Repealing Clause. - All rules and regulations, particularly those contained in Circular No. 17 dated March 19, 1998 and Circular No. 18 dated April 23, 2007, as well as all instructions, issuances or orders or parts thereof inconsistent with the Rules provided herein, are hereby superseded and/or repealed accordingly.

Section 11. Effectivity. - These rules shall take effect immediately.

May 25, 2010.

ALBERTO C. AGRA
Acting Secretary

http://raissarobles.com/2011/11/09/how-gloria-macapagal-arroyo-got-caught-in-her-own-mousetrap-halo-vest-and-all/

Payback

CITIZEN Y 

By Yoly Villanueva-Ong 
The Philippine Star

There is a popular Facebook posting that has been doing the rounds for some time now: “Karma. No need for revenge. Just sit back and wait. Those who hurt you will eventually screw up themselves and if you’re lucky, God will let you watch.” The thought seems to provide comfort if not pleasure for those that have experienced the pain of being maligned, betrayed and wronged at some point in their lives, whether deserved or not.

The desire for vengeance has universal appeal. Acting on the craving however, is an individual choice. Some justify violence, a handful savor their anger and keep it simmering for a lifetime, while others look up to heaven and leave it to God. For most, forgiving is easier than forgetting. But it has been said that Filipinos have a short memory. Is it possible though, that as a people challenged by the demands of day-to-day survival, we may forget, but not necessarily forgive?

Three national surveys confirm that Filipinos rate Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the most corrupt, worst-performing President since 1986. And in a recent TV Patrol survey, 83 percent disagreed that GMA should be allowed to leave the country for medical treatment. Business organizations which were generally content with the economic programs of Arroyo, now want accountability for the alleged corruption perpetuated during her term.

Feisty DOJ Sec. Leila de Lima is being cajoled one moment and harassed the next by Arroyo’s camp to allow GMA to leave even if she is considered a flight risk and the gravity of her medical condition may be exaggerated. The Philippine Medical Association has issued a statement attesting that “there are many experts on metabolic bone illnesses in the Philippines, contrary to the pronouncement of Arroyo’s camp… bone biopsy, which Arroyo also reportedly needs, is a regular procedure done almost daily in the Philippines.”

GMA’s minions have accused De Lima of prolonging the decision in order to gain more mileage for her future senatorial bid. But the surveys already give the DOJ Secretary top marks and the election is still too far-off. It is more likely that the arrogance of power-past remains undiminished even on bended knees.

One of the most rabid GMA defenders is Atty. Raul Lambino. Yes the same guy who in 2004 founded Lawyers for Electoral Advocacy and Democracy (LEAD) to support Fernando Poe Jr.’s presidential campaign. He was one of the most vocal protesters against the massive electoral fraud supposedly orchestrated by GMA against FPJ. Since then, he has displayed amazing flexibility. One wonders what karmic retribution awaits those who change allegiances like underwear.

As quickly as FPJ’s untimely demise, in 2005 GMA appointed Lambino twice as a member of two commissions on Charter Change. Under EO 453, he joined the Consultative Commission (Con-Com) with a P10 million funding, and the Charter Change Advocacy Commission (Ad Com) with a P5 million fund, in 2006.

On February 2006, Lambino teamed up with Erico Aumentado to gather signatures to amend the 1987 Constitution. On August 2006, they filed a petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will validate their initiative under RA 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act. They proposed to transform the current Bicameral-Presidential system into a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. It was generally seen as a thinly-veiled attempt to install GMA as the Prime Minister and extend her nine-year term even longer.

Lambino claimed that they gathered 6,327,952 signatures or 12 percent , with at least three percent of its registered voters representing every legislative district. He avowed that these were verified by election registrars. COMELEC denied the petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. Unfazed, Lambino appealed to the Supreme Court then under CJ Reynato Puno but failed to get a favorable ruling.

Ah, the Supreme Court. The question in many minds is why hasn’t Corona’s Tribunal acted with their usual haste to overturn DOJ’s watch list order on GMA as they did for Mike Arroyo. Could it be that the High Court is now super-sensitive about reinforcing an Arroyo-court image? Or could CJ Corona’s zero trust rating be so grating, he now thinks twice before supporting his patroness outright, or wrong as the case maybe.

The Supreme Court is in the classic Catch-22 situation with no happy ending in sight. If it reverses DOJ to allow GMA to leave the country, it will surely make the label stick, and Corona’s ratings might plunge even lower. There is no good solution or resolution possible in this case, no way for the Supreme Court to come out on top. It’s a no-win dilemma — damned if they do, damned if they don’t. So the High Court better stir clear of the issue and hope that it will not be elevated to the “last bastion of democracy”.

The theory of Karma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism and Hinduism. It is the law of moral causation. Believers support this cosmic principle of Theosophy where each person brings upon himself inevitable results, good or bad, reward or punishment either in this life or the next — according to his deeds and misdeeds.

It is tempting to suppose that God will allow us to watch those who have not lived by their oaths get their just deserts. Hypoparathyroidism, negative trust and performance ratings, and a black spot in history could be the beginning of settling the score. It certainly gives momentary bliss to think that offenders will not get away with it.

But as trite as it sounds, the best revenge is for every citizen to live well and succeed, despite the damage that some bad leaders have inflicted on our collective psyche. The most satisfying way to get even is to regain our sense of right and wrong, to elect, have faith and support good leaders who will not betray public trust. Right now, President Aquino enjoys the trust of 7 out of 10 Filipinos. This popularity must be more painful to bear than any medical condition, imagined or real.

* * *

citizenyfeedback@gmail.com

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=745786&publicationSubCategoryId=64

Bring China’s 9-dash line to UN: Justice Carpio

By Ellen Tordesillas

Malaya

‘If the Philippines brings the battle outside of UNCLOS, it can never expect to win over China, whether militarily or diplomatically.’ If the Philippines brings the battle outside of UNCLOS, it can never expect to win over China, whether militarily or diplomatically.’

THE Philippine claim on the islands in the South China Sea , now being called West Philippine Sea by Philippine authorities, could have been stronger had past administrations been more decisive about asserting our claims in the area that is being claimed wholly by China and Taiwan and partially by, aside from the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei.

In a speech of Supreme Court Justice Antonio T. Carpio at the 50th anniversary celebration of Ateneo de Davao University last Oct. 29 on “The Rule of Law as the Great Equalizer’, he mentioned two instances when the Philippines could have done something but did not to strengthen the Philippine claim over the area that spans hundreds of thousands square kilometers including 53 islets.

The first time was right after the Philippines became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982 and the other one was before China submitted its nine-dash line map to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in May 2009.

In discussing the rule of law, Carpio zeroed in on three major international conventions which the Philippines has ratified: the UNCLOS; the Agreement creating in 1995 the World Trade Organization or WTO; and the Rome Statute, the treaty creating the International Criminal Court or ICC.

Carpio was President Fidel Ramos’ chief legal counsel and he knows whereof he speaks about the missed opportunities in building lighthouses.

He said: “after the Philippines became a signatory to UNCLOS in 1982, Philippine officials studied for several years various options on how to maximize the country’s archipelagic waters under UNCLOS. Finally, these officials agreed on one thing: establish lighthouses in low-tide elevations (LTEs), which are rocks above water at low tide but submerged at high tide. With lighthouses, these LTEs qualify under UNCLOS as basepoints to connect archipelagic baselines. Without lighthouses, these LTEs do not qualify as basepoints. Preparations were thus made to install lighthouses in several LTEs, particularly in the Kalayaan Island Group.

“In early 1998, the Philippine Government decided to install the lighthouses. However, at the last minute, the Philippine Government backed out and stopped the installation of the lighthouses. Thus, the Philippines missed the chance to maximize its archipelagic waters under UNCLOS.”

Documents I have obtained on this attempt to build lighthouses in KIG showed that it was bureaucratic wrangling, particularly between the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) and the Department of National Defense on who would be the lead agency in the activity that had an initial budget of P178 million.

On the second missed opportunity, Carpio said, “If China’s 9-dashed line map is questioned before an UNCLOS tribunal, there is no doubt that it would be declared as having no basis in international law.

“China’s 9-dashed line map simply cannot co-exist with UNCLOS. Upholding one means killing the other. The challenge then, for the Philippines as well as for other states trampled upon by China’s 9-dashed line map, is how to bring the validity of China’s 9-dashed line map to an UNCLOS tribunal, given that China has opted out in 2006 from the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism of UNCLOS. Had the Philippines and other claimant states brought China to compulsory arbitration before 2006, China, which ratified UNCLOS in 1996, would have had no recourse but to submit to compulsory arbitration. That would have ended China’s claim to the entire South China Sea under whatever basis or theory. Inexplicably, the Philippines and other claimant states missed their chance to bring China to UNCLOS before China opted out of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism.”

The nine-dash-line is a map showing a U-shaped line enclosing almost the whole of the South China Sea which China claims belongs to them. The map has been widely protested by several countries including the Philippines and criticized in the international community.

In the recently-held forum on South China Sea organized by the Carlos P. Romulo Foundation, Peter Gailbraith, former US ambassador to Croatia and who now heads the Windham Resources Group, which provides negotiating and strategic services to government and corporate clients, said China’s nine-dash-line “has no basis in international law.”

Carpio said “Not all is lost” with the Philippines.

Government agencies involved in the South China Sea issue (Foreign Affairs, Defense and Justice departments) should study this part of Carpio’s speech:

“First, a state that opts out of the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement mechanism is still subject to compulsory conciliation under UNCLOS. While the decision of an UNCLOS conciliation commission is not binding on the parties, its ruling is nevertheless persuasive. If the conciliation commission concludes that China’s 9-dashed line map has no basis in international law, then that is practically the end of China’s claim to 90% of the South China Sea. World opinion will turn strongly against China if it insists on its 9-dashed line map. The South China Sea is the second busiest international sea-lane in the world. More than one-half of the world’s merchant fleet by tonnage passes through the South China Sea every year. More than 80% of the crude oil for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan passes through the South China Sea. The entire world has an important stake in the South China Sea. A country like China that depends on international trade for its growth and prosperity cannot simply ignore world opinion. As events in the break-up of Yugoslavia and the upheavals of the Arab Spring have shown, world opinion has become the defining moral force behind the Rule of Law.

“Second, UNCLOS allows states to opt out of compulsory arbitration only with respect to the delimitation of overlapping maritime zones or issues involving historic bays or titles forming part of internal waters. The validity of China’s 9-dashed line map is an issue that is independent of maritime delimitation because it also affects fishing, scientific research and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. No historic bay or title is involved because China obviously cannot claim the South China Sea as its internal waters.

“Also, whether the geographic features in the Spratlys Islands Group in the West Philippine Sea are rocks or islands entitled to maritime zones is an issue not subject to the opt out clause as this issue does not involve the delimitation of maritime boundaries. Once the maritime status of these rocks and islands are defined, as distinguished from their sovereignty status, the extent of the disputed area in the South China Sea will also be defined and narrowed. If none of the islands generate their own EEZs, then there will be no overlapping EEZs between China and the Philippines in the Spratlys Islands Group. If some islands generate their own EEZs, then the dispute will be narrowed to those overlapping EEZs, freeing the rest of the South China Sea from any dispute.

“Thus, some international law scholars have suggested that opposing claimant states should subject the validity of China’s 9-dashed line map, as well as the maritime status of the rocks and islands in the South China Sea, to compulsory arbitration under UNCLOS.

“In this crucial battle to secure our EEZ under UNCLOS, the Philippines can never lose to China, unless the Philippines commits an irremediable blunder like bringing the battle outside of UNCLOS. We must bring the battle to an UNCLOS tribunal for resolution of the dispute under UNCLOS. Our right to our EEZ in the South China Sea is guaranteed under UNCLOS. UNCLOS will lose its reason for existence if it fails to secure for the Philippines its EEZ. If the Philippines brings the battle outside of UNCLOS, it can never expect to win over China, whether militarily or diplomatically.”

***

Blog:www.ellentordesillas.com

E-mail:ellentordesillas@gmail.com

Ninoy name to replace Dadong at Clark airport?

POSTSCRIPT 

By Federico D. Pascual Jr. 
The Philippine Star

SELL NAIA: Another major decision of President Noynoy Aquino that is likely to trigger political debate is the projected transfer of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) to Clark Field some 100 kilometers away in Pampanga.

The most daunting problem here is not engineering but financing, how to raise the billions needed for the idea to take off. The standard 1-2 formula for solving that is: (1) Reduce the problem to pesos/dollars, then (2) raise the money.

The bulk of the problem is more or less solved if the money needed — plus contingency expenses and, of course, the usual commissions — is eventually raised.

Transportation Secretary Mar Roxas has addressed the financing problem. He said the government would sell the prime NAIA site in Pasay to raise the billions needed. That makes sense to most people, especially those jockeying to acquire the land.

* * *

RAIL OR ROADWAY?: What remains hanging is how to transport daily the thousands of airline passengers between Clark and Metro Manila in at least 40 minutes one-way.

That requires another 1-2 solution: calculating the cost, then raising the money to buy right of way, relocate communities and build the railtracks or roadway (whichever route is chosen first).

The engineering aspects can be adjusted, depending on how much money is available for all those waiting to be paid and what timeframe is imposed.

A major time constraint is that President Aquino must deliver something operational before he steps down in 2016.

* * *

NORTHRAIL MESS: The original plan was to build a double rail track more or less following the northbound line of the Philippine National Railways. For this project, called NorthRail, a huge dollar loan was secured from Japan.

But it appears that much of the funds have been frittered away, tra-la-la, without much to show for it except bulging pockets.

That fastbreak occurred during the past Arroyo dispensation, but, miracle of miracles, President Aquino did not drop the NorthRail project as corrupt. He is now reportedly seeking another loan for it, also from Japan.

Assuming we can raise fresh billions, in the process hocking the future of our grandchildren still unborn, that is not the end of the movie in my mind. I see politics about to make its usual entrance anytime to spoil the scene.

* * *

MOVE OVER, DADONG?: Even before the lucky contractors are able to build the terminals and related structures in Clark, a political storm might hit the area and derail, or at least delay, the projected transfer.

When we move NAIA to Clark, what do we actually transfer?

As in showbiz, there will be the big howling debate about billing. (Billing here does not refer to who gets the fat commissions, but whose names go where, and how big they will be.)

Will the name Ninoy Aquino International Airport stay in Pasay, where Ninoy was executed by state assassins in August 1983 at the tarmac of what was then called the Manila International Airport?

Or will the revered name of President Noynoy’s father replace that of former President Diosdado Macapagal whose name now identifies what is coming up as the country’s premier international airport?

Too bad for Cong Dadong that he happens to be the father of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the most despised political enemy of Noynoy Aquino.

* * *

LONGISH NAME: How will his cabalens and the political opposition take it if the name of Cong Dadong, a non-controversial president, is replaced with that of a president the Philippines never had?

We cannot have a longish name Diosdado Macapagal-Ninoy Aquino International Airport (or vice versa) wrapped around the façade and the side of the terminal. We can make it blink or sparkle to look like a giant signature Christmas decor, but that will not sell it.

Before we forget, the main reason why NAIA was named after Ninoy Aquino was that he was gunned down right there in Pasay upon his return from exile. Do we have him shot all over again in Clark to justify using his name again at another place of execution?

* * *

CLARK WHO?: Somebody said we can scrap both NAIA and DMIA and update the name to Noynoy Aquino International Airport and paint it yellow. Puede rin, except that I think there is a law, or a superstition, against naming public structures after living persons.

Para walang away, others suggested calling it Clark International Airport na lang. After all, they added, Clark is recognized in the IATA list of destinations and in the tagging of luggage as CRK (short for Clark).

Who is Clark in the first place? Surely not Clark Kent (aka Superman) of the Daily Planet, he is presumably an American somebody, maybe an ace US Air Force pilot.

But never mind IATA, Superman and baggage tags. Why dump an illustrious former president and a beloved native of the place in favor of a Clark somebody whose background still has to be researched?

* * *

DOABLES FIRST: What do we do now, aside from prattling over trivia and billing?

We can adopt the approach suggested by former Bataan congressman Felicito Payumo, now chairman of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. He proposed doing first the doable tasks, picking the low-hanging and ripening fruits instead of overreaching.

The name of DMIA in Clark can be retained, maintaining the status quo, and the major terminal there can be named Ninoy Aquino Terminal. That looks fair enough, less controversial, and immediately doable.

As for the rapid Clark-Manila link, while we look for the billions to continue NorthRail (hoping the money is not stolen again), we can build an alternative rail line in the middle of the North Luzon Expressway that is cheaper and faster to build, completing it before P-Noy steps down.

* * *

FOLLOWUP: Access POSTSCRIPTs at www.manilamail.com. Follow us at Twitter.com/@FDPascual. Email to fdp333@yahoo.com

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=745781&publicationSubCategoryId=64

Pusong Mamon

Pagtanaw at Pananaw

By Bert de Guzman
Balita

Ano ba ang pagkakaiba ng ipinatutupad na “All-Out Justice” ni President Benigno S. Aquino III sa iminumungkahi namang “All-Out War” ni dating Pangulong Joseph Estrada bukod sa SPELLING?

Papaano magkakaroon ng hustisya ang mga biktima at kanilang kamag-anak, partikular sa kaso ng 19 sundalong pinaslang ng mga taksil na rebelde ng Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) kasama ang tulisang Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), kung hanggang ngayon ay nagmamatigas ang liderato ng MILF na hindi nila isusurender si Commander Dan Laksaw Asnawi, lider ng mga tumambang sa mga sundalo at pinagbibintangang namugot sa mga kawal noong 2007 na kanila ring tinambangan.

Nakakahalata yata at nakakaramdam ang MILF sa pamumuno nina Al Haj Murad at Vice Chairman Ghadzali Jaafar na PUSONG MAMON ang gobyerno ni P-Noy kung kaya kaytapang nilang maghayag ng gayong paninindigan! Hindi naman marahil duwag ang gobyerno natin.

Hindi masisisi ang BOSS (taumbayan) ni PNoy kung magduda na walang sinseridad sa usapang-pangkapayapaan ang MILF subalit bilib na bilib naman ang binatang Pangulo na tutupad sa usapan ang mga rebelde na pinamumunuan ni Murad na kanyang kinausap nang palihm siyang magtungo sa Japan kamakailan. Maniniwala lang ba siya kung nagkakaubos na ang mga sundalo sa kamay ng MILF?

Samantala, kinukuwestiyon ni Minority Leader Edcel Lagman at ng mga kritiko ng Pangulo kung bakit binigyan ng Malacanang ng P5 milyon ang MILF gayong may hinalang ipinambili lang ito ng mga bala at amas panlaban sa tropa ng pamahalaan. Siyempre pa, itinanggi ito ng P-Noy admin at maging ng MILF. Ang P5 milyon daw ay para sa Bangsamoro Management and Leadership Institute (BMLI) na ang layunin ay magamit sa paggabay sa mga kabataang Muslim para maging mabubuting lider ng Mindanao.

-00-0-0-0-

Sa Banal na Kasulatan, maliwanag na isinasaad na ang “Salapi ang ugat ng lahat ng kasamaan. Ganito rin kaya ang nangyari sa naganap na pagpatay kay Ram Revilla, anak ni ex-Sen. Ramon Revilla Sr., na diumano ay ang dalawang kapatid ang pinaghihinalaang nasa likod ng pagpatay. Ang matandang Revilla raw ay nagbibigay ng P1 milyong allowance bawat buwan sa pamilya ni Genelyn Magsaysay, ina ni Ram at walong iba pa. May hinala ang mga sumusubaybay sa usapin na baka pinag-aawayan nila ang gayong halaga. Ito ay itinangging lahat ng mga Revilla at maging ni Ginang Magsaysay na asawa ng dating Senador.

Well, hindi sana totoo na dahil sa pera nag-away at nagpatayan ang magkakapatid. Hindi ang salapi ang pinakalundo ng kaligayahan ng tao sa mundo, manapa ay ang pagkakaroon ng “peace of mind” kahit kakaunti lang ang iyong pera at ikaw ay namumuhay nang simple, payapa, makatao, makadiyos at malusog! Bert de Guzman