Poor in the pocket, rich in the heart

June 2, 2012 

By K.Z. Eliserio
Kabayan Weekly (Dubai, UAE)

Why is the Philippines such a poor country when Filipinos are such intelligent people? When the majority of the population can speak English? This was a question posed to me by a friend/colleague one morning while we were having coffee and talking about the current status of our respective countries. Hers, being in a state of disarray, mine being in a state of seemingly self-inflicted poverty.

When I ask myself the same question, I can only come up with one answer, because Filipinos are all about heart. I think we Filipinos have a completely different human anatomy – heart in the head, brains in the chest.

The Philippines may be a third world country, or in the recent years a cub economy, but we are a country far from being poor. Truth be told, the Pearl of the Orient is rich. Loaded with natural resources, fact being our very own Puerto Princesa Undeground River has been included in the New 7 Wonders of Nature, and that’s just one of many. But Filipinos are our greatest national treasure.

However, we are a country ruled by the heart first and foremost.

Now, before I can even start a protest rally let me elaborate, after all, yours truly is first to admit, this theory applies to me.

The Filipino race has been gifted with intelligence, there is no question about that and yet, we always seem to decide with our hearts, second only with our heads.

As Filipinos are born amnesiacs, we forget and forgive so easily. Take for instance how the Marcoses, after a 20-year regime were driven out of the country. It was in the same manner that former President Joseph Estrada has lost his seat of power. Yet look at where they are now, back where we did not want them before. Why? Because we chose to see the good in them. We believe that everyone has good in them, and that’s what we always choose to see.

Because Filipinos are all about the game. Even as young children, we were taught that it does not matter if we lose or win, it’s is how we play the game. It’s always about giving one’s heart and soul to anything – never about giving 100% of muscles and brains. Never about being number 1, always about giving your all. Never about being the THE best among the rest, always about being one’s best self. We have this need to compete only with ourselves, and perhaps, that is all we need.

Because Filipinos are talented and passionately so. We are born artists and given the choice between the academe and the arts, we are sure to choose the arts. While we give a lot of weight to education, we allow this to take a back seat when a chance to explore our passion for the arts arise, which will explain why while we have millions of university degree holders, an even more number are into “finding one’s self” in the field where they can be happy.

Because Filipinos are happy and loving people. Have we not heard the phrase “what is important is that you are happy” over and over again? Happiness and family that is always our priority and perhaps we have it right. What are we here for to begin with anyway if not our family and our happiness?

Because Filipinos are carers and supporters. The world over, we are known for being the best nannies, caregivers, teachers & nurses and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, these are noble jobs and a lot of great people have been once touched by these caring hands.

Because the Filipinos are fast becoming citizens of the world, and not just because of our ever-growing population, but because of our ability to be flexible and to conform to the norms of whichever society we find ourselves in, regardless sometimes of being treated as second-class citizens.

In the Middle East, there is an estimated 2 Million Overseas Filipinos, while we have a lot of Engineers, Accountants, etc., the majority of our people are in the hospitality or sales industry and a growing number are in the administrative work force as secretaries or as personal assistants. We seem to be contented and happy enough to be in the background, so long as the team gets the job, so long as the goal is achieved, we are just as pleased with ourselves. And why should we not?

We may in the future, if the predictions are correct, have a vastly improved economy, or maybe not. But so what? I am certain one thing will remain constant, that we Filipinos will continue to be a happy, loving people. In the end, that’s all that matters anyway.

The Senate rises while Rudy Fariñas shines

May 30, 2012

AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR 
By William M. Esposo 
The Philippine Star

For most people, Ilocos Norte Representative Rudy Fariñas came into our consciousness when he circulated a Betamax video of actress Vivian Velez and him — where they stripped into their birthday clothes, among other things they did on and off camera. Last Monday, Rudy Fariñas outdid himself by stripping now convicted Chief Justice Renato C. Corona in front of a national television audience.

Now popularly called the Palusot (excuse) Rudy Fariñas Prosecution closing argument for convicting CJ Corona, he spoke mostly in Filipino and in a language that registered well with Juan dela Cruz. He managed to give Juan dela Cruz the complex issues of the impeachment trial in easy to digest bite sizes. The closing argument of Fariñas had all the hallmarks of effective mass communications. It was crafted according to the appreciation level of Juan dela Cruz.

He compared what Corona declared as assets in his SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) and did not declare. In his SALN, 98 percent or P180 million of his cash assets were not declared by Corona. Only P3.5 million of his cash assets were declared. That led to a conclusion of an attempt to conceal assets. He exposed inaccuracies in Corona’s claim to having traded in dollars. He showed how ridiculous Corona’s claim was of having borrowed money from his wife’s firm — why pay interest when you have the cash.

Earlier projected as an odd-man-out in the Prosecution panel, Fariñas turned out to be the saving grace for the disappointing closing argument made earlier by Lead Prosecutor Niel Tupas. Fariñas gave you the impression that he meant to talk to Juan dela Cruz. Tupas gave you the impression that he just loves to hear the sound of his squeaky voice.

The media tracking of last Monday’s closing arguments clearly reflected the celebrity that Rudy Fariñas had gained. Farinas logged an 87.77 percent approval by those who followed the penultimate day of the impeachment trial. Only 12.23 percent disapproved what he asserted. In contrast, Niel Tupas logged a disapproval rating of 80.53 percent versus a shameful 19.47 percent approval rating.

Considering that the prosecution enjoys majority of public support, this is a clear demonstration of the lack of quality of Niel Tupas. On verbal communications, he does not create empathy — sounding more like an entry in a declamation contest. He’s no better in non-verbal because his small, lean frame tends to reinforce the impression that he is of substandard quality.

So impressive was the impact of the closing argument of Rudy Fariñas that Defense lawyer Dennis Manalo did not track online because Fariñas reactions were still swamping the Internet. Manalo had the bad luck of speaking after Fariñas. Manalo may have also failed to make a positive impression because he too — like Tupas — appeared like an entry to a high school declamation contest and the fact that he was espousing the unpopular view.

Defense lawyer Ed de los Angeles had a 73.68 percent disapproval rating while chalking a 26.32 percent approval rating. Lead Defense lawyer, former Supreme Court Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas enjoyed an approval rating of 74.18 percent versus a disapproval rating of 25.82 percent, which was impressive considering that he was espousing an unpopular cause. As of 5 p.m. last Monday, overall tracking was 84.47 percent against CJ Corona compared to 15.53 percent in favor.

It must be clarified that the tracking was culled from Internet traffic. Easily 40 percent of Filipinos, especially those from the socio-economic class E, are not participants. However, seeing how Fariñas delivered his closing argument — it’s safe to say that he would have done better with the class E because they can hardly appreciate the legalese of the Defense panel. Fariñas would have communicated to the class E while Messrs. Cuevas, de los Angeles and Manalo delivered messages that flew over their heads.

The May 22 and May 25 trial appearances of CJ Corona were mainly directed towards the national audience — to earn public support. Corona’s language and emotional expressions were meant to reverse adverse public opinion, which weighs heavily among senator-judges whether they would admit it or not. He was doing very well until he laid down conditions to his waiver and walked out. After that, the case for acquitting Corona was irretrievably lost.

In our May 10 column, your Chair foresaw that senator-judges Frank Drilon, Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Serge Osmena, TG Guingona, Kiko Pangilinan, Ed Angara, Ping Lacson, Lito Lapid, Antonio Trillanes IV, Ralph Recto, Jinggoy Estrada, Chiz Escudero, Koko Pimentel, Tito Sotto, Gringo Honasan and Juan Ponce-Enrile would vote for conviction but didn’t discount that Senators Manny Villar and Loren Legarda could too. My forecast was off by one — the guilty vote of Senator-Judge Bong Revilla. The Senate rose to the occasion and did us proud.

It’s not a time to celebrate but a time to unite and move our country forward. My Ateneo classmate Rene Corona is very much in my prayers. We may be divided by a national issue but we have more things that unite us — AMDG, diabetes, chronic kidneys, spinal stenosis, to name a few.

* * *

Shakespeare: “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.”

* * *

Chair Wrecker e-mail and website: macesposo@yahoo.com. and www.chairwrecker.com

Tactical blunders seal conviction of Corona

May 30, 2012

POSTSCRIPT 
By Federico D. Pascual Jr. 
The Philippine Star

SELF-INFLICTED: Listening to the senator-judges explain their votes at the conclusion Tuesday of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, one gets the feeling it was the accused who convicted himself.

Many senators, including Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile who presided over the 44-day trial that began Jan. 16, noted the sloppy preparation and performance of the prosecution panel.

It was widely noticed that the prosecution brought in hurriedly assembled charges and exaggerated claims, then just went fishing for evidence using summons of the impeachment court.

The bungling of the prosecution led by Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. could have been fatal had not the defense — burdened by its having the country’s top lawyer as client — blundered on key tactical points.

* * *

WHO TO THANK?: Aware of its lackluster performance, the Tupas team could not bring itself to celebrate with a victory party after the impeached Chief Justice was pronounced guilty by a 20-3 vote.

Tupas, still dreaming of a senatorial slot in the Liberal Party slate for 2013, turned to congratulate the faceless “people” for supporting them, he said, in bringing down the chief magistrate.

He should thank instead the Chief Justice and his defense team led by former justice Serafin Cuevas who, jointly and severally, brought upon themselves that crushing defeat in the hands of amateurish lawyers.

* * *

TACTICAL BLUNDERS: These big blunders of the defense overshadowed the prosecution’s bungling that was still in the minds of the senator-judges and the public jury in the gallery and outside:

• Calling in Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales as a hostile witness, presumably to expose her as a liar in reporting that the Chief Justice was hiding several bank accounts teeming with millions of dollars.

• Corona’s walking out without permission after the senators patiently listened for three hours to the sob story of his Calvary and how President Aquino and his attack dogs, one of them in the Senate, have been hounding him and his commingled family.

One wonders if it was Corona himself or Cuevas who came up with the not-so-bright idea of summoning the Ombudsman to the witness stand.

* * *

HOSTILE, INDEED: Seasoned litigation lawyers will tell you the perils of calling to the witness stand somebody beyond your control, and asking him/her questions whose answers you are not sure about.

A former colleague of Corona in the High Court and known to have been at odds with him on some issues, Morales certainly was/is beyond the control of Cuevas or whoever may be assigned to examine her.

To the consternation of the defense, Morales came equipped with a PowerPoint presentation showing graphically what she said were 82 secret bank accounts of Corona bulging with as much as $12 million.

Her data, in living color, may not be entirely correct nor their sourcing and verification airtight — but at that point, who could say?

While the defense was confounded, the audience was credulous, it seemed.

* * *

NO COUNTER: Because Morales was presented as a defense witness, although admittedly hostile, Corona’s lawyers were hard put to disown, deny, dilute or disprove information she was presenting.

The prosecution that brought her before the court was not in control. And it was too risky to ask her more questions since her answers might even make matters worse.

Cuevas’ team had no contrary documents to put before the senator-judges and the viewers of the live TV coverage. How could the defense have countered or deadened the impact of Morales’ presentation?

No wonder it was the top story in the evening TV news and in the morning papers the next day.

* * *

EXPOSED TO FIRE: After the Ombudsman’s presentation, the defense could no longer escape presenting the Chief Justice. Only he could show that Morales’ bombshell was a dud or at least not as deadly as it seemed.

The defense wanted to avoid exposing the Chief Justice to the scrutiny and sniping of the senators known to be part of the Yellow crowd, but pressure for him to testify mounted.

The blunder of calling the Ombudsman as a hostile witness had spawned another blunder — a forced move — that of making the Chief Justice testify under oath and opening him to unfriendly fire.

* * *

DAMAGE REPAIR: Returning to the stand gave Corona a chance to repair the damage of his improperly walking out on the Senate court days earlier and to follow up on crucial points in his testimony.

It was also to be a stage for reiterating his call for all officials of consequence, including President Aquino, to sign a waiver on the secrecy protecting their peso and foreign-currency deposits.

He was to try salvaging his first waiver-signing that fell flat after he attached a condition that it would be effective only if Sen. Franklin Drilon and the 188 congressmen behind the impeachment charges signed the same waiver.

* * *

BIG FISH: But his followup appearance developed into quicksand when several senators asked him about the 82 dollar accounts reported by the Ombudsman.

While he countered that his dollar accounts were not 82 but only four, he had to reply, when asked, that he had $2.4 million deposited not $12 million.

The dam broke loose. Even “just” $2.4 million was still too large an amount not to declare in his statement of cash assets. That, plus the P80 million that he said was commingled with money of family members, did him in.

Most of the senators in explaining their votes zeroed in on the $2.4 million, whose non-disclosure was to them (except for three senators) a culpable violation warranting impeachment.

As it is said, a fish is caught by its mouth. And Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is one big fish.

* * *

RESEARCH: Past POSTSCRIPTs can be accessed at manilamail.com. Keep up with us via Twitter.com/@FDPascual. Send feedback to fdp333@yahoo.com.

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=812462&publicationSubCategoryId=64

Corona’s ‘palusot’ implodes

GUILTY!

May 30, 2012

PerryScope
by Perry Diaz

Illustration by Francis J. Gacer

The much-anticipated vote on the impeachment case against Chief Justice Renato Corona finally came to pass last May 29, 2012.  It was supposed to be suspenseful to the very end with either side winning by a razor-thin margin.  But as it turned out it was a massacre!  Twenty senator-judges voted for conviction leaving the three die-hard Coronistas– Senators Joker Arroyo, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, and Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. — circling the wagon in a desperate attempt to defend the beleaguered Corona.

The senator-judges were called one by one, in alphabetical order, to explain their vote.  Sen. Edgardo Angara was the first to speak at the podium.  Up until the last minute, political pundits identified Angara as leaning to acquit Corona, although his son, Rep. Sonny Angara, was one of the prosecution spokesmen. So, when he voted “guilty,” it set the tone for the day.  Arroyo followed and as expected voted for acquittal.  Then the siblings, Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano explained their personal reasons for their vote for conviction.

Then came Miriam, feisty as ever, who delivered a 20-minute scathing attack on just about everybody… except Corona.  She even used words like “kagaguhan”— stupidity – in belittling the prosecutors and anti-Corona senator-judges.

Sen. Franklin Drilon followed Miriam.  While he was explaining his vote, Miriam walked out of the trial room in disgust.  She must have realized then that the battle was over.  Yep, it was time to flee the battleground and leave the otherCoronistas to fend for themselves.

By the time Bongbong stepped up to the podium, the vote was running 11 for conviction and two for acquittal.  With a conviction short of only five votes and 10 senator-judges still waiting to vote, Bongbong could have voted for conviction and he would have earned a lot of political chips.  Or, better, abstained from voting, which would have the same effect as voting for acquittal.  However, he stood firmly by Corona to the very end.  Loyalty?  I don’t think so.  I think it was more like kinship to the issue of dollar deposit accounts.

Secrecy of dollar deposits

When the Foreign Currency Deposit Act (FCDA) or Republic Act 6426 was passed into law in April 1972, it did not have a secrecy clause.  However, during the martial law dictatorship, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1246 on November 21, 1977, which amended Section 8 of RA 6426 to read as follows: “Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits.  All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositors, in no instance shall such foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or private…”

Absolute confidentiality

But what was Marcos’ real reason when he issued P.D. 1246?  Was he protecting the corrupt or — as was officially postulated — encouraging foreigners to invest in the country?  That was then.  But today, under the 1987 Constitution, does the “absolute confidentiality” clause allow public officials or employees not to disclose or report their dollar deposits in their Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN)?

That was the gist of Corona’s defense.  Claiming immunity under R.A. 6426, Corona hinged his final defense on R.A. 6426.  During the last day of Corona’s two-day testimony on May 22 and 25, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano asked him some clarificatory questions.  When Cayetano asked Corona how much unreported dollar deposits he owns, Corona answered, “$2.4 million.”

When it was Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s turn to ask clarificatory questions, he asked Corona how much unreported peso deposits he owns, Corona answered, “P80 million.”

Corona insisted that R.A. 6426 supersedes R.A. 6713, which states: “Section 8. Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.”  But R.A. 6713 was enacted into law on February 20, 1989, twelve years after Marcos’ P.D. 1246, which amended R.A. 6426; therefore R.A. 6713 should prevail over the older R.A. 6426.

Sovereign command

Furthermore, R.A. 6713 was enacted to satisfy the mandate of Article 11, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, to wit: “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”

The nagging question is: Should an older law amended by a presidential decree take precedence over a “sovereign command” of the Constitution?  The 20 senator-judges seemed to be convinced that the Constitution has supremacy and primacy over laws legislated by Congress.  Almost to a person, they voted to convict Corona based on his non-disclosure of his dollar and peso deposit accounts in violation of the Constitution.  As Sen. Teofisto Guingona III said,“How can one man use the Constitution, which mandates full public disclosure, to conceal millions of dollars in his personal bank accounts?  This is constitutional perversion in its ultimate form!”

Implosion

But it was Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas who hammered in the prosecution’s arguments to destroy Corona’s defense.  In his closing arguments last May 28, Fariñas pierced Corona’s defense with one word,“palusot,” which translates to lame excuse or alibi.  Throughout his presentation, he used “palusot” numerous times, each time driving a nail into Corona’s coffin.  Could it be that “palusot” was subconsciously translated to “guilty” in the senator-judges’ psyche?

Indeed, “palusot” might have been what crossed the mind of Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.  After the prosecution and defense teams made their closing arguments, Revilla informed top officials of Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats that he was going to vote for conviction.  It was said that Revilla, who is the President and Vice Chair of Lakas-CMD, decided to go with the “emerging majority vote” because there were not enough senators to vote for acquittal.

With the conviction and removal of Corona from office, President Benigno Aquino III has finally untied the Gordian Knot of corruption.  Corona’s departure would pave the way to judicial reforms, which are badly needed to put the country back on track in the fight against kleptocracy and poverty. There is only one road to take from this day on; that is, the narrow and straight path – “daang matuwid” – to economic progress.

A new dawn of hope is finally upon us.

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

# # #

 “The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!” – Napoleon

Why Blame Children for Adult Crime?

May 29, 2012

By Fr. Shay Cullen
(His columns are published in The Manila Times,
in publications in Ireland, the UK, Hong Kong, and on-line) 

Source: sodahead.com

What level of callous cruelty does it take to put children as young as six or twelve-year-old behind bars? That is the way it was in the Philippines until the passing of the Juvenile Justice Welfare Bill (RA 9344) in 2006. It forbids the charging or jailing of children younger than 15 years of age with a crime and says they need a diversion and restoration program for a better life. Thousands of small children were jailed because they were hungry, abandoned, begging on the streets. Some may have stolen food to stay alive. Now they are protected but the bill to amend that law was filed on August 12, 2010 by Senator Ramon A. Revilla, a movie actor, so kids could be charged and jailed as young as 12 years-old. Many youth are victims of fame ups and false accusation.

Jomar, 15, from a slum in Pasay City in Metro Manila was pressured to join a gang older than him and they set him up as the fall boy for their crime when they stole a bag from the office of the supervisor on a construction site. He was told to hide it and they took everything, two cell phones, a camera, a credit card and cash from the bag and left about Euro 30 for Jomar. He was literally left holding the bag.

The real thieves tipped of the authorities and Jomar was arrested and charged with the crime. The mastermind went free. Its typical, the adults lead the youth astray and into crime. The boy served time in a filthy prison cell, suffered hunger, abuse and shock as a first offender. He was saved by the Preda jail rescue team. Children are born innocent but they are corrupted by the bad example of adults.

Most of the Philippine legislators are millionaires, privileged, rich and ignorant of the causes why children are in conflict with the law. Some want to rescind the child friendly RA 9344 law and jail them as young as 12 years old. Perhaps they foolishly think that punishment or abuse in the horrid subhuman conditions of jail where their human rights are violated daily would make them better citizens. It will only make them criminals.

Presently the law says that children and youth younger than 15 years-old in conflict with law must be given diversion not jail. They need help, therapy and restoration to a normal life and not the brutality of prison life. Republic Act 9344 passed in 2006 has saved hundreds of children from being sexually assaulted in jails and their young lives destroyed by hardened criminals. (view CNN Kids behind bars -youtube)

Now some of the 188 Philippine legislators, most of them from wealthy elite families, who have lived sheltered lives of luxury and never went hungry for a minute of their lives treat children as criminals as young as 12 years-old.

These scions of the wealthy, who as children lived pampered protected lives in mansions and as adults never visited a slum, seen real poverty or met children behind bars, know almost nothing about the lives of the poor. They are ignorant of the dire social situation of hundreds of thousands of poor illiterate street children and youth. The poor are poor because the rich rulers, through unjust laws have gathered the wealth of the nation for their family and corporate friends. Like the parliamentarians that came from Germany to visit the Filipino jails the Philippine legislators should do likewise.

Some police generals have pushed for the amendment too claiming that the children are being used by syndicates to carry and deliver drugs. No convincing evidence for this has been presented to the senate committee and charities caring for street children and has never seen a single case of a child charged as a drug runner. The police generals promoting the amendment ought to go after and real masterminds of the drug trade surely they are not scared and are not on the drug lord’s payroll.

We need to call on defenders of children everywhere and especially the good Philippine senators where the discussion on the amendment is still pending at the committee level. They ought reject the amendment and preserve the present law and do more to see it is implemented fully to protect children. Their duty is to stop the violation of human rights in degrading and subhuman jails and not to send twelve year old kids there to be raped and abused. The good senators can reject the amendment and be true defenders and not punishers of children.

E-mail any and all of the following: fmdrilon@yahoo.com, senator_enrile@senate.gov.ph, pia@senatorpiacayetano.com, loren@lorenlegarda.com.ph, senatorguingona@gmail.com, stgmedia@tgguingona.ph

http://www.preda.org/en/news/fr-shays-articles/why-blame-children-for-adult-crime/

A tale of three women

May 29, 2012

Back Channel
By Alejandro Del Rosario  
Manila Standard Today

There’s an interesting and interlocking sidebar to the South China Sea territorial dispute. It is a tale of three strong-willed women who have been thrust into a convergence zone of conflict of national interests. On the soft shoulders of these hard-nosed negotiators in the field of diplomacy rests the hope of finding a solution to the not-too-calm waters of the South China Sea.

The first woman is Ambassador Sonia Brady who has been drawn out of retirement to provide the “old China hand” card to deal with the Mandarins in Beijing. She was our ambassador to Beijing from 2006 to 2010.

The second femme fatale (only to men who can’t stand up to the diplomatic skills of these women) is Ambassador Fu Ying who was Chinese ambassador to the Philippines from 1998 to 2000. Madame Fu Ying is presently China’s Vice Foreign Minister with whom our Ambassador Brady would have to counteract on the sensitive issue of the South China Sea, and the flashpoint in the Scarborough Shoal.

Ambassador Brady, before her assignment as envoy to Beijing, was also the DFA’s undersecretary for policy, the counterpart of Fu Ying’s vice foreign minister rank.

The third, but not least of these three women deeply involved in the high-stakes game of global poker, is US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. She recently incurred Chinese ire with her statement that China has “exceeded her claims beyond the maritime limits provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

China which has staked a sweeping claim over the entire South China Sea found Clinton’s comment as meddling by a non-claimant country. Beijing’s official position is that the conflicting claims in the SCS can only be resolved bilaterally and without multilateral intervention.

A widening Washington involvement is upsetting Beijing. Aside from providing Manila with two naval vessels to strengthen its maritime security, US Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also met with their Philippine counterparts, Secretaries Albert del Rosario and Voltaire Gazmin in the US capital last month.

Before Clinton’s remark that China has exceeded her claims beyond the scope of UNCLOS, Beijing has never reacted directly to oft-repeated US statements that vital sea lanes in the South China Sea must be kept open to navigation.

To the Washington watchers in Beijing, the Clinton statement gave clarity as to whose side the US is on. America has always been considered a Pacific power since it sailed into Manila Bay to take over the islands from the Spanish colonizers. The reach of its naval power extends from San Diego in California to Cam Ranh Bay during the Vietnam war. Its forward position of military deployment is manifested in its bases in Japan, Korea and the US territory of Guam.

But to go back to the two principal players in this tug of war over riches beneath the sea, Ambassadors Brady and Fu Ying are both well cast into the roles each will play in the service of their country.

Early in her career, Brady had a previous posting in the Chinese capital as Philippine consul. She has a background in international relations, philosophy and journalism—important tools in diplomatic dialogue. Sonia Cataumber, my classmate at the University of Santo Tomas, was married to a New Zealander diplomat surnamed Brady who had since passed away.

Fu Ying, aside from postings as ambassador to Indonesia, Australia and the United Kingdom, is a woman of letters. She has published articles in The Guardian, including one in the London Daily Telegraph criticizing Western media for demonizing China. She is a graduate of University of Kent. Indeed, both sides won’t have a problem of losing something in English translation when the two women sit down to dialogue. Although an ethnic Mongolian born in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, Fu Ying started her career as an English translator for the Chinese foreign ministry

Ambassador Fu Ying has published a literary essay, appropriately titled “If the West Can Listen to China.”

The summer games to be held in London this August would surely bring back memories of her designation as Olympic torch bearer in the British capital for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Amid a backdrop of slight snow dusting the ceremonial run, Fu Ying and the Chinese delegation were mobbed by unruly English thugs protesting China’s human rights violations in Tibet.

(Published in the Manila Standard Today newspaper on /2012/May/30)

http://opinion.manilastandardtoday.com/2012/05/30/a-tale-of-three-women/

CJ no hand in dismissal of court worker who failed to disclose business in SALn

May 29, 2012

By Benjamin B. Pulta
The Daily Tribune

Proponents of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s conviction yesterday before the Senate impeachment court repeatedly bandied about a ruling by the high court which ordered the dismissal from service of a lower court employee found guilty of failing

to disclose her ownership of a market stall in her statement of assets.

The prosecutors and senator-judges alike cited the supposed disparity in the dispensation of justice for “lowly” persons and senior government officials.

Online observers commented that the dismissed clerk probably was elated by her revenge on Corona for having ordered her dismissal as suggested by the senator-judges citing the SC ruling.

But contrary to impressions, Corona was appointed to the high tribunal in 2002 and had no hand in the said SC per curiam ruling which was decided in 1997.

The said ruling, Rabe v. Flores, was a decision penned during the time of now retired Chief Justice Andres Narvasa. As in other SC decisions , the ruling is a precedent unless otherwise overturned or clarified by the SC in later cases.

Upon his retirement, Narvasa would later represent former President Joseph Estrada in the latter’s own aborted impeachment before the senate in 2001.

Three other magistrates who concurred in the decision later became chief justices themselves namely Hilario Davide Jr., Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban.

Other members of the SC at the time were Teodoro Padilla, Florenz Regalado, Flerida Ruth Romero, Josue Bellosillo, Jose Melo, Jose Vitug, Santiago Kapunan, Vicente Mendoza, Ricardo Francisco, Regino Hermosisima, Jr. and Justo P. Torres, Jr.

The Narvasa court ruled on the complaint filed against Panabo, Davao Regional Trial Court (RTC Br. IV) interpreter Delsa Flores by a certain Narita Rabe.

During the informal preliminary inquiry by the court administrator at the time, Rabe claimed that on Aug. 14, 1995 at around 4 o’clock in the afternoon, Flores, went to the stall she occupied and while there, she made several defamatory utterances.

Flores then attempted to inflict injury by scratching her face and challenging her to a fist fight and then destroying the stall she occupied by removing the wooden fence and the GI sheets with the help of her husband.

The court employee loaded the materials on a motor vehicle and brought them to the police station of Panabo.

Flores committed the aforementioned acts during office hours and displayed conduct unbecoming a government employee.

An administrative complaint for “Conduct Unbecoming a Government Employee, Acts Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service and Abuse of Authority” dated Aug. 18, 1995, was subsequently filed by Rabe.

The court however issued a resolution dated Jan. 17, 1996, absolving her of the charge. In the same resolution, however, the court required respondent to explain why she should not be administratively dealt with for her failure to disclose said business interest in her sworn statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections, and Identification of Relatives in the Government Service for the years 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994.

The Narvasa court also ordered Flores to explain why she has not divested herself of her interest in said business within sixty (60) days from her assumption into office.

http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20120530hea3.html