There’s still hope

Thank God that everything is still in order. I mean, the critical thinking and passion and the sense of what is good and right in relation to the country’s present quandary and the people’s reaction to it. That is — even as they come only from the alleged few — the opinion that really matters.

Besides, the correctness of an argument is measured not by the number of the souls espousing it; it is measured by the sharpness of the merits of the argument itself.

That is the reason I admire the writings of Conrado de Quiros; they are elegant and precise, and do not seek to be left behind when it’s about time to state the things that only the brave few have been stating perennially. What makes his writings admirable is that Mr. De Quiros is writing for a mainstream national newspaper, which can cross beyond the constriction of classes, anytime and any day.

When the powers-that-be at Malacañang have already thought that the smoke has been cleared up by the Supreme Court’s majority decision in the case of Neri v. Senate, they should think again — wisely this time. The minds of the Filipinos are becoming sharper and sharper every time the sun rises; their collective consciousness become more and more elevated to a higher level after every setting of the sun.

There is still hope – for this country, for its people, for us Filipinos. First thing we do is exorcise the demon that terrifies us, exorcise the demon that lies to us, exorcise the demon that cheats us, exorcise the demon that deceives us, and exorcise the demon that sells us out. Let us all send her to where she belongs – hell and pure hell.

Indeed, as one writer put it, “As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

For the greater good of us all, I deemed it wise to post here the column of Mr. De Quiros, There’s The Rub, entitled Doing much for the country that appeared on the 27 March 2008 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. His article actually triggered the posting of this blog entry. Do yourself a favor, read it and ponder on what you really stand for as a Filipino.

THERE’S THE RUB
Doing much for the country

By Conrado de Quiros

I COULDN’T agree more with what Gemma Dimaculangan said last Sunday. Dimaculangan, a medical technologist living in Metro Manila, posted a letter on the Internet to express her thoughts about the current situation, which became this newspaper’s Talk of the Town’s featured piece.

Dimaculangan begins by making her disgust known in no uncertain terms–indeed in the most heartfelt terms. “I have never seen so many criminals roaming around unfettered and looking smug until now. These criminals wear suits and barong, strut around with the confidence of the rich and famous, inspire fear and awe from the citizens, bear titles like “Honorable,” “Senator,” “Justice,” “General,” and worse, “President.”

After several more paragraphs devoted to her thought, Dimaculangan says: “They say the few stupid ones like me who remain in the Philippines are no longer capable of showing disgust. I don’t agree. Many like me feel anger at the brazenness of men we call our leaders ….”

We are not powerless before this, said Dimaculangan. We can meet this bane by summoning Good. Quite apart from imploring God to heed our prayers and send a few thunderbolts in the right direction, or “rid our nation of these vermin,” as she herself puts it, we can do several things. We can, as parents, students, teachers, professionals, and ordinary folk teach and/or learn the right values, the better to push back the forces of darkness.

I leave the reader to go more lengthily into Dimaculangan’s proposals. I’ve only a couple of caveats to add to her piece. The first has to do with her diagnosis of the symptoms and the second with her prescription for a cure.

I completely agree that what we are witnessing today is corruption of staggering proportions. And I thought it was inspired that our editors tacked on the same page accompanying Dimaculangan’s article a news item that drove home her point. That item was the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy’s survey reaffirming the Philippines’ standing as the most corrupt country in Asia. That is truly an accomplishment of world-class proportions, if a horrendously unsavory one. To be more corrupt than China or India or Pakistan or Indonesia or Cambodia is to pillage far more monumentally than the countries that invented monuments. It is a monument to infamy in and of itself.

But as the PERC itself says, what makes the Philippine case unique–”sad” is the word it charitably uses–is not just the quantity of the corruption but the quality of it. PERC sees the difference as the Philippines openly discussing the numerous perfidies in the media whereas the other Asian countries, for one reason or another, are unable to do so. That is a minor difference from where I stand. The true difference is that that corruption in the Philippines isn’t just the corruption of the body, it is the corruption of the soul. It is not just the corruption of public office, it is the corruption of laws, the corruption of morals, the corruption of values, the corruption of social behavior, the corruption of the national fiber.

Or put another way, it is not just the theft of money, it is the theft of all that is good and decent in society. That includes democracy’s most cherished institution which is the vote. That is what has made all the other thefts possible. That is the original sin, that is the differentia specifica. You steal the vote, you will steal anything. You can be shameless about ruling without a mandate, you can be shameless about ruling with compunction. That is what makes this corruption different from the corruption of Joseph “Erap” Estrada. That is what makes this corruption different from the corruption of the other leaders of Asia. This isn’t just corruption, this is rottenness.

What to do about this?

I have no beef with looking for “positive” ways to solve the problem. But as I’ve said in the past, I believe in “negative” ones as well. The reason I put those two terms in quotation marks is that they’re totally misleading when they do not appear with them. There’s nothing negative about razing down a condemned building, though the action itself entails destruction. And there’s nothing positive about building a crystal palace on brittle foundations, though the action itself entails construction. Destroying is not necessarily negative; it can be the most positive thing in the world. Building is not necessarily positive; it can be the most negative thing in the world.

What all this points to is that I believe that any “positive” action we take to build a better order must be accompanied by the “negative” one of razing down a rotten one. Or put more directly, any action we take to restore decency and honesty and goodness in society must be accompanied by removing the source of indecency and dishonesty and evil in society. Or still put more directly, any action we take to start a new life must be accompanied by ending this regime.

The one means nothing without the other. True enough, we oust GMA without empowering the people, without teaching and/or learning the right moral values, and we won’t assure a better future. GMA herself shows we can have a worse one. But even truer enough, we try doing all these things without ousting GMA, and we won’t get to first base at all. GMA herself shows she can always set things back: Look how she has corrupted to the core the bishops themselves. By all means let us work to assure that the evil that assails us today never happens again. But let us assure first that the evil that assails us today will be gone soon.

We are never powerless to do both. Paraphrasing Barack Obama, we are the change we’ve been waiting for, we are the good we’re hoping to unleash.

The bishops’ call

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has asked the soon-to-be-ousted President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to abolish the controversial Executive Order 464 as a way to establish the truth about the ZTE-NBN scandal.

But despite all the brouhaha about the call for the abolition of EO 464, the bishops appear to be a little misguided about this call; the intention and spirit, though, of their call on its abolition deserve our admiration.

The bishops’ call should have been paraphrased this way: “For the sake of truth, the President should not invoke the doctrine of executive privilege on matters regarding the ZTE-NBN scandal.” It’s not about EO 464, it’s about the doctrine of executive privilege.

The abolition of EO 464 is inconsequential, as the Supreme Court already declared some of its provisions unconstitutional, and upheld the constitutionality of its remaining provisions since the same are sanctioned by the Constitution anyway.

For starters, executive privilege is the constitutionally recognized right of the President to withhold certain types of information from Congress, the courts, or from the public. The source of that privilege is the Constitution itself, not the EO 464.

EO 464, on some of its provisions declared as constitutional in Senate v. Ermita [G.R. 169777, April 20, 2006], merely put on paper the doctrine of executive privilege enshrined in the Constitution. And even if EO 464 was not issued by Malacañang in the first place, even if EO 464 does not exist, the right of the President to invoke executive privilege remains. Again, the source of that privilege is the Constitution itself, not the EO 464.

Hence, the abolition of EO 464 is a non-issue; the President invoking the executive privilege is the issue.

For clarity and precision, the bishops’ call should be read in this manner: “For the sake of truth, the President should not invoke the doctrine of executive privilege on matters regarding the ZTE-NBN scandal.”

If the President maintains that she is not involved in the scandal, that the First Gentleman is likewise not involved in the scandal, then why is she invoking executive privilege on behalf of Sec. Romulo Neri? Well, that’s the catch.

For a better understanding of the controversial EO 464 and the doctrine of executive privilege, I deemed it wise to include here the article of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. on these matters that appeared in his column, Sounding Board, March 3, 2008 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

MANILA, Philippines - Pardon me if the catechist in me should come out, but there is so much confusion about EO 464 that I thought the catechetical method might be the clearest approach. So, here goes:

Q. Is Executive Order 464 still alive?

A. The Supreme Court in Senate v. Ermita said: “Sections 2(b) and 3 of Executive Order No. 464 … are declared VOID. Sections 1 and 2(a) are, however, VALID.”

Q. What does the voided Sections 3 say?

A. It says: “All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation.”

Q. Who are the officials in Section 2(b) referred to in Section 3.

A. They are:

“Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;

“Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege;

“Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive privilege;

“Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and

“Such other officers as may be determined by the President.”

Q. Are there any officials whom the President may prevent from testifying?

A. If the hearing is an inquiry in the exercise of congressional “oversight function” under Article VI, Section 22, Department Secretaries may not appear without the prior consent of the President. This is repeated in Section 1 of EO 464 which the Supreme Court declared valid.

If the hearing is “in aid of legislation” under Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution, anyone, except the President and Justices of the Supreme Court, may be summoned.

Q. If the President cannot use EO 464 to block the testimony of officials enumerated in Section 2(b) above, can she still prevent testimony?

A. Yes, by claiming that the testimony being sought is covered by “executive privilege.”

Q. What is “executive privilege”?

A. It is the constitutionally recognized right of the President to withhold certain types of information from Congress, the courts or from the public.

Q. What types of information can be covered by executive privilege?

A. Section 2(a) of EO 464, upheld as valid by the Supreme Court, enumerates the following which are taken from earlier decisions:

1. Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public official covered by this executive order

2. Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged;

3. Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements;

4. Discussion in closed-door Cabinet meetings;

5. Matters affecting national security and public order.

Q. Who may claim executive privilege?

A. Only the President or a high official who, after consultation with the President, is authorized by her to claim the privilege.

Q. Must every claim of executive privilege based on the above enumeration be honored?

A. No. The Court in Senate v. Ermita said that in determining the validity of a claim of privilege, the question that must be asked is not only whether the requested information falls within one of the traditional privileges, but also whether that privilege should be honored in a given procedural setting. Thus it is not for one claiming executive privilege “to unilaterally determine that a duly-issued Subpoena should be totally disregarded.”

Q. Who then determines whether the claimed privilege should be honored?

A. The Court. Thus, for instance, when the Nixon administration claimed privilege for certain tapes about the Watergate break-in, the Court, after looking at the claimed privilege behind closed doors, held that the tapes were not covered by privilege and should be released.

For this reason, our Court also said that “Absent then a statement of the specific basis of a claim of executive privilege, there is no way of determining whether it falls under one of the traditional privileges, or whether, given the circumstances in which it is made, it should be respected.” The lack of specificity renders an assessment of the potential harm resulting from disclosure impossible.

Q. What was the opening sentence of the Court in its decision on EO 464?

A. “A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a truly republican state.”

Q. The President has formed a legal team to study what to do with the appeal of the Bishops to abandon EO 464. What should they say?

A. They should say, “Madam President, read Senate v. Ermita and obey it and thereby begin the process of your salvation.”