In a way, it’s good that the Gloria Arroyo- chosen Consultative Commission included a provision to scrap the 2007 election and extend to 2010 the term of office of elective officials, local and national.
With this provision, they removed their masks and showed the people what they really are: Arroyo’s stooges.
It was no surprise to the public, really.
Romela Bengzon, deputy secretary general, who proudly described herself on TV as a “New York lawyer,” revealed the basic flaw on the Con-Com. She said, “Look at it this way, you have an incumbent president who was voted and has a mandate. You can’t clip her powers.”
The New York lawyer is all wrong. Gloria Arroyo was never voted by the Filipino people president. She never had an electoral mandate. In January 2001, she grabbed power from President Estrada, an elected president. In the 2004 elections, in connivance with Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, she thwarted the will of the Filipino people who elected Fernando Poe Jr. As Susan Roces said, “You stole the presidency not once, but twice!”
Two sets of Con-Com members have expressed their opposition to the recommendations submitted by Con-Com chairman Jose Abueva last week. The first group, seven of them, opposed not only No-El but the shift to a parliamentary system. The second group, 22 of them, objected only to No-El.
While I’m tempted to join others in saying “serves you right by allowing yourselves to be used by Arroyo in covering up her crimes”, I’d like to thank them for providing a worthy backdrop to Arroyo’s treachery.
In their dissenting opinion, the seven commissioners talked of “highly questionable consultations.” The “collective position paper on transitory provisions” drafted by Dean Andres Bautista of the Far Eastern University Law School, one of the 22 commissioners who opposed No-El, said, “It is (therefore) imperative that these sections of the transitory provisions must be rejected and stricken out, otherwise the members of this Commission will be judged by history as the group of men and women who had no vision nor the capacity to voice out the true concern of the people. It was as if we never consulted our people and just came up with these provisions.
Why, did they ever think that Arroyo appointed them to find out the sentiments of the people? They were used to give a semblance of legitimacy to her stolen presidency. As political observer John Marzan said, all these protestations by the Con-Com members are nothing but “a fake president making fake reforms, with her appointed stooges making a belated fake dissent.”
It is still a way off for Arroyo to succeed in fooling the people with No-El. It’s just a recommendation to Congress. There is still the Senate that can discard it to the trashcan where it belongs. Even if it passes the Senate, which is unlikely, the people can very well reject it.
It is towards Ramos that the treachery is glaring.
It will be recalled that last July 7, Ramos unveiled before Rotarians his “graceful exit” scenario for Arroyo which would require Arroyo cutting her term by four years. By June next year, a new leader should be in place.
In danger of falling on July 8 when 10 of her key officials abandoned her together with her erstwhile supporter former President Aquino, Arroyo pretended to be receptive to Ramos’ proposal. Ramos stood by her.
Many are aghast that Arroyo would show her unquenchable thirst for power at this stage of the political crisis. There’s only one explanation. Whom God wishes to destroy, he first showers them with hubris.
My question, Ellen, is who did they consult? It seems like the alleged consultations never happened. I never felt it, that’s for sure.
Nevertheless, you have to give our President a big A for courage to break the constitution by spending public money on an illegal body to propose a complete amendment to the present constitution. I seems that she can do anything and all we can do is SIGH A COLLECTIVE GASP! But WE let her get away with it.
It took an old man to put to shame all the young men and women opposing Gloria. No one is daring to stand up against Gloria against all odds. It seems that they want all things stacked in their favor before they act! They laugh at the “foolishness” of Abat but I want I want to tell them: “That’s not foolishness but COURAGE, which you don’t have, all of you!” God bless Abat! Where are the youth of land? INVISIBLE, I’m afraid! Nada, sabi ng mga kastila. ZILCH, sabi ng mga kano.
Ellen,
You said that if all else fail, the Filipino can be called upon to ‘thrash’ the recommendations for a NO-EL (btw, the word means Christmas in French and what a Christmas gift!) but I’m sceptical.
There’s simply one reason why these con(com) ASSES thought of NO-EL: they felt Gloria’s pulse – it indicated that her handpicked con com asses should be able to ram the whole thing in the throats of +/-80 million Filipinos.
After all Gloria and her pals rammed the Garci tapes, the election cheating, vote stealing, the unrule of law and other shenanigans in the throats of Filipinos – and made the world think that Gloria “won” the presidency – with hardly a squeak from 80 or so million Pinoy/ay citizens (while the other 5 million just burped noisily – and I am being terribly optimistic about the figure of 5 million here who burped), so, why not do same thing again?
She and her pals reckon, they should be able to get away with their so-called con com recommendations and double con the nation again and again. As you said, Gloria and her pals are not even pretending or making a semblance of legally doing things here!
In the name of decency, how can these people who posed with Gloria in the picture even pretend to being decent and do so with a smile?
The Philippine situation is bordering on chaos! When will the 80 million citizens of the Republic or so wake up from their passive deppresion and demand retribution(s)?
When?
Gloria is cunning, very cunning and so was French Revolution’s Robespierre (who was probably more cunning than her) who was guillotined after 4 years of all out corruption rule. So, watch out Gloria, the tipping point is near…
FREEDOM HOUSE has downgraded the Philippines from FREE to PARTLY FREE in the roster of nations. I’ve posted their REASONS for this very OMINOUS designation. It’s not a beauty contest and FH is a highly respected think tank and NGO that the US Congress pays a lot of attention to. We should too, because these CONCOM confabulations will get us put in with the NOT FREE of the world. That won’t be good for anything. Yet everywhere else, FH has good news about democracy.
Rizalist, didn’t you see the guileless and clueless Abueva say that they consulted the mayors and local officials? Those mayors and local officials that Gloria Arroyo cultivated with taxpayers money? And the consultations were arranged and managed by Bobi Tiglao’s PMS.
What consultations!
Anna. It’s good you mentioned what happened to Robespierre. Somehow, someday they will pay for their sins.
I believe in the Divine Being overseeing all these things. He has a reason for making all these things happen.
Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Gloria has got almost absolute power, therefore…? Well, she’s been corrupted!?.
Whether the con-com recommendations will be carried or not, it doesn’t matter to Gloria because she wins both ways. If it carries, she’s extended her stay in power. If it doesn’t, she’s already won anyway because her opponents are again sidetracked dealing with another blockbuster issue. (Look at the following cases: Pidal, Nani Perez, Garci, Joc Joc Bolante. They’re forgotten little by little!).
I have requested MLQ3 to make a running blog/article that bloggers can put permanently in their websites to always remind us all. Hopefully he’s got resources to spare so that he can come up with something soon. (I have reserved a spot in my blog in anticipation!).
fake president, fake reforms, fake dissent… and now FAKE CONSULTATIONS. LOL @ Arrovo.
This is related to Ellen’s comment to Rizalist. Here’s a prescient Malaya Editorial dated Nov. 16 2005 on GMA’s P25B pork (“Kilos Asenso”, “Kalayaan Barangay” and the so-called “Healing the Wounds of Edsa” fund):
SOONER OR LATER, we must have a clean, credible election. Sooner is better than later, but it must be RIGHT. Otherwise, we are just playing with loaded guns and pin-pulled grenades in this chacha boracha. The task that all PATRIOTS face, whether they are for or against GMA, is how that NEXT election will be conducted. It will likely be a plebiscite before it is another presidential election. That is why the ENGINEERING DESIGN SPECS of that new system, and the OPERATING SYSTEM of that new technology to secure our future as a democratic and free society, MUST NOT and SHALL NOT be left to the Political Mafia. Or else get in line to get out. As for the Concom’s mass bribery attempt, the Palace’s insulting words for Abat were more apt for the solipsist Abueva: “PATHETIC and AMUSING”.
but as long as Arroyo and her COMELEC are the ones running the show, mahirap mangyari yung sinasabi mo, Dean Jorge
Nasa Google news na pala ang PCIJ blog
Since Nov. 20 2005 pa pala. It may even be earlier than that, kasi ngayon ko lang siya napansin.
Congrats to PCIJ blog. the first Filipino blog (that i know of) na nakapasok sa google news. Even Michelle Malkin and Richard Fernandez of the Belmont Club are not being picked up yet by Google news.
Now that I think about it, the emphasis in Charter Change should not be on the political system, but on the economic provisions that need changing. For example, the ownership of land by foreign citizens should be allowed (it’s not like they can bring it home with them). Filipinos have had an ample head start. It’s time to goose it up with competition. Likewise MEDIA. Especially Media. We get enough of the foreign CONTENT anyway, why shouldn’t we get some of the brick and mortars too, as well as the excellent editing and connectivity to the rest of the global noosphere?
I think I could really get into chacha now.
I learned one word today:solipsist. Dean’s description of Abueva.
I checked the dictionary and it says a “solipsist in an adherent of solipsism.”
Solipsism means “extreme indulgence of and concern with the self at the expense of of social relationships esp. as expessed in failure of artistic communication.”
Ex: The artist’s egoism is outrageous…he is by nature a solipsist and the word exists only for him to exercise upon it his powers of creation. – W.S. Maugham
As to chacha, not this time under a bogus president.
Thanks John, for retrieving that Nov. 16, 2005 Malaya editorial.
REALLY, Dean? (Don’t answer, rhetorical question…)
Agreed. I’m not for chacha anyway kahit na dati pa. kahit na panahon pa ni fvr at erap.
But EVEN IF I were for it, I want somebody who is credible and with integrity to lead the reforms. The last person I would trust to make changes in the Constitution is Mrs. Arroyo and her appointed stooges like Jarius Bondoc, Alex Magno and Carmen Pedrosa of PHILSTAR. Changing the constitution is not a small matter, and I sense we have another Marcos type situation in our hands with his 1973 Constitution.
Who is this Romela Bengzon, proudly described herself New York lawyer. I never heard or read her name in any newspapers even in local Filipino newspapers herein New York. Nag-yabang pa na New York lawyer.Everday I bought and read newspapers and subscriber of Filipino newspapers. How much the Concom people’s money spent? Billions pesos. Result negative zero
The accompanying picture is more shocking revelation that there are indeed lackeys and lapdogs in the flesh that brown-nose Gloria. No pinoy in his right mind with a modicum of morality would kowtow to anybody’s aspirations to perpetuate oneself in power.It is unthinkable that Abueva can stoop so low from his high perch as ex-UP president and cast his pearls to the swine. Hubris comes with euphoria and surely Gloria will perish with it, like the ant that drowns in a bowl of honey.
Alitaptap
Good to hear from you again, Alitaptap. You have been quiet for sometime. We miss you.
22 December 2005,
Dear Madam Ellen,
First of all, I’m an avid fan of yours, I always make it a point to read your column (one of the few editorials that I read everyday), my day will not be complete without reading your column, I have to stop flattering you, and go down to the business of Cha-Cha???
I have read some of the comments, I agreed to some, firstly, as questioned by others, who gave them the authority to recommend those BS recemmendations to GMA??? they talked/recommended that there will be no election/s in 2007, how dare they recommend that, tha gall???they talk of shifting to parliamentary form of government, concentrating on the president and those who wants to cling on to power, why is the VIce president not included in that recommendations???to think that the VP was also elected to serve until 2010, what will be the role of the VP in the parliamentary form of government???will the VP be given the PMship in the parliamnetary govt??? in case yes, what will JDV have to say to that???will JDV alow the VP to be PM??? (hmmmm, interesting to know) or will he be just part/member of the parliament??? did those stooges made consideration of the VP’s position in the parliamentary govt???
Why does this stooges recommend the immediate shift to unicameral??? I know in other country/ies, the amendment in their charter takes years before it be implemented, while here in RP, it will take only months or 1 year for the implementation, are they that really good???
Please tell the people in the government or those who wants Cha-Cha, its not the system, “ITS THE PEOPLE RUNNING IT”. They want Cha-Cha for their own self interest. gone were the days that politicians hold true to their words. all those who are in favor of Cha-Char are HYPOCRITES!!!
Salamat po and more power to you
Thanks. In the Concom recommendations, the item on Vice President merely said: “Shall initially convene the interim Parliament and shall continue, until 2010, to exercise his powers and prerogatives as Vice President, under the 1987 Constitution.”
What are the “powers and prerogatives” of the VP under the 1987 Constitution? Nothing except to wait for the President to die, to be incapacitated, to be impeached, or to resign. And then he assumes the presidency.
Naisahan si Noli de Castro. Serves him right.
Statement of Rep. Roilo Golez:
The chacha is still a long way from being a done deal in the House, contrary to the assurances of JDV.
If the House and Senate voting separately, it must get 75%of the votes of all 236 members of teh House or at least 177. it must be remembered that the vote that killed the impeachment move was 158-51 with sx abtentions. Thus, the JDV machinery muct mobilize 19 more votes to pass the amendment resolution. That means 177 warm bodies in the session hall.
That is a tough proposition considering that several who voted for impeachment may vote against Chacha for principle or due to strong constituency pressure (chacha is unpopular, survey shows.) Moreover, a vote in the House may be irrelevant since chacha faces some defeat in the Senate.
If the House and the Senate should vote jointly (I believe that is unconstitutional) 260 (236 congressmen and 24 senators) would vote. 75% of 260 is 190. 66 are needed to defeat chacha. If the opposition maintaind the 51 pro-impeachment votes and gets 16 votes from the Senate (very easy),chacha is defeated.
If the Senate boycotts, JDV must mobilize 190 coup to win the vote.
That is almost impossible with the sentiments expressed by some House members so far.
JDV needs a magic wand and lots of resources to accomplish that. Either way, voting jointly or separately,chacha is a shaky proposition. Especially now that the chacha has been smeared by Concom’s indecent proposal which Malacañang has adopted.
Oh yes… ! JDV’s got a wand and it is magic and gilded with silver. Soon we will witness again the spectacle of tongressmen lining up with palms outstretched to receive payola for good behavior. The appetites of pataygutoms are insatiable and will always flip for a few silvers more.
A…..
23 December 2005
Madam,
Hahahahahaha, The last line is really a big laugh, you got me there madam, anyhow, why are these stooges recommended the No-El scenario for 2007, as I said, in other country/ies, their charter change/s is being done carefully, it would take them years before they implement it, in the case of RP its months or a year to implement the changes, are our politicians that really good??? maybe we should continue with the 2007 election, with the question of charter change, and those who will be elected will be in transition period for 2010, then comes 2010 another election for the members of the parliament, in that case we do not disrupt the time frame of the election.
From 2007 until 2010, those who will be elected can craft/polish the many loopholes in the hurried recommendation/s of the those stooges (CON(s)-Com, then I think, the Philippines can be ready for the change of the system.
Salamat po at mabuhay kayo and merry christmas
dhell
Hi. you really have strong ideas on this one. but what about the legal presumption of regularity as to GMA’s election? With statements like, “GMA was not voted by the people,” “she has no mandate,” “she grabbed power” and so on… don’t you think these are mere allegations without proof?
im neither pro nor anti GMA. im just trying to point out that there is really something wrong with making allegations without proof. its just unfair for that Commissioner Bengzon to be quoted in a negative light. i mean Bengzon just stated a presumption in law.
I’m also coming from a purely legal perspective being a young law student. what do you think?
I don’t know about your law. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a journalist so I go by what I see and know as the truth. In our research we have validated the Hello Garci tapes. The undeniable fact is: Gloria Arroyo cheated. Did she actually win? A number of election experts have made studies based on Namfrel data that showed FPJ won.
Granting that the figures showed that GMA won. The fact that she cheated disqualifies her from being president. She committed a crime, she should be punished.
The law should uphold the truth. It should serve what is right. What Arroyo is doing is perverting the law.
From what I have heard from Romela Bengzon, her law does not serve truth. Her law protects criminals.
hi ms. ellen. i’m also a law student and from what we studied in constitutional law, i know that there are certain avenues that the people can take if they think that the person leading them is no longer fit to govern them. in the case of mrs. arroyo, as president, an impeachment complaint can be filed against her and if there are any doubts as to her legitimacy as president, the presidential elctoral tribunal can also decide on the allegations regarding cheating and vote padding. as law student, we have learned that the rule of law should be followed and upheld at all costs. as a legal maxim goes, the law may be harsh but that is the law. it is one of the consequences that we have to accept since we live in a civil and orderly society. there can be no excuses for not following the law, otherwise it will be a rule of chaos. as a journalist, it is your responsibility to inform the people of what is going on, as objectively as possible. these allegations of cheating have not yet been proven by the system that we follow in order for us to live and have an orderly society. innocent until proven guilty, that is one presumption that our constitution strongly protects. i think the president is also entitled to that presumption.
thanks jana. ellen, that’s exactly what im trying to say. if you hold evidence of your claims, then bring them to the proper legal forum. you cannot just bombard the broadsheets with allegations. the big problem is… not many people do understand the legal perspective. people tend to believe in what they see on tv and the papers. so its you’re responsibility to present news which are free from bias. raise the standards of journalism and try to understand where your other readers are coming from.
Other persons are doing that. But it doesn’t mean that meanwhile that the legal system has not decided on it, we are goingto suspend our beliefs and pretend to be deaf and blind to Arroyo’s transgressions of the law.
I’m an opinion writer and I write my views based on what I know. I try to gather information to the best of my ability to be able to form an opinion.
As to news being biased. Biased towards what? There is only news which is based on facts. The perceived bias depends on people. If you are Gloria Arroyo, you will say that reports about her cheating and lying is biased against her. To those who know it to be true will say it’s biased for the truth.
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” That’s according to the Holy Book…It seems to me that you’re forgetting your religion ms. ellen. You are too righteous and was so sure in saying that GMA doesn’t have the mandate of the people.It is as if you are assuming that each and every pinoys agrees with you in saying that GMA cheated in the 2004 election. Well, for one thing if you are certain with your allegations, then show us proofs. I think as a journalist, you have the responsibility to give us factual information. Ms. Ellen, I respect your opinions, don’t you think it’s also proper for you to respect the opinion of Ms. Bengzon? Putting her in a bad light(even doubting and attacking her credibility as a New York lawyer- She is really a New York lawyer by the way. She is well off by herself and she does not have to do this things)in your column makes me think that you have personal grudge against this lady..
Good day Ms. Ellen..
Okay. Bengzon is well off. So?
If up to now you still have not seen proofs of Arroyo’s cheating and lying, you will never see even if they are in front of you.
Carmela, do you believe lying, cheating and is wrong? If you do, why would you defend people who uphold cheating, lying and stealing?
at this time when are basic values are being assaulted with all the deception fromthe highest level, it is important to be stand firm on the values of truth and honesty. If you make the habit of being easy on wrongdoers, you are likely to wind up being easy on yourself. There’s the danger that before you know it, you become part of it.
Jana, did you see how Arroyo’s minions in the House of Representatives perverted the law to protect Arroyo?
You are right in saying that there’s no excuse in not following the law. That should be directed to Arroyo.
Ms. Ellen, i respect your opinions but i will have to agree with lawstudent1181, carmela and jana. I am also a law student and i am one with them in trying to let you know that there is a legal presumption of regularity in law and whether you like it or not, that legal presumption favors GMA. You said that there is only news based on facts, i hope you remember these facts: that GMA was proclaimed by the Supreme Court as the rightful president; and that no allegations against her have been proven in the proper legal forum. These are facts and these are the facts that Commissioner Bengzon used as basis when she said the statement that you consider as “all wrong”.
You yourself said that you are not a lawyer, and so we are telling you that from a legal perspective, Commissioner Bengzon was within the bounds of law when she made her statement. You cannot justify putting her in a bad light just because you do not know “our laws.” You are a journalist, maybe you should have done careful research regarding the workings of the law so that you can give a more objective argument on the statement of Commissioner Bengzon, and not resort to belittling her opinion and questioning her credibility just because you do not agree with her.
Ms. ellen, we know the value of truth and honesty. That is why we want to be lawyers. As you’ve passionately argued, truth must prevail, justice must prevail. That is also my hope. For this to come to pass, the proper legal forums and processes must be followed. If you believe that you have the proof to back your allegations, then present it in the proper forum and let the law take its course. But until that is done, then i will have to go with the presumption of regularity in law and agree with Comm. Bengzon, lawstudent1181, carmela and jana. This is not about being pro-GMA or anti- GMA but this is about upholding the law, which is precisely what you are calling for.
I think that we should all look beyond the issues as being pro-GMA or anti-GMA. Let’s look at it from the perspective of what can be good for the Philippines. I am not a law student but I keep abreast with issues such as these but as a citizen of this great country, I hope that we all work together to bring about the necessary changes that will help our country and let us do it the legal way. I agree with what Comm. Bengzon said that GMA’s powers cannot be clipped because she does have the mandate of the people. Absent any contrary proof, and absent any constitutional or legal process to definitely oust GMA from her position, to my mind then she is deemed as the rightful holder of the presidency. Ms. Ellen, if you really have proof that GMA cheated, please present it to the proper forum for the truth to come out. We all want to know the truth so that we can all move on. Without going through the legal process of proving and absolutely declaring that GMA cheated, then i do not see why you should say that Comm. Bengzon, the New York lawyer, is “wrong”. When she said that GMA has the mandate, What she said is based on undisputed and uncontradicted facts. What she said, at this point in time, is “right” because it is the truth.
If you prefer to be blind and deaf. That’s your right.
It’s your right to be blind and deaf too. we just hope that you can be open-minded about issues such as these. it’s important that we try to be objective and see things from a non-political perspective because ultimately, what we want is a country and a citizenry united and progressing as one.
How very disappointing to know that someone as “distinguished” as you will call people who have valid points “blind and deaf” just because you do not agree with what they have to say. Kung tutuusin, they have far better points and arguments than you. These people’s statents have basis in law while yours are just pure allegations which you can’t even prove. Instead of being objective you resort to name-calling. With that attitude, sino kaya and blind and deaf ngayon? And FYI, Comm. Bengzon IS a bona fide New York lawyer and she has every right to proudly introduce herself as such because she earned it.
I am not pro GMA but i believe what the “proud New York Lawyer” said is correct.
OUr constitution is very clear on that point,an elected president shall serve for six years unless his/her term is cut short by resignation, death, impeachment (or another EDSA revolution). So what’s wrong with such statement? Isn’t that the “proud New York lawyer” is just reiterating what our constitution provides?
Fine, there were allegations that the GMA group rigged the last presidential elections. I myself was shocked and furious when i first heard that news. Then Atty Ong appeared on tv with his “mother of all tapes” asking the people to gather around the San Carlos seminary in the hope that it will trigger another EDSA revolution.
Unfortunately, only a handful of people came.
then the memorable day came when drillon, aquino, and the hyatt 10 appeared on national media and called for the resignation of GMA. almost everyone (that includes me) thought that it was the end of GMA’s presidency. However, it failed. the people kept their silence.
the opposition once again tried their luck, so the process to impeach GMA was set in motion. In the end, members of the opposition were seen throwing papers in the air while walking out of the session hall to the streets and incited people to rally behind them to oust the president. however, the number of people who heeded to their call was not enough to repeat history. Many remained watching.
and who can forget the equally controversial people’s court? that court was supposed to show to the people the evidence supposedly for the impeachment showing that GMA indeed manipulated the elections. After their much awaited mock trials, nothing else followed. the people did not buy it.
finally, the controversial “garci’ took center stage after several months of absence. the people heard him. many people said he was lying. but nothing happened thereafter.
if the people really wanted to kick gma out of malacanang, they could have done so, just like what they did to Marcos and erap. but i guess those events only showed that the people wants to move on. HINDI PA BA KAYO NAPAPAGOD HA?!!!!!
with all due respect, ms ellen, i think that the “proud new york lawyer” is correct. whether we like it or not, unless GMA is removed under the processes allowed and recognized under the law, she has until 2010 to serve as president and we cannot simply clip her powers.
and by the way, that “proud New York lawyer” has all the reasons to be proud. it is hard to be a lawyer in the philippines and i guess it is even harder to be admitted to the NEw York bar. bihira yan ms ellen!
HUBRIS, in Ancient Greece, refers to a reckless and violent disregard for the personal space of another resulting in some kind of social degradation for the victim. Would it also then be hubris on your part, Ms. Ellen, to brand Commissioner Bengzon as “all wrong” (not just “wrong”, Ms. Ellen, but ALL wrong), indiscriminately damning the sanctity of her personal opinion resulting to her degradation as a stateswoman, as a lawyer, and ultimately as a thinking person? Do you think, Ms. Ellen, that there was recklessness on your part to sweepingly impute total error on a person’s views, views that come from a different perspective which may be totally different from yet just as valid as yours?
In the modern sense of the word, the negative effects of HUBRIS is associated with the lack of interest, knowledge, and exploration of history combined with overconfidence and a lack of humility. Ms. Ellen, did you ever explore the background from which Commissioner Bengzon’s statement was drawn? Her statement may have come from presumptions of regularity in law. This is highly likely, since Commissioner Bengzon is a lawyer. These presumptions have been not just once but twice inculcated in her by her legal education and training both in the Philippines and New York. I understand that these presumptions of good faith and regularity are held sacred in the field of law, for they constitute the pillars of a civilized society.
But then again, you say, “I don’t know about your law”. Is this once again hubris on your part, showing a lack of interest to see where Commissioner Bengzon’s statement may be coming from? Or is this brash overconfidence in your so-called “journalist” perspective?
I respect your views, Ms. Ellen. I will be the first to defend that your views are not ALL wrong. This is why I plead for an explanation why a journalist of your stature and following would sweepingly brand a person’s view as wrong without genuine analysis. There are views of yours I even admire. I hope you adhere to your own writing: “Whom God wishes to destroy, He first showers them with hubris”.
It appears that more and more people are commenting to Hubris lately. And the name of Commissioner Romela Bengzon mostly appeared on the comments. I am here not to take sides on the issue but to share my knowledge as to who Commissioner Bengzon really is. I know Commissioner Bengzon as she teaches law in La Salle-FEU. She has also worked with officials from past and present administrations. In fact, she has been there since the time of FVR and Erap, and until now you can see her getting involved with activities for the country, one of which is the recently concluded con-com. She is a distinguished personality in the legal profession and has done many things for the country. You know she has helped a lot in bringing in investors to our country especially these past few years. And for those who are asking, she graduated in the Ateneo Law School, passed the bar and worked her way to being admitted in the New York Bar. She is a kind person and she doesnt deserve to be put in a situation like this.
i agree with “dyupre”‘s statement above. though obviously you disagree with bengzon, the statement “all wrong” seems to imply more than disagreement, perhaps even disrespect. it would be ironic if the hubris you attribute to gma is something you actually have in common.
I cannot provide a constructive analysis or a speculative input to any of the conclusions stated in the article. I am deeply concern with two things; One is the passed judgment on the being of Commissioner Romela Bengzon and two, the fact that you have based your journalism on hearsay. You knew not Commissioner Bengzon personally. And the fact that you validated the Hello Garci tapes, but which one of the several versions you validated? The pro-GMA or the anti-GMA version?
I undoubtedly agree that if “we are going to suspend our beliefs and pretend to be deaf and blind to Arroyo’s transgressions of the law.”, we will be putting our economic growth and stability above a quicksand. However as a writer like you are, we should not base our opinions on what we know but as you said in the “truth”.
I truly admire your strength and how you stand vindicated in your views of the current government. However, sometimes we try to change the world so much, we forget to change ourselves first.
I believe that true journalists are bastions of truth as well as its vessel in order to reach a public who deserve nothing less. Truth must alawys be backed up by cold hard facts.
Given this standard I think you are not a true journalist. Let me show you the ways:
“The New York lawyer is all wrong. Gloria Arroyo was never voted by the Filipino people president. She never had an electoral mandate.”
“In the 2004 elections, in connivance with Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, she thwarted the will of the Filipino people who elected Fernando Poe Jr. As Susan Roces said, “You stole the presidency not once, but twice!””
With these statements, did you show any proof of such? even assuming there was cheating was it enough to disenfranchise the will of the people? simply put, could you prove your statements and what would be your proof? I bet you have nothing but motherhood statements that our politicians from both sides consitently spew forth to the public.
“In January 2001, she grabbed power from President Estrada, an elected president.”
Yes she did grab power in 2001 but with the help of the people or what you may call the “elites” and unfortunately the AFP, thereby fortifying their messianic complex. This shorcutting belies what really happened she couldnt have done it without the help of the same people who are not happy with her rule.
Pray do tell me then:
Who, using your own words, is blind and deaf?
Interestingly and quite obviously enough, reactions to the article seem to have taken on new directions and digressions – from the unconstitutionality of the present leader’s term; to the wisdom/folly of changing this constitution; to the folly of those lending their wisdom to the constitution and the leaders; down to the pride, prejudice and personal worth of particular players in this war of words.
This is what it has boiled down to – a war of words – a war you should be fully equipped to fight in and fight well. You are after all, a writer of considerable following and one who doesn’t flinch in the face of opposition (sic) at that. This particular battle field however seems to be thick with misdirected, misguided missiles. This entry, one in a series of posts aimed at bringing to light the Con Com’s alleged questionable loyalties, has launched wayward attacks at a particular person. Commisioner Romela Bengzon may just be another advocate direcly in the line of impersonal fire, but she need not be a casualty of personal and personality attacks. The brief, albeit biting mention of Comm. Bengzon had devolved into an attack of her character, not just as a stateswoman, but as a lawyer and yes, even as a thinking person.
It wasn’t so much what was written about Comm. Bengzon and her views, but how it was done. She was simply doing her job as deputy secretary general of the Con Com and as a citizen believing in the system – just as you are doing yours in reporting what you believe is a perversion of it. Why then should this merit her a branding as one being all wrong and whose “own” law protects criminals and upholds lying, cheating and stealing? At this point we walk the fine line between journalistic freedom and freely demolishing the foundations of a person’s credibility to negate the validitiy of her views. We need not throw out ethics in the name of going by what you see and know as the truth.
Comm. Bengzon’s assertions come from a purely legal perspective. It is not her (or her NY-educated persona’s) version of the law – it is the law based on the truth, borne of the will of the people who, either directly, or even by virtue of passive acquiesence, have thrown their faith and fate into it. Even in the face of dissenting opinions, her statements should be accorded respect, since these are not self-serving opinions she espouses. Her actions aren’t fruits of hubris, but are products of an in-depth understanding of and proficiency with the law. It is not hubris on the part of the proud NY lawyer, but the rightful pride of one who believes in the truth and the capacity of the people to uphold it.
You have exhorted your readers to a review of basic values. It could just as well serve you to get in touch with your own basic journalism values: being objective in tackling the issues, and not the entirety of the characer of those who, just like you, fight for them. Do not lose sight of the significance of transcending political ideology to relate to the human being underneath the political verbiage.
Being a journalist of your stature may empower you to go by what you see and know as a truth – but do not drown in this power and think you are above others who just as well go by what they see and know as a truth, albeit backed by the laws they have studied, upheld, and yes, even worked to change. Do not let this endow you with false pride in deeming someone who knows and quotes the law as all wrong when you yourself have admitted to an ignorance of it.
Pride is both a beautiful and dangerous thing. It can get a nation back up on its feet, and just as easily bring it down to its knees.
“Whom God wishes to destroy, He first showers them with hubris.”
It may do you well to bring with you always a clear view of the matters at hand, Ms. Ellen, or an umbrella, for that matter.
What a waste of money!