“Sana Di SONA”

 

 

The 1987 Philippine Constitution does not say the President must deliver a State of the Nation Address (popularly shortened nowadays as SONA) at the opening of the regular session of Congress. It only states that “The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session.”

 

For whatever the noble purpose behind this constitutional mandate to address Congress when it opens for business, it seems lost in the hype and build-up by the media and naturally by the President’s own men (or women) who want him to shine and sparkle. As it turns out, the SONA becomes an annual event for pomp and ceremony, just like the state of the union address of the US President or the Speech from the Throne in the case of the British Parliament or any of the commonwealth nations which continue to consider the Queen of England as their head of state.

Benigno Aquino III SONA composite courtesy of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Notice the receding hariline. Click link to read full text of President Aquino's 2013 SONA,
 http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/07/22/13/english-version-president-aquinos-sona-2013-full-text

To me, the only sensible paragraph in President Benigno Aquino III’s long and drawn-out SONA is when he said: “Tomorrow, we are submitting to Congress our proposed 2.268 trillion-peso National Budget for 2014. I am confident of your support and advocacy for the allocation of funds which was arrived at after careful consideration. This budget is not only a continuation of our reforms, but it will also accelerate our momentum towards long-lasting inclusive progress.”

 

Of course, this should not be taken literally. The Constitution gives the president thirty days from opening of Congress to submit a budget of expenditures and revenues which shall be the basis of the general appropriations bill to be passed by Congress.

 

Thus, the SONA has become nothing but beautiful music to the President’s ears and his captured audience, thin in substance but long in aspiration and hope. In fact, there is more sense in listening to SONA’s critics for they make you appreciate the honest truth that is missing in the President’s speech. One could only continue hoping to hear the truth instead of the SONA.

 

President Aquino’s latest SONA is purely aspirational, a call to continue the change the President has said he has begun in transforming our society. A familiar refrain we hear every time a new President speaks before Congress: “this nation can be great again,” or “we can dream again,” etcetera.

 

For Noynoy Aquino to declare he is proud to be a Filipino is expected of a nation’s leader. He cannot say otherwise or else reap the ire of the people. But to say “How wonderful it is to be a Filipino in these times” is equivalent to self-denial, to whitewashing the truth with a layer of lies. That’s why it’s better to listen to SONA’s critics, you hear the real story of the nation, not the one advertised, straight from the horse’s mouth.

 

“How wonderful it is to be a Filipino in these times” sounds like the country’s tourism slogan, “It’s more fun in the Philippines.”

 

Let us take apart the President’s SONA by focusing rather on the bigger issues he has tried to sell to Congress and to the people at large.

 

The President spoke of a strategy of maximizing opportunities for all, especially for those most in need, which he calls, “inclusive growth,” that surprisingly sounded upbeat to some although in reality is actually a mere sound bite, more like “daang matuwid.”

 

Financial institutions such as the World Bank and development-focused United Nations organizations, including the Asian Development Bank, have defined “inclusive growth” to be “broad based growth, shared growth, and pro-poor growth”. By this definition, inclusive growth implies an equitable allocation of resources that benefits every sector of society. It also requires the creation of an environment of equality in opportunity in all dimensions of livelihood, a platform for people who are poor to access a good standard of living. Defined simply, inclusive growth means improved living standards for all, including the poor and those vulnerable to poverty. In short, it must be socially inclusive and not only for the benefit of a privileged few such as the oligarchic elite.

 

The underlying premise of inclusive growth is that societies based on equality tend to perform better in development. For example, countries with more equal income distribution are likely to achieve higher rates of poverty reduction than very unequal countries.

 

In his SONA, President Aquino said that “widespread opportunity is the key to comprehensive and sustained progress,” not equal opportunity (repeat: not equal) which is the cornerstone of inclusive growth. He explained the exclusive nature of his concept of inclusive growth by saying that “the only ones who will be left behind are those who chose not to venture onwards with us, simply because they did not seize the opportunity.”

 

Clearly, Aquino’s concept of inclusive growth applies only to people who join the government’s bandwagon, those who have access to opportunity and these are the people who will benefit from his government policies and programs. Under such circumstances where opportunities may be deemed widespread but not fully accessible to all, those who are poor and vulnerable in society will never be included to benefit from the President’s policy of inclusive growth.

 

Those who are poor are well known for their militant opposition to government lip-service initiatives, such as poverty alleviation programs like the conditional cash transfer program, more popularly known as Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). Because the poor have lost their trust in President Aquino, they would never link up and be beholden to this program.

SONA protesters clash with police as President Benigno Aquino III delivers his
speech before the Batasang Pambansa.  Elmer Labog, secretary general of Kilusang
Mayo Uno (KMU), says: "Aquino's grandioise claims of economic growth based
on cherry-picked economic indicators fail to hide the economic indicators that matter
to ordinary Filipinos. Landlessness is growing; unemployment is rising; wages are
being depressed; prices are soaring; and social services are decaying as they become
more scarce."

Aquino boasted in his SONA that there are now almost 4 million households that benefited from the program compared to 700,000 household beneficiaries when he came to office in 2010. But he forgot to mention that based on a poverty incidence of 27.9% or 26.8 million poor Filipinos and a projected population of 96.2 million in 2012, there would be an increase in the number of poor Filipinos to 3 to 4 million. This increase would wipe out the gains under Aquino’s 4Ps, implying that poor people are multiplying faster than the number of beneficiaries the government can enlist in the program.

 

Despite the government’s poverty alleviation program, poverty in the Philippines has remained unchanged. Not because the poor did not seize their opportunity under the Aquino administration, but because economic and income inequalities continue to persist and inclusive growth remains elusive. Even as the current administration keeps correcting and revising the official daily poverty threshold, the resulting low official poverty threshold would still show that there are currently between 38 to 68 million poor Filipino households, the worst scale of poverty in the country's history.

 

We can go through the litany of so-called achievements enumerated by President Aquino in his SONA one by one, and each one falls flat. Do not be mesmerized by his elocution, his ability to speak to the level of the masses, and being at home speaking in English and Pilipino. Obviously, the President has become a quick study and has now mastered the art of communication. At the end of the SONA, what remains important is the message, not the medium. The SONA is not an Oscar awards event and we don’t need commentaries on what the President wore or how he combed his thinning hair, the ternos worn by female members of Congress, and whether one needs a make-over.

 

Instead of SONA, our country deserves to be told the truth, not a bunch of lies or made-up statistics used to embellish the speech. Instead of pageantry and celebration, the President and Congress must buckle down to work. A simple laundry list of priority items to pursue is more than enough. Instead of wasting almost two hours of rambling before Congress,  President Aquino should have told members of Congress what important legislation needs to be enacted now or sooner so he can continue the job of serving his real bosses. That, he could accomplish in less than half an hour.

 

Some groups critical of the Aquino administration described the first three years as “ampaw” rule, like “hollow bread with a lot of air in the middle.” According to the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (Cenpeg), a think-tank based in the University of the Philippines, three years of Aquino governance only entrenched the oligarchic elite in the country. In other words, only the elite gained from three years of Aquino leadership yet the President, never worrying if his nose stretches, calls it inclusive growth.

 

Other militant groups listed at least 10 lies President Aquino claimed in his SONA but which will not be printed in newspapers controlled by the President and his friends, ranging from the lie of “rapid economic growth” to the lie that the ongoing armed civil unrest has been quelled.

 

Cenpeg has further rebuked President Aquino’s overhyped mantra of “Kayo ang boss ko” (the masses are my boss) as a hypocritical and meaningless slogan. This time the President talks about inclusive growth, another fancy concept, but does he really mean it? Or is it another “daang matuwid” gone crooked?

 

Sana na lang, instead of SONA.

Debasing our democracy

 

 

No matter all the previous misgivings about her appointment, Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno has got it right, at least this time.

 

Chief Justice Sereno dissented with the majority decision of the high court that the party-list system need not represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

 

Recall that under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the party-list system was envisaged by the framers to be a “tool for social justice” that will allow the poor to have a voice in Congress by allotting 20 percent of the seats for the marginalized and underrepresented.

 

The underlying purpose of the party-list system is to promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives. This was clearly the mandate echoed in RA 7941 or the Party-List System Act that was enacted in 1995 as the enabling legislation for the implementation of the constitutional provision for a system of proportional representation.  



Of the total party-list members of Congress, all but five are millionaires, raising the
question whether they represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of the
country. Click http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XN53F4-F1Y&nofeather=True to
view Party-List System, Dapat na nga bang Amyendahan?

So much of the debate about the party-list system has been focused on the requirement that parties or groups registered under the system must represent the marginalized and underrepresented. But in doing away with this requirement, the Supreme Court has in effect undermined the original intent of the Constitution and further entrenched the free-for-all political process (first-past-the-post system) that has hitherto favoured the elite and the wealthy.

 

The Supreme Court has effectively bastardized the party-list system since it is now open to all national, regional and sectoral parties and organizations, making it easier for millionaires and traditional politicians to use the party-list system to get elected. As a result, the underrepresented, because they cannot compete with the resources of the rich and powerful political parties, becomes even more marginalized than ever.

 

The party-list system is now virtually exposed as a mere lip service to the goal of representative democracy. Consider too, that with 20 percent of congressional seats reserved for party-list members, this system of representation is hardly proportional to the total votes cast, rendering it unimaginable for a disunited and disorganized number of party-list representatives to possibly override the dominant interests of the major political parties to pass legislation for the benefit of the marginalized.

 

Section 2 of the Party-List System Act declares: “The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.”

 

From the very beginning, the Act is a defective piece of legislation. While it recognizes the obligation of the state to guarantee free and broad democratic representation, it also identifies marginalized and underrepresented sectors as the principal beneficiary of the party-list system. This is a contradiction in terms: free and democratic representation, yet excluding the marginalized and underrepresented. In effect, it is an affirmative action program, which Chief Justice Sereno called a “tool for social justice” and consistent with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

 

Both the Constitution and the Party-List System Act have chosen to reflect reality, for without the means to elect their own representatives in Congress, the marginalized would be forever voiceless. The law recognizes the inequity in Philippine politics where it is impossible for the marginalized to participate in legislation because the system is monopolized and controlled by the oligarchic elite from which the major political parties draw their members. The drafters of the Constitution envisioned that the party-list system would be “a countervailing means for the weaker segments of our society to overcome the preponderant advantages of the more entrenched and well-established political parties.”

 

Justice Arturo Brion, who voted with the majority, is totally wrong when he disagreed with Chief Justice Sereno that it is not the principal function of the Supreme Court to create policy. Brion argued that the party-list system is grounded on electoral reform but that is a vacuous line of reasoning. Electoral reform for what? In deciding on cases, the Supreme Court is in effect mediating conflicting arguments that could determine and define policy that is expressed in the law.

 

Brion explained that the party-list system aimed to benefit “those who were marginalized in the legislative district elections because they could not be elected in the past for lack of the required votes and specific constituency in the winner-take-all legislative district contest…” With due respect, Justice Brion is totally out of touch with reality. The main reason why the marginalized could not get elected is not because they lack the required votes, but the fact that they could not simply compete with the wealthy and entrenched candidates of the major political parties. Their marginalization is not the result of a failure to garner the plurality of votes but their lack of resources and political capacity to compete against the big and traditional politicians.

In disagreeing with the court’s majority decision, Chief Justice Sereno says that it “may have further marginalized the already marginalized and underrepresented in this country. In the guise of political plurality, it allows national and regional parties or organizations to invade what should be constitutional and statutorily protected space. [It] fails to appreciate that the party-list system is not about mere political plurality, but plurality with a heart for the poor and disadvantaged.”

 

Sereno further argues that Section 1, Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution mandates Congress to give highest priority to enacting measures that “reduce social, economic and political equalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.” This strikes directly at the heart of Justice Brion’s superficial argument that the Supreme Court is not tasked to create policy when in fact the court’s majority decision, particularly with its parameters on which parties, sectors or groups can register under the party-list system, practically amended the party-list law which is a function that belongs to Congress.



Ang Galing ng Pinoy Party-List Representative Mikey Arroyo who claims to
represent security guards, tricycle drivers and the unemployed. According to
the Comelec, Arroyo authored only one bill on the welfare of security guards
and the measure has languished in Congress due to  either "sheer laziness"
or a "glaring lack of empathy" for the plight of the truly marginalized. 

Before the Supreme Court decision, 54 party-list groups were disqualified by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for failing to meet the requirements that they represent marginalized sectors in the House of Representatives. Included in this group was the son of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo of the party-list Ang Galing Pinoy, which claims to represent security guards, tricycle drivers, farmers and small businessmen. In addition to Mikey Arroyo, other groups that can now participate in the upcoming polls include Kakusa, or Kapatiran ng mga Nakakulong na Walang Sala, which was organized by convicted child-rapist and former Zamboanga Representative Romeo Jalosjos, and the Bantay party-list group of fugitive human rights violator Jovito Palparan.

 

According to the Comelec, majority of the 54 previously disqualified party-lists might be allowed to run again in the May 13 midterm elections under the new guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has allowed these groups to participate in the elections as long as their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concern of their sectors. What special interests and concerns of security guards and tricycle drivers does Mikey Arroyo represent that they ought to be heard in Congress? This wasn’t the intent of the law in providing for the party-list system. It’s not the advocacy of special interests that matters but the absence or lack of resources of marginalized groups to compete against the powerful traditional politicians.

 

The current party-list system is already abused as it is by the landed elite and dominant political families. With the new Supreme Court ruling, the dominant political parties will be further entrenched in power because they could easily register their members under the party-list system and grab the 20 percent seats allocated for marginalized groups. As a result, with the election of their dummies under the party-list system, politics will continue to be dominated by the oligarchic elite. In the words of Vencer Crisostomo, chairman of the progressive Anakbayan party-list, the elite will further “trapofy” the House of Representatives. (“Trapo” is short in Filipino for traditional politicians)

 

It will take more than the current party-list system to democratize political representation in Congress. The Party-List System Act was mandated to promote proportional representation as envisaged in the Philippine Constitution, but dominant political families have ambushed the party-list system from progressive-minded groups, and now the Supreme Court has distorted the system by opening party-list registration to national parties and other sectors.

 

We might as well kiss goodbye to the party-list system and embark on a process of genuine political reform that will revolutionize the existing political system.

 

To make the system more representative and democratic, it makes sense to return to the unicameral national assembly under the 1896 Malolos Constitution where representatives in Congress shall be elected directly by their constituents to whom they can closely identify with their problems and interests.

 

The Senate has to be abolished for there is no need for senators to be elected at large based on popularity and wealth.

 

Campaign financing must be reformed and there should be limits imposed on how much candidates can spend to level the playing field.

 

Prominent political families must be reined in from dominating the political process.

 

Then apply the system of proportional representation at the district level, i.e., voters will choose among parties rather than among candidates and votes are awarded to parties in proportion to the votes they receive. In this way, proportional representation will open up the political process beyond one or two dominant political parties.

 

The biggest problem, however, is whether our elected representatives have the political will to go on board this odyssey toward genuine political reform.

Fear of the Bangsamoro state

 

 

Today there is a far less rigid understanding of the meaning of independence than was the case during most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The growing perception is that flexibility is needed with respect to the status of some territories that do not desire or cannot sustain full independence but are not “dependent” territories.

 

The Compact of Free Association is a case in point. Three small nations that used to be part of the U.S.-administered U.N. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands – the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, entered into the so-called Compact of Free Association which terminated their status as wards of the international community in 1986 and gave them a new status of free association with the United States. These new freely associated states retain their sovereign right of self-determination but have assigned their security and defence and the conduct of foreign affairs to the United States, the latter being the larger partner.

 

This concept of sovereignty association has also been tried by the independence movement in Quebec but the separatists lost in the 1995 referendum by a close vote. There are also those who view the European Union from its beginnings as the European Coal and Steel Community as a complex sovereignty association of a special nature. More than a century earlier, a number of tiny European fragments left over from the pre-Napoleonic period – San Marino, Liechtenstein, Andorra and Monaco – were recognized as technically independent by the Concert of Europe.

Bangsamoro rebels of Mindanao, Philippines. Click link to view "Bangsamoro
Mujaheedin," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRvlZET-vE4&feature=related

Thus, those who fear that the formation of the Bangsamoro nation could lead to separation might be out of touch with history. It is almost inevitable that a population with a very distinct cultural and religious ancestry will always pine for freedom to self-governance, if not alone, through an association with the larger or central power that is willing to devolve some form of autonomy to this new entity. To achieve this type of autonomy would require a military uprising which has been the status quo ante before the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) recently negotiated a Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro that defines the sharing of political and economic powers.

 

But this Framework Agreement is not a perfect document. It is wrought with inherent risks. If it is a roadmap to peace as the government panel sees it, then there are too many roadblocks ahead, some of which might seem insurmountable, either by legislation or pragmatic politics.

 

Splinter groups within the Islamic liberation movement like the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) have already vowed to continue their armed struggle for self-determination as a separate state. Even the old Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) under Nur Misuari has charged that the Framework Agreement was illegal because of the existing peace accord between the government and MNLF.

 

The indigenous peoples such as the Lumads, and the predominantly Roman Catholic communities in the new Bangsamoro state may not totally support the new entity because of fear of being subjected to the Sharia justice system, and naturally for their displacement and loss of property. Although the Framework Agreement makes it clear that only Muslims will be under Sharia jurisdiction.

 

Another relevant question is how this agreement achieved by the MILF will affect the other peace negotiations between the government and the communist insurgency group represented by the National Democratic Front (NDF). The negotiations have reached an impasse with the government being apparently disinterested to continue. But should there be a peace agreement with the NDF-led communist group, is it going to be similar with the MILF Bangsamoro deal? This might further heighten the fear of dismembering the Philippine territory as defined under the Constitution, thus create more worries of future Balkanization of the republic.

 

Under the Framework Agreement, the new Bangsamoro entity shall replace the existing Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), which makes it almost similar to the previous Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MoA-AD) entered between the Arroyo government and the MILF. In other words, the provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays and geographic areas within the ARMM territory shall be the constituent units of the Bangsamoro. The Supreme Court has struck this latter agreement as unconstitutional although the main objection to Arroyo’s peace initiative was the secrecy and lack of transparency in how the agreement was made. This led to some speculations that Arroyo was simply paying back the MILF and her Muslim supporters for her re-election as president.

Proposed Bangsamoro Core Territory. Courtesy of Keith Bacongco,Mindanews Graphics.
Click link to view Speech of President Aquino on the preliminary peace agreement
between the government (GPH) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF),
http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/13752-agreement-paves-way-for-enduring-peace-in-mindanao 

While the new Bangsamoro nation under the Framework Agreement shall have a ministerial form (parliamentary) of government, its relationship with the central government is asymmetric. This means that the relationship between the two levels of government is not equal. Or expressed mathematically, Bangsamoro can have a relation with Manila, but Manila cannot have the same relation to Bangsamoro.

 

Who is Bangsamoro? Under the Framework Agreement, “Those who at the time of conquest and colonization were considered natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago and its adjacent islands including Palawan, and their descendants whether of mixed or of full blood shall have the right to identify themselves as Bangsamoro by ascription or self-ascription.”

 

The territorial breadth of the Bangsamoro entity and the definition of the Bangsamoro identity might fuel some form of controversy that would be difficult to untangle. Constitutional purists, for one, will naturally thumb down any scheme of dismembering the Philippine territory without going through the amendment process. They will view this as giving up territories which the country has earned from the time of independence from colonization.

 

This Constitution-based objection to the Bangsamoro territory, however, can be overcome by the new political modality between the new entity and the central government. Their relationship is asymmetric, which means that while Bangsamoro will be an autonomous entity, to the central government it is not an independent state. The distribution and sharing of powers confirm this type of relationship.

 

Under the Framework Agreement, the central government shall have reserved powers such as those bundled up and assigned to the national government like defence and external security, foreign policy, foreign trade unless those already devolved under the law to Bangsamoro, coinage and monetary policy, citizenship and naturalization and postal service.

 

On the other hand, Bangsamoro shall have exclusive powers like the establishment of the Sharia justice system for Muslim inhabitants. Other powers will be shared between the two levels of government.

 

In effect, there would be no diminution in central political powers. The central government is not diminished by devolution of some types of autonomy to the new Bangsamoro entity.

 

But the most contentious of all issues in the Framework Agreement is how the parties will agree to the sharing of the largely untapped wealth of Mindanao’s natural resources. Currently, ARMM has a 50 percent share in the proceeds of exploiting strategic minerals in the region. Under the new Bangsamoro entity, it will get a 75 percent share in wealth produced in the areas under its control, or 75 percent of revenues generated, leaving the central government a mere 25 percent. Under any percentage sharing scheme, disaster looms either way. It cannot also be discounted that the new Bangsamoro entity could just be dominated by the same set of local elites that will bend to the agenda of the ruling national elite and American multinational corporations which have economic interests to protect in Mindanao.

 

Arguably there is no need for a constitutional amendment to enshrine the new Bangsamoro entity as the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law could be considered part of enabling legislation in support of the constitutional provision for autonomous regions like the ARRM and the Cordilleras. Or on the other hand, the proposed Bangsamoro entity could just be a ruse to open up the Constitution in order to change its economic and patrimony provisions that would give equal rights to foreign companies to exploit our natural resources.

 

Congress, which has been overeager to convene a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution, and President Benigno Aquino III, who has been ambivalent to Charter Change, might have finally stumbled on the rationale for amending the Constitution. The Bangsamoro juridical entity as envisaged by the Framework Agreement might be the biggest casualty of the peace process.

Heart of the matter

At the very heart of the articles of impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona is his alleged betrayal of trust under the Philippine Constitution. After reducing the articles of impeachment from 8 to 3, the prosecution is relying on Article 2 to convict Corona for his failure to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (or SALN in short) as required under the Constitution. In other words, Corona as alleged, had not been truthful and even concealed certain assets from his annual wealth declarations.

The obligation of a public officer or employee to declare his or her assets, liabilities and net worth is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution under Section 17, Article XI. Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, provides for the enabling legislation that requires public officials and employees to declare their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests, including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under 18 years of age living in their households.

 Corona's alleged U.S. property as  new evidence? Photo courtesy of Yahoo!Southeast
Asia Newsroom. Click link to view "Impeach Corona, Bawiin ang Hacienda, Sigaw ng
Yellow Mob," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69gzCMqrWUo&feature=related

Under the Constitution, only the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office through impeachment for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

Note that in order to find a violation of the Constitution as an impeachable offence, the violation must be culpable, a term in criminal law that refers to the blameworthiness of the accused. Failure by a public officer named in the Constitution who can be impeached by not disclosing his or her SALN may not necessarily be culpable as it is more in the nature of a regulatory or administrative offence, but nevertheless prosecutable under the law. It must be proved, therefore, that Corona had a culpable state of mind if he were to be impeached for not declaring an accurate or honest SALN, i.e., that he intended to commit the offence which implies a very high standard of proof.

Let us review the impeachment trial so far.

There is no allegation in the articles of impeachment that the Chief Justice did not declare his wealth as required under the Constitution. What the prosecution impugns is Corona’s false declaration, under-declaration, and non-declaration of assets in his SALN. As the impeachment trial went on, the glaring problem with the prosecution’s allegation appears to be their lack of evidence to prove Corona violated the law. All that the prosecution managed was to embark on a fishing expedition for evidence that will prove their allegation. Corona’s defence lawyers, however, were able to rebut with contradicting evidence or proof that the properties allegedly owned by Corona were either not his or were obtained lawfully.

In the end, the prosecution was able to tarnish the image of the Chief Justice in the eyes of the public as being dishonest and not truthful about his assets by implying that some of Corona’s properties might have been irregularly obtained. But that will not stand in any court of law or before the Senator-judges who must consider the evidence or absence of culpability.

Lately for instance, Raissa Robles, a professional blogger disclosed in her blog that the Chief Justice has properties in the United States which were not reported by Corona in his SALN. No due diligence was exercised by Ms. Robles, like conducting a simple title search, but she was able to poke the public mind that Corona might be hiding some U.S. properties from his assets. Corona, however, was quick to respond that those properties alleged by Ms. Robles are actually owned by his daughters who are residents and working in the United States. Besides, the SALN law (RA 6713) excludes reporting properties of unmarried children who are 18 years of age or over and who are not living in the household of a public official.

Again, this kind of gathering evidence and reporting it on the Internet and the media does not prove Corona’s culpability. It only excites public speculation that Corona cannot be trusted. It continues to paint Corona as guilty in the public mind even before the end of the trial, but not through the legal process where the Chief Justice just like anyone of us is also entitled to the equal protection of the law.

Let us consider an article written by one of the most rabid of supporters the Aquino government has in the media. Conrado de Quiros, in his regular column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, criticized the argument that the failure to submit a SALN is not an impeachable offence as idiotic. He wrote that this offence is “not only an impeachable offence” but also a “jail-able offence.”

Mr. de Quiros may be right from a common sense point of view. But the law as it is, is not merely about common sense. The law also considers the rights of the person accused and due process. One doesn’t simply rant in public about a public official’s alleged offence and ask the public to hang him. We need people of sober minds to weigh and judge the evidence against a person accused of a high crime, not the lunacy of those who are willing to sell their souls at any price in exchange for peddling to the public the government’s official line, no matter how incredulous.

So, where does the Chief Justice’s alleged false declaration of his SALN fall if it is not a culpable violation of the Constitution? Could it be graft and corruption? For how can a public official even as high as the Chief Justice afford to buy expensive properties from his meagre salary alone? Certainly, there is an implication of irregularity that could point to graft and corruption. Only corrupt government officials can buy those properties alleged owned by the Coronas, unless the Chief Justice himself was also corrupt.

But then the law cannot be based on speculations or innuendoes. An accusation of graft and corruption, which was never pleaded by the prosecution in the articles of impeachment, must be proved by incontrovertible evidence.

What are left as alternative impeachable crimes would be other high crimes or betrayal of public trust. But who determines whether a false SALN is a high crime or betrayal of public trust?

In associating “treason, bribery, graft and corruption” with “other high crimes or betrayal of public trust,” the framers of the 1987 Constitution must have in their minds the political nature of these offences, that these offences are against the state. To borrow from the conservative Harvard professor Raoul Berger, they are political crimes as distinguished from crimes against person, such as murder. They are also punishable by Congress, whereas courts punish crimes or lesser private wrongs.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution removed the word “misdemeanours” and substituted it with “betrayal of public trust.” We can surmise that the reason is to preserve “high crimes” to impeachment cases and leave misdemeanours to the ordinary courts.

Considering the political nature of these impeachable offences, perhaps there is no need for facts or evidence to impeach the Chief Justice. All that is needed is votes. Except that this would defy all requirements of due process, which must be accorded to the Chief Justice no less than the lowliest felon. It is also not necessarily true, therefore, that “other high crimes or betrayal of public trust” could be whatever the Senate acting as an impeachment court considers.

But the real problem with the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona lies in the haste the articles of impeachment were prepared. A verified complaint for impeachment was never filed in the first place in accordance with the Constitution. The articles of impeachment were literally shoved down the throats of 188 members of Congress and they were asked to sign under duress. If they didn’t sign, they would never get a share of government pork.

Under the American legal tradition where we borrowed the concept of impeachment of public officers, an impeachment may not necessarily start its inquiry under the impeachment rules. A preliminary or general inquiry may be the best way to start an impeachment until the facts as they are disclosed become developed or strong enough to proceed with the impeachment. At the same time, a public demand for stronger action is generated.

But the Senate struck down the request of Corona’s defence team for a preliminary inquiry and decided right away to proceed with the impeachment despite the glaring deficiencies in the articles of impeachment. The government led by President Noynoy Aquino then launched a media blitz to influence public opinion against the Chief Justice, similar to a trial by publicity. Everything that ensued once the impeachment trial started became a living nightmare, not only to the defence team but also to the prosecution and the government as well.

One thing for sure after the verdict is handed down, the Corona impeachment will make us respect the law even less than we did before. That is not very comforting to Congress and to the judiciary which we originally thought are the last bulwark of the people against onslaughts to the Constitution by a president who believes personal vendetta takes priority over others, including respect for the rule of law.

Landless in our own land

Philippine President Noynoy Aquino recently signed two major land lease agreements with China and Japan. China would lease from the Philippines 1.2 million hectares of land for agricultural production, and Japanese corporations, one million hectares for bio-fuel production.

A rice farmer in Davao del Sur, Agriculturist Finesa Cosico cites a host of reasons
 for the drop  in output. Photo courtesy of  Karlos Manlupig/ bulatlat.com. Click image
to view "Agrofuels & Food Prices" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACEi1RF7QsE

These lease agreements were signed before Congress approved a resolution by both houses to sit as a bicameral constituent assembly to amend the economic provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which specifically limit foreign investments to 40 per cent. Proponents of charter change have argued that this restrictive foreign equity requirement is a major stumbling block in attracting foreign investments in the Philippines.

President Aquino, however, insists that charter change is not a priority of his administration. Rightly so, because there is no actual need to amend the economic provisions of the Constitution to ease the flow of foreign investments in the country. The so-called restrictive economic provisions have already been watered down and weakened by one legislation after another, all of which favour the foreign investors.

Preferential rights to foreign investors

One of these laws that gives preferential rights to foreign investors is Republic Act No. 7652, The Investor’s Lease Act, which grants to foreign investors the privilege of leasing private lands for a period of fifty (50) years, which may be renewed for another twenty‐five (25) years. An effective lease of 75 years is almost like owning the land for a lifetime and foreign investors can do as much as anything with the land they lease.

Next to Indonesia, the Philippines is the most popular country for land-grabbing deals in the Asia-Pacific region. According to an Oxfam study, some 1.37 million hectares of agricultural land were leased during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. President Noynoy Aquino has already doubled this number with the recent lease agreements he signed with China and Japan.

Foreign ownership of agricultural lands in the Philippines is not exactly a new phenomenon. As early as the 1900s, large banana and pineapple plantations were operated by large American multinational companies. Foreign agribusiness firms have long expanded into production of palm oil, rubber and other similar industrial crops.

Over the past few years, there has been a big surge in the demand by foreign investors for agricultural land, not only in the Philippines, but also in many countries of Africa, Asia and South America as well. Large-scale foreign investments in land, typically in the range of thousands to hundreds of thousands of hectares, are being driven by demand for agro-fuel production, and more recently—outsourced food production, in the case of the oil-producing states in the Arabian Gulf and heavy populated countries like China and India.

The agricultural land investment deals brokered by former President Gloria Arroyo covered 1.37 million hectares for the production of agro-fuel stock, such as coconut, jathropa and oil palm for bio-diesel, and sugar, sweet sorghum, cassava, and molasses for bio-ethanol.

Foreigners outsourcing food and agro-fuel production

Foreign investors have been targeting vast tracts of agricultural land in developing countries like the Philippines to produce agro-fuels. The Philippines, for one, offers a huge comparative advantage due to low labour and land costs. Blending of traditional transport fuels such as gasoline with bio-diesel and bio-ethanol, particularly for countries dependent on oil imports, has driven up the demand for agro-fuel production, thus building up the race for the world’s farmlands.

Adding to the growing demand for land in developing countries is the perennial food crisis, which is now exacerbated by the world financial crisis as well. To avoid shortages, soaring food prices and export restrictions ushered in by the 2008 food crisis, countries like China, India and those in the oil-rich Arabian Gulf, are purchasing or leasing lands through sovereign wealth funds in order to outsource their own food production for their own populations.

But leasing our agricultural lands to foreign corporations for either agro-fuel production or their food supply has disastrous consequences on our country’s own food security and to Filipino farmers.

For Chinese and Japanese: ‘Eat rice as much as you can’

The Philippines is the world’s largest rice importer in 2010, yet it is also the 8th largest rice producer in the world. Rice production has been declining in the last two years and there is a strong probability that the Philippines will have to import rice again from other countries. It is a nasty cycle of under production and importation, but the government continues to open up its farmlands to foreign investors so they can satisfy their demand for agro-fuels or stock-up for future food shortages.

As usual, the government will conveniently blame climate change and the vulnerability of our agricultural sector to both drought and rainfall for the failure to meet rice production target for this year. One Philippine senator also blamed rice hoarders and smugglers for distorting rice inventories.

Solita Monsod, U.P. economics professor and former secretary of the National Economic and Development Authority, even wrote in her column in one of the daily newspapers that the Philippines would never achieve rice self-sufficiency, i.e., no imports, if Filipinos do not reduce their appetite for eating rice and replace it with other root crops. Why do the Japanese and Chinese eat as much rice they can and not worry about a rice shortage in the future? Even Filipinos in the diaspora still continue to eat rice despite the availability of pasta, bread or other foodstuff, or even when their palates have learned to adapt to the Western diet.

Problematic policies of the government with regard to agrarian reform and food security are at the core of the country’s failure to be rice self-sufficient. Conversion of farmlands for residential, commercial and other industrial purposes continue unabated. President Noynoy Aquino continues to implement the agricultural policies of his predecessor in leasing lands to foreign governments and corporations to meet their agro-fuel demands and production of high-value cash crops for export.

Land-grabbing leaves nothing for Filipino farmers

Leasing of Philippine agricultural lands to foreign governments and corporations is tantamount to an act of land grabbing and it leaves Filipino farmers nothing. Those who might happen to be living on these lands are not given the opportunity to even have a say on the appropriation of their lands.

"Massive production of biofuels is a crime against humanity because of its impact
on global  food prices," says UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food. Click
 on image to view "The Right to Food: Corporate, Foreign Government Land Grab
Causing Hunger  in Poor Countries:"
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/28/un_special_rapporteur_on_the_right

This is the recurring problem that besets leasing of lands to foreign investors at present. Farmers and smallholders are being ignored. The failure to engage these farmers before signing deals has already led to the collapse of two high profile “land grab” negotiations—between Korean firm Daewoo Logistics and Madagascar, and the Chinese and Philippine governments. The government of Madagascar fell as a result of a popular uprising against the Korean deal.

Did President Noynoy Aquino consult with the farmers and smallholders before he signed the land lease agreements with China and Japan?

“Land is not a commodity: you don’t just take it away from people and give them something else—it’s not exchangeable like that,” says a spokesperson for GRAIN, an international NGO campaigning against land grabbing.

“It has much deeper meaning for people…you don’t turn a farmer into a farm worker and say it’s the same thing,” the GRAIN spokesperson adds.

And with the current momentum towards charter change, giving foreigners virtual ownership of agricultural lands will give them full control of how to use these lands. Whether it’s for agro-fuel production or to ensure their own stock file of food, this will displace the country’s rice self-sufficiency aspiration and its program of genuine land reform for the small farmers.

Large-scale land investments endanger food security of host nations

According to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, many large-scale land investments by foreign governments and corporations are not meeting the goal of ensuring equitable and sustainable food security. In fact, these foreign investments may be further jeopardizing the rights of host populations.

The UN Report recommends that the rights of communities affected by large-scale land investments must take centre stage. Their rights over resources must be respected and the development of policies to address their needs must be made a priority.

If the proponents of charter change are allowed to have their say, “Filipinos will be landless in their own land. Kawawa naman tayo,” writes Neal H. Cruz of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.