Presumed guilty

 

 

Without fully understanding the implications of what he says in public, President Benigno Aquino III is actually supplanting the time-honored principle of presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt. Even worse is his arrogance to ensconce a double standard of morality in politics.

 

On one hand, President Aquino believes Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada are guilty as charged of corruption, plunder and other crimes against the government. All of them are presumed guilty to the eyes of President Aquino, just like most everyone else is led to believe, even if the charges are still in the process of being filed before the Sandiganbayan.

 

On the other hand, people like the President’s Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala, and Technical Educational and Skills Development Authority director general Joel Villanueva who were also named in the list of those involved in the pork barrel scandal are innocent to his eyes. To the President, his cabinet men are on a different plane and should be presumed innocent unless proven guilty by a court of law.

 

Members of the Kilusang Mayo Uno wear masks depicting President Benigno
Aquino, Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, lawyer Lorna Kapunan, and
(on wheelchair) alleged pork barrel queen Janet Lim-Napoles during a rally in
Mendiola. The rallyists called for an end to the preferential treatment being
accorded Napoles. Photo by Alexis Corpuz.

Curiously, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo continues to be detained even if none of the charges laid against her have not been proven by the state. Because President Aquino and the public in general are all convinced that Arroyo is guilty by any stretch of imagination.

 

This is the new normal under President Aquino’s administration. Allies and friends are presumed innocent while political enemies are presumed guilty.

 

However, the bastardization of the presumption of innocence under the Aquino presidency is not without its merits. After all, the reality is that no defendant would face trial unless it is believed there is probable cause that the defendant was guilty of a crime. They wouldn’t have prosecuted the accused if he or she weren’t guilty of something, which is the common supposition before the court. For instance, outside of the formal investigation process, there is widespread public knowledge, thanks to media scrutiny and vigilance, that those involved in the pork barrel scandal are factually guilty even though a trial has not been set for them to face the charges.

 

The only problem with this presumption of guilt is it could apply to all accused of corruption in government. Guilt is a very wide net that can catch everyone in the government, whether by suspicion or mere inference, and regardless of rank or pay grade. That said, even President Aquino is not immune from a presumption of guilt for he could be as culpable as any of his cabinet staff or his dreaded political enemies.



President Noynoy Aquino with one of his most trusted men in cabinet, Budget
 Secretary Florencio Abad. Could Aquino be talking about Abad's innocence?

But as an alternative to a presumption of innocence, a presumption of guilt is inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society. Thus, the presumption of innocence is not just symbolic but essential to the criminal process.

 

What does the presumption of innocence mean?

 

The presumption of innocence is a vital part of our criminal law system. It means that the accused doesn’t have to prove he or she is innocent. Instead, the job falls on the prosecutor or the state to prove the accused guilty. In other words, unless the accused has been proved to have committed the crime, he or she is entitled to be acquitted or found “not guilty.”

 

The underlying purpose of this presumption is to protect the rights of individuals when the state accuses them of a crime. It is often said that it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent be convicted.

 

But the judicial system is not without controversy. Some see the system as being stacked in favour of the accused, rather than protecting their rights. And despite all of the protection in the system, miscarriages of justice still happen where innocent people are convicted. Those in positions of power are generally perceived as more likely than those outside this circle to exercise warped judgment, transforming the criminal justice system into an instrument to protect themselves and their exercise of power.

 

President Aquino’s exhortation, therefore, that his cabinet secretaries should be presumed innocent rather than guilty as he has characterized the actions of his political enemies, is clearly aimed in protecting and preserving the incorruptibility of his government. In short, he is ignoring the true purpose of the presumption of innocence while affirming that many of those accused or alleged to have been involved in the pork barrel scandal are presumed guilty just because they happen to be his political enemies.

 

Civil society, however, is under no obligation to refrain from criticism of government officials based on a blatant misunderstanding of presumption of innocence. This is particularly relevant in the current situation in which the public is being fed with too much conflicting information about government corruption.

 

There are many incompatible lists of individuals implicated in the scandal and inconsistent testimonies between the alleged mastermind or potential state witness and whistleblowers who could be motivated by personal or vested interests. The executive and legislative branches of government seem to be at a loss on how to proceed with their respective investigations.

 

Spokespersons for the President appear to offer differing statements on behalf of the administration. The Ombudsman has left for a trip abroad without filing the charges against the three aforementioned senators before the Sandiganbayan. Even half-brothers elected to the Senate are at odds with each other as to the possible fallout of the scandal on their own political careers prompting their father, a disgraced former president for acts of plunder, to intervene.

Could there be any connection between President Aquino and the alleged pork barrel
queen, Janet Napoles, here in a photo taken in 2012?

It’s a political circus which the pork barrel scandal has created, muddling the fundamental issue of corruption in government, which appears lost in the crucial examination because the personalities and characters involved have become more important rather than their own sins and omissions.

 

In the end, either President Aquino should presume all are innocent before trial or all are presumed guilty. Not where others have more legal rights and therefore presumed innocent. The better approach it seems is to take heed of President Aquino’s presumption of guilt for those implicated in the scandal, but it should include his own men if he wants to appear fair and just.

 

Let’s throw the presumption of innocence off the bus and declare everyone guilty, and let them prove their innocence. It makes more sense to reverse the burden of proof and let it fall on the accused, especially for those in the public service. Every time that public trust is breached, people are deceived.

 

Indulging a presumption of innocence before a finding of guilt is too much of an accommodation to give. Besides, this demand for a presumption of innocence outside of criminal court is both cunning and deceitful when the President of the country uses it to excuse the culpability of his own cabinet.

 

It is no doubt cold comfort for President Aquino to subscribe to a generous interpretation of the presumption of innocence that applies only to his allies and friends. This interpretation would not comport with the supposed persistence of a foundational legal principle, especially when stretched outside its province.

 

Furthermore, this is like expecting a lot or dreaming about the impossible from a failed system where corruption is widespread and so pervasive. No wonder that the Philippines consistently belongs in the exclusive list of “failed states,” in the dishonourable company of other countries who have miserably and ineffectually failed to solve corruption in government.

Swindlers’ list

 

 

Everybody knows a swindler, a dishonest person who cheats by very clever means in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages through pretense or deception.

 

The swindler is a bilk, bilker, cheat, cheater, defrauder, dodger, fakir, finagler, fraudster, hoaxer, phony, plotter, rascal, rogue, scammer, scamster, schemer, skinner, tricker, and a wheeler-dealer.

 

Janet Napoles, the pork barrel queen, is any of the above even if she’s not been convicted by a court of law, and this is not depriving her of the presumption of innocence. Her hands are all over the place, either that she is the mastermind or simply the marionette of a higher brain trust. The pork barrel mess she has created points to her culpability, and whether she brings down with her the entire government or some high-ranking politicians is an ending that needs to be scripted.

 

That’s why we begin with a list, a list of swindlers. Not just one list, but two or more or even several more. This is how to create a feeling of suspense and make the public wonder how the story will reach a climactic twist to the denouement to all this mess.

Copy of the signed Napoles' List.

Janet Napoles has her own list of politicians and government officials involved in the P10-billion defrauding of the people’s money. Benhur Luy, former assistant to Mrs. Napoles and whistleblower has a list, too. But they are different lists, in that they contain different names. Then there’s another Napoles’ list in the hands of former Senator Panfilo Lacson, albeit with an unsigned affidavit and was given to him by Mrs. Napoles’ husband, a former colleague of Mr. Lacson in the military. President Benigno Aquino III, the tireless graft and corruption crusader, has seen three lists according to him. Because he wasn’t aware of the legal ramifications of the lists, again according to him, he referred them to Leila de Lima, his Secretary of Justice and legal staff to sort out.

 

But Secretary de Lima seems embattled with a Hamlet-like dilemma. To show or not to show the true and genuine Napoles’ list. Meantime, Mr. Lacson has surrendered to the Senate his copy of the unsigned affidavit from Mrs. Napoles containing the list of all those involved in the pork barrel mess. All those mentioned in the list were up in arms, denying involvement and declaring their innocence. See how the entire drama is unfolding, great script but boring because the people already know what is going to happen in the end.

 

Secretary de Lima insists that the Napoles’ list is still a work in progress. Meaning, the list is still being sanitized which the secretary vehemently denies. Speculations are rife that there are people who shouldn’t be on the list, the ones (Aquino’s partymates and supporters in Congress) who are friendly with the President, and those within his inner sanctum (like his trusted Budget Secretary Florencio Abad) who are implicated and could bring down the government and make the President’s graft and corruption agenda look a total sham.

 

Sanitizing the Napoles’ list will clear up any inference or allegation of involvement by the current administration in the pork barrel scandal. Thus, it is very important for President Aquino and his cabinet, following the “clean hands” doctrine in law, to show they cannot be accused of unfair conduct and that they have not done anything wrong. But in sanitizing the list, the administration could be accused of partiality by going only after those who are not friendly with the government and leaving friends and loyal supporters of the Aquino administration fully unscathed.

 

It is therefore a brilliant strategy to concoct more than one list. Without a doubt, whoever thought of the grand idea of circulating more than one list was a great thinker. Alternative lists will muddle the issue, thus benefiting those who swindled the government, protect the conspirators in the scandal, and keep justice in the dark. Debating and determining which list is genuine will take an inordinate amount of time and before the dust settles, a new election is held and the whole mess becomes either forgotten or is buried from the front pages of newspapers to some page nobody even bothers to read.

Copy of the unsigned Lacson's Napoles List

At the end of day, the public will simply throw its hands up and accept a government list naming the three most popular and dispensable among those involved. We already have their names a long time ago: Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Jinggoy Estrada. Indicting these three top senators will be a great achievement for President Aquino, a feather in his cap, not to mention the continuing detention of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the impeachment of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. All things considered, it will be a testament to the persistence of the Aquino administration in prosecuting those responsible for graft and corruption in government. All accusations of non-transparency, unfairness and injustice will just be distant memories of how this government dispenses with justice when everything about the pork barrel dissipates in the air.

 

Remember too that Congress faces two very important issues which can spell trouble for President Aquino. He doesn’t have any more pork barrel to distribute to solidify support in Congress for the Bangsamoro Law and the Enforced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). PDAF has been abolished. But President Aquino could finagle the Swindlers’ List among members of Congress and let those who defy his wishes be included. In other words, the President could easily subvert the ends of justice to accomplish his aims, and this is not a healthy sign of democracy.

 

This is why the Philippines remains included in the list of countries (talking about another relevant list) considered “failed states” in the Failed States Index 2013 of Foreign Policy prepared by the United States think-tank Fund for Peace. One of the several attributes of a failed state is widespread corruption, a perpetual sordid state of affairs the Philippines has never figured out to resolve since time immemorial.

 

There are more pressing issues which the present government must address but the current controversy about which pork barrel list is genuine takes much of the administration’s time and attention. High on this list are issues such as bringing back to millions of workers the dignity of regular employment with its attendant living wage, union rights and benefits like maternity leave and health insurance, and putting an end to contractualization of labour which makes Filipino workers as “permanent contractuals” or non-regular employees.

 

Despite claims by the Aquino government of speedy relief and assistance to victims and survivors of last year’s Typhoon Haiyan, their situation is far from being close to recovery. The typhoon survivors continue to live in tents. They still suffer from hunger and there is no meaningful program by the government to help them reconstruct their livelihood.

 

Last May 9, public school teachers stormed Malacañang demanding an increase in their salaries. But the Aquino government released a statement that there will be no salary increase for government workers due to lack of funds. Apparently, because a lot of government money has been wasted for ghost, anomalous and corrupt projects through the Priority Development Assistance Fund, Presidential Social Fund and other lump sum allocations.

 

If only the Aquino government could be serious enough and pay attention to a list of priorities for improving the life of the masses, instead of dilly-dallying in releasing the true Napoles’ list of swindlers, then everyday life for the common folks will be less burdensome. But the government seems not interested in the greater good of the majority of the Filipino people. The Napoles’ list and its different versions have consumed the government to no end.

 

While the entire nation already knows how this messy scandal will unravel, the incumbent government of President Benigno Aquino III continues to exploit this controversy about a list to the fullest extent. As a result, the people will be no better off than they were before when this charade finally ends.

Plunderers’ row

 

 

Anyone with an Internet connection can check the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) website to find out if his or her favourite or most detested public official, whether a police chief or mayor, governor or cabinet member, has faced charges of graft and corruption. The PCIJ website has accumulated a database of Sandiganbayan cases against Philippine public officials from 1979 to 2012.

 

It’s no surprise if you find in the PCIJ database the three highest ranking government officials ever charged with plunder: former presidents Ferdinand Marcos, Joseph Estrada and Gloria Arroyo-Macapagal.  

Protests against corruption in government heat up as Napoles, 37 others face
plunder, graft raps. Click link to view press conference of the Dept. of Justice,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/488567/napoles-3-senators-face-plunder-raps-over-pork-barrel-scam

Ferdinand Marcos had been implicated in several cases involving bribery and other forms of corruption in government for all the years he had ruled the country with an iron fist. Whether by a stroke of luck or aggressive lawyering by his defence team, the Sandiganbayan simply failed to find any liability against Marcos.

 

Take the case of Herminio Disini, a Marcos crony who was found by the Sandiganbayan in 2012 guilty for receiving bribes in connection with the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). Disini was ordered to return to the government $50.6 million in commissions he received for helping two foreign firms win the BNPP contract. While the Sandiganbayan found Marcos to have had a “personal financial interest” in the transaction, the court could not find evidence to show that either Marcos or his wife, Imelda, received any part of the commissions from the BNPP deal.

 

Disini is still a free man and rumoured to be living somewhere in Europe in a castle he bought for himself. Marcos died a long time ago but his family is back in political power. Although there is no statute of limitation in recovering the Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth, the government has simply not done anything as if this has been a forgotten issue.

 

Everyone knows what happened to Joseph Estrada. Two years into his presidency, he was charged with plunder and convicted by the Sandiganbayan. Estrada was sentenced to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua until he was pardoned by his successor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Arroyo, who herself would be charged with plunder after her presidency and more than two years into her supposed trial by the Sandiganbayan, remains in hospital custody while eagerly waiting for her day in court. Estrada has been elected mayor of Manila while Arroyo has been re-elected as her district’s representative in Congress.

 

The Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft court was established during the term of the dictator Marcos, apparently not a serious feature of his repressive government, or to be expected to become an effective arm of the government in combating corruption of public service employees. According to Senator Frank Drilon, the current Senate President, there are at least 2,600 graft cases still pending before Sandiganbayan, which is only able to resolve less than 100 cases yearly.

 

Overwhelmed with an enormous number of unresolved cases, how then can we expect the Sandiganbayan to speed up the much-awaited trial of the senators and members of Congress who were named in the complaint filed by the Department of Justice in the recent pork barrel scam? Judging by the Sandiganbayan’s appalling inefficiency, there is virtually no hope for the public for a swift and early dispensation of justice for the nation’s collective indignation. What a waste for the people’s hue and cry?

 

The unpleasant track record of the Sandiganbayan merely confirms that morality is rigged in favour of the powerful. The mighty that have stood up in trial for their high misdemeanours against the nation are either pardoned or simply locked up for the moment until everyone has learned to forget, even perhaps, to forgive. Or better yet, waiting for the right moment for all their charges to be swept under the rug.

 

Public consciousness has been aroused about the evils of corruption in government. The people are now getting more and more exposed to the various camouflages that conceal corruption that goes unrecognized. But it is the government and the powers it yields that now prove weak in wrestling with this conundrum. Or maybe, the government and our current crop of leaders are not serious enough, like their predecessors, in combing out corruption because if they were, they would similarly be the object of public lynching. Not by the organized opposition but because their own hands are also dirty and the public knows it.

 

This is clearly evident in the current complaint filed by the Department of Justice against 38 defendants—three senators, some members of Congress, and others allegedly involved in scamming the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). All lawmakers named in the complaint are known stalwarts of Noynoy Aquino’s opposition, which could rightfully infer bias and political motivation to stymie the potential rivals of the current government’s anointed successors.

 

The information contained in the complaint is very shoddy and alludes to pieces of evidence yet to be gathered. It smacks of a fishing expedition, a careless preparation just to allay a restive public that is bent on holding more and bigger protests against the government’s feeble response to the nation’s outcry.

 

According to the special report of the Commission on Audit (COA) for the years 2007 to 2009, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been violating the use of funds under PDAF without an appropriation law or ordinance earmarking such amounts for their projects. NGOs were simply endorsed by legislators, thus funds were allowed to be transferred to NGOs whose status and existence turned out to be questionable, such as those run or incorporated by Janet Napoles, the alleged pork barrel queen.

 

It is also doubtful that the named defendants in the complaint were the only ones involved in the PDAF fiasco. The current president who was a congressman for nine years and a senator for three years before being elected president would certainly have received his share of PDAF allocations, whether through his own network of supporters or NGOs. Besides, as president, Noynoy Aquino has the discretionary spending power without audit and oversight which could tap into almost P1.5 trillion of revenues from the Malampaya fund and PAGCOR operations through regulation of amusements and gaming facilities. PDAF makes up only about 1.3 percent of the yearly national budget. It means that there are other potential sources for massive corruption that remain untouched if we simply focus on the PDAF scam.

 

But then, all the president’s loyal men claim Noynoy Aquino is incorruptible, honest and super clean—therefore, he should be spared of the people’s collective indignation against corruption in government. Of course.

 

In the same COA report, it also identified 54 PDAF-funded projects which were constructed on private properties belonging to members of Congress not named in the complaint. Obviously, these members of Congress are affiliated with the president’s party or known to be supportive of the current administration. Such use of funds, as pointed out by COA, is prohibited. According to law, public funds must be used to promote public welfare or purposes, and not individual advantage.

 

In the grand scheme of public corruption, we might as well declare all members of Congress in both houses, and the office of the president, or even the entire bureaucracy, as a big plunderers’ row. But as official morality seems to reside in the hands of the powerful, the sitting president and his party and supporters control the government. They have at their disposal all agencies and offices, including the media, to prosecute and persecute those they have deemed as enemies of the state.

 

Janet Napoles and the PDAF scam have become our national morality play. From the perspective of institutionalized corruption, this entire mess, according to the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG), “dramatizes only one aspect of a long entrenched tradition of lack of accountability by politicians and a culture of impunity enjoyed by the powerful.”

Saving democracy without elections

 

 

Under American colonial rule, the Philippines had its first taste of what elections were really about on July 30, 1907. This was made possible by the Philippine Bill of 1902, also known as the Cooper Act, which allowed Filipinos to elect delegates to the Philippine Assembly two years after peace and order had been established in the country. The Americans had already defeated the Philippine insurrection, and in 1906, US President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed that the country was now ripe to hold its first elections.

 

It was an issue-driven election unlike any other. One of the major parties, the Nacionalista Party, wanted immediate independence from the United States while the other party, the Progresista Party, campaigned for eventual independence. The Nacionalista Party won overwhelmingly, taking fifty-nine out of the total 80 seats of the National Assembly. Thus, the people, by voting for the candidates of the Nacionalista Party, chose to have independence now, and not later. Of course, it would take several years more before this aspiration of independence could be realized: the first Commonwealth was inaugurated in 1935 as a transition government preparatory to independence, then the three-year Japanese war interrupted the Philippine democratic experience under American tutelage, and on July 4, 1946, independence was finally granted by the United States.



50th Commemorative Stamp celebration of the Anniversary of the 1907 Philippine
 Assembly featuring a vignette of Sergio Osmena, the first speaker (right) and
members of the Assembly. Click link to view The History of Elections in the
Philippines, Part 1,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMzrrx-BYMc, by the
Institute for Political and Electoral Reform.

We were a small country then, with 7.5 million people based on the first-ever conducted 1903 census under Governor William Howard Taft. Today, the Philippines has a population of more than 100 million. Imagine how crude and rudimentary our electoral process was in 1907 compared to the automated elections we have now.

 

Before, our people voted to resolve political issues such as national independence. Today, people march to the polls under duress, threats or the influence of bribe and corruption. Now, voting seems to be just a meaningless ceremonial rite of suffrage. People today don’t vote on issues, or don’t care about issues. Similarly, the candidates don’t run on a comprehensible political party platform; there are no ideologically distinct political parties, but only coalitions around fleeting and non-perennial causes. Name recognition, association with prominent families, and entertainment or movie credentials, these are the things that matter now.

 

In this coming May 2013 elections, more than 33 senatorial aspirants and 133 party-list candidates are on the official ballot. Only 12 senators and 58 or 60 party-list representatives will be elected, along with provincial, city and municipal officials throughout the country. Amid all the displeasure and criticism of the election technology chosen by the Commission on Elections (Comelec), it appears that the aforesaid technology is inadequate to allay fears of massive cheating and a potential unfair election outcome.

 

The Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines that will be used in the coming May 2013 synchronized national and local elections are under fire from the Automated Election System (AES) Watch which has questioned the readiness of the automated polls system.

 

Based on the experience with the same technology adopted by Comelec during the last 2010 elections, AES pointed out that many problems and issues remain unresolved such as ballot rejections, transmission failures, inaccuracy of the vote count, election returns and certificates of canvass not digitally signed as required by law, among others. Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes Jr., however, is undeterred and confident that the automated system will work. Boasting that the PCOS machines cannot be manipulated, Brillantes is even offering a reward to anyone who can hack into the PCOS machines that will be used in the May elections.

 

As established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the will of the people expressed through periodic and genuine elections shall be the basis of government authority. Elections are at the heart of the democratic process. But to realize the democratic potential of elections, they must be honest and fair, genuinely transparent, and on a level playing field. The irony, however, is that most election events are conceived and held outside their broader political context. Instead of being the democratic solution, oftentimes, elections are as much a part of the political problem.

 

Philippine elections are a case in point. After the campaign for independence from American colonial rule, elections were simply occasions to change political leaders through some revolving door, as in the case of the presidency. Ferdinand Marcos was the first president to be re-elected, breaking convention and tradition, although by all accounts, his re-election only happened because he manipulated the election results. When he declared martial law, elections became a farce, and like any other despot, Marcos used elections as a veneer of democratic legitimacy. With the downfall of Marcos in 1986, Corazon Aquino restored the old convention of electing presidents for one single term, even if Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo tried to circumvent the historical practice but failed.

 

The only genuine political issue that was presented upon the Filipino electorate was immediate independence from the United States as soon as the colonial rulers decided it was time to experiment with democracy in the Philippines. But after the establishment of the first Commonwealth, the only option left for Filipinos was to vote for their president based on persona, not the ideology or party platform. Manuel Quezon was elected first president because he was able to project himself as the one responsible for getting the independence the Filipinos wanted. Sergio Osmena succeeded to the presidency when Quezon died while Manuel Roxas was elected president in 1946 when independence was finally granted by the U.S. Congress because Osmena at that time was too old and sickly to hold on to the presidency. The rest of the next presidential successors were elected not on the strength of a political platform but merely on how well the candidate framed accusations of graft and corruption against the incumbent or his political opponents. Henceforth, every presidential candidate would be running on the mantra of eliminating graft and corruption, with President Noynoy Aquino’s “matuwid na daan” being the most recent version of this national fixation against government corruption.

 

The election of senators and members of Congress is largely a popularity contest. People really don’t care except who ends up number one in the senatorial contest. Since senators are elected nationally, name recognition and fame are important. An offspring or descendant of a prominent family, particularly from a political dynasty, virtually has clinched a spot in the elections. Fame from acting in movies or in sports makes the candidates appear bigger than life, so the lack of political experience is not a liability for as long as one is a marquee candidate or married to a famous movie celebrity.

 

Thus, all this talk about Comelec’s election technology being inadequate to count the people’s votes is nothing but a convenient diversion from the genuine issues that really matter. An honest public discussion of the real political issues is sorely lacking, such as widespread poverty despite the government’s claim of growing economic prosperity, dependency on export of cheap labour, continuing violations of human rights, disappearances and extra-judicial executions, or the entrenchment of political dynasties in power.

 

Yet, the Comelec and its critics keep on missing the point: does modern technology in counting the votes make us a better nation than in 1907? Or are we really that fully independent from the United States considering that their powerful navy and special military forces can go in and out of our territories as if our waters and lands still belong to them? Or why would Filipino expatriates in the US easily jump into the South China Sea dispute to rally behind the current government’s claim over Spratlys, but remain silent on the Sultan of Sulu’s historical claim for ownership of Sabah? Aren’t these also relevant issues the people would like to hear from the candidates?

 

We often blame our political system for the personalities that run it. But this is both unfair and misleading since politicians are morally little different from anyone else. Perhaps, we should not lay too much blame on the individuals, but on the system in which they operate.

 

The self-evident truth is that our political salvation lies not in more elections or in modernizing the technology of counting the votes. Elections are necessary to establish democratic governance and the legitimacy of government, but we don’t need sham elections as frequent as we do just to elect clowns in government and in Congress. If elections have limitations, then what is the alternative?

 

There must be some viable alternatives for the people to assure that we have a flourishing participatory democracy. As a matter of fact, the present Constitution of the Philippines allows actual rule of the people, instead of simply relying on elected representatives. The 1987 Constitution allows the holding of a people’s initiative to enact legislative reforms by referendum or plebiscite. In 1989, Congress has passed Republic Act No. 6735, “The Initiative and Referendum Act,” which empowers the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution, and to enact laws, ordinances or resolutions, through a system of initiative and referendum.

 

The system of initiative and referendum has been a popular tool in advanced democracies in enabling the people to directly enact legislation, especially on issues that are quite urgent but unpopular and controversial, or issues some may find radical in nature. Several states in the United States, for example, have passed, through their respective referenda, laws allowing same-sex marriage and the use of marijuana. Plebiscites are another form of alternative political method of expressing the voters’ will on matters that are vital to them and to the nation. So far, the Comelec has held plebiscites only for the purpose of ratifying the creation of new barangays and conversion of municipalities into cities.

 

Voter turnout during national elections in the Philippines from 1946 onwards.
Photo by wikipedia. Click link to view The History of Elections in the
 Philippines, Part 2,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YoBu3B0mKI
by the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform.

The democratic provisions of the Philippine Constitution will remain nominal and aspirational at best if the Filipino people do not dare challenge Congress and the Comelec to enforce them. This is the only way we can save our democracy without resorting to unnecessary elections, to allow the people to exercise their constitutional right to directly enact legislative reforms rather than wait for their elected representatives to act.

Corruption takes a backseat

 

The arrest of former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has caused an unnecessary public uproar, if not ambivalence. One side is almost ready to burn the former president at stake, declaring her guilty on all counts even without trial. While the rest call for slowing down the prosecution, reminding everyone that she is also entitled to a presumption of innocence.

But can a former head of state expect a fair public trial when it’s her political enemies who are in charge of the prosecution?

Former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is seen arriving on a
wheelchair at the Manila International Airport on Nov. 15, 2011. Photo by
 Noel Celis/AFPGetty Images. Click link to view "Gloria Arroyo charged with
 electoral sabotage,"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpBZC6MWJVM

Just a wild thought: Wouldn’t it have been easier if Arroyo were lynched by a mob after being overthrown? Wouldn’t that be neat? Like Muammar Gadaffi when he was lynched by a mob of Libyan rebels in front of multiple cell phone cameras while the event was broadcast within hours all over the world. Or pretty much like every unpopular leader from Caligula to Ceaușescu after being deposed from power.

Filipinos can’t be blamed if they cry for blood. For years in power, Mrs. Arroyo had been suspected of plundering the economy to enrich herself and her own family. Remember all the scandals that plagued her administration, to mention just a few: the overpriced North Rail Project involving a $400 million loan from China's Export-Import Bank, the National Broadband Network (NBN) deal between the Philippine government and China’s ZTE Corporation, the ZTE-Mt. Diwalwal mining contract, bribery of members of Congress amounting to half a million pesos each to members of Congress in exchange for the dismissal of impeachment complaints against her, the so-called “Hello Garci” scandal wherein the President was caught on tape while tampering with the results of the 2004 elections, the fertilizer funds scandal which personally benefited Arroyo and some key officials of her government, and human rights violations, extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture of individuals opposed to her administration. All these happened while the poor majority of the Filipino people wallowed in poverty and the misery it breeds.

As president, Mrs. Arroyo was accused of rigging the electoral process so she could freely cheat and ensure that the election results would keep her in power. Four times Congress tried to impeach her but all failed because she had the money and political power to silence and derail members of Congress from acting.

Now that charges were brought against the former president preventing her from leaving the country, some have criticized the action of government as hasty and without due process. The culprit is now in police custody, yet holding her in captivity is being peddled as wrong and in violation of her legal rights. What’s wrong with this picture?

Imagine if former strongman Ferdinand Marcos had been captured while fleeing Malacañang during the final hours of the EDSA People Power revolution. He would have suffered the same fate as Gadaffi and the people would be rejoicing. The lynching of Gaddafi is the new standard for the treatment of deposed despots and it will be doubtlessly imitated by others.

The transgressions of the Marcos regime were no different from the Arroyo’s. Except this time, Gloria Arroyo has no more powerful friends left to save her. Any appearance of public lynching of Gloria Arroyo in the media is therefore understandable. Arroyo should be thankful that it is much more pacified and without the violent trappings of an actual mob lynching.

However, in spite of all the drama in prosecuting Gloria Arroyo for her past misdemeanour in office, the question that remains unanswered is, what happens now to President Noynoy Aquino’s crusade against graft and corruption?

Gloria Arroyo, the 'most hated' Phillipines leader since Marcos. Photo courtesy
of  The National Conversation. Click link to view "Unexplained wealth of President
 Gloria Arroyo," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkiyuBD8_Ps

Arroyo has been charged with sabotaging the elections in 2007. Should Arroyo be convicted and sentenced to spend time in prison, her greater sin of economic plunder will remain unpunished. Is the Aquino government pursuing only the electoral charges against former President Arroyo because corruption is much more difficult to prove? That it would have a disrupting impact on government and a disincentive for future leaders? That it could possibly open a can of worms for the present administration when it leaves—that the successor regime might also consider prosecuting crimes of corruption and thus cause an endless cycle of partisan recriminations?

Everyone on the street will tell you unequivocally that all politicians steal, that no one is truly incorruptible. Not even President Noynoy Aquino. This is as much a way of life as it is the political culture in the country.

All past presidents have been dogged with rumours and allegations of corruption. No wonder, no president under the old Constitution was re-elected for a second term except for Ferdinand Marcos who knew how to wield and control the powers of the presidency for his own benefit. Every corrupt president did not merit re-election. There was no need for prosecution, the people could always boot out the incumbent every election. Thus, the presidency was a continuously revolving door, and corruption in government became part of the institution of the presidency.

With the present one-term limit for the president, this now appears too long for a corrupt president or for an ineffective leader. This is why many still favour the old system, a perpetual revolving door—a new president every four years. But Ferdinand Marcos broke the rule, except he did it differently. Marcos was also a dictator and he imposed his will on the people. Why he was never prosecuted in a Philippine court—for corruption, abuses, and all his crimes against the Filipino people—only shows the lingering influence of his regime over the country’s political and legal system. Consider, too, that members of his family and his former political allies are back in political power without any blemish of culpability for their role during the Marcos oppressive regime.

Former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Courtesy of  wikicommons.
 Click link to view "Martial Law in the Philippines,  1972-1986,"
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIpyvO4c9lU&feature=fvwrel.

It seems easier for the present government to prosecute Gloria Arroyo for an electoral offence than corruption. There’s no need to disclose Arroyo’s network of irregular financial transactions that may also lead to the identification of people whom the government doesn’t want to embarrass, like foreign governments, financial institutions and contractors, or local businessmen and politicians. The government doesn’t have to inquire about the unexplained wealth of officials who run the military establishment who could be beneficiaries of Arroyo’s corruption, the very same people whose loyalty the present government needs to support and back up its administration. Proving corruption is a very complicated matter and may entail a long time to finish, perhaps even beyond the term of the present administration.

Noynoy Aquino wants Gloria Arroyo in jail before Christmas. This he can easily accomplish by sticking to the electoral offences against Arroyo. What easier accomplishment is there than putting a former president in prison for sabotaging the electoral process to ensure that she could stay in power?

Gloria Arroyo’s family and its minions would probably appease and take her conviction with less rancour. Their ill-gotten wealth remains in their hands, and there’s no urgent need to ask for presidential pardon. Politicians and businessmen who benefited from Arroyo’s corruption remain untouched or undisclosed, so the best thing for them is to simply keep quiet.

President Noynoy Aquino will always be loved by the Filipino people for putting in prison the person they hated most. Insofar as corruption is concerned, every person on the street will continue to talk about it. Ironically, the culture of corruption remains unscathed, and no sitting or former president will ever be put to trial on account of it.