Extremely annoying and incredibly juvenile

My apologies to Jonathan Safran Foer for putting the pun on his book title.

William Howard Taft—yes, that same person for whom a long stretch of avenue in Manila was named for—was appointed Governor-General of the Philippines in 1900 by U.S. President William McKinley. Taft was elected U.S. President himself in 1909.

William Howard Taft, first U.S. Governor General of the Philippines and 27th US
President. Photo courtesy of  Life.Liberty. Taft told President McKinley that "our
little brown brothers" would need "fifty or one hundred years" of close supervision
 "to develop anything resembling Anglo-Saxon political principles and skills."

In 1902, Taft wrote a book, Political Parties in the Philippines, where he examined the historical development of Philippine political parties and analyzed the level of political maturity of the Filipinos. In his book, Taft said that Filipino politicians have yet to learn the idea of individual liberty and the practical elements of a popular government.

The Philippine Commission during Taft’s time in the Philippines, which was the precursor of the Philippine Senate, recommended the establishment of a popular assembly, to be composed of affluent Filipino politicians, to serve as a training ground for self-government. This assembly became the Congress of the Philippines and the Jones Act of 1916 created the Senate replacing the Philippine Commission.

As oligarchic as the membership of Congress was in its early years, today’s Congress is not that all different. While learning the rudiments of self-government from American tutelage which the country had to master well during the years of independence until now, one would expect that a representative democracy would have flourished, that the country is now able to draw upon all classes in Philippine society in forming the country’s legislative body. Nothing has changed.

It was partly the fault of the American colonial rulers. The Americans did not change the Filipino social structure. They merely imposed a political system that allowed the existing social structure to gain political power. Taft’s idea of letting society’s affluent members constitute Congress resulted in the formation and circulation of elites that perpetuate their hold on political offices.

Brian Fegan, an American anthropologist described the Filipino family in his book An Anarchy of Families, as the most enduring political unit in Philippine society. The transfer of power among family members is considered normal and natural in order to preserve political continuity. Political competition is seen as a rivalry between families, whose members invest a permanent right to political office once they have claimed it.

Just look at the composition of today’s Philippine Congress. You see father and son, or mother and daughter, one a senator and the other a member of the lower house. Or siblings sitting together as senators. Or children of their once-famous or infamous father or mother who also sat in Congress before them. Point a finger to an individual member of Congress and you can trace his or her family connections: the Aquino-Cojuangco family, the Macapagal-Arroyos, the Ponce Enriles, the Rectos, the Osmenas, the Marcoses, the Cayetanos, the Angaras—almost everyone is related to each other, whether as a sibling, a parent or a distant relative.

Current members of the Philippne Senate sitting as a trial court for the impeachment
of  Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona. Please click link to view "Pulitikos:  The
Philippine Oligarchy System,"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlIsjUnoVLg

Whatever happened to Taft’s prescription one century later—did we mature as a country or have we gone bananas? We should blame him for the oligarchic system of government we have now.

The current impeachment trial of the Supreme Court Chief Justice before the Senate doesn’t speak well about our development and maturity as a government. We have a Constitution which grants the Senate the power to try government officials for high crimes and misdemeanours. Acting as a trial court, the Senate is higher than the Supreme Court but the law is quite clear on what are impeachable offences. Some pundits or columnists of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and other media subservient to Malacanang, or even independent bloggers, they all don’t know what they’re writing about. It’s not about how sharp your pen is or how good you string a couple of sentences into beautiful paragraphs. Impeachment, although a political process, is equally about what the law is. No amount of spin and counter-spin in the realm of public opinion can change the law and the legal nature of the impeachment process.

But there is value and purpose in the impeachment process as a constitutional device for as long as it is not regarded as purely ad hominem in nature. Unlike what is happening in the Philippine Senate today when a person like the Supreme Court Justice is being vilified both by his prosecutors and by those in the public media.

If we follow American impeachment proceedings as our guide, such proceedings often start as a general inquiry and develop into impeachment as soon as the facts are disclosed which would then generate public demand for stronger action. In the case of Corona’s impeachment, the articles of impeachment were hastily drafted and the prosecution soon fast-tracked into a fishing expedition for evidence to prove the allegations against the Chief Justice, such as issuing subpoenas right and left even for persons who should not be there, like the accused’s fellow justices or financial and bank records that are protected from disclosure by law.

The motive for Corona’s impeachment is suspect. We have a president stimulated by vendetta against an earlier Supreme Court decision that was detrimental to his family’s feudal claims to lands that didn’t belong to them. Or, perhaps because the Chief Justice refused to go along with a sharing arrangement of the high court’s leadership with another fellow justice. Arguably, while some of the alleged offences by the Chief Justice could be against the law if only they could be proved, they are most likely not in the nature of impeachable crimes as envisaged under the Constitution.

Prof. Raoul Berger , a conservative Harvard legal historian and Supreme Court scholar, wrote in the 1974 issue of Harper’s Magazine an article entitled “Impeachment: An Instrument of Regeneration,” where he argued that Americans were too restrained about the use of the impeachment process. In Berger’s view, impeachment was an essential Constitutional safeguard – an instrument for regeneration for protection of our liberties and our constitutional system.

During the waning years of the Bush administration, there were talks that went around Washington about the possibility of impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney for serious transgressions of the Constitution. Bush, Cheney and the Justice Department were the focus of complaints about their abuse of authority with respect to the war in Iraq, the treatment of war prisoners, the use of torture, and the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in 2007 known as the “Gonzales Eight.” The political condition would have been ripe for impeachment as an institutional remedy as Prof. Berger had foreseen. But impeachment was taken off the table as many Americans believed it would be viewed as overzealous partisanship, and they could strike havoc at the polls whoever was running as president for either the Republican or Democratic Party. Such was a situation ideal for impeachment as an institutional remedy, as it would make a clear statement about abuse of power.

Does the Corona impeachment fall under Berger’s argument that its proper use is as a constitutional restorative? Obviously not. But the failure to use impeachment, however, could also have deleterious consequences. It could mean acceptance of the alleged felonies of the Chief Justice as permissible by any means, legally or by any form of justification.

On the contrary, however, the current Corona impeachment is destroying the delicate and careful balance between legislature, executive and judiciary as envisaged in our Constitution. We have a sitting president who appears to be interested in undoing this system of checks and balance. By the looks of it, the executive could possibly triumph as the paramount power, if this whole charade is allowed to play out. Impeachment may be a painful process, but we should consider whether our Constitution and the legal order are worth saving.

The Corona impeachment is stalling the more important legislative agenda of the Senate, and of the lower house, too, if all the 188 members who signed the articles of impeachment have nothing to do but watch the progress of the trial. It has reached a point of being a nuisance, a clumsy betrayal of our childishness and immaturity as a nation who’s refusing to grow up. Merely because we have a president who appears to be more interested in playing duck games rather than facing the serious tasks of his office.

The never-ending saga of Hacienda Luisita

During the tumult of 1984, Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr.’s widow, Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino, rose to the occasion and emerged as the anointed leader of a peaceful revolution that would topple the despotic Marcos regime. Ferdinand Marcos, the country’s dictator for almost twenty years, fled to Hawaii after his downfall where he eventually died in exile. Cory Aquino became the reluctant president who would restore the democratic institutions which were destroyed by the strongman Marcos.

Twenty-eight years later to 2012, Cory Aquino’s son, now President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III is dangerously pushing the country to the cusp of yet another upheaval. But this time, there would be no deliverance from an oppressive regime where his mother Cory was the symbolic leader of the first EDSA People Power Revolution. Instead, Noynoy Aquino could be the one to blame for starting an agrarian revolt right in his own family’s backyard, an uprising that could virtually spread throughout the country.

An unclassified but sensitive US diplomatic cable published by anti-secrecy group Wikileaks has said that the implications of the Hacienda Luisita case to the landholdings of other wealthy families in the Philippines who have avoided land reform would be far ranging and would have a deep social impact.

Peasant revolution under Noynoy Aquino? Photo courtesy of Michael Wailes.

After the Supreme Court made its decision last November 22, 2011, to redistribute the lands of Hacienda Luisita to its farm workers in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan that enabled the Cojuangco family to purchase the Hacienda in 1957, Noynoy Aquino’s spokesperson assured that there was no reason why Hacienda Luisita would not comply with the court’s ruling if it became final and executory. On December 12, 2011, the management of Hacienda Luisita filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court appealing its decision ordering the distribution of Hacienda Luisita to its farm workers, yet ensuring another chapter in the enduring saga of Hacienda Luisita and the continuing doggedness of the Cojuangco family to hold on to their last vestige of feudal possession.

Through various legal manoeuvres, Hacienda Luisita has avoided compliance with the original condition of their loan in 1957 to transfer ownership to the farmers 10 years after the loan matured in 1967. When Cory Aquino assumed the presidency in 1986, she exempted Hacienda Luisita from the government’s land reform program she herself initiated. Three more presidents came to power but Hacienda Luisita remained in the hands of the Cojuangco family, which includes the late president Cory Aquino and her son, the current president.

In July 2011, after a series of motions for reconsideration, including a restraining order to stay the Supreme Court’s decision scrapping the stock distribution option (SDO) proposed by the management of Hacienda Luisita, the Supreme Court revoked the SDO but allowed individual farmers to choose between owning the land or remaining as a stockholder of the Hacienda. The government appealed the Court’s ruling and asked the high court for the full distribution of the land to the farmer beneficiaries, which would lead to the November 22nd ruling in favour of the farmers.

Hacienda Luisita farmers' misery and the SDO. Photo courtesy of Jes Aznar/Bulatlat.
Click link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebetyUHC9hE to view "Sa Ngalan ng
Tubo: A Documentary on Hacienda Luisita, Parts 1-4."

It would now appear that the Supreme Court decision to redistribute the lands would never be final and executory. The new motion for reconsideration by the management of Hacienda Luisita has reassured that the issue would never die unless the Supreme Court decision is reversed or Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona is impeached, whichever comes first.

On close examination, the Supreme Court decision of November 22nd is in itself flawed and self-defeating. In ruling that the Hacienda lands be distributed to its farm workers, the high court also ordered that owners of the Hacienda be paid just compensation to be calculated from November 21, 1989, the date the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) revoked the stock distribution plan of Hacienda Luisita. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank of the Philippines were ordered to determine the compensation due to Hacienda Luisita management.

At issue before the Supreme Court then was who had control over agricultural lands if the stock distribution plan of Hacienda Luisita were to be operational. The court found that the farmers would never gain control of the lands if they remained as stockholders because the management of Hacienda Luisita would always have the greater proportion of shareholdings. Thus, to place control in the hands of the farmers, the lands should be distributed to the farmers instead of allowing them to remain as stockholders in a minority position.

Having said that, the issue of ownership and control over the lands has been settled in favour of the farmers. Why then should Hacienda Luisita management be compensated? They have never been the rightful and legal owners of the lands. The fact is the management of Hacienda Luisita has benefited from these lands since 1957 and from the sale and conversion of some of the lands which they never owned. It is therefore ludicrous to order the farmers who are now the legitimate owners of the lands to pay the management of Hacienda Luisita. The Cojuangco family never owned the lands in the first place, and if they were, their ownership would be limited to 10 years from the time they obtained the lands in 1957 through a government loan. In failing to transfer the lands to the farmers in 1967 and continuing to benefit from the use of the lands up to the present time, the Cojuangcos have no legal and moral obligation to demand compensation. By right, the farmers should be asking for recompense from the Cojuangcos instead.

The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is trying to implement compensation for Hacienda Luisita under the land reform law which arguably does not cover the lands of the Hacienda. Even if Hacienda Luisita should now be embraced by the comprehensive agrarian reform law, the DAR should take into account that the Cojuangcos have been well compensated over the years for the use of lands they never owned.

Hacienda Luisita implemented its stock distribution option when Cory Aquino was president and as a way of evading land distribution under comprehensive land reform law. When PARC revoked the SDO, the Cojuangco-Aquino family went to the Supreme Court and filed a petition for a temporary restraining order. This temporary order lasted for six years until the Supreme Court’s decision of November 22.

The DAR is relying on a lame and absurd policy that it does not distribute lands for free, that beneficiaries ought to pay. Ownership of the lands has now been settled. Hacienda Luisita is simply being transferred to its rightful owners, not under land reform but under the original condition of the loan that enabled the Cojuangcos to use the lands for ten years and more because of the family’s political influence and economic clout.

Now that the DAR and the farmers are at odds on the issue of compensation, this would probably put the burden on the Supreme Court again to reconsider its decision or clarify the matter of compensation. Either way, the case enters a stage of limbo where it may not be settled beyond the years remaining in the Aquino presidency just as the restraining order took a toll of six long years, despite being temporary in nature.

Or the justices of the Supreme Court, being chastened by the ongoing impeachment proceeding before the Senate and fearful of their own job security, may decide to reverse their decision. Naturally, the farmers will request the high court to reconsider. If they win again, then its Hacienda Luisita’s turn to ask for reconsideration. So it goes on and on. It has become an endless and ridiculous cycle where no acceptable solution seems possible. All along the general idea is that the Supreme Court has the last and final say on the matter. But simply not in the case of Hacienda Luisita where a sitting president and a powerfully entrenched political family are involved in threatening to destroy the entire judicial system.

Or, the farmers might take the matter into their own hands, which is not highly improbable because the government’s comprehensive land reform program has become an abject failure. With recent events unfolding, there seems to be no other viable alternative.

It’s the Hacienda after all

 

The handwriting on the wall is more apparent now than before, when 188 members of Congress signed the articles of impeachment about a month ago. Soon, the Philippine Senate will convene to determine the fate of Renato Corona, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

With the constant barrage of press releases and new revelations about Corona’s unexplained wealth by anti-Corona crusaders, including the prosecution panel and the government’s propaganda machine, there is now widespread public perception that Corona is guilty as charged. Corona, who’s been so negative to the public eye, could be burned at stake anytime. The impeachment trial is largely a political process and public opinion therefore plays a vital part in the minds of those senators who will make the final judgment.

President Noynoy Aquino ponders about the future of the family-owned
 Hacienda Luisita. Click link to view "Video documentary:Noyynoy's Luisita
http://bulatlat.com/main/2010/04/27/video-documentary-noynoys-luisita/

But the real plot behind the impeachment of Corona is fully more evident now than when it was conceived in haste. The trial of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, which everyone thought could be the trial of the century, turns out to be a sideshow, a dud muted by exchanges in the media by angry pronouncements from both pro and anti-Corona camps. Who would expect that Mrs. Arroyo would be happily convalescing from a mysteriously conjured-up illness while under house arrest at the Veterans Memorial Hospital?

As it turns out or as the impeachment denouement is expected very soon, all this “moro-moro” about Renato Corona is not about bias in deciding in favour of his former boss. The impeachment was not even about dismantling Noynoy Aquino’s final stumbling block in prosecuting Arroyo for corruption and election sabotage. It is all about recovering the Hacienda, a last attempt by the Cojuangcos to preserve the family’s sentimental vestige of feudal ownership.

The Senate has five months more to remove Corona from the highest court of the land. Failing that, the Hacienda must be redistributed to its lawful and rightful owners. Redistribution of the Hacienda to the farmers must be made in six months from the day the Supreme Court rendered its judgment on November 22, 2011.

Can the Senate be up to this task?

Judging by the numbers, the Senate needs only 16 senators to convict Corona. Although, a lesser number of magnificent seven of these senators is needed to acquit. But who among the senators are willing to turn back the momentum of history, and be remembered as the dark angels of the antichrist?

The die has been cast. If the decision to convict Corona is not unanimous as expected, the numbers predict more than 2/3 is hardly a difficult outcome.

Hacienda Luisita has been in the hands of the Cojuangco family, which includes the late former President Corazon Aquino and her son, incumbent President Benigno Aquino III, since the family acquired the property in 1958 through a loan from the Government Service Insurance System and a dollar loan from the Manufacturer’s Trust Company of New York, which was guaranteed by the Central Bank of the Philippines. A condition for the sale of the Hacienda to the Cojuangcos was the transfer of the lands to the tenants or farmers ten years after the loan has matured. Meaning, the lands have to be transferred to the farmers by 1967. Of course, this never happened because the Cojuangcos were a powerful political clan and they were able to thwart any attempts to transfer ownership to the farmers.

When Corazon Aquino became president of the Philippines, the Hacienda was exempted from land reform, the centrepiece of her administration. The property was placed under a stock distribution agreement between the landowners and farm workers in compliance with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The stock distribution option (SDO) was a scheme under the CARP that was first implemented during the administration of President Cory Aquino.

Following a year of turbulent protests where several striking workers of the Hacienda were killed and dozens of others wounded, the Department of Agrarian Reform cancelled the stock distribution agreement on the ground that it had failed to improve the lives of more than 5,000 farmer beneficiaries. In May 2006, the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council junked the motion of the Hacienda management to reconsider the revocation of the SDO. The Cojuangcos, however, were successful in obtaining a temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court which effectively blocked the revocation of the SDO. On November 22, 2011, the Supreme Court finally ordered the redistribution of the Hacienda to the farmers holding that the farmers will not benefit from the distribution of shares of stock.

What can happen after the Senate renders its judgment against Corona?

Chief Justice Corona would be replaced by someone more hospitable to the Aquino government. If that person is one of the incumbent justices, a vacancy occurs which Noynoy Aquino will fill up with another justice of his own choice. The other justices appointed by former President Arroyo would have been successfully chastened by the impeachment process, emboldening Noynoy to do anything he wishes without opposition. Now, wouldn’t that be the most opportune time to reverse the Supreme Court decision on the redistribution of the Hacienda to the farmers?

Hacienda Luisita, which is as large as the total land area of the cities of Pasig and Makati combined, is simply too big and of too sentimental value for the Cojuangco family to lose. The family held on to the Hacienda lands through eight presidential turnovers. Losing the Hacienda on the watch of one of their very own would be most hard to swallow.

The Hacienda the Cojuangcos dearly love is one of the last remnants of colonialism in the Philippines despite efforts by the government to implement land reform. One could picture Noynoy Aquino after retiring from the presidency galloping on a horse through the sunset while he surveys the vast landscape of his family estate. Or imagine Noynoy driving his Porsche over the long stretch of the national highway built on a large swath of Hacienda land by government money, as he is fond of doing in order to unwind. Or on a lazy Saturday afternoon, Noynoy could just drive to the range for practice shooting.

The lifestyle of the very rich and famous scion of the Cojuangco family—why would Noynoy be a fool to give the Hacienda up?

Much ado about nothing

Simply browsing over the flaws of the impeachment complaints against the Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court tells that even if the trial goes the full distance before the Senate, this charade is just as much ado about nothing. After all, public opinion, upon which the present Aquino government rests its case, will hardly sway those senators to render judgment against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Philippine President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III. Photo courtesy of AP. Click
link to view "Noynoy Aquino Slaps Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kt9i1TWFeQ&feature=related during  First
Criminal Justice Summit.

Truth be told, the public is really angry at former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and for good reason. If only the Filipino people would be allowed to lay their hands on Mrs. Arroyo, she could be taken out instantly as what the Libyan protesters did to their former despotic ruler, Muammar Gadaffi. The death of Gadaffi in the hands of the Libyan rebels and protesters seems to have set the new standard for punishment of crimes against the people.

Arroyo’s trial should therefore proceed without delay; after all, she’s also entitled to a speedy trial. The trial of Chief Justice Corona is a mere distraction, which takes away the attention on Arroyo. Whether this is by design will prove once again that Philippine politics is all but a big spectacle, a public entertainment of self-obsessed individuals fighting for the limelight. Much like what one journalist described the Bill Clinton impeachment as “a vast landscape painting of life as it truly is in Washington at the turn of the millennium, a Guernica of overfed egos.''

Perhaps this is why many of us have become cynical about change. Two years in his presidency, Noynoy Aquino has not effectively delivered on his election promise to bring to justice those who have enriched themselves through graft and corruption. Now that the government has the big Kahuna in custody, the Aquino government seems more interested in destroying Chief Justice Corona’s reputation and the independence of the judiciary. What motivate the President are his allegations of perceived bias by the Chief Justice in the court’s decisions that favoured former President Arroyo.

But Noynoy has already started packing up the Supreme Court with his own appointees, the latest being his former colleague in a security agency whom he has just elevated to the position of Associate Justice in the Supreme Court. If he were successful in getting rid of Corona, he would surely appoint a new Chief Justice who will follow his whims and caprices. Ultimately, what Noynoy Aquino wants is an obedient judiciary that rubber stamps whatever decisions he makes.

Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. Photo courtesy of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer. Click link to view "Chief Justice Corona fights back
versus Noynoy Aquino," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-nCnqGlPz8

One columnist in a Philippine daily newspaper even wrote that the resignation of Corona and the justices appointed by Arroyo Justices would restore the credibility of the Supreme Court. Would he have the same audacity to recommend that justices of the United States’ Supreme Court do the same thing? This columnist practises law in San Francisco and it is highly doubtful if he would propose that some American conservative justices also resign for gradually eroding women’s rights earned from the Roe vs. Wade decision, or entrenching the right of the individual citizen to own guns over the need to fight criminality, or the right to political speech of private corporations. He would be the laughing stock of the American Bar.

A friend wrote me an email a while ago saying that Chief Justice Corona has been guilty of obstruction of justice by showing his bias in favour of Gloria Arroyo in decisions made by the court. He says that Corona has abused the law in order to serve his benefactor Mrs. Arroyo who appointed him as Chief Justice.

While there could be some kernel of truth in allegations that justices could be guilty of bias, this will not stand as a valid argument for impeachment. The truth is, justices show their loyalty to their appointing power. In fact, the appointing power ensures that the justices they appoint would be loyal to their views and interests, whether legitimate or not.

A Democrat U.S. President will appoint justices to the Supreme Court those who are likely to uphold and support his or her views of the political world. Thus, conservative justices appointed to the court usually would side with decisions that favour private corporations, big business and the Republican Party.

Former president Gloria Arroyo appointed justices who would toe her line. The same thing goes for President Aquino’s appointees. Sooner or before his term is over, Noynoy Aquino would be able to pack the Supreme Court with his own flock of obeisant justices. Will Congress impeach an Aquino-appointed chief justice for partiality? Will the public rise against Aquino for subverting the ends of justice?

As a young man who witnessed the destruction of our democratic institutions during the martial law regime of Ferdinand Marcos, I saw how the Supreme Court and Congress bowed to the wishes of the dictator. Noynoy Aquino is trying to accomplish the same thing: to exact blind obedience from the legislative and judicial branches of government. No wonder that the veteran journalist Amando Doronilla has suggested that the Aquino government is being undemocratic.

What seems disturbing is how the Philippine media is distorting the truth about the Aquino government. Let Noynoy Aquino prosecute Gloria Arroyo for graft and corruption. The Aquino the government, however, has downgraded the charges of economic plunder for lack of evidence. This is an election promise he made during the election. He now has the full power of government to bring Arroyo to justice, and he should be commended for fulfilling his promise.

In the meantime, how about Aquino’s other equally important promises to revive the country’s faltering economy, including creating jobs and reducing poverty? Is the Aquino government only interested in instilling his platform of daang matuwid (the right path)? Is this the single purpose of the Aquino government?

Two years in his presidency, Noynoy Aquino’s singular devotion to his crusade against corruption has not yielded much progress. The imprisonment of Arroyo, the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona, and a possible revamp of the Supreme Court, will not be sufficient to declare an Aquino victory, for all these events may even outlive his administration.

Just last October 2011, President Noynoy Aquino signed two major land lease agreements with China and Japan. China would lease from the Philippines 1.2 million hectares of Philippine land for agricultural production, and Japanese corporations, one million hectares for bio-fuel production.

On her part, former President Gloria Arroyo brokered during her term agricultural land investment deals covering 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.

Conversion of farmlands for residential, commercial and other industrial purposes continues unabated. 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 happen to live on these lands are not given the opportunity to even have a say on the appropriation of their lands.

How come the Philippine media has not criticized President Noynoy Aquino for continuing to lease lands to foreign governments and corporations to meet their agro-fuel demands and production of high-value cash crops for export? Is it because this may link the President with the current travails of the Hacienda Luisita?

It should be recalled that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Corona has ruled in favour of redistribution of the Hacienda Luisita to the farmers. Yet, nothing much has happened in implementing the court’s decision. Could this decision be a casualty of the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Corona, under whose watch this decision was made?

If veteran journalist Amando Doronilla was right in characterizing the present Aquino government as “vindictive,” the farmers of Hacienda Luisita should postpone any celebration of their victory. Wait and see what happens after the impeachment of Corona.

Still the sick man of Asia

The Wall Street Journal once referred to the Philippines as the “perpetual sick man of Asia,” a moniker the country earned because of the pervasiveness of graft and corruption in its political institutions, and in society in general.

Observers point out that without exception, the whole Philippine government, from the Executive to the Legislative to the Judiciary, has been immersed in the culture of open and pervasive graft and plunder. The cancer of corruption has also shamefully earned us the stigma of being “the most corrupt country in Asia.”

While there is good news of the country’s recent economic performance, suggesting an unexpected recovery from its usual frail status, like a four-year low 6.4 per cent in unemployment rate and an upgrade in its credit rating from the New York-based Standard & Poor (S&P) Ratings Services, the political climate in the Philippines remains unclear, if not surreal.

President Noynoy Aquino greets Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona
during National Criminal Justice Summit in Manila. AP Photo/Malacanang Photo.
Click link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1jd7iP9mDI&feature=related to
view "Chief Justice Corona: "I am your defender!"

The imprisonment of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on charges of election sabotage and corruption, and the impeachment of her appointee, Renato Corona, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for his bias in the court’s rulings in favour of Mrs. Arroyo, are distracting the reform agenda of the incumbent government of President Noynoy Aquino. President Aquino considers these two personalities as the main obstacles in his objective of cleaning the government of corruption that will enable him to deliver on his election campaign promise.

But in singling out his predecessor and the current Chief Justice, President Aquino’s strategy may miscarry and thrust his administration into a deeper hole where there is no possible escape.

Aquino’s zeal in eliminating corruption is already seen by many as risky and may plunge the country into instability. A Corona acquittal will inevitably erode President’s Aquino’s popularity and could engender more hostility from the judiciary.

The uncertainties of the impeachment process and the politicalization of the judiciary that it brings upon the courts could dampen economic growth and drive away foreign investment. Sluggish exports this year are already predicted to slow down the economy. Impeachment is also diverting political leaders from the more serious problems of unemployment, slow growth and inflation.

Impeachment of any sitting president or the highest magistrate could bring paralysis to the state.

With the Senate about to indict former President Joseph Estrada in 2001, a people power uprising saved the senators from convicting the first Filipino president impeached by Congress. But this kind of uprising is not possible this time. It’s like “cache-22.” If Corona is successfully impeached, Aquino will be accused of coercing the judiciary into submission. If Corona is acquitted, Aquino's public support will take a big hit. And should former President Arroyo escape conviction, President Aquino might be seen as damaged goods forever. This will further wear down his presidential cape, which the military might exploit if the situation becomes uncontrollable by civilian authority.

Or, a reversal of fortune.

With President Aquino’s triumphal disposal of his predecessor and the Chief Justice, he might be emboldened to install constitutional authoritarianism, a “creeping dictatorship” feared by some as already happening.

Corona, for the record, is the first Chief Justice and Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court to be impeached by the House of Representatives. At least 95 signatures (one-third of all members of the House) are required to impeach, and 188 of the 284 members of the House voted to impeach Corona.

Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III, 15th President of the Philippines and 5th President
of the Republic. Click link to view "Viral Video 'Attacks' Aquino-Cojuangco Family
 http://www.newmedia.com.ph/viral-video-hits-aquino-cojuangco-family/

There are rumours circulating that President Aquino was personally involved in hatching the impeachment proposal, some alleging that the President was castigated by elders of his family, the Cojuangco clan, for being responsible for the loss of Hacienda Luisita. The court presided by Corona made the decision to transfer ownership of Hacienda Luisita to the hands of the farmers, which obviously disgusted the Cojuangco clan who has been in possession and control of the disputed lands for more than sixty years.

But the Senate would be a totally different scenario, however. The number of senators is smaller compared to the House of Representatives, and they are elected at large by the entire electorate. Senators have a national rather than a district constituency, thus are expected to have a broader outlook of the problems of the country, instead of being restricted by narrow viewpoints and interests. They are likely to be considered as more circumspect, or at least less impulsive than members of the House.

To indict the Chief Justice, two-thirds of the total 24 senators are required to vote in favour. This would be a tall order, and with members mostly from the legal profession, it is unlikely that the Senate would vote against a fellow member of the bar.

Corona’s impeachment will probably draw references from the experience of the United States, whose constitutional practices and provisions were written into the Philippine Constitution almost verbatim. American case law is also usually cited in the Philippine judicial system.

Only one member of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Chase, had ever been subjected to the impeachment process. Chase was accused of showing his extreme Federalist bias that led to his treating defendants and their counsel in a deliberately unfair manner. The Senate acquitted Chase, holding the view that grounds for impeachment should be either based on criminality or abuse of office, rather than partisanship, thus preventing the overt politicalization of the process.

It is therefore up to the Philippine Senate to rise to the challenge. Whether it can rise beyond political partisanship remains to be seen. Corona was a “midnight appointment” to the position of Chief Justice, and a former chief of staff to President Arroyo and Presidential Legal Counsel to former President Fidel Ramos. But the legality of Corona’s “midnight appointment” has already been addressed by Congress and the Office of the President, including the other issues which are being challenged for Corona’s impartiality toward his former boss, Mrs. Arroyo.

In one of his public speeches, President Aquino has admitted that the Chief Justice remains to be the last stumbling block to his reform agenda. It will be interesting to find how the Senate will ignore political alliances and decide on the merits of the case. Otherwise, this important trial will peter out in another political scandal that will further drive the country down into an abysmal chaos. If there is any conviction, it must be clear cut, not just on the grounds of mere suspicions of wrongdoing.

But the handwriting on the wall appears unmistakably clear. In the end, partisan politics, entrenched interests, and personal greed will win over common sense and doing the right thing. It would be another sad day for Filipinos, but what could we expect from our irresponsible and oligarchic elite?

Philippine Congress in joint session. Photo courtesy of Bikoy. Click link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_uTFfvxLrw to view "Pinoy Politicians:
Wealthy Liars, Rich Traitors & Media Darlings!" 

Paul Hutchcroft, an American political scientist, wrote in “Oligarchs and Cronies in the Philippine State: the Politics of Patrimonial Plunder,” that the Philippine oligarchic elite, where most if not all members of the Senate come from, are “booty capitalists” who prey on the weak state for its rent-extraction. They have very little incentive to demand a more predictable order, according to Hutchcroft. The principal preoccupation of these oligarchs is to gain favourable proximity to the political machinery.

With former President Arroyo out of the picture, these oligarchs and even those not closely affiliated with the present Aquino regime would be more interested in currying favours to the current occupant of Malacañang rather than demanding profound structural changes, such as strengthening an independent judiciary or keeping a transparent and responsible bureaucracy.

The Philippines is the “sick man of Asia”—and for this stigma, to paraphrase one political commentator, we should be grateful to our irresponsible elite.

Prosecuting corrupt former presidents

Former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo behind bars
on charges of electoral fraud filed by the Department of Justice and
the Commission on Elections.

Prosecuting sitting presidents or former ones could be the biggest challenge that faces democracy. 

It is much easier for an illegitimate government, one that has been installed by a military coup for example, because of the risk posed by a former head of state. Illegitimate governments often consider their predecessors as threats. This is also true in cases where governments had been toppled by a rebellion. A recent example is Egypt where its president, Hosni Mubarak, was arrested and brought to trial after thousands of protesters brought down the government. The death of Muammar Gadaffi in the hands of rebels and protesters pre-empted his prosecution and public trial for crimes against the Libyan people.

With the fall of Hosni Mubarak, center, a military council led by Field Marshal
 Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, left, has run Egypt. Photo courtesy of NYTimes and
 Aladin Abdel Naby/Reuters.Click link to view "Opening moments from Mubarak's
 trial," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih-NHecFy94

But it’s never easy in a democracy, as oftentimes it’s messy, to bring a sitting or former president to public trial for crimes or offences against the state. Ordinarily, a sitting president is constitutionally immune from ordinary prosecution but is not the moment he or she leaves office, an outcome that can be obviously hastened by impeachment.

The issue is not the president personally but the institution of the presidency. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton was impeached by Congress but he survived and finished his term of office. Philippine former president Joseph Estrada was not as lucky. Although not impeached, Estrada was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan for committing economic plunder and eventually pardoned by his successor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Arroyo, who stepped down from the presidency in 2010, is now the defendant in a suit filed against her by the Philippines’ tandem of Department of Justice and Commission on Elections for alleged electoral fraud in 2007.

Other past presidents have been sued in court but these actions have never been successful. Augusto Pinochet is an example of how the prosecution of a former president might unfold. In 1998, the one-time dictator of Chile, then eighty-two years old, was seized in Britain on a Spanish warrant of arrest. Pinochet was charged with several crimes alleged to have been committed during his seventeen years in power—including torture, illegal detention, and forced disappearances. He was placed under house arrest in an English mansion while waiting for the outcome of several months of complex proceedings. The British determined that Pinochet was medically unfit to stand trial and returned him to Chile where he eventually died before he could get tried for his crimes.

But this peaceful process would be difficult to replicate with an American political figure. Unsuccessful attempts were made to sue former President George Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, for waging an illegal war in Iraq and the illegal use of torture, including waterboarding. It would be likewise equally difficult to expect the United States to extradite former leaders who were granted political asylum in the country and regarded as friends of the American government. This probably explains why the Philippine government at that time did not exert serious efforts to have Ferdinand Marcos extradited so he could be tried for his crimes However, a civil suit against Marcos was filed in Honolulu for damages by victims of his martial law regime but the judgment against him has not been enforced to date.

There are other recent examples of suits brought against former heads of states. Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has been sued by federal prosecutors in Brazil, charging him of misusing public funds in sending more than 10 million letters to retirees telling them about low-interest payroll loans from Banco AMG.

Family members and survivors of the 1997 attack in the Mexican state of Chiapas that killed 45 indigenous people sued former President Ernesto Zedillo for his alleged complicity in the massacre.

The United Church of Christ in the Philippines has sued former Philippine President Gloria Arroyo on charges that security forces under her control killed and tortured at least six members of the church.

Former Philippine President Joseph Estrada, together with Senator Panfilo Lacson and others were sued before a California Court for compensatory and punitive damages for the killing of Salvador “Bubby” Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito in November 2000, under the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act, both American statutes.

A Chilean court has allowed a lawsuit to proceed against the former president, Michelle Bachelet, over failings in Chile's tsunami warning system during the 2010 earthquake. Victims of the tsunami have accused Ms. Bachelet and other senior officials of “denial of assistance” over the tsunami which struck after the 8.8 magnitude earthquake.

The relatives of 11 French engineers killed in a 2002 bombing in Pakistan have brought charges against former President Jacques Chirac, claiming he ignored risks of reprisals against French personnel by stopping bribe payments to Pakistani officials.

Trivial and serious suits can be brought against former presidents but the likelihood of their success is very small. When Barack Obama was asked in August 2008 during the presidential campaign if he would seek to prosecute officials of the Bush administration for the illegal use of torture during the Iraqi war, he offered a very guarded response. He said, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as partisan witch-hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.” His adviser similarly warned that pursuing prosecutions of Bush administration officials would generate a cycle of partisan recriminations. This is a plausible explanation why prosecuting former presidents has never been commonly resorted to.

But creating a precedent and thereby opening a floodgate of future suits against former presidents was not foremost in the mind of Philippine President Benigno Aquino III when he ordered the laying of charges against his predecessor. Upon succeeding Gloria Arroyo as president of the republic, Noynoy Aquino’s first major decision in office was to create a Truth Commission that would investigate and prosecute Gloria Arroyo for corruption during her years in power. That was his campaign promise and he wanted to keep his word.

However, Noynoy Aquino was tripped by the Supreme Court which declared his Truth Commission unconstitutional on the ground that it violated Ms. Arroyo’ s right to equal protection under the Constitution. It took Noynoy Aquino and his administration more than 500 days to regroup and devise another scheme to go after Arroyo, this time charging her of election fraud. The Supreme Court might as well rebuff Noynoy Aquino again for hastily pulling out an arrest warrant against Arroyo that contravened a previous order by the High Court to vacate a temporary order restraining Arroyo from leaving the country for medical consultation abroad.

Former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is seen with a neck brace
 as she  arrives on a wheelchair for a flight to Hong Kong at the Ninoy Aquino
 International  Airport where she was eventually  prevented from leaving. Click
link to view "Arrest warrant issued for former Philippine President Gloria Arroyo,"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbhAXu-o9z8

This is looking more and more like Noynoy Aquino’s personal mission to prosecute Gloria Arroyo than anything else. That he was willing to sidestep the legal niceties is proof of his rabid determination to accomplish his election promise, although not in pursuit of those guilty of corruption. But then, electoral fraud might as well be on the same plane as corruption, because this was equally an abuse of power in order to stay in power.

No one is above the law, and that applies to President Noynoy Aquino, his predecessor former President Gloria Arroyo, and to their legal minions. Arroyo’s day of reckoning could have been hastened if only Congress decided to impeach and remove her on the same charges of corruption and electoral fraud while she was still in office.

Once out of office, former President Arroyo is still accountable to law and to the country. The question though is how, when, and by whom.

After Richard Nixon resigned from the U.S. presidency following the Watergate scandal, President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for all actions committed during his presidency. Ford did not find it beneficial to the country that a former president be brought to trial. To President Ford, trying Nixon was less important than preserving the tranquility of the nation by avoiding a divisive prosecution.

Noynoy Aquino does not have this kind of dilemma. He has the popular support of the Filipino people. All he has to do—and this means his own legal advisers—is to ensure that Arroyo’s prosecution is within the bounds of the law. President Aquino’s actions, so far, appear capricious and merely vindictive, thus he could be wasting the enormous political capital the people have invested by electing him as president.

In a democracy, the decision to prosecute a former head of state is ultimately a balancing act between the retributive and utilitarian functions of the law. The retributive function assumes that the law should be applied equally, regardless of rank and privilege. When presidents engage in misconduct and violate the law, they betray public trust. They place their office in disrepute and invite disrespect of the law. Anyone who steals or abuses public funds deserves to be arrested and prosecuted. And there should be no impunity because no one is above the law.

On the other hand, there is nothing to be gained politically in prosecuting a former president. The prosecution of one head of state may lead to divisiveness, and may dilute the quality of politicians if succeeding leaders fear prosecution for actions taken while serving the country.

There appears to be a huge public outrage over Gloria Arroyo’s abuse of power in plundering the country’s economy and in keeping her in power by sabotaging the electoral process. It will serve the country well, and create an effective institutional deterrent for future politicians, to prosecute Gloria Arroyo for her egregious violations of the law. If only President Noynoy Aquino could stay within the parameters of the law and not let vindictiveness or vengefulness become the principal driving force for his actions.