Thursday, June 9, 2011
Shell financed Hitler
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
SOUNDS FAMILiar GUARDIANS OF LAW
Hon. Enriqueta Esguerra Vidal
Clerk of Court
JBC Ex Officio Secretary
Thursday, May 26, 2011
SHAKE IT OFF AND TAKE A STEP UP
By: Author Unknown
credit: entirebox.com |
credit:www.youtube.com |
credit: mikesteeden.wordpress.com |
Sunday, May 22, 2011
VACUUM THESE JUSTICES OUT OF THE COURT
Vacuumed justice
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 21:13:00 05/11/2011
Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice), Military, Graft & Corruption
Most Read
THE SANDIGANBAYAN'S May 9 resolution upholding the controversial plea bargain agreement that ex-military comptroller Carlos F. Garcia entered into with then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is a model of judicial obtuseness. As we can see for ourselves in both the language and the reasoning they used, the judges in the majority were so determined to willfully ignore the greater context and the higher purposes of the law that they ended up burrowing their head in the sand—and looking stupid.
While the resolution is attributed to the anti-graft court's Second Division, it was in fact a "Special Division of Five" that reached the unfortunate conclusion. Since the three-person Second Division was divided on the issues of the case, the Special Division was created to resolve the matter; it did, by a close 3-2 vote—and by the narrowest of judicial reasons.
Essentially, the resolution in the Garcia case centered on Garcia's compliance with the terms of the plea bargain agreement. About half of the resolution's 22 pages was used to list the various properties and bank accounts held by Garcia and members of his family. On Page 17 we read: "It therefore appears from the foregoing that the transfer in the name of the Republic of the Philippines of the assets and properties of accused Maj. Gen. Garcia subject of the Plea Bargaining Agreement, in the total amount of P135,433,387.84, had already been accomplished." Two pages later, we read: "Inasmuch as the provisions of the Plea Bargaining Agreement and the concerns of this Court about the protection of the Government have been already fully addressed, there is no reason why this Court should withhold approval of the Plea Bargaining Agreement in these cases."
In fact, there are several reasons why the plea bargain should not have been approved, and why the Sandiganbayan should reconsider its ruling. Compliance with the terms of the agreement cannot be the primary consideration, when the agreement is itself the issue at stake. The protection of the government cannot be understood in the narrowest terms of securing property and other assets; the highest purpose of the anti-graft court is to punish grafters and prevent corruption. How can a plea bargain that allows a military official with hundreds of millions in unexplained wealth to keep half of it serve as both punishment and preventive measure?
Above all, in ignoring the greater context, the anti-graft court succeeded in making itself an accomplice of the corrupt. From the unusual circumstances of the plea bargain (struck only after an uncooperative special prosecutor retired), to the smoking-gun confession of Garcia's wife Clarita (the subject of apparently intense internal debate in the court), to the revelations disclosed in hearings at the Senate and the House of Representatives (including evidence from the Anti-Money Laundering Council showing that Garcia's wealth may have reached over P700 million), to the obvious discrepancy between Garcia's official income and his unexplained riches (the only instance when the law puts the burden of proof on the accused, not the accuser), there was an entire range of old and new evidence that the anti-graft court could have taken notice of, but chose not to see. President Aquino was only right to ask whether the judges lived in a vacuum.
One gauge of the resolution's strained reasoning is when it reiterated the court's earlier ruling that there was no need for the AFP to give its consent to the plea bargain, in part because "the blatant allegations in the information fail to indicate that the amount mentioned therein was purportedly taken from the AFP, as in fact none from the said agency was listed therein as a witness." This is plainly ridiculous; the facts of the case show that much of the money involved came from suppliers' bribes. But while the funds did not necessarily come from the AFP, the bribes were made precisely because, at the time, Garcia was the AFP's comptroller. In other words, the abuse happened as a direct result of the office Garcia held; if we want the AFP to reform itself, surely it must have a say on how an officer who abused his office must be meted justice.
A once-secret plea bargain that allows Garcia to pocket over a hundred million pesos is many things, but it isn't justice
--
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
SHAME ON ME
9-year-old Japanese's self-sacrifice shames Filipinos
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:23:00 05/12/2011
Filed Under: Earthquake, Graft & Corruption, People
Truth or fiction, the story made a strong impact. I totally agree with De Quiros' view that the observation of the Vietnamese cop—that "[a] society that can produce a 9-year-old who understands the concept of sacrifice for the greater good must be a great society, a great people"—was "more precious" because the cop was a survivor of a decade-long Vietnam war. Like Vietnam, the Philippines had once been ravaged by war. But after that, what kind of generation did we produce?
Comparing the cop's and boy's countries with our own in terms of instilling in children the values of love and charity, we would arrive at a shameful reality that we're raising our kids far below their standards. It is true—and again I agree with De Quiros—that the Japanese boy and Vietnamese cop are not Christians, yet as the story showed us, they had more Christian charity than we do, and they demonstrated a capacity for self-sacrifice more than we Filipinos do.
So, how soon, then shall we Filipinos—who are mostly Christians—transform our society into one that can produce a generation of Filipinos with values like those that a 9-year-old Japanese orphan exemplified and a Vietnamese cop extolled? When can we produce a generation of Filipinos who "understand the concept of self-sacrifice for the greater good," so that we Filipinos can also be called "a great society and a great people"? Or shall we just remain as we are now, mired in the culture of corruption, where selfishness and greed are being cultivated by most of our vicious and depraved politicians and government officials?
God bless us Filipinos!
BENJAMIN B. MALLORCA JR.,
benmallorcajr@yahoo.com
Friday, May 20, 2011
DEFINING MOMENT AGAINST TERROR AND CORRUPTION
Defining Moment
for Obama and PNoy
By Rodel RodisINQUIRER.netFirst Posted 14:26:00 05/12/2011Filed Under: Graft & Corruption, graft, Acts of terror, Congress, Impeachment
Pres. Obama did what candidate Obama promised to do during his second presidential debate with Sen. John McCain on October 7, 2008: "If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take him out, then I think that we have to act and we will take him out. We will kill bin Laden.; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
Obama delivered on his promise and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed that he deserves full credit for the killing of Osama because he would have received all the blame if the military operation had failed.
Pres. Obama's approval rating has zoomed to its highest point in two years – 60 percent – and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected, according to recent polls which show that Obama's standing had improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy.
Unlike the killing of Osama which was high drama for Obama, the resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was a low-key affair that was not even the major news of the day as it was eclipsed by wall-to-wall coverage of the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton in London which was viewed by two billion people worldwide.
But the high significance of the Ombudsman's resignation should be viewed in the context of the fact that PNoy's presidential campaign was anchored on his promise to rid the country of corruption ("kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap") by starting with the prosecution of his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
When Arroyo went after her predecessor, Joseph "Erap" Estrada, and sought to prosecute him for plunder and corruption, she had the benefit of the support of the Ombudsman who was appointed by Erap's predecessor and of a Supreme Court which was also dominated by justices appointed by Erap's predecessors.
PNoy was handicapped by the fact that the Ombudsman in his watch was an appointee of his predecessor whose chief virtue was her abiding loyalty to the president who appointed her to high office. As long as Merceditas Gutierrez was the Ombudsman, no charges would ever be filed against Arroyo or any of her appointees, she would make sure of that.
PNoy sought to get around the prophylactic protection provided to Arroyo by the Ombudsman by signing an Executive Order creating a Truth Commission that would investigate the corruption of the previous administration. Even though the commission was generally considered toothless, its constitutionality was still challenged before the Philippine Supreme Court, the vast majority of whom were, like Gutierrez, appointees of Arroyo, and it was predictably struck down as unconstitutional.
PNoy's only hope of being rid of Arroyo's Ombudsman was to have her impeached by the House of Representatives and all he needed was 93 votes and surely he could gather that number. But before he could get the House to vote on the impeachment motion, the Ombudsman raised a legal challenge that there can only be one impeachment complaint filed against her in any given year and two were filed.
The House sponsors of the impeachment complaint explained that the two bills would be combined as one, which happens all the time. But the Ombudsman sought and obtained a restraining order from the Supreme Court stopping the House from voting on her impeachment.
The SC justices, perhaps unwilling to remain tainted forever as lapdogs of Arroyo, overturned the restraining order and allowed the House to vote to impeach the Ombudsman.
On March 21, 2011, PNoy easily secured 212 votes in the House of Representatives, more than enough to impeach Ombudsman Gutierrez without even having to send Philippine Navy Seals to accomplish the mission and, despite reports that Arroyo had spent P100 million pesos to defeat the impeachment motion.
The significance of this vote, as presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda explained, is that "by doing so, the House has put an end to the long era of impunity that tarnished our institutions and made a mockery of the bedrock principle of accountability that is the bedrock of our Constitution."
Newspaper reports confirmed that Arroyo personally visited the Ombudsman at her home on the day of the impeachment vote perhaps to assure her that PNoy did not have enough Senate votes to secure her ouster and that was the conventional wisdom.
As only 1/3rd of the House votes was needed for an impeachment to succeed, that first part was a picnic. The next step, the Senate trial, would be infinitely more challenging as PNoy would need 2/3rds of the vote or 16 out of the 23 sitting senators.
Pres. Aquino could likely secure the 16 votes he needed to oust Gutierrez but there would be a heavy price to pay. Each of the senators would want something in return for their vote. Sen. Ping Lacson may want PNoy to get his Department of Justice to drop its criminal prosecution of him for his alleged role in the kidnap-murder of Salvador Dacer and Emmanuel Corbito. Sen. Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos may want PNoy's pledge to allow his father to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
It may be recalled that when his ally, Sen. Kiko Pangilinan, sought the Senate presidency last year, Sen. Lito Lapid made it crystal clear that he would support PNoy's candidate only if his son, Mark Lapid, would be retained in his post as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority. As Kiko bowed out of the Senate presidency contest, Sen. Lapid needs another Senate vote to secure the permanent appointment of his son.
When former Pres. Joseph Estrada was facing ouster by the Philippine Senate at his impeachment trial in January of 2001, he appointed the mother of one grateful senator as Ambassador to Mexico and reportedly awarded a P750 million peso dam construction project to the husband of another senator. That's the politics of back scratching that is common in Congress.
If Merci Gutierrez had not tendered her resignation to Pres. Aquino on April 28, 2011, PNoy would have had to scratch the backs of an awful number of senators or, rather, a number of awful senators. In seeking the ouster of Arroyo's Ombudsman in order appoint his own, PNoy would have laid the grounds for the corruption of his own administration.
Because of what PNoy did not have to give up, the resignation of Ombudsman Merci Gutierrez was the defining moment of his presidency.
(Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or write to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 4154.334.7800).
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
CHILD'S SELF-SACRIFICE
Last update: April 21 2011, 11:56 PM |
|
Monday, May 16, 2011
HON. CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA PLEASE POLICE YOUR OWN KIND
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:01:00 05/16/2011
Filed Under: Justice & Rights, Graft & Corruption, Government
The Inquirer's May 12 and 13 editorials virtually calling the Sandiganbayan's ruling on the Garcia plea-bargain agreement idiotic have no doubt added fillip to the perception of that court as a coddler of corrupt officials who steal big time! While it seems to have no problem sending small-time crooks (e.g., municipal treasurers, clerks, janitors, etc.) to jail, that court strains credulity and logic to absurd extent to find any reason to let big-time crooks (e.g., Cabinet officials, military generals, etc.) off the hook.
Ruminate, and weep for our country's justice system: a municipal treasurer was sentenced by that court to some 25 years in jail for having misspent public funds amounting to less than P50,000. In stark contrast, a retired military general is now free as a bird despite having pocketed bribes amounting to P303 million! Another VIP went scot-free despite being charged with having accepted a bribe to the tune of $2 million! And these are just examples of many other innumerable instances of iniquity.
In the case of retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, the Sandiganbayan twisted the rules of evidence around to suit its prejudgment or predilection to set him free. It shifted the burden of proof very conveniently. The Inquirer hit the nail on the head: "... everyone else knows it is the military general earning a five-digit salary per month but enjoying hundreds of millions in assets who must do the explaining." Indeed, it was not for the prosecution to explain where and how Garcia acquired such enormous sums of money. In unexplained wealth cases, if the accused refuses to "explain" his filthy lucre by invoking his "right against self-incrimination" or his "right to remain silent," such reticence guarantees jail time—no ifs, ands or buts about it.
But was the court expecting to see some receipts or notes signed by Garcia, and seeing none, it had to rule the way it did because, according to its spokesman, its hands were tied? That struck us as totally disingenuous, for in the final analysis, the court's predilections had long been unmasked when it granted him bail in accordance with the plea bargain agreement which downgraded the charge from plunder (non-bailable) to bribery (bailable)—even before approving that deal. Imagine, if you will, how ridiculous and laughable it would have been if that court disapproved that deal in the wake of its own order allowing the accused to post bail on the earlier agreed-upon lesser offense!
That interlocutory order, for all legal intents and purposes, had rendered the graver plunder case moot and academic. Everything had by then become a fait accompli. All that talk about the agreement per se still awaiting the court's approval was nothing but tommyrot. The final ruling had become a foregone conclusion.
The unkindest cut of all? The Ombudsman's prosecutors are now gloating ("that ruling has vindicated us"), and celebrating with their former boss, Merceditas Gutierrez, while the people (the aggrieved party) are being left to hang out to dry and twist in the wind!
STEPHEN L. MONSANTO,
Monsanto Law Office,
SHELL CIRCUMVENTED RA 7641
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|