Yes motherhood is God’s delegated creative power. All of us were molded and made whole through the continuing creative hands of our mothers. We were guided, provided with the necessary life survival tools, and given the motherly love and its continuing shield that protects us as we go along.

The world is not bereft of stories about mothers. Some mothers make stories for themselves and some mothers are stories themselves. But to a mother, there is nothing worth more telling than the success of her child attributed to her. Mothers rise and fall with their children. A child’s failure is a Mother’s disaster, in the same way that a child’s success is a Mother’s laurel. A Mother and a child are necessarily intertwined for one is not without the other.

For all mothers and all those who will become one, this day is for you as all the days of your children’s lives. You deserve all the laurels just for being one.

And for my mother whose affection and love have guided me as I go along, know that in my heart and the wholeness of my being, you are still here guiding us and solving life’s puzzles for us.

Happy Mother’s Day!

Of course the issue of whether condom or pills and some other artificial methods of family planning are morally feasible had long haunted Philippine society. The Catholic church had long been opposed to artificial family planning citing some moral grounds, to the point of claiming that artificial family planning methods are anti-life as they lead to abortion or eventually cause abortion.

The catholic bishops have threatened to excommunicate President Aquino due to his support of the bill. Lately, these same bishops are threatening to espouse civil disobedience due to PNoy’s unwavering support for the passage of the RH bill which gives couples the final choice on what method of family planning shall be used.

The local church’s interference in the affairs of the State  is shameful. The bishops’ threat to use a canonical penalty of excommunication is doubly revolting. The local church is apparently delusional and the bishops are still caught in a time warp of a medieval proportion.

PNoy is president to all Filipinos-all 90 million of them irregardless of their religious persuasion. For the President to decide a matter of societal policy based on his religious conviction is simply appalling. For the bishops to threaten PNoy of excommunication, more so, of a civil disobedience, reveals a tyrannical tendency on their part reminiscent of the old when the Church of Rome arrogated unto itself the power to decide the fate of everyone’s soul.

The church should definitely look through the duality of the person of President Aquino. Yes he is a catholic in his private capacity, but foremost is that he is the President of the Republic. As such, he holds an office that should basically be either an atheist or believer of all religious persuasion, whose policies are crafted and pursued not on the basis of his personal religious conviction, but premised on the multiple religiosity of his governed. President Aquino cannot impose the religious stand of his religious affiliation to all Filipinos. Thus his only reasonable course of action is to afford all Filipinos the option to choose, to practice according to conscience and free will, whatever  their personal persuasion drives them.

Ultimately, the issue of reproductive health is a personal choice between couples. The husband and wife should be left on their own free will the option of choosing either the church-endorsed methods or whatever is legally available under existing circumstances.

The church, instead of interfering with the affairs of the State, should instead focus its coercive powers on its member. Of course if the church has moral persuasion and ascendancy over its members, they will comply as Catholics. As self-professed guardian of morality, the church should first police its members before it attempts to impose its moral guidelines to the Filipino people . By all means the Catholic Church is the largest religion in the Philippines but this would not at all give it the right to impose its moral standards to every Filipino.

The Church and State are separate. In the secular domain, the State is supreme. While Christians are enjoined to practice morality and spirituality, they are nevertheless commanded to submit themselves to civil authorities. The church of course is not above civil authorities. The bishops are not above President Aquino. Whatever action President Aquino does as President of the Republic is not and will never be subject to canonical laws. The bishops may only persuade but they cannot impose and coerce the President to act one way or the other on pain of excommunication. To do so would be a return to the medieval times where kings and leaders are made, and destroyed, by the tyranny of the cross.

The outrage and anger of the family and relatives of the victims are definitely understandable. It is devastating for someone to loose a loved one uselessly. The  outrage, and grief is beyond containment. As Asians of course, we share a common belief of the hereafter, bereft of tears and sorrow, where joy and contentment is limitless.

With all these in mind, I cannot however help but take exception to how some Hongkong nationals could so easily use the same incident to malign the entire country and throw all sort of conceivable outrage against the Philippines and the entire Filipino people. Doubly shocking moreover is how some Filipino could so easily and uselessly swallow their national pride, as they admit to being ashamed of being a Filipino.

As a Filipino, the  former is absolutely unacceptable. As a fellow Filipino, the latter is doubly unconscionable.

The incident is of course not an intentional occurrence. It was clearly a criminal act perpetrated for some purpose which however noble or lofty may it be, would not justify the carnage that transpired. Said criminal act was not directed towards, nor purposely motivated by hate against, a particular race or nationality. To be fatalistic about it, it just so happened that at that particular time and particular place, the bus carrying the victims passed through that street where the perpetrator was at. The rest of course is a recent history.

Tragedies like this one, or even worse, happen all the time in some other parts of the world.  There are even times when some vast members of the populace, or race are uselessly annihilated. In said situations however, condemnation was directed against the culprits or perpetrators of the heinous crime. This is expected because no particular government has control over the mind of every living human being in its territory. As a peace-loving nation, and a member of the community of nations, the Philippines of course has laws to foster order and protect the rights of each person within its territory. Obviously therefore, the Philippines does not tolerate nor encourage criminality, as it maintains and reciprocates cordiality and amity with all nations around the world.

I know that majority of the people of Hongkong would not be too easy to rush into collective judgment against the Philippines. They are, after all, peace-loving and overflowing with kindness and dignity.

So that for some people to malign the Philippines, and insult the Filipino people unabashedly because of this single incident is clearly unbecoming. It shows a little or no understanding of the basic concept of civility and of being civilized. The feeling of outrage is of course acceptable. But to unleash such outrage against the totality of the Filipino race and the Philippines is a sign of a clear moral imbalance. The Filipino people did not rejoice when the incident occurred. They were genuinely sympathetic to the victims and their families and relatives. They have even condemned in no uncertain terms such a heinous act. They have collectively suffered the pain, and felt the sorrow. Theirs is a wounded national spirit. To visit unto them an outrage undeserved is clearly revolting.

To this, as a Filipino, I protest with vehemence.

While the entire Filipino race is sorry for what transpired, it does not surely mean that all of them are to be blamed for the incident. With an assurance from the Philippine government that justice shall be done, we can now only hope that it shall be done swiftly and comprehensively. This is not anymore the time for name calling and bigotry. This is now the time for healing, and reconciliation, and a collective effort to commiserate with the family of the victims.

To my fellow Filipinos, let us not be ashamed of our race. We cannot be.

Our strength is in our ability to gracefully rise from a national disgrace, our ability to console and our ability to heal. By keeping our faith and holding high our national pride, let us show the world that we do not condone criminality. Let us not cut and drop our national affinity by reason of this single incident. We have done more goodness to the world and we will do more. It is a noble conduct to apologize, but it surely is another thing to be ashamed of one’s own national identity for an incident which nobody wanted to occur. It is a misplaced shame, which should not be allowed.

This being the case, whenever the court promulgates a decision or particular ruling, the court does not need to conduct a press conference or briefing as the court’s statement is already contained in the four corners of the decision or ruling. Any further clarifications on perceived ambiguities are dealt with by filing the necessary clarificatory motions or applications with due notice to the opposing party. The judge who wrote the decision or ruling cannot be placed on the spot and explain why he came about his ruling as presumably the decision itself contains the necessary explanation why a particular decision was arrived at. Any disagreement with the decision is likewise brought formally through the necessary avenues of a motion for reconsideration or appeal in cases where grounds therefor exist.

This brings us to the question at hand: Does the Supreme Court need a spokesperson in explaining its decision or ruling on a particular issue?

The present Spokesperson of the Philippine Supreme Court is a clearly visible figure in the media. He is readily available to broadcast recently promulgated Supreme Court decisions and very willing indeed to answer questions regarding the particular decision. Headlines of course impute his statement as that of the Supreme Court being himself the designated spokesperson of the court.

Traditionally, courts in general are ivory towers where judges are required to be like hermits, free from, and devoid of, interactions with the world. Judges’ life are basically shut from the world as their duty is to decide on issues not according to real truths but based only on judicial truths. So that no public clamor nor opinion should affect judicial decisions as the latter should be based strictly on facts proven before the courts. Thus when a ruling or decision is issued, there is no need to explain or expound or read more than what was said in the ruling. The decision itself is thus the “spokesperson” of the court.

Recent trend however, particularly in Philippines setting, seems to depart from the tradition. While there is no question that the public has the right to know what is going on with the courts, the matter of its ruling or decision on a particular issue should not be treated as one of those which need to be expounded or explained by a spokesperson. The danger with a court spokesperson commenting, or expounding , on a particular court decision, ruling or action, is the possibility of imputing to the court the spokesperson’s own interpretation of what has been ruled upon, or what the court desires. The possibility of the spokesperson of being too eager to indulge the media in a sort of press conference where questions are asked and expectantly answered definitely would lead the spokesperson  to read between the lines effectively traversing on interpretation of the ruling or decision which in the first place the court did not intend.

Very relevant to this dangerous tendency is the more recent statements issued by the Supreme Court Spokesperson Atty. Marquez regarding the  issue of the prayer for a temporary restraining order against President Aquino’s Executive Orders Nos. 2 and 3.

While no ruling on TRO was in fact issued yet, the Spokesperson issued statements in the media urging Malacanang to exercise judicial courtesy and maintain the status quo while the courts decide on petitions filed seeking to nullify Executive Orders Nos. 2 and 3.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer quoted Atty. Marquez as saying: “Of course, that is their discretion if they would like to accord judicial courtesy or wait in the meantime that the Court decides on the petition,”.

Truth, like milk, arrives in the dark
But even so, wise dogs don’t bark.
Only mongrels make it hard
For the milkman to come up the yard.
~Christopher Morley, Dogs Don’t Bark at the Milkman

THE CREATION

The creation of the Truth Commission to investigate the reported cases of graft and corruption during the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo  generated much interest (or disinterest for that matter) from whole spectrum of the society.

Even ordinary citizens had their take and personal opinion on the necessity of creating such a body, some in support, and others in opposition, for various reasons which definitely may not be shrugged-off unilaterally by the powers-that-be, on the very reason that President Noy himself undertook to listen to the people-in its general sense regardless of color- whom he regards as his boss.

THE OPPOSITION

Expectedly of course the most noise came from the political opposition, who, in keeping with its traditional role, criticized the President for allegedly arrogating unto himself legislative power by creating an office-which power is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

Notable are the statements made in the media by the legal counsel of Gloria Arroyo’s political party and that of Senator Mirriam Santiago.

“We believe that there are legal infirmities, especially powers given to investigate, subpoena and sanction government officials who are called upon to testify and refuse to do so,” Lambino said. “I think the creation of the truth commission is unconstitutional.” [Inquirer Interview, Christian Esguerra].

According to Senator Santiago, Executive Order Number 1 (creating the Philippine Truth Commission) is a usurpation of legislative function and we all in the legislative branch have a bound in duty to oppose that kind of usurpation”.

THE SUBSTANCE

But what does Executive Order No. 1 say anyways to merit such strong words from the political opposition?

In the ‘whereas’ clauses of Executive Order No. 1, the primary focus is the upholding of the constitutional provision of accountability of public officers. It recognizes that corruption is among the most despicable acts of defiance of this principle and notorious violation of this mandate. It stresses the untold misfortune and misery corruption inflicts on the poor, the marginalized and underprivileged sector of society. Thus Executive Order No. 1 addressed the necessity  for a separate body dedicated solely to investigating and finding out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration, and which will recommend the prosecution of the offenders and secure justice for all.

THE LEGAL BASIS

The legal basis of the creation of the Truth Commission as stated in Executed Order No. 1 is Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise know as the Revised Administrative Code of the Philippines which gives the President the continuing authority to reorganize the Office of the President.

The Truth Commission’s power was apparently derived from its being an investigative body pursuant to Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, which is primarily tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption… and thereafter submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman.

THE PROBLEM

The question on the legality of the creation of the Truth Commission would more likely boil down to the legal basis of its existence. There is no dispute that the authority to create or abolish offices belongs to the legislature-via a law or statute-which is presented to the President , who either signs, or vetoes it.

Specifically on the creation of the Truth Commission, there was no specific law passed by congress creating or establishing the same. The Executive Order was anchored on the more general power of the President to reorganize his office pursuant to Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of Executive Order No. 292. which provides:

“Sec. 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office. – The President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President. For this purpose, he may take any of the following actions:

(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, including the immediate Offices, the Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System and the Common staff Support System, by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to another;(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency as well as transfer functions to the Office of the President from other Departments and Agencies; and

(3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other department or agency as well as transfer agencies to the Office of the President from other departments or agencies.

Admittedly, nowhere in the aforequoted law could it be found that single presidential authority to create an office. The enumeration from 1 to 3 above clearly contemplates a previously existing office or agency which the President may, at his discretion, either trnasfer a function of one to the other, or transfer the agency from one department to another.

Moreover, even the prerogative to restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President proper does not provide for authority to create an agency or office, as the same is quite explicit that restructuring may be done by ”abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to another“, which obviously presupposes that an agency or office is previously already existing. In this case, the Truth Commission is a newly created office, and therefore finds no statutory support on the aforequoted provision of the Administrative Code.

THE PROBABLE PROPER LEGAL BASIS

It is respectfully submitted that the better and more plausible probable legal basis for the creation of the Truth Commission should have been the Philippine Constitution of 1987 specifically Article VII Section 17 which provides that the “President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed“.

Thus the power of the President to issue executive orders to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed is an inherent constitutional power that would not require congressional approval.

In this case, the apparent subject of the executive order is the faithful execution and application of the anti-corruption laws.Being the head of the executive department and having the constitutional and inherent power to enforce and execute this particular law, the President is undoubtedly exercising an authority duly vested and existing. The fact that the Truth Commission is directly under the Office of the President and its mandate being to investigate the reported cases of high level corruption in the previous administration-and thereafter submit report and recommendation to the President- may be deemed acceptable justification for dispensing with congressional participation. In fact the Truth Commission has no prosecutorial power and its findings would merely be recommendatory-characteristics that would bolster the fact that the commission is not a separate and distinct office under the Office of the President, showing that it was indeed instituted merely to assist the executive department in its ‘faithful execution’ of the laws on the matters of gathering of facts-to merit further prosecutorial action-or closure to the reported corruption issues.

TOOTHLESS TIGER?

The fact that the Truth Commission has no prosecutorial power admittedly also raises the issue of utility. If an investigative body cannot act on its findings then what is the use of creating such a body in the first place?

This seeming toothlessness of the Truth Commission is however its very strength. Firstly, this testifies to the fact that the President did not arrogate upon himself the jurisdiction of congress to create such an office-a recognition that in fact the President has no power to give prosecutorial power to the commission. Secondly, this stresses the fact that the Truth Commission is a devise of presidential origin instituted merely to assist the President in the enforcement of the particular law against the crimes it was meant to investigate-so that the Department of Justice would focus itself on other important matters-and the Ombudsman’s burden would at least be lighten up-on the matter merely of finding facts to support either the prosecution or vindication of those indicted.

The use of a fact-finding commission to investigate some issues of transcendental importance is not at all a novel idea. It has been recognized elsewhere in the world, and it has been used for a number of times even in the Philippines by previous administrations. Majority if not all of said fact-finding commissions do not at all have prosecutorial powers but merely investigatory whose findings are merely recommendatory in nature, and used to support some indictments, or even to review, or aid, in crafting new or modified legislations.

DUPLICATION OF TASK

While it is argued that said Truth Commission would merely duplicate tasks which have already been assigned by the constitution and laws to some prosecutorial bodies like the Ombudsman or the Department of Justice, the convenience and facility that the Truth Commission would bring is beyond question.

It should be known that these government agencies are more or less passive prosecutorial bodies where the concept of preliminary investigation is done through submission of affidavits or sworn statements. Moreover, while not absolutely technical in nature, preliminary investigations on these bodies are still governed by technical rules of procedures, which more or less limit the freedom to secure evidences not brought before them.

Any lawyer would know that in actual practice, preliminary investigations conducted by either the Ombudsman or the National Prosecution Office are so mechanical that these agencies do not go out of their way to actively gather evidence in order for them to come up with an extensive grasp of the facts and decide the case on the basis of the same. In theory of course the Ombudsman is authorized to investigate on its own outside of the four corners of his office any crimes committed by any public officials falling within his jurisdiction.

The point therefore is, the Truth Commission would be an active investigatory agency. It will secure and gather evidences on its own for purposes of determining the veracity of a specific violation of the anti-graft laws and related statutes. Unlike the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice, the Truth Commission would be able to perform its mandate beyond the four corners of its office and even without private complaining party. Its hands are therefore not tied by technicalities.

A toothless tiger may be, but a four legged tiger no less whose claws extend beyond the four corners of a sworn statement.

CONCLUSION

Majority of the people desire to once and for all know the truth regarding some accusations against the previous administration. This was confirmed when President Aquino was duly elected by a resounding majority of voters during the past elections, knowing fully well that one of President Aquino’s thrusts was to investigate the alleged execesses committed during the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

President Aquino is making good his promise, and he is complying with what majority of the Filipinos wanted him to do. While the law and its intricacies are important components of a civilized society, strict interpretations thereof that would lead to the defeat of a national aspiration is anathema to attainment of justice. Executive Order No. 1 may not be a perfect instrument but it cannot be denied that the same is a manifestation of the President’s inherent and constitutional power to administer and faithfully execute the laws of the land.

The political opposition may have the right, nay the duty, to balance the equation. However this right or duty should be exercised or performed sparingly especially when a national aspiration is at stake.

If it is the truth that we all seek, then by all means let the seekers of the truth do their job. Anyways as the old adage goes, if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear.

Let us not make it hard for the milkman to come up the yard; that is if it is the milk that we want alright?

The context of course of those words is not even minutely close to President Aquino’s situation, romantically at least, of being the First Bachelor President of the Republic.  Unlike Queen Elizabeth, PNoy, as the new President wants people to call him, has no duty to produce an heir to perpetuate a legitimate bloodline in the Office. Unlike the Virgin Queen, PNoy has no duty to marry.

The publicly acknowledged romance between PNoy and Shalani admittedly added magic to the Aquino saga. The Filipinos in particular love to love stories of love. A wedding of course is traditionally the penultimate culmination of a love story, although separation and divorce seem to be gaining grounds. Like a royal wedding that is much awaited and much talked about, PNoy’s getting ‘hitched’ is something that Filipinos definitely await with much anticipation.

The ultimate question therefor is this: Should PNoy marry Shalani while he is in office?

The PNoy-Shalani romance may be said to be a rich-not rich match. In Philippine setting, it may be akin to an affair between a royalty and a commoner, which of course stirs the imagination of the people especially the romantics whose dream of marrying a prince charming (or princess for that matter), and living happily ever after, is as old as the most ancient fairy tale.

Yes theirs is not really a royal life romance. But that PNoy is the highest public official of the Republic and Shalani occupies a lower public office, as a councilor, presents a parallelism of the high heavens going down to earth love stricken.

This romance of course took a back-seat on the pretext that as President, PNoy is facing a heavy burden, that focusing on the affairs of the heart at this time is inconceivably petty compared to minding the affairs of State that PNoy has to face. The ever gracious Shalani in her interviews apparently agrees with this arrangement since she herself understands the burden of a public office, herself being a public servant. So that it would seem that the Philippines is not going to witness a presidential wedding for the next 6 years.

History of course tells us that affairs of the heart and affairs of the state are not mutually exclusive. Great leaders, men and women alike, realized that marriage could be a potent balancing antidote to the toxin and solitariness that a high public office brings. Marriages in high places are in fact a way to unite kingdoms and fiefdoms of the old, effectively eliminating the need for wars to secure peace.

With respect to PNoy, definitely there is no need to unite the ‘elite’ with the masses as the divide had apparently been removed when the masses elected PNoy as their president. The only probable underlying compulsion for PNoy to marry Shalani is, apart from his age, the imperative that Shalani herself embodies.

Of course the responsibilities of the Office of the President should never be a stumbling block to consummate a legitimate love affair. Nor a legitimate Presidential love affair could be deemed a threat to national security or a public nuisance subject to summary abatement or temporary injunction.   While PNoy might be the youngest person to occupy the Philippine presidency, his age is obviously not the best number to delay what needs to be done. If indeed it is love that binds them together, then there is no reason to make the Presidency as an excuse to delay its consummation.

Like any other civil rights, to marry or not to marry is not only PNoy’s personal right but it has now become a presidential undertaking, subject to public curiosity. While the people could only express their opinion on the matter, the actual decision of course belongs to the couple. Absent any other seeming impediment apart from the burden of the Presidency, PNoy and Shalani should not anymore tarry.

Therefore without pushing the two of them to the ‘wonders’ of a marital bliss, and in spite of the rigors that the presidency brings, there is no impediment to PNoy marrying Shalani during the former’s incumbency. Besides it would be an addition to PNoy’s firsts-that is, of being the First Bachelor President of the Republic to wed while in office- proving that indeed love conquers all, and not even the powers, and the responsibilities, of the Office of the President could prevent.

“I am married at 50″, history books would quote PNoy. Definitely a “golden age” for him literally, and hopefully a start of a golden age of the Republic.

It is interesting to note that in adherence to this principle of church and state separation, crosses and crucifixes are not allowed to be displayed in the classrooms of public schools, and even classroom prayers are prohibited, in some countries. Likewise in government buildings and public infrastructures and offices, display of the cross or crucifix is disallowed. All in strict adherence to that time-honored principle of separation of church and state.

On the other hand, the novel way of interpreting some civil rights and liberties is notable. Abortion of course is a contentious issue, where legislatures arrogate unto themselves the determination of when life begins. Marriage is another contentious issue, which a number of jurisdictions expanded the definition to include a union between man and man or woman and woman, way too revolutionary from the real and time defined marriage which is of course a union between a man and a woman. On one hand, Divorce, which is the anti-thesis of marriage, is a prevalently accepted and legally allowed practice.

From a political and legal point of view, there is no question that the state has the inherent authority to legally define some practices, by outlawing some, and legalizing the others. It remains to be established however whether any state has the authority to alter any universally and traditionally defined concepts to suit ones prevailing mores.

True that  laws must respond to the needs of the times. But is it proper to stamp governmental imprimatur to departures from some universal and traditional concepts which existence predated even the first organized city-state?

The question therefore boils down to propriety, which further boils down to ethics and morality, or the domain of right or wrong.

Positive laws and morals are admittedly not synonymous. But why are positive laws made in the first place? Is it not to enforce, or protect, some universally accepted mores, which are founded ultimately on the universal concept of what is right?

While a government should be an atheists in a sense, still it cannot lost sight of the sense of decency and morality that are innate in every human being constituent of each state. There are concepts that can never be redefined by reason merely of the prevailing understanding by the majority. These are the concepts of what is right, what is good and what is decent, of course in the eyes of the humankind even before the first city-state was established, not of the prevailing tendencies of the majority of the populace.

A government that prohibits prayers and religious symbols in schools and publicly owned institutions, yet promotes family disintegration, and allows redefinition of marriage to accommodate same sex marriages is obviously a legally unethical government, an institutional oxymoron.

The results put finish to all rhetoric that embellished all promises; to the smokescreen voluntarily used as a subterfuge to hide those skeletons in the closets; the crimes that paid, for a while; the long and winding vaudeville of personal attacks, theatrical maneuvers, and tiring accusations and counter-accusations; the abominable claim to ethical supremacy, intellectual mastery and the demagoguery.

Imagine our daily lives without the annoying jingles competing in the airwaves with tunes mimicking songs that once upon a time appealed to our souls. Imagine our lives sans the tragedy and the drama that consumed our thoughts for the past few months, and the expose’s that put to shame the greatest stories ever told.

Elections are finished! The results are clear. The end.

But not so fast.

The victory of the Filipino people in installing President Aquino in Malacanang is resounding.  It is a clear manifestation of the people’s revolt against the present dispensation. A thunderous statement by the people to that ‘lady by the Pasig river’ that they have had enough. Not anymore. Not a chance. Never. The end.

But not so fast.

This early, the president-elect has received impositions under the guise of unsolicited advice from the spectrum of those having vested interest to protect. While the same may be a mark of a participatory democracy, and a sign that everybody has a stake in the things to come,  still it is essential that these people should understand the proper timing when, and the proper forum where, grievances, of whatever persuasion, are heard.

There is no doubt that the message is clear. There is no doubt that the Filipino people  have had their verdict. There is no quarrel that the Filipino People decided that Noynoy Aquino would be their president for the next six years. Therefore he has the last say on what to do with his administration. End of discussion.

But not quite.

The vice president-elect, in a clear display of arrogance, had publicly claimed entitlement to the post of Secretary of the Interior. As if the President-elect is obligated to give him a post in the former’s administration, the Vice president-elect, through his spokesperson(s)/attorney(s) had the temerity to say that it’s the DILG or nothing.

With Noynoy Aquino’s public pronouncements that he has another person for the job, Binay have had the occasion to ‘tone-down’, and probably recognized that he is out of line, and should just stay within the rightful limits of his office to be.

Meanwhile, the President-elect to dignify the office that the Veep would eventually occupy, stated that the Veep-elect is still among those being considered for the DILG post, which of course means, if we are to read between the lines, the Veep-elect has no precedence over all the other prospective appointees to the same post; Which further means that the President-elect has the last say; Which still further means that the Veep-elect has no rightful entitlement; Which moreover means that the Veep-elect’s new-found arrogance will not be tolerated by the  President-elect; Which still moreover means the Veep-elect cannot act like a brat under Aquino’s watch; Which finally means that the Veep-elect should, in the more infamous warning of the present FG of JDV3, ‘Back-off’.

End of the story.

But not at all.

Some supporters of the Veep-elect are now crying wolf. Posturing too early, indicating that if the Veep-elect would not be given the portfolio he wanted, or lest, if the President-elect ignores the Veep-elect in this administration, the latter would be, frankly speaking, a pain in the President-elect’s buttocks.

A veiled threat of course, for a person who is in no bargaining power at all, considering that appointment to the cabinet is a purely discretionary act and an absolute prerogative of the President. May be these people failed to look back at the history of vice presidents in this country, where a Veep who openly antagonizes the President is seen as arrogant and hungry for power, which results to eternal literal waiting for that elusive succession to power, loosely translated to counting lizards on the ceiling for six years, having the power at the tip of his fingers but not really having it at all, forever, save only upon happening of some divine intervention.

The Second Aquino Presidency has not yet officially began, yet the first chapter is already in the middle. This may be a sneak peek to the first few days or months of the incoming regime. On one hand, allies would make sure their presence is felt on the premise that they are instrumental to his election. On the other hand, the political opposition ever ready to grab power, either by actual or constructive take over, the latter by seeing to it that the incoming regime fail on its promises. And of course in the middle of all these is the Filipino people who may be the sovereign of all them but nonetheless wields a paper sword once elections are over, unless of course they insist their sovereignty by direct action or through a participatory governance.

The things to come are of course speculative at this point.  Who would think that the Second Macapagal Presidency born out of the peoples’ revolt against lawlessness and corruption would not depart from its predecessor? The promise of course of EDSA2 failed against all our hopes, save only to Arroyo’s family who, on the eve of their departure, mockingly claims that their regime was the “best 9 years of their lives”.  Of course for the people these  lasts few days of the Arroyo regime are the ‘best days of their lives’ having to suffer no more the plague that the Arroyos have brought to their lives, and seeing that the once high and mighty who brought havoc and moral destruction to the sacred institutions of this country is finally leaving.

The success of one’s presidency is measured by the peoples’ anticipation (or lack thereof) of its end. If the people are satisfied with one’s performance, they will hate to see you go, and even beg you to stay. Otherwise, they will see you to the gates and throw a party upon your departure.

The end of Arroyo’s presidency was much awaited, needless to say, much-anticipated and much desired. No more. Not anymore.

The end.

Oh I forgot. Gloria Arroyo would be a member of the House of Representatives these coming days.

It’s almost the end for her. But not quite.

In keeping with his pre-election pronouncement that Gloria Arroyo should not appoint a Chief Justice at the eleventh-hour, Aquino indicated his unwillingness to take his oath of office as President of the Republic before the apparent Chief Justice Reynato Corona.

Viewing the same stand by Aquino as unconventional, some quarters, and people, criticized him for not knowing the law and the constitution, on the belief that the constitution requires the incoming president to take his oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

What’s the real score?

The Philippine Constitution of 1987, Article 7 Section 5, provides:

Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.” [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted].

Nowhere was it stated that the oath of office should be administered by, or taken before, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Constitution simply requires him to take an oath or affirmation, without specifying before whom should the incoming President take his oath.

With this, it is necessary to resort to laws and statutes to determine who are the persons authorized to administer an oath.

Under the Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Section 41, it was provided:

Chapter 10 OFFICIAL OATHS

Sec. 41. Officers Authorized to Administer Oath. – (1) The following officers have general authority to administer oath: Notaries public, members of the judiciary, clerks of courts, the Secretary of the either House of the Congress of the Philippines, of departments, bureau directors, registers of deeds, provincial governors and lieutenant-governors, city mayors, municipal mayors and any other officer in the service of the government of the Philippines whose appointment is vested in the President.

(2) Oaths may also be administered by any officer whose duties, as defined by law or regulation, require presentation to him of any statement under oath..

It is therefore clear that even a Notary Public could administer the oath to the incoming president, should the latter chooses to.

The practice about the incoming president’s taking an oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is therefore not a mandatory legal requirement. It is more of a tradition, premised more probably on the thinking that who else should administer the oath of the highest political official of the land but the highest member of the Supreme Court of the land. Traditions of course are not binding in as much as the same are voluntary.

Noynoy Aquino may therefore refuse to take his oath of office before the apparent Chief Justice Renato Corona.

SHOULD he do so however?

Noynoy’s issue of refusing to take his oath before Corona is on the basis of the appointment by Arroyo which Noynoy apparently does not recognize, or is not willing to recognize.

Personally and as a member of the legal profession, I believe Noynoy should soften his stand on this matter.

The judiciary is the last bulwark of democracy in any free country. While I do not claim that our judiciary is as immaculate as snow, still I am inclined to extend all favorable presumptions in its favor.

While I do not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision allowing Gloria Arroyo to appoint a Chief Justice at this eleventh-hour, it behooves everyone to respect the said decision, for the sake of upholding the court’s exercise of a jurisdiction reserved only to it by the constitution. It is a legal issue, and in the order of things, only the Supreme Court has the legal authority to resolve the same, which it did.

So that as it is now, and until it is reversed, that is the present law of the land, which everybody should respect, even the incoming president.

As I stated earlier that traditions are merely voluntary, still for the sake of national unity and to hasten the healing of the divisions brought about by the recently concluded elections, Noynoy should follow the tradition.

While admittedly taking an oath before any tom dick or Harry (so long as authorized) appears to be so minute a matter, still the symbolism that it carries, and the implication of an incoming president refusing to recognize a Chief Justice is to me a legal nightmare. What is at stake is no longer the personalities who occupy these sacrosanct offices but the very foundation of democratic institutions.

Noynoy Aquino should therefore take his oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not before Renato Corona but to the institutional office that Renato Corona would represent.

Anyways, taking his oath before a Barangay Chairman may not even be a good idea since the Barangay Chairman’s authority to administer an oath under the Local Government Code (RA 7160), Section 420, is only in connection with any matter on all proceedings in the implementation of the katarungang pambarangay.

Hearing retorts from Teodoro’s supporters ascribing to him greatest intellect, and branding him as the only presidential aspirant who has the brain and experience worthy of being elected president of this God forsaken country evokes some curiosity on my part to discover the truthfulness of the claim.

Teodoro’s mantra of ‘Galing at Talino’ is being repeated by all his allies and supporters in every corner of the web, almost claiming Teodoro’s alleged monopoly of intelligence, to the extent of claiming that if you are an intelligent voter you should vote for Teodoro. The implication is if you vote for anybody other than Teodoro, you are an idiot.

Therefore being an ‘idiot’ as I am, I dared to validate the claims.

‘Magaling’ means great. ‘Matalino’ means intelligent.

On these claims, let us see if Teodoro passes his own crucible.

MAGALING AT MATALINO DAW.

According to http://allgiboteodoro.blogspot.com/2010/01/legislative-record.html:

In the 11th Congress, Teodoro authored more or less 26 bills.

15 of which is converting a municipal road into a national road. 2 of which is converting 2 public colleges into universities. The rest relates to his background as an attorney.

In the 12th Congress, Teodoro authored more or less 26 bills.

15 of which is converting a municipal road into a national road. 2 of which is converting 2 public colleges into universities. The rest relates to his background as an attorney.

In the 13th Congress, Teodor authored more or less 44 bills.

34 of which is converting a municipal road to a national road. The rest concerns the establishment of national high school, granting franchise in favor of a radio station, an airline,  and all other rehash of the previous bills filed in the previous congress.

It is clear from the above that the main thrust of Teodoro’s legislative history is about conversion of a municipal road to a national road.

At a glance this may be acceptable because as a congressman, his concern is the legislative district that he represents, therefore in terms of budgetary consideration, when a municipal road becomes a national road, the burden of maintenance and funding is shifted away from the provincial government into the national government, that is, specifically, the Department of Public Works and Highways.

A closer look however would make some truly discerning persons wonder. The caliber that Teodoro proclaims himself to be, is that whose intelligence is beyond the ordinary. A bar top-notch and yes, Harvard educated, and yes an esquire in California. How in our motherland’s name would you reconcile the majority of the bills he claims he authored with his world-class intelligence? Come on. Magaling? Yet he wasted his intelligence in converting those municipal roads in Tarlac into a national road. How about introducing a bill granting to the President the power to convert local roads into national roads instead, so that senators and congressmen would busy themselves with the more urgent and important matters of the state?

Apparently three terms as congressman did not make Teodoro a reputation.

His retort that he did not chair a committee in the house ‘to give way to his party mates’ does show leadership at all but a clear mark of lack thereof for political expediency.He is willing to forego the possibility of steering a particular committee with all his ‘galing’ for the sake of accommodating his party mates. This definitely does not speak well of his ‘Galing’.

Teodoro in fact refuses to make a stand on some clearly important national issues like the ‘notoriety’ of Gloria Arroyo and her husband.

A political leader needs to express a political opinion on political issues. His stand not to make a clear cut declaration of his intents with respect to Gloria Arroyo is a sign of indecisiveness. Gloria Arroyo is herself a political issue. Prosecuting her for all her alleged sins against the people is a political issue. Therefore as ‘magaling’ aspiring to be President, it behooves him to  make a clear stand.

His stand?

“Sa katayuan ko, hindi naman siguro tama na sumagot ako kung tama o hindi. Kapartido ko ang ating pangulo,” Teodoro said. “Kung magparticipate ako sa paghahabla, sasabihin: ‘Bakit ka nagpaparticipate? Baka lutuin mo lang ‘yung kaso.’ Kapag hindi naman, sasabihin hindi mo gagawin ang katungkulan mo,” he added.

These statements clearly see through Teodoro’s mind set. He does not want to make a stand. Why? because Gloria Arroyo is a party mate. Would this mean that under Teodoro’s administration if a party mate dupes the people and steals from the government coffers he will be hands-off because the perpetrator is a party mate?

Yes Teodoro was a bar topnotcher. He was harvard educated. These of course do not translate to success as President of a country.

I believe the more proper inquiry would be: As a lawyer for how many years, what accomplishment did Teodoro make? Did we hear or read Atty. Teodoro fighting for a cause worthy of national recognition for the last years before his becoming a Congressman? No. What was Teodoro busy with? He was employed by a law firm defending the likes of Danding and Lucio Tan and all those alleged Marcos cronies resisting government claims and prosecution.

Yes he was a Secretary of Defense. What did he do to lessen insurgency in the country? Why did the Ampatuan massacre happen? Why did private armies mushroom in Mindanao?Yes he was very visible during the tragedy of typhoon Ondoy. But what was his greatest effort? Calling for help and assistance from the world?

Former Secretary Dinky Soliman and company resigned for a laudable reason when they can no longer close their eyes to the magic tricks of Gloria Arroyo. Gilbert Teodoro resigned from his post to run for the Presidency to succeed Gloria Arroyo, with the latter’s blessing and patronage. The contrast is clear as daylight. The first is a matter of delicadeza. The second is the lack of it.

A Teodoro supporter once said that ‘Gibo is the anti-thesis of Noynoy’. He is correct. Only that Noynoy embodies the ethical and moral reform that the Philippines once gained during EDSA 1. On the other hand, Teodoro being himself the anti-thesis of Nonoy, embodies the mistake of EDSA 2 who is Gloria Arroyo.

Clearly, Teodoro’s facade of being an intellectual is just it. A facade.

Galing at Talino? Wais siguro oo. As that more famous lola in that detergent commercial would say: Magaling! Magaling! Magaling!