VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

The recent happenings at the Impeachment Court point to a new issue on what kind of senators and representatives we must elect into office. The Constitution merely says that:

The Senator “is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding of the election. The member of the House of Representatives meanwhile shall be “a natural born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he (she)  shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.” (Art VI Sec 6)

Other requirements include being elected from legislative districts “apportioned  among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ration, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties of organizations.” (Art VI Sec 5-2.)

Now is there any provision which says that the representative must know the laws of the land and the court rules to the letter? None whatsoever. Does it say that they must be knowledgeable about the way an impeachment case should be framed? None.

In other words, the only basic requirement of the representatives, and all other officials of the land, is love of country, among all those mentioned above. Love of country means believing in human rights and defending the country, the flag, and the Constitution at all costs.

Now it does not really matter to me if the Impeachment Court is being dominated by people with law backgrounds mostly, are law academicians, or even are members of the bar. What really matters to me is that the people’s voice is being downgraded most of the time, if not all of the time by those who are pro-Chief Justice. That is what should send chills to us, not the mere mention of the Anti-Money Laundering agents peering into the foreign savings and checking accounts of certain individuals and corporations.

Sometimes I think there is a forgetting that the members of the Impeachment Court have been elected by the Filipino people and that they represent the voices of the people., Hence, there should be collegiality and respect for each other. The aim of this Congressional Impeachment Court is to ferret out the truth – how does the Chief Justice live and work as such? Does he lead a virtuous life and therefore worthy of emulation of every Filipino citizen?

Sure there are laws governing individual rights but presenting evidences does not mean that the senator judges would already somersault and take them as points against the Chief Justice. The senator judges have their own minds but should be given all the necessary details of the life, the transactions, his relationships with different individuals or corporations and businesses which could bolster (or maybe weaken)  the charges against him.

Now what is wrong with that? To my mind, the Impeachment Court is a creation of Congress and not of the Judiciary. This is why it must evolve its own rules. Even analyzing the decisions of the Chief Justice on the many cases and the surrounding circumstances with which he had made them,  have to be evaluated with regard to the raising or reducing the weight of the charges against him.

But if at every turn of the discussions (note these are just discussions, and not judgment yet) the Defense would be allowed to thwart all presentations of evidences, then it seems that the lawyers and law academicians are the ones ruling the Impeachment Court and the people’s voice is already being deadened.

This does not augur well for our strengthening the pillars of democracy in our country. We need all kinds of people in the government – and that is the essence of democracy after all. We must insist that the Voice of the People is the Voice of the Law not the other way around.

SOLIPSISM AND MORAL GOVERNANCE

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

It is entirely puzzling to me how an institution with a questionable status of its leader could possibly come up with an objective and neutral decision regarding the very process that is searching for his culpability. Is that not solipsism of the highest order?

Should a self-serving institution be allowed to dispense justice when within itself and the topmost position is the question: “is he morally fit to govern?”

I think it is all right for the Supreme Court to continue deciding case except in the case involving its officials. It would not be able to render a wise judgment considering that the person/s involved are in close proximity to them, have been their colleagues, arguing, discussing and dining with them, too for many years and years, and  whatever kind of relationships they could have developed among themselves.

I know for a fact how a government institution works because I used to work with the Budget Commission  now called the Development Budget and Management Office. as a senior management specialist during martial law. I work, interacted with my co-employees, saw and was told then how some officials had managed to wear rings with several karats of diamonds, how they could manipulate the budget so that they themselves would have a commission from every position created, classified and given a sizeable allocation that ran into millions. Remember that was the time when the “bitter half” of the dictator was also poking her finger into the pie. But as these officials had their heyday shaping the budget and having a slice of the pie afterwards, their underlings also partook of the manna secretly, of course. Closeness to each other produced that secret bonding as they shared common experiences – that of working under the same institution and of enjoying perks to the hilt.

Thus, I cannot see the point how this highest judicial body could even render an objective decision now regarding the impeachment. It is simply impossible. Maybe it should just concentrate on other matters, but definitely not on the impeachment.

Why? Let us ask, who has the moral ascendancy at this time to make that decision on the impeachment case? By moral ascendancy I mean the most ethical body. Our Constitution answers, Congress – the House of Representatives who presented the impeachment case and the Senate Body as the jurors whether the case has grounds or not for conviction of the charged party.

But why Congress? Because Congress is composed of elected officials. No one there sits without having been voted by the people, officially. There is a process for an official to get elected and that is through proper nomination and official elections, meaning to say, the Commission on Elections puts up the nomination period, then the election period, and then the counting of the votes for the individuals elected as officials. Millions of Filipino people of age trek out and vote for their candidates, their leaders whom they want to sit in the august halls of moral governing institutions.

In other words, Congress is composed of morally-fit officials, morally fit meaning their powers come from the people, millions of them. And when we view the impeachment case hearings, we see the people whom we have elected to sit on our behalf and make decisions for us. Should anyone of them choose to backslide, then that official could earn our ire in the next elections and we can say to him or her, “Sorry, your actions while being an official has been found wanting.”

Any which way, Congress is the final arbiter whether an official is fit to govern. On Congress lodges the Impeachment Court. And because it is composed of elected officials, we do not expect everyone to be like lawyers arguing, debating, by the law books but by that body of knowledge they know which they have culled from their interactions with the Filipino people, their own educational backgrounds – whether in law or other fields, and their experiences as leaders with knowledge of what is moral governance for the people.

Ergo, the Impeachment Court must abide by their own understanding of how an official must be impeached, taking cognizance probably of upheld rules of court but not necessarily to be strongly bound by it, as a senator-judge always insists upon it – but by that human understanding of how to perceive whether the impeached official is telling the truth.

How does one know if the impeached person is telling the truth? And how does one get at the truth? Evidences, evidences and loads of them. But should the presentation of evidence go by the books again? Not necessarily. The Impeachment Court has to evolve its own many ways of ferreting out the truth – from the people’s many creative ways, and based on that respect for human rights.

The Filipino people have that right to be morally governed by officials. They rightfully elected officials and so expect that these officials to perform what is right for them. Now the justices of the Supreme Court are not elected by the people but rather appointed by the president. Although they sit in a government position, most of them do not directly view the people as their benefactors but that person sitting in the presidential seat and signing their appointment papers. They are not allowed to sit in the Impeachment Court because they do not go through the election process conducted, led and managed by the people.

Now why was a member/s of the Supreme Court not included in the Impeachment Court? The nature of work of a justice is mental, or supposed to be mental and emotional. By mental we mean that reason is used for analyzing the case and emotions for viewing the charged person with humaneness. As we are spiritually attuned, we would even add that the nature of work is also spiritual as decisions on cases require that of accessing the highest truths that the Great Creator, regardless of faiths, could possibly be rendering on the cases lodged to them for judgment.  

Hence, the Congressional Impeachment Court has the highest moral ground to render judgment on whether an official is fit or unfit to administer the functions of the position to which he/she has been appointed further.

All the senator-jurors are accountable to the people with regard to the decisions they should and would be making in the impeachment case. Millions put them in their seats and therefore, it is the people’s welfare that should be the basis of their decision on the impeachment case at every turn of the trial.

Now, should the current chief justice continue to be employed considering that there are huge questions of his moral fitness to govern? How shall the people reason with regard to the questions that are raised on the floor? What would be their points of view with regard to the wealth that is unfolding before the court? Should the chief justice be given another chance to prove his worth or should he be replaced right away? Is there room for moral reform within the government? Should that reform be undertaken while being in that position?

Unfortunately, we are talking here of the highest position in the magistrate body. The leader must exercise highest moral grounds in terms of conduct, personally and officially. Hence, to be found with an iota of doubt is already a smear on his reputation as a leader and as an official with a governing function for the people. And for the same institution to which he belongs to render judgment on his capability is self-serving instead of people-serving.

Let us remember that every government official is the people’s servant. Hence, there is not even room for so-called objectivity here because the fundamental basis of sitting in the Impeachment Court is to render judgment that will benefit the people. That in itself is already a bias for the people’s judgment.

ARE WE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS?

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco 

Supposing I am a simple vendor plying my wares at Quiapo. Then I happen to pick up a piece of paper containing the bank account numbers which match those being broadcast on television as ill-gotten wealth.

Knowing that the owner is highly powerful and could take revenge at me, I decide to give it to the officer who is investigating the case of that powerful guy. I don’t want to be identified as the giver and so I let the officer take over that function of using the paper as evidence to convict the high and mighty.

Do I do the right thing by giving that piece of paper to the investigator? Is that piece of paper admissible or not as evidence of corruption?

The paper per se is evidence but is the manner of having gotten the paper legal and if not,  could that nullify whatever positive results there could be from the investigations?

According to legal procedures it is illegal. The high and mighty would cry: “This is transgression of my human rights to due process.” Is it?

Where is justice in this case – should it rest on the high and mighty or those who have been deluded into thinking that they must empower the former in order to make the wheels of justice run smoothly in our country?

Up to what point should we be legalistic – sticking to every letter of the law – and reject all references to the realities of our society?

What are these realities? The high and mighty has the means to protect themselves always, to hire high caliber lawyers to defend them, and to use their education to argue their way in courts, among others. In fact they can even get appointed to lucrative positions based on their class and wealth. But the lower classes have only their purest intentions and limited resources to overcome all obstacles to obtaining a good life.

Now, should the lower classes be deprived of their roles in the search for truth, and be told to just watch the proceedings and keep quiet?

In our democratic set-up the lower classes have voted into office their representatives – meaning those who would represent them in making the government work for their interest and to insure that justice could be meted out at every instance where the people’s welfare is at stake. The representatives are now the prosecution team trying the case against the Chief Justice.

So how fare now the prosecution? Should they be faulted for having used a piece of evidence given by a little lady to show the bank accounts of the Chief Justice?

To my mind, the discussions on the manner by which the numbers of the bank accounts have been discovered are too tedious and peripheral to the questions which are: did the CJ and his family amass wealth beyond their means? Occupying the highest position in the Supreme Court, is he still trustworthy to make the wheel of justice roll in favor of the righteous? Has he been righteous himself?

As stated in the beginning by the Senate President, he would allow flexibility in the application of rules. As realities in our country are different from those in other affluent countries where the poor who would testify against erring rich can be granted protection right away, and where legal discussions can even be stretched to include the manner by which evidences are gathered, it is high time to expect that the impeachment court provide the broadest latitude for gathering the super finest evidences that could pinpoint the truth in all the charges.

Besides, banks are not required to volunteer information on any holder of bank deposits. It is the non-government organizations, media and advocates who exert effort at unearthing anomalies and scandals. And so, anyone looking for bases of malfeasance would need super x-ray eyes to see through everywhere.

The defense said that they would reveal the bank deposits in due time. I really cannot fathom the meaning behind that statement. I suspect that they mean something else.

They are not revealing the truth now because, 1.  they are busy gathering funds from various sources that could back up their having so much wealth stashed in the banks; 2. they have the trust and confidence of the Senate President and other senator-judges so they could take their sweet time to give us the real score on the wealth of the CJ; 3. they are privileged, have the luxury of time and no one can make them immediately respond to demands for this and that revelation of evidences. Corollarily, they have the permission to let justice wait for that right moment to reveal what should be revealed;.and 4. the prosecution should not hurry them up. "You charged us; so you go look for the evidences yourselves. Don't pressure us;" 

If any of the reasons above are their real motives, and they get the nod of the judges, why then are we still wasting our time watching the proceedings?

Evidently the defense has been emboldened by the stoppage of the revelation of the dollar bank accounts and so now, the CJ is on the offensive - branding the prosecution, some senator-judges, and Malacanang with conspiracy to "persecute him." Is he really being persecuted?

Isn't it incumbent upon any high and low government officials to reveal the amounts and their sources of income especially if these do not match what they are supposed to be receiving?

What is the number of hours that a government employee is supposed to render in office? 8 hours a day, times five days equals 40 hours a week. Or that should be 40 x 51 weeks, equals 2040 hours in one year. In the trial on February `13, 2012, the bank manager of Philippine Savings Bank said that the deposits of the CJ was P2M and P8M or P10 million in one year. P10 million divided by 2040 hours, that would mean he was earning P4,901.9608 per hour.

Now what kind of business could give him that much money beyond the hours that he is supposed to be working?

But let us say that he overworked his body and looked for other means to amass wealth after office hours. Say, he gets 6 hours sleep every night. So, 8 hours of work plus 6 hours = 14 hours. So then he has ten hours more to use to generate high income. Is that really possible?

Now as chief magistrate, should he not devote time to thinking about the cases that are being decided day in and day out at the Supreme Court instead of negotiating business? Is he not reading voluminous papers of decisions? Does he not read and review decisions on the various cases by the three divisions, as well as go around looking into the problems of the minor courts of the country?

Now if we have a business-minded SC chief magistrate, instead of someone fully devoted to the ins and outs of the courts, could this be the reason that our  system for leading a righteous life is not really that ideal, and that so many people are crying for justice?

Meanwhile, some bishops are saying -- "Let the truth come out." Should they not focus on the CJ instead and tell him "CJ, open up. Don’t keep us in the dark over your true colors. You are supposed to lead by example."

To my mind, the genuine and valid questions that should be posed to the bank manager and president are: will you show us the original certificates of deposit of the peso accounts, instead of a system-generated listing of the bank accounts?. In those certificates I am sure would be the listing of the amounts deposited, up to how long they would earn interest, the name of the depositor, and the interest the deposit would earn for the period that it would stay in the bank.

That listing of the bank accounts reported on by the bank manager of the Philippine Savings Bank could have been tampered electronically by any IT expert knowledgeable on how to make anything appear to his or her liking. Hence that piece of evidence is nothing compared to the actual certificates of deposits the original and/or duplicate of which are given to the depositor while the triplicate is kept by the bank. 

May I suggest, by the way, that to speed up the process, why doesn't the questioning go this way, "ms. Bank Manager, kindly tell us the number of the account, the date it was opened, the amount of money that was initially deposited, and the ending balance as of 31 December ___. If there was a big withdrawal, tell us when it was, and if it was re-deposited to another account, etcetera. is this possible?

In case we miss the point of holding the impeachment case, here are the definitions of justice by Mr. Webster:

justice: 1 the quality of being just; moral rightness

2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim

3. the administering of deserved punishment or reward

4. the administration of what is just according to law

5. a judge or magistrate

Magistrate means an officer charged with the administration of law.

Whose law? That we can ask again and again in this case. Is it his law or that of the Filipino people's?

WEAK LINK

WEAK LINK

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

In war, everything is possible. The aim of each party is annihilation, obliteration of each other. And so, fisticuffs, bows and arrows, spears, swords, knives, and even dynamites and bombs become common weapons. Most recently,  some countries like North Korea and Iran have admitted to developing the nuclear arms, tacitly hinting to use them against countries with which they are not compatible, politically. However, nuclear arms know no boundaries. Once they are launched on air, they could engulf the whole planet and so, it could spell disaster for all of us. Thus we have that campaign for nuclear disarmament all over the world. I got involved in this as early as 1981 when I joined European women in encircling the British camp to campaign the use of nuclear arms in any field of combat. 

Along the same vein, I cringe whenever I recall my discussion with one inventor of bullets. He was so proud of his invention as he said: “It is a very powerful invention because once it hits its target, which is the human body, then it would recoil inside and destroy it totally.”

Shocked beyond belief, I could not speak up and appreciate his invention although we had belonged to the same association of inventors. I just stood there wondering how on earth he could describe his invention as if it were just any device. Why did I react that way is because I am a humanist and do not believe in war of any kind, least of all, of manufacturing bullets, no matter if they were developed creatively and have a great usage for the military and police departments and for generating export earnings as well,.  

Anyway, we are now trying by all means to be democratic as can be gleaned from the process -- that  impeachment case at the Senate  – to convict or not to convict the chief justice for – among so many charges – using his position to amass wealth. So many arguments, rebuttals, and rebuffs are flying about. But deep within, I can see that there are interpersonal conflicts going on which could be disastrous to the prosecution.

As in any war, there could be spies who could infiltrate the camps, if not the ranks of the enemy. These spies are knowledgeable about being spies and so could appear as if they were really for the members of that camp that he/she is penetrating. But in the case of the impeachment court, the prosecution could have within it, not a spy but of a weak link, that person who could be the worm who could weaken, lessen the power of the group to argue its case consciously or unconsciously. 

For example, that weak link could be playing to the crowd, acting as if he were an actor wanting to get an award for a performance. With a TV camera which could record his actuations, the more he would act as if he were the major actor of a drama which is being broadcast nationwide, or even worldwide through the web. And so he just yaks and yaks away, no matter who gets harmed, ridiculously forgetting that he ought to be working for the prosecution.

Or that weak link could be making himself hellish to the jury so that they would vote against the prosecution, or they would see less reason for voting in favor of the argument of the prosecution no matter how meritorious their arguments are. In other words, he could appear so obnoxious that the prosecution would get the axe and their arguments no longer viewed objectively. 

Hence, in this case, I think that the prosecution should already alert its ranks, examine who that weak link is, and find out, on a 24-hour basis, why he is acting that way.

Find out also his personal life – are there some unresolved issues in his personal life so that he is acting this way and trying to look as if he were a clean and chaste individual who could see the “rotten ways of the prosecution?” Didn't he criticize the position of the prosecution in his first appearance?

Here we can see that legalism has limits and that the socio-political and cultural make-up of the parties have to be examined also, in order to come up with fool-proof stands, with tight cases that would insure that the people’s will becomes paramount.

Indeed, politics is a very difficult field to tackle.  But with practice, one gets to know and not only that, should know that, the process is not everything. 

Woe to us if the prosecution loses its case because of that weak link.

CRYING FOR JUSTICE

So many questions have been raised. So many answers have been presented. How long will it take for people to understand that the highest magistrate has to be measured in terms of being the prime model for just actions? How long will it take for everyone to accept that there are no “ifs” nor “buts” when dealing with the reputation and honor of the highest position in the judiciary? That honor has to be measured for its chasteness and not by the strength of an iota of excuse that can be found in the laws?

How can a chief magistrate miss out on reporting all of his assets? Hasn’t he honed his skills in dealing with papers especially those that require evidence? Hasn’t he developed his meticulous eyes to see every space in that Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networh could be a cause for his suspension, dismissal or expulsion if one item there were false? Didn’t he know that even if his condominium suffered from typhoons, but since it is concrete and therefore can be easily redecorated to improve its facilities if it had really suffered from them, then he should not have accepted a P10M discount? Didn’t he know that being loyal to his appointer more than the people of the Philippines is a sign of lack of self-confidence in his ability to be a member of the Supreme Court and therefore he should resign at once in order to spare his future of  being more maligned?

If we are just trying the case of an ordinary employee or official up to the middle level management, sure we can dispense of so many rules and regulations governing ownership of wealth. But for even a milligram of doubt to surface over the actuations of the chief of all chiefs of the judiciary is to already rattle the stability of the justice system in our country.

It means that we can endure injustice for sometime, or maybe all the time. It means those who are waiting for true justice in their own cases can wait awhile; after all, the chief magistrate has his own problems to face up to, or maybe he is signing checks and contracts instead of penning decisions. It means every man, woman, elderly, disabled, and child who have a case in court need not bother too much about getting justice themselves. They just have to use connections again, and they must earn big in order to be able to pay for top caliber lawyers, no less than a former associate justice to defend them in court.

Huh? Have we gone berserk? Is this what we are aiming at in our society? A muddled-thinking judiciary not knowing when a case is unjust or just? Why, what makes the CJ an exception to the rule that they must live simply, that their relatives must exercise caution in flaunting their wealth, that all of them must show themselves as examples of committed individuals who would put the welfare of the people above all else and not of their benefactors?

Maybe we must meditate, and meditate everyday, and more often in order for us to access the deepest pure intentions that the universe is giving us. Yes, I believe that every individual has that innate goodness to discern what must be done, what is good for everyone. We should not be carried away by titles, but rather by that moral compunction to truly serve the least have-nots in our society, and foremost of that is to rid our governmental system of “peke,” artificial officials masquerading themselves as “honorable.”

No, we cannot be waylaid anymore. Even if the case is closed in favor of the CJ, he will already carry that mark in the minds of everyone that once upon a time he was indicted, found wanting but due to judicial gobbledygook, was able to go scot free. When he goes around the country, he will be mocked, and spat upon for having lied.

Sure he would be able to keep his wealth intact but the Filipino people’s consciousness, their mindsets do not allow deletions of memories. No, we do not easily forget when we are crying for justice. 

THOUGHTS TO PONDER

“My dear Brethren and Sistren,

I am happy to note that a new wave of moral consciousness is upon us again, a resurgence of that desire to live by the tenets that I have taught you again and again.

Majority of you are now into the intricate path of ferreting out what is right and what is wrong about governance. You are now sincerely thinking and acting in a manner which will make every ruler in our country sensitive to all of your needs.

Truly, I am more than happy to know and see this because in the past, I had to help lead you to confront the issues of the day, to tell you to go to this and that place if only to make your presence felt at the most crucial moments of transition in our country, from one-man rule to that democratic system where everybody will have a voice and that voice be heard to the highest rungs of rulership.

It matters less that a government functionary had malversed the funds, had amassed wealth behind the scenes, connived with certain corrupt powers themselves. What matters most is that our minds are awakened to the reality of acting against all of these that run counter to our Christian beliefs.

No matter what they have done, they will receive judgment upon their twilight years. Those rulers who led the people to moral degeneration shall receive my wrath upon their transit to the other life – and who knows what other soul shall envelop them – the soul of an animal, a python, or any other hideous being deserving of hell.

Yes, I fully uphold your being immersed in this exercise of weeding out the negative from the positive elements in our system. It is high time that you have done so. But more importantly, you are performing a noble role now because it is getting imbedded in your consciousness as well that every individual counts in our society and whatsoever you have done to the least of them in my name and the name of all the Gods and Goddesses in the universe you have done so to me.

Let Christianity ring and all believers embrace everyone in the name of Jesus. Let Buddhism shine its lights upon us. Let Islam be the waving flag and beacon light in the Muslim world to stop all acts that kill life, that inhibit the free expression of all. Let all moral truths descend upon us, regardless of religion.

For only in this instance will that breath of life be most meaningful for all of us.

So be it.”

Dear Folks, what do the departed moralists of our society think now that we are going through this trial of the highest magistrate of the land who is now cast in all kinds of doubts as to his moral capacity to lead that search for truth?

I have written the above to show that those who led us before are still watching us and are now more enlightened ever and happy to see us working together to show to ourselves that we are capable of setting up standards as to who and what kind of people should lead us. No, we are no longer timid lambs who would follow every order and command that would only throw us into the pits of darkness and ignominy. Instead we have become beings with that third eye to see the souls of everyone and foresee the consequences of every action.

How I wish I had heard better speeches at the pulpit denouncing in clearest terms what are transgressions in moral governance. Instead we hear only the bitterest of thoughts about women using contraceptives. How narrow indeed. What charlatans.

Is not being materialistic a bigger crime than women taking and controlling our bodies – making sure that we have healthy bodies to carry lives in our wombs, and that we can assure every babe that comes into this world a safe, healthy and vigorous existence?

Ah, the road is still long for us to tread and then know for ourselves, our own morality so that every time we look at each other, we know we are seeing God in everyone – that each one is capable of doing good to each other so that that breath of life in every living being shall be regarded more and most meaningfully. 

May the hands of all Gods and Goddesses guide us always.