If I were Gloria, and I wanted to hold on to power absolutely until 2010 and shield me from the suits that will come my way in 2010, . . .
1. I would appoint Mercy Gutierrez, the gatekeeper, to the Supreme Court anytime before 2010 and appoint another equally loyal and inept classmate/friend/crony to be Ombudsman in her place; that way, I would have another vote in the Supreme Court and an Ombudsman with a 7-year term that would last beyond 2010.
2. I would do everything to cure/heal Cory Aquino of her cancer because I do not need another loooooong funeral march, in the event that Cory Aquino passes away, and I do not need another martyr that would create another genuine EDSA.
3. I would find a way to convince Chief Justice Reynato Puno to step down before May 2010--through gentle reminders, if possible, but through forceful assertion, if gentle reminders do not succeeed--and then bypass Tony Carpio, who would be the most senior Associate Justice by 2010. That way, the entire Court would be Gloria's.
4. I would make sure that the Opposition would be hopelessly divided by allowing Erap to run for President, before going to the Supreme Court to question his entitlement on the ground that the pardon extended to him is conditional and that the condition is that he does not run for election ever again. Before that, I would make sure that none of those seeking election as President would ever be united--by enticing JDV to run as President perhaps.
5. I would keep Dinky Soliman and her singing of "If we hold on together" as far away from my cabinet as possible.
6. I would make sure that I have another Arroyo in Congress, but this time in the Senate; Luli, are you there?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
9-6
In a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court, just a few minutes ago (Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 3:25 thereabouts) granted the petition of Romulo Neri, which sought the invocation of executive privilege in relation to three questions posed by the Senate, in its investigation of the botched 329US$ ZTE-NBN deal. This means that Neri cannot be cited for contempt or arrested by the Senate if he refuses to answer the three questions, which the plurality of the Court now considers to be covered by executive privilege.
The three questions are: 1. whether Gloria Arroyo followed up the deal with Neri; 2. whether he was told to prioritize the ZTE-NBN project and 3. whether Gloria Arroyo told him to go ahead with the deal after he told her about the massive bribe offer.
The decision was penned by the 2nd to the newest appointee to the Court, Teresita De Castro (of Erap plunder fame or notoriety, depending on which side you're on) and was concurred in by the following Justices: Quisumbing, Corona, Chico-Nazario, Tinga, Velasco, Nachura, Reyes, and Brion (the most recent appointee). Of those who voted in favor, only Quisumbing's vote is surprising; the others are expected as they are all Gloria appointees.
The 6 who voted against are: Chief Justice Puno (with a 100-page dissent), Justices Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, and Azcuna.
There is a surprising lack of becoming modesty in Brion voting on a petition where he did not participate and where popular sentiment held that his appointment was precisely to forestall the effects of a Velasco inhibition. There is also an uncharacteristic lack of becoming modesty in De Castro writing for the majority, where her appointment was clearly seen as a reward for convicting Estrada.
This vote, coming on the heels of the 10-4 vote in the Chavez decision, shows just how much headway the Gloria appointees are making in controlling the court. If she lasts until 2010, Gloria Arroyo would have appointed all but one of the Justices (Puno; but she would have appointed Puno Chief Justice, so technically she could be considered to have appointed all the Justices).
How's that for separation of powers? Checks and balances, anyone?
The three questions are: 1. whether Gloria Arroyo followed up the deal with Neri; 2. whether he was told to prioritize the ZTE-NBN project and 3. whether Gloria Arroyo told him to go ahead with the deal after he told her about the massive bribe offer.
The decision was penned by the 2nd to the newest appointee to the Court, Teresita De Castro (of Erap plunder fame or notoriety, depending on which side you're on) and was concurred in by the following Justices: Quisumbing, Corona, Chico-Nazario, Tinga, Velasco, Nachura, Reyes, and Brion (the most recent appointee). Of those who voted in favor, only Quisumbing's vote is surprising; the others are expected as they are all Gloria appointees.
The 6 who voted against are: Chief Justice Puno (with a 100-page dissent), Justices Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, and Azcuna.
There is a surprising lack of becoming modesty in Brion voting on a petition where he did not participate and where popular sentiment held that his appointment was precisely to forestall the effects of a Velasco inhibition. There is also an uncharacteristic lack of becoming modesty in De Castro writing for the majority, where her appointment was clearly seen as a reward for convicting Estrada.
This vote, coming on the heels of the 10-4 vote in the Chavez decision, shows just how much headway the Gloria appointees are making in controlling the court. If she lasts until 2010, Gloria Arroyo would have appointed all but one of the Justices (Puno; but she would have appointed Puno Chief Justice, so technically she could be considered to have appointed all the Justices).
How's that for separation of powers? Checks and balances, anyone?
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Thanks, but no thanks.
1. Gloria throws out EO 464. Thanks, but no thanks.
There was nothing to throw out, as the Supreme Court had already removed practically everything there was to this putrid issuance from the dictator's arsenal. It should have been a non-issue except that, as dictators and their henchmen/women go, it was a convenient excuse to hide behind.
2. Supreme Court offers a compromise deal to Senate. Thanks, but no thanks.
After nine hours of orals, the Supreme Court Chief Justice offers a compromise--perceived by Malacanang to be "solomonic", which should already put you on guard--to the Senate: 1. Neri will testify at the Senate, 2. he will not be arrested anymore, 3. but the three questions he had invoked "executive privilege" against will not be asked anymore and will be considered asked, and 4. each and every time he invokes executive privilege, the issue will be tossed back to the Court.
My first reaction was that it was a "cop out" by the Court, after strong decisions on press freedom and showing strong resolve against EJK and ED with amparo and habeas data. Later on, after speaking with very reliable sources, it made sense--though I still didn't agree with the compromise; my sources told me that the CJ and Justice Carpio felt outvoted by the Gloria people in the Court and feared a loss had they insisted on a decision--so to avoid a loss, the CJ offered the compromise. One step backward, two steps forward--was it Lenin who said this, or Tommy Manotoc? Yes, it made sense but it still left me with a bad taste in the mouth.
If the Senate approved the deal, Gloria wins, hands down and the Senate loses, big time. The power of the Senate to summon witnesses would be severely impaired and the dictator gets away with silence on the three questions that directly place the ZTE deal at her doorstep.
I am glad that the Senate FINALLY acquired a collective spine (did that include you, Joker?) and some collective sense of identity and history and said, "thanks, but no thanks." I hope the SC addresses this issue and, despite the lifting of E0 464, rules that its invocation under those circumstances was not proper and that Neri SHOULD answer those 3 questions.
3. Let's resume our lives now that EO 464 is gone. THANKS, BUT NO THANKS.
The Bishops of my church should come out now with a stronger statement; clearly, the truth is being held hostage here and instead of setting us free, it is, instead, rendered an instrument of keeping us in bondage. Now that 464 is gone, what now? Perhaps, the answer should be, Gloria, gone.
There was nothing to throw out, as the Supreme Court had already removed practically everything there was to this putrid issuance from the dictator's arsenal. It should have been a non-issue except that, as dictators and their henchmen/women go, it was a convenient excuse to hide behind.
2. Supreme Court offers a compromise deal to Senate. Thanks, but no thanks.
After nine hours of orals, the Supreme Court Chief Justice offers a compromise--perceived by Malacanang to be "solomonic", which should already put you on guard--to the Senate: 1. Neri will testify at the Senate, 2. he will not be arrested anymore, 3. but the three questions he had invoked "executive privilege" against will not be asked anymore and will be considered asked, and 4. each and every time he invokes executive privilege, the issue will be tossed back to the Court.
My first reaction was that it was a "cop out" by the Court, after strong decisions on press freedom and showing strong resolve against EJK and ED with amparo and habeas data. Later on, after speaking with very reliable sources, it made sense--though I still didn't agree with the compromise; my sources told me that the CJ and Justice Carpio felt outvoted by the Gloria people in the Court and feared a loss had they insisted on a decision--so to avoid a loss, the CJ offered the compromise. One step backward, two steps forward--was it Lenin who said this, or Tommy Manotoc? Yes, it made sense but it still left me with a bad taste in the mouth.
If the Senate approved the deal, Gloria wins, hands down and the Senate loses, big time. The power of the Senate to summon witnesses would be severely impaired and the dictator gets away with silence on the three questions that directly place the ZTE deal at her doorstep.
I am glad that the Senate FINALLY acquired a collective spine (did that include you, Joker?) and some collective sense of identity and history and said, "thanks, but no thanks." I hope the SC addresses this issue and, despite the lifting of E0 464, rules that its invocation under those circumstances was not proper and that Neri SHOULD answer those 3 questions.
3. Let's resume our lives now that EO 464 is gone. THANKS, BUT NO THANKS.
The Bishops of my church should come out now with a stronger statement; clearly, the truth is being held hostage here and instead of setting us free, it is, instead, rendered an instrument of keeping us in bondage. Now that 464 is gone, what now? Perhaps, the answer should be, Gloria, gone.
Monday, March 03, 2008
two from the good old 80s
Those who experienced martial law and read my blog will recognize these two songs; they may even have sung them and had lives changed because of them. They are not, by any means, the best anthems of protest (there are many) but they were, for a time, the songs of a generation who lived under the heavy onus of a dictatorship.
Many lives were changed because of the words of these two songs; I know mine was.
Sangandaan
(pete lacaba/ding achacoso)
hango sa "Sister Stella L." (1984)
walang komplikasyon sa buhay mo noon
kalooban mo'y panatag,
kalangitan ay maliwanag
ang daan ay tuwid at patag
sa buhay mo noon.
ngunit bawat pusong naglalakbay
dumarating sa sangandaan
ngayong narito ka,
kailangang magpasya
aling landas ang susundin ng puso?
saan ka liligaya?
saan mabibigo?
saan ka tutungo?
kay daling sumunod sa hangin at agos
aasa ka na ang dalangin
gagabay sa 'yong damdamin
ngunit saan ka dadalhin
ng hangin at agos?
alam mong bawat pusong nagmamahal
dumarating sa sangandaan
ngayong narito ka,
kailangang magpasya
aling landas ang susundin ng puso?
saan ka liligaya?
saan mabibigo?
saan ka tutungo?
Awit ng petiburgis
(rene agbayani)
Buhay na nagisnan puno ng ginhawa
Buhay na kumupkop,
hindi yata makakayang iwan
Buhay na kay hirap,
bagay na di ganap
Bukas o nakaraan, saan nga ba ang patutunguhan?
Koro:
May panahong magdudat’t magtanong
Ngayon ay panahon ng pagharap at pagsulong
Pagtatanong ay ‘wag lubayan
Tunggalian ay walang katapusan
Aking mga mata malinaw ang nakita
Luha ng kapatid dusa na di mapapatid
Diwa ay natalos, humayo at kumilos
Tawag ng pangangailangan ay di matatalikuran
At ang bisig ko’y handa na ngayon
At makakayang iwan ang noon
In these days of Jun Lozada and JDV3, there is a need for conscientization and politicization. In these times when people's choices are governed by "I'd rather not ask for resignation because I don't want Noli", there is a need to encourage people to take a long, hard look at the choices that face all of us.
Standing at our crossroads, each must make a choice and stand by it.
For my generation, our crossroads was highlighted by the heady days of the post-Aquino assassination and EDSA 1. These were two of the anthems of those days.
Perhaps the EDSA dos babies need to hear these words from these anthems--that we may make a choice and stand by it.
Many lives were changed because of the words of these two songs; I know mine was.
Sangandaan
(pete lacaba/ding achacoso)
hango sa "Sister Stella L." (1984)
walang komplikasyon sa buhay mo noon
kalooban mo'y panatag,
kalangitan ay maliwanag
ang daan ay tuwid at patag
sa buhay mo noon.
ngunit bawat pusong naglalakbay
dumarating sa sangandaan
ngayong narito ka,
kailangang magpasya
aling landas ang susundin ng puso?
saan ka liligaya?
saan mabibigo?
saan ka tutungo?
kay daling sumunod sa hangin at agos
aasa ka na ang dalangin
gagabay sa 'yong damdamin
ngunit saan ka dadalhin
ng hangin at agos?
alam mong bawat pusong nagmamahal
dumarating sa sangandaan
ngayong narito ka,
kailangang magpasya
aling landas ang susundin ng puso?
saan ka liligaya?
saan mabibigo?
saan ka tutungo?
Awit ng petiburgis
(rene agbayani)
Buhay na nagisnan puno ng ginhawa
Buhay na kumupkop,
hindi yata makakayang iwan
Buhay na kay hirap,
bagay na di ganap
Bukas o nakaraan, saan nga ba ang patutunguhan?
Koro:
May panahong magdudat’t magtanong
Ngayon ay panahon ng pagharap at pagsulong
Pagtatanong ay ‘wag lubayan
Tunggalian ay walang katapusan
Aking mga mata malinaw ang nakita
Luha ng kapatid dusa na di mapapatid
Diwa ay natalos, humayo at kumilos
Tawag ng pangangailangan ay di matatalikuran
At ang bisig ko’y handa na ngayon
At makakayang iwan ang noon
In these days of Jun Lozada and JDV3, there is a need for conscientization and politicization. In these times when people's choices are governed by "I'd rather not ask for resignation because I don't want Noli", there is a need to encourage people to take a long, hard look at the choices that face all of us.
Standing at our crossroads, each must make a choice and stand by it.
For my generation, our crossroads was highlighted by the heady days of the post-Aquino assassination and EDSA 1. These were two of the anthems of those days.
Perhaps the EDSA dos babies need to hear these words from these anthems--that we may make a choice and stand by it.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
options
Gloria will not resign. . . willingly, that is. The shrewd trapo that she is, she will not leave the stage she took from Estrada in 2001 without options to protect her. . . and possibly her husband; I'm not really convinced yet that she wouldn't abandon Mike A if push comes to shove.
---------------
Many have been asking about options under the Constitution now that Atty. Lozano and that huge kennel at Commonwealth have totally made impeachment a travesty and a joke. Some that immediately come to mind, not necessarily in order of priority or doability:
1. Resignation (Art. VII, sec. 8)
2. Removal from office (Art. VII, sec. 8), possibly through, but not necessarily limited to, impeachment
3. Voluntary declaration by President of inability to discharge the functions of office (Art. VII, sec. 11)
4. Cabinet action through majority vote (Art. VII, sec. 11)
Section11 is what the Hyatt 10 tried and failed to do.
Sec. 11 provides: "
---------------
Many have been asking about options under the Constitution now that Atty. Lozano and that huge kennel at Commonwealth have totally made impeachment a travesty and a joke. Some that immediately come to mind, not necessarily in order of priority or doability:
1. Resignation (Art. VII, sec. 8)
2. Removal from office (Art. VII, sec. 8), possibly through, but not necessarily limited to, impeachment
3. Voluntary declaration by President of inability to discharge the functions of office (Art. VII, sec. 11)
4. Cabinet action through majority vote (Art. VII, sec. 11)
Section11 is what the Hyatt 10 tried and failed to do.
Sec. 11 provides: "
"Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office."
Notably this was also what Erap tried to do before he left the Palace except that it was probably an afterthought.
A voluntary declaration that the President is unable to discharge his office under sec. 11 might be the best option for Gloria; on the other hand, if she refuses to do this, her cabinet might be encouraged to do this--similar to what the Hyatt 10 tried but failed to do.
-----------------
What can Gloria be waiting for, many have asked-- a deal, perhaps.
A deal to shield her from any suits (again, Mike A might be incidental to the deal, she probably might just be looking to save herself.) might be what will convince her to just "cut and cut clean."
Its a difficult decision: kick her out but at the same time, not prosecute her. Hmmm, have to think about that.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
I have no words . . .
. . . to describe just how disappointing it is that some faculty members (I won't name names here because my source will get into trouble) and students of the law school choose to nitpick instead of 1) being constructive or 2) simply getting out of the way. (For perspective, go to Lobit's multiply site for her text exchange presumably with some student who, to her credit, she does not identify; for perspective on the faculty member/s, let us just say that media friends have been houding me for comment on what they have been saying.)
Yesterday, the Dean and some members of the faculty and students issued a statement that was carried over the media. It was deliberately sub-titled "A Statement from the UP Law Community" NOT "An OFFICIAL Statement of the UP Law FACULTY AND STUDENTS" or "An OFFICIAL Statement of UP LAW." To my mind, "community" means a group of people united by some principle or purpose; and those who signed the statement were.
Some have said we should have deliberated--we did.
Was everyone invited? Yes.
But not everyone invited chose to go. And I respect that; I respect your silence on the matter--but I would ask that you respect as well the sentiments of those who chose to participate and sign.
I have my first draft which is radically different from the one that came out to show just how deliberated upon the statement was. Truthfully, and the Dean and the others who were there will tell you--I do not completely agree with everything there. For instance, if that were my statement, it would consist only of the following words--'GLORIA, GET OUT--NOW!!!" But I was writing for a community and, therefore, my own thoughts and opinions and even style of writing would have to be subordinated to what the others felt they wanted.
Were contrary opinions entertained? Yes. I have always held the belief that the Senate investigations have outlived their purpose and should be terminated with dispatch; many who were around did not. So, I respected that and did not put that in the final draft that appeared.
Why did I sign it if it did not exactly reflect what I believed in? Because I believed it was time for UP Law to speak up and because it contained the essential points I wanted said--Gloria must go. Everything else in the statement was a means toward that end.
It is frustrating to see us fighting each other instead of the common enemy right now. That, by itself, is a victory for Gloria and Mike Arroyo and their minions.
Unity cannot be legislated or forced because many times egos get in the way. Would that we were to once again remember what it is that is truly important to us and not be weighed down by minor details like "why call it a law community statement if it did not reflect a majority view?" or even more minor details like "who gets the credit?" or "whose turn is it before the camera?" But I think that might be an even more difficult task than to get Gloria out.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Giving 5.0s (a reply of sorts to Jobert Navallo)
A former student of mine (Crim Law 1, first year) Jobert Navallo blogged about this in his blog (and it was reprinted in PDI's Youngblood today); this, referring to getting a failing grade in law school. The big five dot zero.
I read Jobert's post with great interest because, of course, I know him--having been his professor in crim law--and also because it was a brave post--because the professor might still be his professor in the very same subject next year. For the civilians (read: non UP law students), getting a 5.0 and writing about it might not seem like too much of a big deal but if you've been following events in THE law school (for the ateneans and the other law schools, sorry
) in this blog and others related to it, you will realize that it is not easy to write about law school especially when you do not mince words. My posts on the deanship selection have grown legs while my rants on frat violence have taken on separate lives in cyberspace. It is in this context that I say that Jobert's post is quite brave; it also has the feature of being very well-written and also very sincere--from the gut (as I texted someone).
I never got a 5.0 in law school so I cannot relate to Jobert's experience--not to say that my grades were all extremely high though. I have, however, given 5.0s and it is not an easy experience--until now, I find it extremely difficult--actually painful--to do.
The very first five I gave was during my second year of teaching to someone who never showed up in class and when he did, answered so unintelligibly that he could have been speaking in a foreign language. In his finals, his answers were the written equivalent of grunts--such was the brevity and the paucity of the answers. To my knowledge, he never made it beyond first year, at least in U.P.; he may have gone to some other law school though and may be grunting his way through law practice for all I know. Even then, it was difficult for me to give a 5.0 but no amount of massaging the raw scores could bring the grade to a 4.0 or even a 3.0.
You would have expected that, after the first five, it would become easier. It has not. For my students who read this blog, it may sound difficult to believe but giving a 5.0 has not become easier for me, but harder. But unfortunately, I have given many 5.0s since that time, each one being more difficult than the previous.
The staff at the Secretary's Office know this: when I give my grade sheets, all the grades are filled in except for those who fall below 3.0; and I take time before I decide to circle in the 5.0. Many times, I've recomputed on the spot; rechecked, redistributed points in the hope that 1 or 2 more points could help. But many times also, these efforts prove fruitless. And so, despite the difficulty, I am left with no choice but to give the 5.0.
I do not know about other professors but it pains me to give a 5.0 to someone because to me, it signifies a total disconnect between myself and that person. I see it as a failure on my part to bring across a point which the others in the class were able to see; a failure to move someone to read more, study more, read more carefully, think better, think more critically. Many times, the chore of correcting blue books becomes even more difficult when you read from the answers given a clear disconnect, a failure of minds to meet, an absence of that confluence of thoughts from teacher to student. That 5.0, to me, represents one more aspect of failure: mine.
It may be small comfort to those who have failed subjects under me or to Jobert, who failed his nego class. But Jobert is right, there is life after a 5.0; many times, that 5.0 is a reality check. Many have left law school after a 5.0 convinced that it is only passion that they have and not skill; others have struggled through after a 5.0 borne by the passion that the day will not be lost at the hands of "such as you"; others have continued in law school and even excelled after a 5.0, convinced that whatever does not kill you, at first, can only make you stronger.
It is like Kingsfield in The Paper Chase telling Hart, who tells him to his face, "Kingsfield, you are a son of a bitch", to "sit down, Mr. Hart, that is the most intelligent thing you have ever said in this class." In his blog, Jobert resolved to not only confront his Kingsfield but conquer it. That is an admirable quality. Whether he succeeds or not, often it is enough that he tries.
I read Jobert's post with great interest because, of course, I know him--having been his professor in crim law--and also because it was a brave post--because the professor might still be his professor in the very same subject next year. For the civilians (read: non UP law students), getting a 5.0 and writing about it might not seem like too much of a big deal but if you've been following events in THE law school (for the ateneans and the other law schools, sorry
) in this blog and others related to it, you will realize that it is not easy to write about law school especially when you do not mince words. My posts on the deanship selection have grown legs while my rants on frat violence have taken on separate lives in cyberspace. It is in this context that I say that Jobert's post is quite brave; it also has the feature of being very well-written and also very sincere--from the gut (as I texted someone).I never got a 5.0 in law school so I cannot relate to Jobert's experience--not to say that my grades were all extremely high though. I have, however, given 5.0s and it is not an easy experience--until now, I find it extremely difficult--actually painful--to do.
The very first five I gave was during my second year of teaching to someone who never showed up in class and when he did, answered so unintelligibly that he could have been speaking in a foreign language. In his finals, his answers were the written equivalent of grunts--such was the brevity and the paucity of the answers. To my knowledge, he never made it beyond first year, at least in U.P.; he may have gone to some other law school though and may be grunting his way through law practice for all I know. Even then, it was difficult for me to give a 5.0 but no amount of massaging the raw scores could bring the grade to a 4.0 or even a 3.0.
You would have expected that, after the first five, it would become easier. It has not. For my students who read this blog, it may sound difficult to believe but giving a 5.0 has not become easier for me, but harder. But unfortunately, I have given many 5.0s since that time, each one being more difficult than the previous.
The staff at the Secretary's Office know this: when I give my grade sheets, all the grades are filled in except for those who fall below 3.0; and I take time before I decide to circle in the 5.0. Many times, I've recomputed on the spot; rechecked, redistributed points in the hope that 1 or 2 more points could help. But many times also, these efforts prove fruitless. And so, despite the difficulty, I am left with no choice but to give the 5.0.
I do not know about other professors but it pains me to give a 5.0 to someone because to me, it signifies a total disconnect between myself and that person. I see it as a failure on my part to bring across a point which the others in the class were able to see; a failure to move someone to read more, study more, read more carefully, think better, think more critically. Many times, the chore of correcting blue books becomes even more difficult when you read from the answers given a clear disconnect, a failure of minds to meet, an absence of that confluence of thoughts from teacher to student. That 5.0, to me, represents one more aspect of failure: mine.
It may be small comfort to those who have failed subjects under me or to Jobert, who failed his nego class. But Jobert is right, there is life after a 5.0; many times, that 5.0 is a reality check. Many have left law school after a 5.0 convinced that it is only passion that they have and not skill; others have struggled through after a 5.0 borne by the passion that the day will not be lost at the hands of "such as you"; others have continued in law school and even excelled after a 5.0, convinced that whatever does not kill you, at first, can only make you stronger.
It is like Kingsfield in The Paper Chase telling Hart, who tells him to his face, "Kingsfield, you are a son of a bitch", to "sit down, Mr. Hart, that is the most intelligent thing you have ever said in this class." In his blog, Jobert resolved to not only confront his Kingsfield but conquer it. That is an admirable quality. Whether he succeeds or not, often it is enough that he tries.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Perspective 5 (An Open Letter)
My God knows me too well; after all, He created me, He knows my heart and its ways. (Ps. 139)
Right after my last post, I left for a hearing. On the way there, I heard Him clearly and it was all I could do to not hit the car in front of me.
"The tongue is like a fire."
I had to pull over and pray.
In the past days, I've blogged about something that has been much debated, much discussed and much forwarded. It has generated heated exchanges and passionate opinions.
In my heart, I knew that I was speaking of things that were true and were right. Yet, even after I replied to the group's answer to me (see previous post), I did not feel at peace, in fact, I felt an even heavier burden.
My God spoke to me further while I prayed:
"Tame your tongue and do not let it control you. The purity of your heart's intention cannot justify the words you have spoken."
As the season of Advent approaches, one of the many things I had resolved to do was to be at peace with myself and with others; and it is ironic that as Advent approaches, I was not at peace and was, in fact, the source of discord. And all because of my tongue or, in this case, my "pen."
There is a right way to talk about the things that are wrong and a wrong way to talk about the things that are right. I realized that I may have chosen to talk about the things that are right in the wrong way and, in the process, have hurt and caused pain to people.
As I texted some of those concerned, there is no justification for disrespect even as there may be a basis for disagreement. And so, before I come before my God any further, I want to make things right with my brethren--for after all, all of us are children of God (yes, even you Florin).
To Harry, Florin, Barry, Ex Dean Bart, Ex Dean Merlin, Ex Dean Raul, Beth, JJ, Danny, Prof Ed, Prof Sison and Prof Doming,
I have used harsh words against some of you specifically and while there remains basis for disagreement among us, I realize there is no justification for disrespect. We still disagree on many things and you will still not be able to convince me to agree on many things (choice of the next dean, perhaps) but that disagreement does not need to end in disagreeability. In the same way that I have spoken publicly against you, allow me to publicly apologize to you
now.
It is your choice to accept and I cannot force you to accept. But I extend this apology sincerely, humbly and freely with the hope that we might be able to disagree about the Deanship and your choice for the next Dean under better circumstances (perhaps with Florin buying coffee) and perhaps with Dean Carlota around.
Right after my last post, I left for a hearing. On the way there, I heard Him clearly and it was all I could do to not hit the car in front of me.
"The tongue is like a fire."
I had to pull over and pray.
In the past days, I've blogged about something that has been much debated, much discussed and much forwarded. It has generated heated exchanges and passionate opinions.
In my heart, I knew that I was speaking of things that were true and were right. Yet, even after I replied to the group's answer to me (see previous post), I did not feel at peace, in fact, I felt an even heavier burden.
My God spoke to me further while I prayed:
"Tame your tongue and do not let it control you. The purity of your heart's intention cannot justify the words you have spoken."
As the season of Advent approaches, one of the many things I had resolved to do was to be at peace with myself and with others; and it is ironic that as Advent approaches, I was not at peace and was, in fact, the source of discord. And all because of my tongue or, in this case, my "pen."
There is a right way to talk about the things that are wrong and a wrong way to talk about the things that are right. I realized that I may have chosen to talk about the things that are right in the wrong way and, in the process, have hurt and caused pain to people.
As I texted some of those concerned, there is no justification for disrespect even as there may be a basis for disagreement. And so, before I come before my God any further, I want to make things right with my brethren--for after all, all of us are children of God (yes, even you Florin).
To Harry, Florin, Barry, Ex Dean Bart, Ex Dean Merlin, Ex Dean Raul, Beth, JJ, Danny, Prof Ed, Prof Sison and Prof Doming,
I have used harsh words against some of you specifically and while there remains basis for disagreement among us, I realize there is no justification for disrespect. We still disagree on many things and you will still not be able to convince me to agree on many things (choice of the next dean, perhaps
) but that disagreement does not need to end in disagreeability. In the same way that I have spoken publicly against you, allow me to publicly apologize to you now.
It is your choice to accept and I cannot force you to accept. But I extend this apology sincerely, humbly and freely with the hope that we might be able to disagree about the Deanship and your choice for the next Dean under better circumstances (perhaps with Florin buying coffee) and perhaps with Dean Carlota around.
Holier than Thou (Their title, not mine)
This is the response to my post (see "Ingratitude. In Gratitude") from Harry, Florin, Barry, Prof. Pangalangan, Former Dean Pangalangan, Former Dean Magallona, Former Dean Carale, Danny Concepcion, Professor Labitag, Professor Sison (some of those mentioned as having signed the statement posted; the two Profs. Disini, JJ and Domingo, did not sign).
It is not my intention to reply point for point as I stand by my statement completely.
Let me simply say two things:
1. I am pleasantly surprised that Florin Hilbay, who teaches Atheism in place of legal theory in first year, would quote scripture to me, and
2. I am mildly disappointed that Dean Pangalangan would not appreciate the irony (as my post on ingratitude was intended to be ironic) of his lecturing to me on "patronage politics."
3. And of course, I am shocked that "farce" would not include a professor who, in place of teaching the Bill of Rights in Consti Law 2 would teach everything BUT the Bill of Rights and leave his students to figure out for themselves what the Bill of Rights is.
4. Finally, I do miss being called "Teddy", something that my REALLY GOOD FRIENDS call me.
I would want to say "I am sorry" to the two former Deans Carale and Magallona but I cannot. I look up to Dean Magallona but, on this one, I disagree totally with his signing the statement and I have given my reasons why. I will apologize, however, for using strong language--stronger perhaps than they are used to.
Enough of me. Let's hear them:
-----------------------------------------
Dear Teddy,
OUR STATEMENT STOOD ON THE PRINCIPLE that the Search Process must not be
You have committed two basic mistakes.
FIRST, YOU GOT THE FACTS WRONG. You say that we “demand[ed] that Dean
All we asked was for Dean Carlota to let the official Search Process take its
Having blinded yourself to the tyranny of your own point of view, you label as ungrateful those who you think support other leaders and then demonize those who disagree with you.
INDEED WE ASK YOU: “WHY THE RUSH, TEDDY?” Why agree to a Search
Sincerely yours,
Barry Gutierrez
Elizabeth Pangalangan
Raul Pangalangan
Merlin Magallona
Bartolome Carale
Danilo Concepcion
Carmelo V. Sison
Edgardo A. Labitag
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Ingratitude. In Gratitude.
Note: Not for the faint of heart, this contains strong language.
Harry Roque
Elizabeth Pangalangan
Raul Pangalangan
Merlin Magallona
Bartolome Carale
Domingo Disini
JJ Disini
Barry Gutierrez
Danilo Concepcion
Never mind that one of them is a former Dean who, on the first day of Dean Carlota’s term in 2005, assured the Dean that he would not object to a full term of three years for him, even beyond his birthday (a statement that this former Dean has denied, of course).
Never mind that one of them is a recently retired professor who practically begged for an extension so that he could hold on to his administrative post, and which Dean Carlota graciously granted and even expedited—no questions asked.
Never mind that another is a recently retired professor who also had his term extended by Dean Carlota--no questions asked either.
Never mind that the others are absentee directors who spend more time outside the University and their institutes than inside.
Never mind that not one of them can give a perfectly reasonable, let alone compelling, explanation why Dean Carlota has to leave as soon as he turns 65 and not stay one day longer.
Never mind that not one of them can give a perfectly reasonable answer to the equally reasonable question--"why the rush?"
Never mind that after more than 30 years of service to the U.P. and the
Mind only that they want him out the minute he turns 65.
Mind only that they wanted to make him a lame duck, as soon as possible, and to make him one in public, posting their signatures attached to huge statements—printed at college expense, at that.
After 30 plus years of faithful service, this man is met not in gratitude but with ingratitude.
Paraphrasing the Bard, surely now breaks a noble heart. A few days ago, I witnessed something totally uncharacteristic of Dean Carlota—he expressed, in no uncertain terms and tone, his disgust at his colleages. “If there is one thing good that has come out of this,” he said, “it is that I now know the true character of some of my colleagues. All I want is five more months, and they cannot even give me that!”
It is strong language coming from him, who is unfailingly civil, consistently cordial, deliberately inclusive, characteristically polite—yet, under the circumstances, I am not surprised; I am surprised only that he did not use stronger language, I would have—but that shows simply that he is a better man than I am.
After 30 plus years of continuous service, his colleagues, many of whom he taught, cannot give this man five more months!
Etched in granite at the lobby of Malcolm Hall, the
I would like to think that I teach law in the grand manner because I teach law students, first, to become good persons. One cannot become a great lawyer unless one is a good person first.
Certainly, modeling ingratitude cannot be part of teaching law in the grand manner. Butif it is, then perhaps it really is time to really tear down that wall with those words etched in granite because then teaching law in the grand manner--in this way--would be one big, cruel farce.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Legal Equivalent of the Kitchen Sink
In my line of work, I had to learn early on to take whatever victories I get and manage to learn to roll with the punches, learn from the losses and try not to get too embarrassed from my galactically stupid mistakes.
A friend of mine told me that I am the lawyer's equivalent of St. Jude; if you know what he is patron saint of, you might catch the analogy. I didn't know what to think then but later on, I felt complimented.
Early on also, I've had to learn many little things about the law that would help--in any way--secure those precious little victories. One provision of the Rules that I stumbled upon early on is Rule 135, section 6 (non-lawyers, feel free to tune out after this; you're welcome to read on though if you wish.), an innocuous provision of the rules that no one (well, except I, he he he) in law school teaches. It is what I fondly call the legal equivalent of the kitchen sink (the figure of speech is "throwing everything at a problem, including the kitchen sink). It reads:
Sec. 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. -- When by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules.
In short, what does it mean? It is license given to a court--any court-- to invent, to create, to magically conjure up remedies that the Rules or the Law did not even dream of, for so long as it is consistent with the law or the rules. Note that Article VIII, sec. 5(5) gives the power to promulgate rules on pleading, practice and procedure only to the Supreme Court but this one, Rule 135, sec. 6 gives to any court the power to adopt any process or mode of proceeding.
In my line of work, where clients generally don't have a defense, or a witness, or a witness who is credible, or cannot be bought, intimidated, frightened off or killed, that is the kitchen sink.
Recently in the very first case involving the writ of amparo (it is docketed by the CA as 00001), I cited this rule in our Position Paper for the petitioners; one of the justices commented, "I did not realize that rule existed. That is a very powerful rule. However did you discover that?" I just smiled.
My answer would have been, had I been minded to answer: "Sometimes, necessity, or utter and sheer desperation, is the mother of invention or resourcefulness."
That's how I discovered the legal equivalent of the kitchen sink.
A friend of mine told me that I am the lawyer's equivalent of St. Jude; if you know what he is patron saint of, you might catch the analogy. I didn't know what to think then but later on, I felt complimented.
Early on also, I've had to learn many little things about the law that would help--in any way--secure those precious little victories. One provision of the Rules that I stumbled upon early on is Rule 135, section 6 (non-lawyers, feel free to tune out after this; you're welcome to read on though if you wish.
), an innocuous provision of the rules that no one (well, except I, he he he) in law school teaches. It is what I fondly call the legal equivalent of the kitchen sink (the figure of speech is "throwing everything at a problem, including the kitchen sink). It reads:Sec. 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. -- When by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules.
In short, what does it mean? It is license given to a court--any court-- to invent, to create, to magically conjure up remedies that the Rules or the Law did not even dream of, for so long as it is consistent with the law or the rules. Note that Article VIII, sec. 5(5) gives the power to promulgate rules on pleading, practice and procedure only to the Supreme Court but this one, Rule 135, sec. 6 gives to any court the power to adopt any process or mode of proceeding.
In my line of work, where clients generally don't have a defense, or a witness, or a witness who is credible, or cannot be bought, intimidated, frightened off or killed, that is the kitchen sink.
Recently in the very first case involving the writ of amparo (it is docketed by the CA as 00001
), I cited this rule in our Position Paper for the petitioners; one of the justices commented, "I did not realize that rule existed. That is a very powerful rule. However did you discover that?" I just smiled. My answer would have been, had I been minded to answer: "Sometimes, necessity, or utter and sheer desperation, is the mother of invention or resourcefulness."
That's how I discovered the legal equivalent of the kitchen sink.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Politics as Usual, in the Grand Manner
I have blogged about how I feel about the current Dean of the law school, Salvador Carlota. He is a conservative in many ways--his ideas, his ways of doing things, even his vision for law school. As a liberal in many ways, I seriously did not think that I would ever find life serving with and under him. To my surprise, I did.
While my vision of law school and legal education and even life and law are very different from his, I have enjoyed my service with him at the helm of the law school. Inevitably, I would find myself wishing that the Dean would have more progressive thoughts or ideas but I would always weigh that against what he has done for the law school during his term--to stabilize the law school and to try (operative word: try) to unite and integrate the law faculty. And he has succeeded in bringing stability to the law school simply because he has been present and he has been a hands-on dean. It is a good way of leading by example to see the Dean in his office when he should be in his office and in class, when he should be in class; save for a few official travels, the Dean has been in Malcolm Hall when he shoud be. That, and the fact that his record as administrator cannot be doubted, has brought some stability to Malcolm Hall.
Now, that stability is threatened again simply because of politics as usual. In the coming days, the spectacle of a divided faculty will once again be in full display--simply because some people just cannot wait.
The Dean retires on December 10, 2007 yet but, even as the usual and traditional courtesies have yet to be accorded him, the first salvo has already been fired by those who cannot wait to make him a lame duck.
I marvel really at human character and human nature; what is it about the lust for power that makes people do such things? I note that even vultures wait for the prey to die before swooping down.
I would have wanted to describe all these as "a great shame" but I guess "shameless" would be a better word.
While my vision of law school and legal education and even life and law are very different from his, I have enjoyed my service with him at the helm of the law school. Inevitably, I would find myself wishing that the Dean would have more progressive thoughts or ideas but I would always weigh that against what he has done for the law school during his term--to stabilize the law school and to try (operative word: try) to unite and integrate the law faculty. And he has succeeded in bringing stability to the law school simply because he has been present and he has been a hands-on dean. It is a good way of leading by example to see the Dean in his office when he should be in his office and in class, when he should be in class; save for a few official travels, the Dean has been in Malcolm Hall when he shoud be. That, and the fact that his record as administrator cannot be doubted, has brought some stability to Malcolm Hall.
Now, that stability is threatened again simply because of politics as usual. In the coming days, the spectacle of a divided faculty will once again be in full display--simply because some people just cannot wait.
The Dean retires on December 10, 2007 yet but, even as the usual and traditional courtesies have yet to be accorded him, the first salvo has already been fired by those who cannot wait to make him a lame duck.
I marvel really at human character and human nature; what is it about the lust for power that makes people do such things? I note that even vultures wait for the prey to die before swooping down.
I would have wanted to describe all these as "a great shame" but I guess "shameless" would be a better word.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Perspective
At the start of a new semester of law school (and for the underbars out there, the first day of work for many), let me give some space to Alan Dershowitz (Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard, also a litigator, columnist, lecturer and prolific author; he has been counsel for the accused in many high profile cases in the U.S.) who, in Letters to a Young Lawyer writes this interesting and certainly provocative piece.
Dont' Do What You're Best At
By: Alan Dershowitz
Some of the least happy people I know are those who figure out what they are best at and then tailor the job to their particular expertise. The problem is that what you're best at is not necessarily what gives you the most gratification or what is most important. Our educational system steers students towards courses and areas in which they excel. Grades are, after all, quite important to getting into college and law school. And it's ok to take courses in which you will excel. But courses last only a few months. Life is forever. So pick a career, or an area within your career, that balances excellence and gratification. It should challenge you every day and have you waking up eager to confront the day's challenges. Obviously you don't want to pick something you're not very good at, no matter how much you might enjoy it (for me, that would be basketball) [Ted's Note: It is uncanny that I would have the same notation as regards basketball, which I enjoy greatly but am not skilled at] Pick an area that you're quite good at but that gives you so much joy that you can't wait to get up in the morning and go to work.
Early in my career, when I was less controversial, I was offered law school deanships and university presidencies. I knew enough about myself to turn them down. In one instance, I wrote a "Groucho Marx" reply, saying that I would not want to join a club--or in this case, a school--that would have me as its dean. A dean or president must be able to bring people together. I drive them apart. I am a provocateur, not a pacifier. I would enjoy the prestige of being dean, a president or perhaps a judge, but I would hate the day-to-day aspects of the job.
I know too many people who have taken prestigious jobs--deanships, chairmanships, judgeships, professorships, partnerships--simply because they were flattered to be offered them. Understand the difference between being offered a job and accepting it. It is flattering, even career-enhancing, to be offered a prestigious job, but it is a terrible mistake to accept the job unless it is right for you--at the stage of life you are when it is offered.
Having said that, another word of caution: Don't love your work too much, especially if you're a lawyer. When I was a young lawyer, my elders would talk too about the law being a jealous mistress or loving the law. Don't love the law. It will inevitably disappoint you. Understand that the law is a tool, a mechanism, a construct. It is a false idol like so many others in life. In one respect, there is no such thing as "The Law." What we call the law is a process, a group of people, some ideas, precedents, books. Don't respect the law, unless it merits your respect. The law in Nazi Germany or in apartheid South Africa or in the Jim Crow South did not deserve respect. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore should be followed--that's what it means to live under the rule of law. But it should not be respected, any more than the robed cheaters who wrote it should be respected. American law today sometimes deserves respect, other times it deserves condemnation. It must always be obeyed, but it need not be admired. Honesty is more important than respect.
If you don't love the law, what should you love (aside from loved ones)? Love liberty. Love justice. Love the good that law can produce. Aspirations don't disappoint, so long as you realize that the struggle for liberty, justice and anything else worth pursuing never stays won.
Dont' Do What You're Best At
By: Alan Dershowitz
Some of the least happy people I know are those who figure out what they are best at and then tailor the job to their particular expertise. The problem is that what you're best at is not necessarily what gives you the most gratification or what is most important. Our educational system steers students towards courses and areas in which they excel. Grades are, after all, quite important to getting into college and law school. And it's ok to take courses in which you will excel. But courses last only a few months. Life is forever. So pick a career, or an area within your career, that balances excellence and gratification. It should challenge you every day and have you waking up eager to confront the day's challenges. Obviously you don't want to pick something you're not very good at, no matter how much you might enjoy it (for me, that would be basketball) [Ted's Note: It is uncanny that I would have the same notation as regards basketball, which I enjoy greatly but am not skilled at] Pick an area that you're quite good at but that gives you so much joy that you can't wait to get up in the morning and go to work.
Early in my career, when I was less controversial, I was offered law school deanships and university presidencies. I knew enough about myself to turn them down. In one instance, I wrote a "Groucho Marx" reply, saying that I would not want to join a club--or in this case, a school--that would have me as its dean. A dean or president must be able to bring people together. I drive them apart. I am a provocateur, not a pacifier. I would enjoy the prestige of being dean, a president or perhaps a judge, but I would hate the day-to-day aspects of the job.
I know too many people who have taken prestigious jobs--deanships, chairmanships, judgeships, professorships, partnerships--simply because they were flattered to be offered them. Understand the difference between being offered a job and accepting it. It is flattering, even career-enhancing, to be offered a prestigious job, but it is a terrible mistake to accept the job unless it is right for you--at the stage of life you are when it is offered.
Having said that, another word of caution: Don't love your work too much, especially if you're a lawyer. When I was a young lawyer, my elders would talk too about the law being a jealous mistress or loving the law. Don't love the law. It will inevitably disappoint you. Understand that the law is a tool, a mechanism, a construct. It is a false idol like so many others in life. In one respect, there is no such thing as "The Law." What we call the law is a process, a group of people, some ideas, precedents, books. Don't respect the law, unless it merits your respect. The law in Nazi Germany or in apartheid South Africa or in the Jim Crow South did not deserve respect. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore should be followed--that's what it means to live under the rule of law. But it should not be respected, any more than the robed cheaters who wrote it should be respected. American law today sometimes deserves respect, other times it deserves condemnation. It must always be obeyed, but it need not be admired. Honesty is more important than respect.
If you don't love the law, what should you love (aside from loved ones)? Love liberty. Love justice. Love the good that law can produce. Aspirations don't disappoint, so long as you realize that the struggle for liberty, justice and anything else worth pursuing never stays won.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Perspective
I've been gone (from Manila) for about 1.5 weeks and things get exciting--explosions at the mall and a pardon for a plunderer. Wow, maybe I really should get out more.
Seriously, when the Erap pardon first came out, I was just about to prepare for a retreat and all of a sudden, I get this deluge of sms from irate friends cussing in all shades of blue (many of them female). Many asked me why, which is funny because I really don't know the answer (I have my speculations but, of course, your guess is as good as mine).
Let me hazard a guess though.
The Erap pardon is not an act of grace nor an act of forgiveness--it is purely political. Gloria is storing capital for 2010 because when she steps down--assuming she's not sooner removed before then--she is going to be sued for plunder, just like Erap. Right now, there is no one looking out for her because when she loses power in 2010, she will just be another ex-president facing a plunder charge. So the Erap pardon is clearly political security for her even as she anticipates the deluge of plunder suits she and Mike Arroyo will face.
As to why Erap accepted it--why shouldn't he? It is a golden opportunity to parlay into political capital once again his tarnished name and reputation. And if it means not calling for Gloria to step down sooner than 2010 and calling her "President", it is a cheap price to pay and a not too bitter pill to swallow.
In the meantime, we, the people, have just been had again.
Old dogs do learn new tricks--Erap and Gloria did. Whyever can't we, the people, learn?
Seriously, when the Erap pardon first came out, I was just about to prepare for a retreat and all of a sudden, I get this deluge of sms from irate friends cussing in all shades of blue (many of them female). Many asked me why, which is funny because I really don't know the answer (I have my speculations but, of course, your guess is as good as mine).
Let me hazard a guess though.
The Erap pardon is not an act of grace nor an act of forgiveness--it is purely political. Gloria is storing capital for 2010 because when she steps down--assuming she's not sooner removed before then--she is going to be sued for plunder, just like Erap. Right now, there is no one looking out for her because when she loses power in 2010, she will just be another ex-president facing a plunder charge. So the Erap pardon is clearly political security for her even as she anticipates the deluge of plunder suits she and Mike Arroyo will face.
As to why Erap accepted it--why shouldn't he? It is a golden opportunity to parlay into political capital once again his tarnished name and reputation. And if it means not calling for Gloria to step down sooner than 2010 and calling her "President", it is a cheap price to pay and a not too bitter pill to swallow.
In the meantime, we, the people, have just been had again.
Old dogs do learn new tricks--Erap and Gloria did. Whyever can't we, the people, learn?
Monday, September 24, 2007
Lives resume, never to be the same again
As the beating of the snare drums dies down, and the last barricade removed, Taft becomes normal again, signalling the end of the Bar Examinations of 2007.
Far from going back to normal, lives are resumed but are changed--never more to be the same again.
4 years of law school does not prepare you for the 5 months of review and the one month of last-minute preparation to take the 8 exams spread across 4 Sundays.
4 years of law school does not prepare you for the terrible bouts of confusion, despair, depression, anxiety, fatigue, illness, and surrender that dances across one's emotional spectrum every day.
4 years of law school also does not prepare you for the joy of newly-discovered relationships with others in the same journey; of bonds formed and forged forever in the crucible of shared anxieties, shared triumphs, shared joys and shared decisions; of unlikely friendships created out of perhaps a mutual need, truly serendipitous moments or perhaps even divine intervention.
4 years of law school will never prepare you for the epiphany that there is more to life than law school but that a life lived in the pursuit of the law may, after all, be one of life's nobler callings.
After 4 years of law school 5 months of review and 4 Sundays, lives resume but are never the same again.
To the U.P. bar examinees of 2007: may you truly live changed lives--seeking always for what is best in this profession that is often a picture of what is worst, striving always for the justice that is desired by many yet is elusive to they who need it most; speaking always the truth that sets people free but is often masked and hidden by the lies that chain and bind; standing always for freedom that is the greatest gift yet is often never received.
To the U.P. Bar examinees of 2007: many of you have said, "we hope to make you proud." You honor me greatly by that, as I do not deserve that privilege. My answer to you has always been--and remains still--"you already have."
Far from going back to normal, lives are resumed but are changed--never more to be the same again.
4 years of law school does not prepare you for the 5 months of review and the one month of last-minute preparation to take the 8 exams spread across 4 Sundays.
4 years of law school does not prepare you for the terrible bouts of confusion, despair, depression, anxiety, fatigue, illness, and surrender that dances across one's emotional spectrum every day.
4 years of law school also does not prepare you for the joy of newly-discovered relationships with others in the same journey; of bonds formed and forged forever in the crucible of shared anxieties, shared triumphs, shared joys and shared decisions; of unlikely friendships created out of perhaps a mutual need, truly serendipitous moments or perhaps even divine intervention.
4 years of law school will never prepare you for the epiphany that there is more to life than law school but that a life lived in the pursuit of the law may, after all, be one of life's nobler callings.
After 4 years of law school 5 months of review and 4 Sundays, lives resume but are never the same again.
To the U.P. bar examinees of 2007: may you truly live changed lives--seeking always for what is best in this profession that is often a picture of what is worst, striving always for the justice that is desired by many yet is elusive to they who need it most; speaking always the truth that sets people free but is often masked and hidden by the lies that chain and bind; standing always for freedom that is the greatest gift yet is often never received.
To the U.P. Bar examinees of 2007: many of you have said, "we hope to make you proud." You honor me greatly by that, as I do not deserve that privilege. My answer to you has always been--and remains still--"you already have."
Saturday, September 15, 2007
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness. . ." (Matthew 3:3)
Jovito R. Salonga, the Best President we never had, Senate President, Senator, Patriot, Nationalist, Ramon Magsaysay Awardee, Political Detainee, War Veteran, U.P. Lawyer and Bar Topnotcher--moral force, man of God and Sigma Rhoan no more.
The newspapers today speak of a real man standing for his principles and standing by his word, even when it is unpopular, even when it goes against the grain, even when it is not expedient, for so long as it is the right thing to do: Jovito Salonga resigns from Sigma Rhoa "effective immediately."
I have had the happy honor of not only meeting the man personally many times over but to have worked with and for him. I first met him when he called me over the phone and introduced himself as "Professor Te, si Salonga ito." He asked to meet with me at his home in Valle Verde and there he broached to me the possibility of forming a student monitoring team to look into cases of delay in the courts as well as to be a watchdog for judicial appointments--this was to become Bantay Katarungan. I gave my two cents worth and he listened; he later offered me a job with Bantay Katarungan to be the coordinator; I was flattered no end but had to decline it because my schedule at that time would not allow it--it was still during the reign of the death penalty and my docket was, literally, clogged. I was greatly honored to even be considered and I told him that. And his answer was, "Professor, just continue doing what you are doing; you are doing good work." To this day, he calls me "Professor" or "Attorney", and to this day, it is impossible not to feel greatly honored that this man, Jovito Salonga, would address you with two titles that he, himself, has distinguished and brought great honor to.
Since that time, I have met him many times; I have represented him in two cases before the Supreme Court and have had the benefit of his legal acumen in the formulation of arguments and even the acerbic and dry wit that is rarely seen. Unforgettable for me is his response when we (Senator Bobby Tanada and I) were offering him the "first chair" as it were in arguing before the Supreme Court our petition to declare the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) unconstitutional; he said, with a hint of a smile, "huwag na ako, at baka masigawan ko pa ang Korte. . . (pause). . .alam mo naman ako'y bingi na."
Ka Jovy, as I call him, is a man who knows the right thing to do at the right time. His stand on many things is well-known. Yet, many people were surprised to hear him speak out on the Cris Mendez/Sigma Rho issue; not a few dismissed his "promise" that he would resign if Sigma Rho would be shown to have been involved in Mendez's death. His resignation from Sigma Rho is not surprising, it is simply Salonga.
Today, Jovito R. Salonga has once again shown what it truly means to have honor, to have courage, to have integrity. May he, like John the Baptist (Matthew 3:3) , be a voice crying out to proclaim the good news that is to come but may he, unlike John, not be simply the "voice of one crying in the wilderness" but the first voice in a cacophony and chorus that is to come.
The newspapers today speak of a real man standing for his principles and standing by his word, even when it is unpopular, even when it goes against the grain, even when it is not expedient, for so long as it is the right thing to do: Jovito Salonga resigns from Sigma Rhoa "effective immediately."
I have had the happy honor of not only meeting the man personally many times over but to have worked with and for him. I first met him when he called me over the phone and introduced himself as "Professor Te, si Salonga ito." He asked to meet with me at his home in Valle Verde and there he broached to me the possibility of forming a student monitoring team to look into cases of delay in the courts as well as to be a watchdog for judicial appointments--this was to become Bantay Katarungan. I gave my two cents worth and he listened; he later offered me a job with Bantay Katarungan to be the coordinator; I was flattered no end but had to decline it because my schedule at that time would not allow it--it was still during the reign of the death penalty and my docket was, literally, clogged. I was greatly honored to even be considered and I told him that. And his answer was, "Professor, just continue doing what you are doing; you are doing good work." To this day, he calls me "Professor" or "Attorney", and to this day, it is impossible not to feel greatly honored that this man, Jovito Salonga, would address you with two titles that he, himself, has distinguished and brought great honor to.
Since that time, I have met him many times; I have represented him in two cases before the Supreme Court and have had the benefit of his legal acumen in the formulation of arguments and even the acerbic and dry wit that is rarely seen. Unforgettable for me is his response when we (Senator Bobby Tanada and I) were offering him the "first chair" as it were in arguing before the Supreme Court our petition to declare the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) unconstitutional; he said, with a hint of a smile, "huwag na ako, at baka masigawan ko pa ang Korte. . . (pause). . .alam mo naman ako'y bingi na."
Ka Jovy, as I call him, is a man who knows the right thing to do at the right time. His stand on many things is well-known. Yet, many people were surprised to hear him speak out on the Cris Mendez/Sigma Rho issue; not a few dismissed his "promise" that he would resign if Sigma Rho would be shown to have been involved in Mendez's death. His resignation from Sigma Rho is not surprising, it is simply Salonga.
Today, Jovito R. Salonga has once again shown what it truly means to have honor, to have courage, to have integrity. May he, like John the Baptist (Matthew 3:3) , be a voice crying out to proclaim the good news that is to come but may he, unlike John, not be simply the "voice of one crying in the wilderness" but the first voice in a cacophony and chorus that is to come.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
A Primer (of sorts) on The Hazing Law (RA 8049)
For a more constructive debate and a clearer idea of what the Hazing Law can do or cannot do --
Q. How is hazing defined?
A. As used in the law, hazing is an initiation rite or practice used as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization. (sec. 1)
Q. How is it done?
A. Under RA 8049, the essence of hazing is "placing the recruit, neophyte, or applicant in some emarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him(her) to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury." (sec. 1) [My observation: the only difference apparently between hazing as defined and recitation in the UP Law School is that the law student is already in the college of law but the neophyte is still aspiring to enter.]
Q. Who are covered by the hazing law?
A. Any club, or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or officer and cadet corps of the Citizen's Military Training or Citizen's Army Training except those "physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and ehance the physical and mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members" of the AFP, PNP as approved by concerned government officials. (sec. 1)
Q. When is hazing allowed?
A. It is allowed only if there is a prior written notice to the scholl authorities or head of organization seven (7) days before the initiation; the notice shall indicate the period of the initiation which shall not exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of those to be subjected to the activities and shall "contain an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites."(sec. 2) [My observation: Yeah, right.] Additionally, under section 3, the head of the school or organization or their representative must assign at least two (2) representatives of the school or organization to be present. It is the duty of such representative to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant. (My observation and query: now who was the representative during the hazing of Cris Mendez? Your guess. . . should be kept to yourself unless you want to be sued for libel. 
)
Q. What are the legal consequences of hazing? Who are liable for hazing?
A. It depends on what happens to the neophyte or applicant.
a) If he/she is physically injured or dies as a result of hazing (whether authorized or otherwise), the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals and shall suffer a range of penalties raning from prision correccional (six months and one day to six years) to reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years), depending on the extent and nature of injuries inflicted (if death results, the penalty is automatically reclusion perpetua). The maximum of the penalty, in each case, will be imposed if: (a) the recruitment is attended by force, intimidation, violence or deceit; (b) the person who decides to quit is prevented from doing so; (c) the person, after being hazed, is prevented from reporting the incident to parents, police or other authorities; (d) the hazing is committed outside the school or institution; (e) the victim is below 12 years old at the time of hazing.
b) The owner of the place where the hazing is done is liable as an accomplice when he actually knew that hazing would be conducted but failed to prevent the same; if the hazing is held in the home of any of the officers or members, the parents are liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing and failed to prevent it.
c) The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to prevent the same are liable as accomplices.
d) The officers, former officers, alumni who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts are committed are liable as principals. Officers or members who knowingly cooperate by inducing the victim to be present are liable as principals. The adviser who is present when the acts are committed and failed to take action is liable as principal.
e) The president, manager, director or other officer of a corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment.
Q. What is the liability of a person who is merely present?
A. The presence of any person during a hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as a principal unless he prevented the hazing.
Q. Can the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong" or praeter intentionem be allowed?
A. No, under sec. 4, this mitigating circumstance is expressly disallowed.
Q. How is hazing defined?
A. As used in the law, hazing is an initiation rite or practice used as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization. (sec. 1)
Q. How is it done?
A. Under RA 8049, the essence of hazing is "placing the recruit, neophyte, or applicant in some emarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him(her) to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury." (sec. 1) [My observation: the only difference apparently between hazing as defined and recitation in the UP Law School is that the law student is already in the college of law but the neophyte is still aspiring to enter.]
Q. Who are covered by the hazing law?
A. Any club, or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or officer and cadet corps of the Citizen's Military Training or Citizen's Army Training except those "physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and ehance the physical and mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members" of the AFP, PNP as approved by concerned government officials. (sec. 1)
Q. When is hazing allowed?
A. It is allowed only if there is a prior written notice to the scholl authorities or head of organization seven (7) days before the initiation; the notice shall indicate the period of the initiation which shall not exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of those to be subjected to the activities and shall "contain an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites."
(sec. 2) [My observation: Yeah, right.] Additionally, under section 3, the head of the school or organization or their representative must assign at least two (2) representatives of the school or organization to be present. It is the duty of such representative to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant. (My observation and query: now who was the representative during the hazing of Cris Mendez? Your guess. . . should be kept to yourself unless you want to be sued for libel. )Q. What are the legal consequences of hazing? Who are liable for hazing?
A. It depends on what happens to the neophyte or applicant.
a) If he/she is physically injured or dies as a result of hazing (whether authorized or otherwise), the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals and shall suffer a range of penalties raning from prision correccional (six months and one day to six years) to reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years), depending on the extent and nature of injuries inflicted (if death results, the penalty is automatically reclusion perpetua). The maximum of the penalty, in each case, will be imposed if: (a) the recruitment is attended by force, intimidation, violence or deceit; (b) the person who decides to quit is prevented from doing so; (c) the person, after being hazed, is prevented from reporting the incident to parents, police or other authorities; (d) the hazing is committed outside the school or institution; (e) the victim is below 12 years old at the time of hazing.
b) The owner of the place where the hazing is done is liable as an accomplice when he actually knew that hazing would be conducted but failed to prevent the same; if the hazing is held in the home of any of the officers or members, the parents are liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing and failed to prevent it.
c) The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to prevent the same are liable as accomplices.
d) The officers, former officers, alumni who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts are committed are liable as principals. Officers or members who knowingly cooperate by inducing the victim to be present are liable as principals. The adviser who is present when the acts are committed and failed to take action is liable as principal.
e) The president, manager, director or other officer of a corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment.
Q. What is the liability of a person who is merely present?
A. The presence of any person during a hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as a principal unless he prevented the hazing.
Q. Can the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong" or praeter intentionem be allowed?
A. No, under sec. 4, this mitigating circumstance is expressly disallowed.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Ang mamatay nang dahil sa 'yo, ang pinatay nang dahil sa wala
Note to the faint of heart: I am angry; no, I am enraged. The words that will follow are angry words. If you are looking for nice, peaceful and sweet-sounding words, skip this one. But if you are as enraged as I am, read on and participate.
Note to those who will take the other side: I welcome constructive debate from people who are willing to put their names where their thoughts are. For masked thugs trolling the blogs of those who oppose you, you have no place in this debate. Go, make yourself scarce; if possible, for all time.
Ang mamatay nang dahil sa 'yo (to die for you) -- the last line from the Lupang Hinirang, our national anthem, speaks of the nobility of a death that is achieved for a purpose bigger than one's self and one's life. It is--or should be--the ultimate goal of any person who loves--be it country, principle, faith, fellowmen or God.
Certainly not for a fraternity. And most certainly, not for a fraternity that holds itself out to be gentlemen warriors but does not have the integrity to own up to killing one of they would claim as their own nor the courage to name the ones responsible.
Ang pinatay nang dahil sa wala (to be killed for nothing) best describes Cris Mendez and other nameless, faceless victims of this system of barbarism that is the hallmark of fraternity initiations. Indeed, it is as if Cris Mendez's death was for nothing as even the very fraternity he aspired to join would not even come forward to offer a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
There is a rule in Evidence that speaks of Character--which is who or what you are, when no one is looking. It is very easy to look noble when you are being watched; it is very easy to look dignified when you are on a stage. But when you can exercise that nobility and possess that dignity even when no one's watching, that is character.
To those who killed Cris Mendez, no one was watching as you beat him to a pulp; no one was watching as you reduced a life to nothing but a carcass; no one was watching when you inflicted blow upon blow in the name of a "brotherhood" that deserves no glory other than that which is associated with that other organization that practices omerta.
There is no nobility in beating up someone who cannot fight back, there is only cowardice. A warrior with honor never raises his fist or his sword against a defenseless foe, only a thug does. Sigma Rhoan Juan Ponce Enrile described you best: not gentlemen warriors but-a bunch of "thugs" with no character, with no honor, and as the Romulans would say, with no name.
Until the day when you surrender those among you who killed Cris Mendez, until the day when your current leaders have the honor, the character, the courage and, if you will pardon the sexist term, the balls to fall on your sword and come forward to be held accountable, you do not exist, in my contemplation.
And for those in law school, you had better pray that you never enroll in any of my classes, ever--and that includes the OLA program, which is mandatory for a UP degree--because I cannot give a grade to someone who does not exist.
And for the alumni of this collection of thugs that killed Cris Mendez, stop basking in romanticized glory and do the right thing--withdraw ALL support from these thugs and let the law take its course.
Note to those who will take the other side: I welcome constructive debate from people who are willing to put their names where their thoughts are. For masked thugs trolling the blogs of those who oppose you, you have no place in this debate. Go, make yourself scarce; if possible, for all time.
Ang mamatay nang dahil sa 'yo (to die for you) -- the last line from the Lupang Hinirang, our national anthem, speaks of the nobility of a death that is achieved for a purpose bigger than one's self and one's life. It is--or should be--the ultimate goal of any person who loves--be it country, principle, faith, fellowmen or God.
Certainly not for a fraternity. And most certainly, not for a fraternity that holds itself out to be gentlemen warriors but does not have the integrity to own up to killing one of they would claim as their own nor the courage to name the ones responsible.
Ang pinatay nang dahil sa wala (to be killed for nothing) best describes Cris Mendez and other nameless, faceless victims of this system of barbarism that is the hallmark of fraternity initiations. Indeed, it is as if Cris Mendez's death was for nothing as even the very fraternity he aspired to join would not even come forward to offer a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
There is a rule in Evidence that speaks of Character--which is who or what you are, when no one is looking. It is very easy to look noble when you are being watched; it is very easy to look dignified when you are on a stage. But when you can exercise that nobility and possess that dignity even when no one's watching, that is character.
To those who killed Cris Mendez, no one was watching as you beat him to a pulp; no one was watching as you reduced a life to nothing but a carcass; no one was watching when you inflicted blow upon blow in the name of a "brotherhood" that deserves no glory other than that which is associated with that other organization that practices omerta.
There is no nobility in beating up someone who cannot fight back, there is only cowardice. A warrior with honor never raises his fist or his sword against a defenseless foe, only a thug does. Sigma Rhoan Juan Ponce Enrile described you best: not gentlemen warriors but-a bunch of "thugs" with no character, with no honor, and as the Romulans would say, with no name.
Until the day when you surrender those among you who killed Cris Mendez, until the day when your current leaders have the honor, the character, the courage and, if you will pardon the sexist term, the balls to fall on your sword and come forward to be held accountable, you do not exist, in my contemplation.
And for those in law school, you had better pray that you never enroll in any of my classes, ever--and that includes the OLA program, which is mandatory for a UP degree--because I cannot give a grade to someone who does not exist.
And for the alumni of this collection of thugs that killed Cris Mendez, stop basking in romanticized glory and do the right thing--withdraw ALL support from these thugs and let the law take its course.
The Blood of Brothers
I have written on this before and it gives no pleasure to write again on this. But another son, brother, person, human being has been killed by a fraternity: Chris Mendez by Sigma Rho. Never mind that there is no official acknowledgement by Sigma Rho; its silence on this matter speaks more eloquently than any official confession.I have been reading many of my students' blogs on this latest episode of fraternity violence, this time inflicted on one it would call their own, and almost all have asked the question, "why?" There is no answer there that can be found other than to say that it is perhaps a mindless adherence to an outdated tradition of compelling loyalty by means of blood-letting and blood sharing. Yet, we live in times that we would consider civilized, how then explain the almost morbid fascination of fraternities (and I generalize here to include ALL Fraternities; it is their burden to prove me wrong) with exacting loyalty and commitment by means of physical violence?I am not a frat man and I am not a barbarian, they are the barbarians, for how else explain the ritualistic blood-letting that must accompany every entry into these greek-lettered societies?I have never considered physical violence to be a measure of anything other than the shallowness of a person's capacity to reason and the absence of a person's capacity to inspire. Commitment and true brotherhood may be exacted by reason and inspiration, blind loyalty by beatings. That is the difference between humans and horses; you can inspire a person to follow you into the gates of hell but you will have to beat that into a horse.Yet, these fraternities pride themselves to be the best that there is to offer; Sigma Rho, in its posters extolling alumni (some of whom have publicly distanced themselves from the violence but without resigning), call themselves "gentlemen warriors." If you truly are the best, gentlemen, you do not need to beat commitment into your neophytes; if the gospel you preach is truly the good news, then the ultimate act of hate has no place in it.I am not a frat man but I am part of a brotherhood--a brotherhood that preaches the good news that, yes, everyone is entitled to respect. My brothers are committed to me and I, to them, not because we were beaten up but because we share the same principles, the same way of living, the same faith and the same experience of love and being loved. So, even if I am not a frat man, I do know of whence I speak when I speak of being a brother to another.In Genesis 4:9, ". . .the Lord said to Cain, 'Where is Abel, your brother?' He said, 'I do not know, am I my brother's keeper?'"Cris Mendez was hazed so that he could be a brother; ultimately, his blood was spilled by those who would call him, yet not keep him, as brother. The greater tragedy is not that he was killed in the name of brotherhood, but that the brotherhood to which he aspired would even wash his blood off their hands by simply asking, "am I (Cris's) keeper?" To those who killed Cris Mendez, let me say this: Yes, you are your brother's keeper and his blood is on your hands--not only by you who lifted your hand against him to beat him, to maul him, to spill his blood, but also by you who would stand mute and lift no voice of condemnation for those among your brothers who killed Cris. Yes, you are your brother's keeper and, if you would cherish his memory, you would not stand mute in the face of the grief and bereavement of his family and his friends but rather break your silence to let the truth out.Yes, you are your brother's keeper for, ultimately, as Donne puts it "any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
Friday, December 08, 2006
Bastusan Na!
The Filipino language has a beautiful and appropriate word for what happened at the House of De Venecia (I refuse to call it the House of Representatives anymore as they no longer represent me in any way) the past two days BASTUSAN.
Resolution No. 1450 passed by De Venecia’s kennel can be best described in that one single word: BASTUSAN.
The nearest approximation that would do justice to the flavor and meaning of this one word is an abject lack of respect.
Turn about is fair play, (none of you are worthy of the appellation “Mr”, which I proudly claim, so henceforth you are simply) De Venecia, Nograles, Defensor, Lagman, Salapudin, Del Mar and everyone else, male or female, in the House of De Venecia who refused to stand on principle and give the sovereign Filipino people the respect they deserve. Bastusan na ba? E di, bastusan na nga!
The latest issuance from the House of De Venecia in full (without annotation, as words fail to capture the venality of this piece of [fill in your own expletive])
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Quezon City, Metro Manila
Thirteenth Congress
Third Regular Session
RESOLUTION NO. 1450
RESOLUTION CALLING ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISION OF, THE CONSTITUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, ARTICLE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, there is a growing clamor from various sectors of oursociety to amend or revise the Constitution;
WHEREAS, it is imperative that any proposal to amend or revise anyprovision of the Constitution shall adhere to the express provision ofthe Constitution as provided by Section 1, Article 17 of the Constitution;
WHEREAS, Section 1, Sub-paragraph 1 of Article 17 of theConstitution provides that: "Any amendment to, or revision of, thisConstitution may be proposed by: the Congress upon a vote ofthree-fourths of all its members.”
WHEREAS, while there are alternate modes of effecting charterchange, adopting the afore-cited Constitutional provision quoted inthe immediately preceding paragraph hereof is the mode recommended byan overwhelming majority of the Members of Congress;
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that proposals to amend or revise theConstitution could be considered by Congress in an orderly andpractical manner, a call for ALL THE MEMBERS of Congress to propose amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution shall be made, as thisresolution proposes.
WHEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED TO CALL ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTiON TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION AT THE PLENARY HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BATASAN COMPLEX, QUEZON CITY BEGINNING AT 10 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 UNTIL THE APPROVAL OF THE PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR SUBMISSION FOR THE PEOPLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATION IN ACCORDANCE OF SECTION IV, ARTICLE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)