IT'S THE CORRUPTION, PEOPLE!

The Aquino administration is fully determined in its efforts to weed out and control the further proliferation of corruption in this country. It's rallying cry of "tuwid na daan" has been proven to be a serious commitment and not a mere lip service. The government has shown that it means business and would not hesitate to run after those who are suspected, reported or would appear to have amassed ill-gotten wealth or may have used government resources for personal gain.

 

There is really no quarrel about this goal. It is fully supported by the Filipino people.

 

But as the saying goes, "it takes two to tango". This means that unless the private sector or the general public will continue to encourage or allow graft and corruption in their day-to-day lives, then the country is trapped in a vicious cycle where solutions to problems are mere icings.

 

If it is expected that there will be some headway or success in these efforts in the pursuance of good governance, and against graft and corruption, then the people must do their part, not as a passive and indifferent observers but as proactive and concerned citizens.

 

While it is true that there will be demands for due process, issues involving human rights and questions on other legal controversies, the fact remains that as long as laws are not violated and the rights of those concerned are respected, then our government is on the right track along the "tuwid na daan".

 

The popularity of President Aquino remains high – so incredibly high in fact for a long period of time already. He has a unique style of leadership and most importantly, he is not corrupt. The military establishment and law enforcement agencies are loyal to him as Commander-in-Chief.

 

He knows his priorities well, which his predecessors failed to do – and that is, the annihilation of graft and corruption in our country. This may be an ambitious goal. Some would say he is dreaming. But look, with all the events unfolding around us, it is not a mere dream, it is not a joke, it is for real.

 

Others may disagree with this position. However, ask yourself this question – is there a better alternative? President Aquino was voted overwhelmingly to serve as such. He is doing his job. If he is not doing well, or he has been remiss in his duties as President, it is too early to judge him.

 

What is being done at this time is to comply with a mandate – CHANGE. This is the most difficult part or component of any program of government. Why? Obviously, people will be investigated, prosecuted and eventually convicted, or acquitted, or pardoned. A rotten system will be replaced by a new one, a system which is clean, pure and in a way – exorcised!

 

As the late Sen. Ninoy Aquino has said in one of his privilege speeches in Congress and even in his speeches while on exile, SO BE IT.

 

- A Concerned Citizen

Day 7 : Analysis

Sa nagaganap na Impeachment Trial, marami ang nagtatanong – ano ba ang magiging katapusan ng lahat ng mga ito?

Iba’t iba ang kasagutan - ayon sa inaasam na katapusan o ayon sa maaaring maging kapasiyahan ng Impeachment Court. May mga iba naman na umaasang mapapatunayan ng tagausig na ang Punong Mahistrado ay nagkasala ayon sa mga nakalahad ng mga paratang sa Articles of Impeachment. Para sa iba, inaasahan na siya ay mapapawalang sala at mananatili sa Kataastaasang Hukuman hanggang sa kaniyang pagreretiro.

Sa itinatakbo ng Impeachment Trial, walang makakapagsabi – at hindi dapat na pangunahan – kung ano ang magiging kapasiyahan ng Impeachment Court. Bagama’t mayroong karapatan na mag-isip patungkol dito o di kaya’y pangpersonal o pribado na pagusapan ang mga nagaganap sa trial, ito ay hindi maaaring ilathala na wari’y pinangungunahan ang Impeachment Court sa magiging kapasiyahan nito.

Pangsamantala, ating tunghayan ang mga nagiging kaganapan at tulas sa araw na ito, ating nasaksihan ang paglalahad ng mga dokumento na nanggaling sa Bureau of Internal Revenue o BIR. Naging mawsalimuot na naman ang mga debate na magkabilang panig hanggang sa muling napagsabihan ni Senator-Judge Santiago na inhinto na ang mga talumpati sa nasabiing hukuman.

Para sa tagausig, ang kinikita ng nasasakdal ay hindi sapat upang makabili ng mga ari-arian na lubhang mamahalin. Ganoon din ang mga miyembro ng kanilang pamilya. Kahit pa nasa pangalan ng iba’t ibang tao, kung hindi naman sapat ang kinikita, paano na nga magkakaroon ng mga ari-arian.. Ayon sa depensa, maghintay na lamang sa kanilang ilalahad na paliwanag at ebidensiya. Ibig sabihin pasisinungalingan ng depensa ang mga inilahad ng tagausig.

Marami ang sumasangayon sa mga puntos ni Senator-Judge Santiago, at ganoon din ni Senator-Presiding Judge Enrile. Saksi ang madla sa mga nangyayari, at kinakailangan na isiguro ng Hukuman na hindi magkaroon ng agam-agam ang mga tao ukol sa mga nagaganap sa Impeachment Trial. Hindi nararapat na kitlin ang paglalahad ng mga inaakalang ebidensiya, ngunit hindi rin dapat ipa-isang tabi ang karapatan ng nasasakdal. Ang mahalaga ay tigilan ang mga teknikalidad sa paglilitis, ilahad ang katotohanan at iwasan ang mga pagkakataon na makakapagpatagal sa proseso o Impeachment Trial.

Ika nga, “at the end of the day” ano ba ang totoo? Ano ba ang mga inaakalang magpapatunay sa mga paratang na nakahanay sa Articles of Impeachment? Ano ba ang makatarungan? Mayroon bang paglabag sa batas ang nasasakdal?

Ang lahat ng ito ay pansariling masasagot lamang sa sandali na nakapaglahad na ang tagausig at ganoon din ang depensa, ng kani-kanilang mga ebidensiya. 

Day 6 : Analysis

Documents from the Bureau of Internal Revenue were presented showing the dealings of the Chief Justice and his wife particularly pertaining to property purchases or disposition. It would be too early to conclude as to its impact. But at the end of the day, these documents will be vital in ascertaining whether the Chief Justice was stating the truth in his SALN in relation with the documents presented by the BIR. Obviously, the prosecution is trying to produce evidence that will show that the income of the Chief Justice is not proportional to the acquisitions and dispositions of the Chief Justice, and that the SALN did not contain the truth.

We really do not know yet whether the defense will still cross-examine the good commissioner considering that it has been admitting the authenticity of the documents presented. The most that the defense can do is, if at all these documents are damaging to the Chief Justice, it must be able to present evidence that will justify any omissions or the transactions represented by the documents thus presented.

Day 5 : Analysis

Two Senator-Judges have taken the center stage today during the impeachment trial. First, was Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago who has, in a way, admonished the prosecution, not to waste the time of the court and that they must come prepared. Second, was Senator-Judge and Presiding Chairman Judge of the court who has signified his willingness to step down if it be the pleasure of the court.

The first was prompted by the fact that when asked, the prosecution was unable to specify the number of witnesses and the number of documents that they intend to present; while the defense were able to readily provide the numbers. The second was a result of a manifestation on the part of the prosecution for the court or at least the presiding judge to be flexible in the proceedings. However, when asked what was meant by being flexible, there were negative answers. Meaning, should the court ask misleading questions? No. Set aside the best evidence rule? No. Ask leading questions? No. So on and so forth.

Consequently, the court adjourned until tomorrow for the continuation of the trial and the prosecution was directed to submit a memorandum on a pending issue particularly in relation with the admissibility of the evidence so far presented.

What was the significance of today’s trial then?

From a positive point of view, it is a healthy exercise or process considering that it will enable the parties including the court to address certain concerns, and which if resolved or attended to would hopefully expedite the proceedings.

From a  negative point of view, it is an ominous sign of things to come. It must be noted that from Day 1, there have been questions and debates on the rules and the proceedings, which one by one the court is able to resolve anyway. However, if that would be the gauging point to determine the rate things or the proceedings would go, then all of us are in for a long haul.

In the United States, the impeachment proceedings or trial of then President Clinton lasted for only about a month and five days, or from January 7, 1999 to February 12, 1999.

On the part of the current trial of the Chief Justice, we are still on Day 5 and thus, it may be too early to state as to the length of time when it will last. We can only hope and pray for the best and the sooner this is over the better for our country and our nation.