THE DAY AFTER EDSA PEOPLE POWER REVOLUTION

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

THE clock struck midnight. The proverbial new day came. But throngs of humanity were still dancing and celebrating on the streets of Metro Manila and other cities. Public euphoria set in. The celebratory mood was spontaneous.

A massive outpouring of joy, relief, and disbelief pervaded the air. Finally, the dictator was ousted and he was ousted in the most embarrassing way. He lost and fled the battle like a defeated dog with his tail at the back of his legs.

If not for the timely intervention of the Americans, Marcos, wife Imelda, his children, and even their close allies could have been dead meat. Multitudes of angry Filipinos stormed Malacanang. They could have killed them if not for Americans, who took them by helicopters to Clark Air Base, one of the two military installations in the country. Clark was not yet closed during those days.

The state owned television station, now the PTV-4, had streams of visitors, who gave testimonials about the evils of the Marcos dictatorship and expressed their sentiments about the departure of the once powerful family, who stood for profligacy and abuse of power.

Opposition leaders, civil society activists, religious workers, public servants who suffered under Marcos, victims of human rights abuses, and closet democrats gave their testimonies as soon as the Marcoses and their ilk left Malacanang.

The trio of Jim Paredes, Danny Javier, and Boboy Garrovillo, who comprise the fabled APO, the Champoy team of Noel Trinidad and the late Subas Herrero, newscaster Bong Lapira and several others suddenly came out of their cocoons to provide the people of how it was to be set free from a dictatorship notorious for its massive human rights violations and world class kleptocracy.

It was about this time when massive looting happened in Malacanang. Local and foreign broadcast journalists captured images of citizens who practically took everything and anything from Malacanang.

It happened with impunity after elements of the Presidential Security Command, which became an army within the army during the dark days of the Marcos dictatorship, discarded their uniforms, changed to civilian clothes, abandoned their posts, and went home in complete anonymity.

It was also about this time when angry citizens kicked the pictures of Marcos and his wife, or his family to show to the world their utter anger for their misdeeds, which brought mass poverty and misery for the people.

It was about this time when people learned of a mini-hospital in Malacanang, confirming that the dictator was indeed sick, It was about this time that people learned that Imelda and Ferdinand had separate rooms; Imelda's room looked something that befitted a queen or princess, while Ferdinand's was austere with those hospital gadgets.

Of course, it was about this time when people learned that Imelda had hundreds of pairs of shoes and that her wardrobe had hundreds of expensive jewelry and ternos. Indeed, the people caught a glimpse of her life of privilege and opulence of scandalous proportions.

It was also about this time when people learned that Marcos had left many incriminating pieces of evidence, which later proved to be the paper trail of intricate webs of world class corruptions that showed Marcos and his cronies receiving payoffs for big ticket state projects.

Moreover, Marcos left adult diapers in his study room with his feces to indicate he lost control of his bowel movement and that he had become incontinent.

Thanks to the ubiquitous presence of opposition leaders, who took efforts to secure them. These papers have become bases for our claims to the loot which the Marcoses stashed here and abroad.

If not for the timely intervention of opposition leaders, those pieces of evidence could have been destroyed or compromised during the attack on Malacanang.

Cory Aquino, for her part, took efforts to assert her presidency. Among the first orders she gave when the Marcoses left Malacanang was to secure the papers, although some state troopers could not contain the anger of the crowd that entered Malacanang soon after the Marcoses left.

The Marcoses stayed overnight at Clark. American personnel were quite upset at the dictator, who appeared grumpy and demanding at every turn. An American soldier was quoted as saying that Ferdinand Marcos behaved as if was still the president.

After sleeping a few hours at Clark, an American aircraft took the Marcoses and their chosen cronies to Hawaii, where they had to spend five years of exile. One of the pictures that showed him arriving in Honolulu had this unpalatable caption: "A stooping has-been."

Cory Aquino, meanwhile, led the country to the tortuous route to democracy punctuated by at least seven military coups, and public bickering of her allies.

FEBRUARY 25, 1986: CORY IS SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT; MARCOS FLEES

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

(N.B. My bragging right as journalist is that I was at the right time and at the right place. I saw the EDSA Revolution in the making and in its conclusion. I was there at that particular juncture of history. I knew it; I saw it; I wrote it. This is for the Filipino youth. Please care to read.)

THE rebel forces were winning when the clock struck 12 midnight of Tuesday, February 25, 1986. An overwhelming majority of the officer corps of the Armed Forces of the Philippines had pledged support to the rebel forces led by Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel V. Ramos. 

The Cory Aquino-led forces had likewise settled the political issues with the JPE-FVR faction in the military. They were committed to Mrs. Aquino, as they expressed belief that she was the legitimate winner in the Feb. 7, 1986 “snap” presidential elections.

Cory took her oath of office as the new president on the fourth day of the EDSA Revolution at Club Filipino. It was originally scheduled at 8 am, but because of organizational snafus, it took place a little later at about 10:30 am. 

JPE and FVR took a time off from Camp Crame and motored to Club Filipino to attend Cory’s oathtaking. Opposition leaders likewise trooped to Club Filipino to witness a historic event that ended the Marcos dictatorship and ushered the restoration of democracy.

The Philippines had its “longest day” on Feb. 25, 1986, as it started the day with virtually no president, had two presidents by noon, and one president before midnight. 

By midnight of Feb. 25, dictator Ferdinand Marcos was rendered inutile, as top officials – military and civilian – deserted him. His orders and Gen. Fabian Ver’s went unheeded too. 

By that time, he was a king without a kingdom. By 11 am, Cory Aquino was installed as president, while Marcos, by noon, took his oath, giving the country with two presidents. 

By 10 pm, Marcos fled, leaving Cory as the only president. The late American journalist Kate Webb, who was then writing for the Agence France Presse, used that imagery in an AFP news dispatch datelined Manila.

(Field Marshall Erwin Rommel was reputedly the first to use the phrase “the longest day.” Inspecting the fortifications, which Nazi Germany on the France’s beaches fronting the English Channel, correctly predicted that they the Axis Powers and the Allied Forces would have their hands full should the Allied forces land in any of those beaches. True enough, the Allied Forces made their first beachhead in Normandy on June 6, 1944, marking “the longest day” in the annals of World War II.)

At around 8 am and shortly before JPE and FVR left for Club Filipino, Enrile received a call from Marcos in Camp Crame asking him on how to settle the issue. 

Taking his last chance, Marcos, who had established notoriety as an astute and cunning politician, was a picture of beggar going for crumbs. He asked Enrile to establish a “provisional government” (or junta), which Marcos would head as honorary president.

Proposing that JPE would run the show in that proposed provisional government, Marcos said he intended to fade away and retire as a statesman in what could be described as a graceful exit. 

JPE did not bite and told him that he and FVR had committed the presidency to Cory Aquino. Begging for crumbs, Marcos asked if he could stay in the country to which JPE replied he could. 

But when Marcos asked if Gen. Ver could stay with him here, JPE said: “That is something that I do not know.” End of conversation.

As a journalist, I covered this event. I had the privilege to witness this game-changer. I took a cab from my residence in Sampaloc and arrived at Club Filipino shortly before 8 am. 

It was a balmy day, but the road was quiet because few people were on the streets. I surmised that the offices in Ortigas did not open because of the ongoing political dynamics at EDSA. 

By that time, Club Filipino was already teeming with people, mostly opposition leaders.

On my way to the hall, where Cory was slated to take her oath, scores of soldiers with their guns festooned with yellow ribbons and countersigns saying they belonged to the rebel forces secured the area. 

I asked a soldier about their presence and he told me that they were under Col. Greg Honasan and that their leader sent them to provide security. 

They were very alert as their eyes kept on moving for any infiltration, danger or sabotage coming from the Marcos loyalist forces.

Cory’s oathtaking did not start as scheduled. Many snafus happened. They did not have a copy of the Bible, a requirement for the oathtaking of a Christian public servant. 

Someone from the opposition volunteered to get a copy from his house in the adjacent posh Greenhills Subdivision. 

Nobody had a text of the Cory oath. Human rights lawyer Rene Saguisag hurriedly composed one. 

Everybody looked anxious as they waited for what they could view as the culmination of the EDSA Revolution.

By that time, very few people called it the “EDSA Revolution.” For the journalists, - local and foreign – who covered the event, it was simply a “revolt,” a “rebellion,” or a “breakaway” of a faction of the military from Marcos. 

Other journalists used the phrase “military revolt,” or “military rebellion,” but it all depended on their judgment. 

Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos used the phrase “people power” to refer to the people’s united action to protect the military rebels, but that is another story.

I asked why it had to be called EDSA Revolution, when it was simply a rebellion. On the side of Club Filipino’s main hall, former senator and vice president Emmanuel Pelaez explained to me that rebellion and revolution are one and the same. 

“When it’s won, it’s revolution, hijo, but when it’s lost, it’s rebellion,” he told me emphatically. Obviously, victors have their way of defining their own victory.

No, he did not give me a lecture on political law, of which Maning Pelaez, a lawyer, was conceded an authority. 

Incidentally, I also covered the exchanges of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Feb. 7, 1986 “snap” presidential elections shortly before it was held. 

Pelaez virtually lectured on the Supreme Court justices led by Chief Justice Ramon Aquino on political law and swayed them to give the green light for its holding. 

On the basis of his mastery of political law, Pelaez almost single-handed convinced the SC that no legal impediment could stop the “snap” presidential elections.

The cramp social hall allowed the use of two long tables. The first table, which was slightly elevated, was reserved for the top guns – Cory Aquino, Doy Laurel, JPE, and FVR. The next table ran parallel to the first table. But it was not elevated. 

It was for the lesser gods, so to say, like opposition members of parliament (we had the unicameral Batasang Pambansa during the Marcos era), a sprinkling of other opposition leaders, human rights lawyers, former senators, and others.

Shortly before the oathtaking, I witnessed then Manila Member of Parliament Lito Puyat berating then Supreme Court Justice Antonio Barredo, a notorious pro-Marcos jurist, who voted to favor Marcos and his martial law regime in a number of test cases. 

Apparently drunk at late morning, Lito Puyat, who had a reputation for being a hard-drinking solon, stood in front of Barredo and said: “Pu...inang iyan. Bakit nandito iyan?” 

Fellow jurist Claudio Teehankee saved the day for Barredo, who immediately whispered something to him. Barredo hurriedly left. He was never seen again during the entire duration of the oathtaking.

Sometime in January, 2006, I saw Puyat in the wake of the mother of a common friend and I asked him about the incident. Puyat readily admitted that his blood pressure rose to a higher level in anger upon seeing Barredo there. 

Puyat, ncknamed "Spar," admitted he threw expletives on him because of the way Barredo propped up Marcos and his martial law regime. 

“Then, when the ship was sinking, he was one of the first rats to jump ship and join the new government,” Puyat said. 

Puyat remained unrepentant until his death, believing that what he did during that day was morally correct and tenable.

By the way, Barredo never joined the Cory government; he was never invited. 

When Cory reorganized the Supreme Court after its justices were required to resign en masse immediately after EDSA Revolution, Barredo was not reappointed. 

Teehankee, whom Marcos disliked for his independence of mind, was named the Chief Justice.

Doy Laurel took his oath as vice president before Justice Vicente Abad Santos. Moments later, Cory Aquino took her oath before Teehankee. Ninoy Aquino’s mother, Dona Aurora, stood beside her during the oathtaking. 

It was a little amusing that lesser mortals like Ernie Maceda stood at Cory’s back during the oathtaking. The iconic picture oathtaking showed Maceda, with his glistening forehead quite visible, near the presidential armpit. 

In a display of irreverence and bravura, I once said in a commentary that Maceda was within "the sniffing distance of the icon of democracy."

Cory Aquino’s message was essentially about national reconciliation, which did not create traction to the group of Enrile, Honasan, and other players. But the post-EDSA revolution story is another story. 

As her first official move as president, Cory Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1, naming Doy Laurel as concurrent prime minister and vice president, JPE as defense minister, and FVR as chief of staff of the renamed New Armed Forces of the Philippines. 

An amusing incident happened, when Cory clumsily returned FVR’s salute. She did not know yet to give a snappy salute. 

Afterwards, Cory told reporters that she named JPE as defense minister because no one among the opposition leaders would earn the acceptance and respect of the military except him.

Meanwhile, Ferdinand Marcos held his oath oathtaking at the Malacanang social hall. A few hundreds of Marcos loyalists, some wearing slippers and rubber shoes, were allowed entry to the social hall to serve as audience to the oathtaking ceremony that started at 11:30 am. 

Since the rebel forces had gained control of the state-owned TV-4, Marcos' oathtaking ceremony was covered live by Channels 2, 9, and 13. 

Marcos was about to take his oath of office when the live coverage went dead. A military sharpshooter shot the transmitter of the three stations at the Broadcast City in Quezon City.

Marcos oathtaking looked like a funeral rite for a deceased person. The Marcoses looked glum and sad. 

There was no upbeat feeling among a handful of Marcos Cabinet members and even Marcos loyalists, who kept on shouting “Marcos pa rin.” 

Arturo Tolentino, Marcos running mate in the snap elections, did not attend. He later lamely said he was caught in a traffic jam. Prime Minister Cesar Virata was nowhere to be seen.

(Later, Tolentino made a claim to the presidency since Marcos was out. He took his “oath of office” as “acting president” in the comical July 6, 1986 “occupation” of Manila Hotel. When Cory gave the order to flush out the military rebels in the first ever putsch against the fledgling Cory government, Turing Tolentino, a veteran lawmaker, who had topped the senatorial elections twice, an expert of international law who authored several books on that subject, a reputed parliamentarian, who excelled in debates, and a son of Manila who rose to national prominence because of his reputed brilliance, was among the first to flee. From the upper floors, which the Marcos loyalists controlled, Tolentino held on to the staircase of the Manila Hotel’s fire exit to go down and rode in a waiting car with tinted glasses. He only stopped claiming the presidency after the Filipino people approved the 1987 Constitution in the February 7, 1987 national plebiscite.)

More than half of his Cabinet members were absent. Information Minister Greg Cendana, who was lavish in his treatment of the members of the crony press that covered Marcos, disappeared too after the oathtaking ceremony and left the reporters without food to eat. 

The Malacanang reporters, hungry and angry, never forgave Gregorio Cendana for that incident. Even after the EDSA Revolution, they kept on making fun of him. Gorio became the virtual pulutan in their drinking sprees.

Chief Justice Ramon Aquino administered Marcos oathtaking. But this was not without snippets of humor. 

Fearful that he would take his oath without any administering authority (it was customary for the SC chief justice to administer the oath of office of every president), Marcos ordered his security men to fetch CJ Aquino and wife Carolina Grino-Aquino from their Manila residence in the afternoon of Feb. 24, 1986. 

Upon Marcos’s prodding, Ramon and Carolina stayed overnight and slept at the Palace to assure his availability. 

Sensing that the oathtaking was a big fiasco, that hordes of angry people would storm Malacanang as Marcos held on to power, CJ Aquino and wife disappeared too by lunchtime. 

They did not take their lunch, but instead went as far as the Singian Clinic and detoured to Arlegui to hail a taxi cab. Yes, folks, they went home riding on a taxi cab.

The succeeding events were anticlimatic. Knowing that he did not have the control of the presidency, Marcos got busy preparing to flee. 

He contacted the US Embassy and then US Ambassador to the Philippines, Stephen Bosworth, who a helicopter which took the Marcoses to Clark Air Base. From Clark, they took a US plane to go to Hawaii where he spent the last days of his life as a sick man and a political has-been.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer headline the following day: MARCOS FLEES, in bold capital letters.

THE NEW NORMAL: COUNTERREVOLUTION, TREASON

THE NEW NORMAL: COUNTERREVOLUTION, TREASON

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

Paper before a group of seminarians

February 23, 2018, Quezon City

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the nagging issues of the day.

I will go straight to the point.

Two major issues confront us: first, the ongoing counterrevolution that could give rise to authoritarianism; and second, the continuous flirtation with China, which could be viewed as treason by our leaders.

Incidentally, two conflicting themes dominate our postwar experience: democracy and authoritarianism. This dichotomy of political themes is evident over the past seven decades.

Pro-democracy forces want the democratic institutions and structures to thrive and the democratic processes to flourish. They believe in pluralism, where various belief systems, world views, and advocacy have spaces for coexistence and growth.

This is not something that could be said of the authoritarian forces. They are the complete opposite of the democratic forces.

Counterrevolution to EDSA

Thirty two years ago, the Filipino people demonstrated to the entire world their finest quality as a people. Rising like the proverbial phoenix from the morass of mass poverty and misery in the 1986 EDSA People Power, the Filipino people, in the exercise of their sovereign right, toppled the Marcos dictatorship and sent the dictator, his family and ilk scampering for safety to become exiles in Hawaii.

The 1986 EDSA Revolution has become a global template, when deposing a despot and ushering a peaceful transition. It was a defining moment for the Filipino people, who hold the collective bragging rights that even the most powerful and entrenched dictator could be toppled if only the people would unite.      

What is currently taking place is the deplorable and condemnable counterrevolution to the EDSA Revolution. This counterrevolution seeks to destroy and dismantle our restored democracy and supplant it with an authoritarian regime to entrench a cabal of gangsters and political dynasties in the many years to come.

This counterrevolution is characterized by the audacity and indecent haste to work for the political redemption of the Marcos family and their return to Malacanang. Rodrigo Duterte, the populist sick old man of the South, leads the counterrevolution. The uncouth leader is being aided by two moneyed families – those of Ferdinand Marcos and ex-president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Initially launched as an anti-drug campaign in the 2016 presidential elections, of which 16 million of naïve, hapless, and clueless voters were hoodwinked, the counterrevolution has expanded to include assaults on our democratic institutions, including the Supreme Court, Commission on Elections, Commission on Human Rights, and Office of the Ombudsman.

This counterrevolution seeks to weaken democratic traditions, including the adherence to human rights, and twin principles of rule of law, and due process. It seeks to bastardize the 1987 Constitution by adopting a federal form of government. The recipe for national suicide is indeed being prepared by men and women – mostly political dynasties – leading the counterrevolution.

Their intentions are obvious. They want to do away the 1986 EDSA Revolution, or EDSA Uno, and its 2001 sequel, or EDSA Dos, where the military withdrew support from the corrupt Joseph Estrada, leading him to resign the presidency. They want to present EDSA Uno and EDSA Dos as historical flukes.

They want to prove the two revolutions did not improve Philippine society and only the reinstitution of a populist, albeit authoritarian, regime could save the country. The goal is to reinstall a new dictatorship, enabling the sick old man, or his designated successor, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, to rule beyond his term in 2022. They want to revise history to favor the Marcoses.

RevGov as route

The coalition of authoritarian forces composed of the sick old man, the Marcoses, the Arroyos, the Estradas, and a number of fat political dynasties are pursuing their counterrevolution through two political routes: declaring a revolutionary government, or RevGov; or amending the Charter to replace the unitary form of government by a federal system.

The sick old man intends to establish a RevGov because it is the way to discard the 1987 Constitution, which serves as the anchor of the 32 years of restored democracy. The democratic ideals and traditions embodied in the 1987 Constitution have tied his hands, frustrating attempts to cut corners.

But the sick old and his minions are not gaining ground. Major sectors, including the Majority Church, or the dominant Roman Catholic Church, and the Minority Church composed of various Christian denominations and evangelical groups (with the glaring exception of the opportunistic Iglesia Ni Cristo), the defense and military establishment, and the business sector have been sending cold signals, virtually rejecting his overtures to assault the democratic institutions.

For instance, the Nov. 30, 2017 nationwide show of force by the authoritarian groups for RevGov was a dismal failure. Despite the state resources in their hands, they could not sustain the counterrevolution. The rallies supporting RevGov in major cities attracted mere handfuls of participants. They hardly created any dent or impression on the national consciousness.

This only goes to show that ours is no Weimar Republic, the weak German republic that replaced the monarchy shortly after the end of the First World War. It did not take two decades of existence for the Weimar Republic to collapse when Adolf Hitler took over Germany and instituted a dictatorship to ignite the Second World War.

The post-Marcos democratic government still holds. Those mentally crude gangsters in government seem lost and, ergo, could not sustain the counterrevolution. But this does not mean the democratic forces should rest on its laurels.

Quisling in Malacanang

There is no way to describe the subservient attitude of the sick old man and his minions to China. It is plain and simple treason. They love China more than the Philippines. They will give everything to their master before their country of origin.

Our country has gained the momentum and advantage in our quest to protect our territorial integrity. In July 2016, the arbitration tribunal of the United Nations Convention on Laws of the Sea has decided in our favor concerning our maritime struggle on the West Philippine Sea.

But the sick old man and his government have squandered our gains. They have surrendered almost everything, enabling China to build bases on that particular part of the world. It is essentially a no-contest on our part.

When it comes to China, it would appear that our leaders particularly the sick old man of the South is sick. He never raises a whimper. He has become as soft as marshmallow despite the touch image he wants to cultivate before our people.

The sick old man personifies weakness, subservience, powerlessness, and helplessness when dealing with China. He is far worse than a henpecked, cuckolded husband.

There is no way to describe him but a modern-day Vidkun Quisling, who sold his Norway to Nazi Germany. His day of comeuppance will come.

Imperatives for democratic forces

On the contrary, the democratic forces must defend the democratic institutions and the people who represent them, fight for the democratic traditions, particularly adherence to human rights and rule of law, and demonstrate the political will to keep the restored democracy.

The country’s democratic forces must unite under a single flag and a single set of principles specified by the 1987 Constitution. Nothing beats the flag and 1987 Constitution as symbols of our nationhood.

The Constitution confirmed and ratified by the Filipino people in the 1987 referendum reflects our commitment as a nation and people to the ideals of democracy to which every Filipino stands for.

Today, we are witnesses the forces of darkness assaulting our democratic institutions and system of government. We see a cabal of mobsters attacking our democratic way of life, traditions, and culture. They are not resting.

Hence, it is important for all democratic forces to unite. If EDSA Tres has to happen, so be it. Incidentally, there was no EDSA Tres. The mass action that happened in front of Malacanang on May 1, 2001 was not EDSA Tres. It was more of a riot.

Allow me to end this brief paper by quoting Jose Rizal in his novel “Noli Me Tangere”: “Not all are asleep in these dark days of our country.”

Good day to all of you.

UMALI ET AL CAN’T CONTROL SENATE

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

IT will be a different when the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno reaches the Senate.

The cabal of lawmakers led by Rep. Reynaldo Umali, chair of the House committee on justice, also known as the Umali impeachment committee, would lose control of the proceedings the moment the House of Representatives, as a plenary body, endorses the impeachment complaint to the Senate, which, in turn, would convene as a court to try Sereno.

The one-sided public hearings the Umali impeachment committee has been conducting over the last three months would be a thing of the past in the Senate. In consonance with the basic precept of due process of law, Sereno, with the help of a battery of young but aggressive lawyers, would be given her day in court by the Senate.

She would have her chance to explain directly to the Filipino people her side of the story. A number of witnesses, including her fellow magistrates, have appeared before the Umali impeachment committee over the last three months, but they could hardly say categorically the impeachable offense allegedly committed by the Chief Justice.

They have aired what they considered managerial and administrative lapses by the Chief Justice, but none of them could be regarded as a ground for her impeachment and removal from office.

Because of the volatile nature of the public trial at the Senate, where its own flux and flow and dynamics could spell doom for the impeachment complaint, lawmakers have been hesitant to appear as prosecutors in the Senate trial.

They have been at odds and at a loss too on how the articles of impeachment would be prepared. The Umali impeachment committee has conducted at least 16 public hearings, but it has yet to establish the probable cause of the impeachment, which an obscure lawyer identified with the camp of former senator Bongbong Marcos has filed before the House of Representatives.

It was said that the Umali impeachment committee was finding ways to involve outside parties for the impeachment trial. Certain people identified with Umali and Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez have been reported to have tapped the services of the 94-year old Juan Ponce Enrile, a former senator, to lead the state prosecutors.

But Enrile was said to have to lay down certain condition for his involvement in the Sereno impeachment. It involves the release on bail of Jessica “Gigi” Reyes, his former chief of staff.

There were no immediate words on how Alvarez and Umali would take Enrile’s condition, although Enrile’s family were said to have been opposed to his public engagement in the Sereno impeachment trial.

Meanwhile, Senate sources said the Senate would likely give as much leeway as possible for the chief magistrate to give her side of the story. Since the Umali impeachment committee has functioned more of a kangaroo court, Senate sources said it would most important to provide the Chief Justice the venue to air her side.

In brief, the Senate is inclined to accommodate the Chief Justice’s desire and initiatives to air her side on the many issues her detractors have raised in the Umali impeachment committee.

The Umali impeachment committee gained notoriety when it changed its own rules by depriving the Chief Justice’s legal counsel to cross examine the witnesses, who have testified.

It is also possible for the Senate to remand the impeachment complaint back to the Umali impeachment committee because of its essentially procedural defects, which include the complete lack of fair play in its proceedings.

Unless the Umali impeachment committee corrects its defective public hearings, the Senate would not convene as an impeachment court.

The Senate’s failure to act on the impeachment complaint would make it moot and academic. At a certain time, it could be dismissed.

WHY NOT INVENT NEW GROUND TO IMPEACH SERENO?

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

AFTER three months of exhausting public hearings, the witnesses who testified at the House of Representatives’ committee on justice chaired by Rep. Reynaldo Umali, could hardly point with certainty any impeachable offense allegedly committed by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno. But it does not mean the Chief Justice is off the hook.

On the contrary, the committee, which is derisively called the Umali impeachment committee, is brandishing what it could regard an ace in its sleeve, or its trump card. If the committee could not pinpoint a specific impeachable offense under the 1987 Constitution, why not invent it for all intents and purposes?

At the moment, the Umali impeachment committee, according to its chair, Reynaldo Umali, plans to hold three or more public hearings to establish probable cause on the impeachment complaint, which an obscure lawyer has filed against her. His committee would likely vote on it before the end of the month.

If it musters a majority, the committee will bring it on or before March 7 to the House as a plenary body. It needs a vote of at least a third of its members before its goes to the Senate, which will convene as an impeachment court to hold a public trial and decide to remove or not the Chief Justice.

It takes two-thirds vote of the members of the Senate to remove her. A negative vote of at least seven senators would mean dismissal of the impeachment complaint and the Chief Justice. The public trial could last for several weeks or several months depending on the nature of the articles of impeachment the House would bring to the Senate.

The 1987 Constitution says impeachable officials could be removed from office on six major grounds: treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. Of the six grounds, betrayal of public trust is the broadest. This means it could be used, altered, or twisted specifically to seek Sereno’s removal from office.

The witnesses, who appeared at the Umali impeachment committee, articulated their personal gripes, and claimed managerial and administrative lapses and issues, but declined to state or say categorical impeachable offense by the Chief Justice. The witnesses were asked several times about the impeachable offense, but they gave hazy answers.

At the moment, certain members of the Umali impeachment committee are tinkering with the legal theory that the alleged managerial and administrative lapses on the Chief Justice’s part could constitute negligence. In their twisted - or malevolent - view, negligence could be interpreted as betrayal of public trust.

They take the limited view that betrayal of trust is an open ended ground to include other offenses. Since it is open ended, it follows that anything, including negligence, is a ground for impeachment. The expanded phrase is becoming to be the main tool of oppression in her impeachment case.

Legal observers have a different interpretation. Although betrayal of public trust encompasses many areas that have not been fully explored by framers of the 1987 Constitution, it logically follows that it is equally as potent, destructive, and odious as any of the five other grounds of impeachment.

The criminal intent or even malice of betrayal of public trust should be as grave as any of the five other grounds. If ever negligence is viewed as part of betrayal of public trust, it boggles the mind when it is compared with treason or plunder.

Can negligence be regarded as equivalent to treason, plunder, or any high crime like genocide, or mass killings? Can the level of culpability in negligent acts be equal to the five other grounds of impeachment?

These are interesting questions which Umali, as chair of the impeachment committee, and his cohorts would have to answer.

Incidentally, lawmakers involved in the Sereno impeachment suit could hardly indicate their willingness to appear as prosecutors if ever it goes to the Senate for a public trial. They could not even commit to participate in the drafting of the articles of impeachment.

How the Umali impeachment committee, in particular, and the House plenary body, in general, would work on this legal theory, which to some lawyers is tantamount to a legal fiction, remains to be been. But in these days of fake news and alternative facts, anything under the sun could be possible.

How the Senate as an impeachment court would take this issue remains to be seen. But legal luminaries, particularly experts on constitutional law, find it revolting – or downright ridiculous - to view negligence as betrayal of public trust. 

Meanwhile, Sereno prefers to slug it out in the Senate, where she believes she has better chances of explaining her side. The Umali impeachment committee has become a kangaroo court where the rules are stacked against her. 

Sereno knows she stands not even a ghost of a chance in the Umali impeachment committee. It exists to hound and oppress her. 

THE SERENO IMPEACHMENT IN PERSPECTIVE

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

SUPREME Court Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno won’t bow down to pressures to resign her post. She has made it clear. In fact, she has vowed to fight the impeachment complaint to its rightful conclusion. She feels it would run counter to her ideals and conviction, if she would just resign her post

The Chief Justice believes she has not committed any impeachable offense. That is why her battery of mostly young lawyers working pro bono is in the thick of preparations on what they have envisioned to be long drawn processes to slug it out in the Senate, the final destination of the impeachment complaint.

She has no illusions about the outcome of the impeachment complaint at the House of Representatives. The House justice committee chaired by Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali functions more like an impeachment committee. It is a virtual kangaroo court, where rules are changed to railroad the process of establishing probable cause of the impeachment complaint filed by an obscure lawyer.

For her, the Umali impeachment committee would not exculpate her from the charges, no matter how flimsy. For her, she has crossed the Rubicon, or the point of no return. She would take her chances at the Senate, which would convene as an impeachment court if ever the Umali impeachment committee passes the impeachment complaint to the House as a plenary body and the House approves its elevation to the Senate in a plenary session.

Dilemma

Actually, the House leadership is caught between the dog and the fire hydrant. If it works fast to the point of railroading the entire impeachment processes, the proposed constitutional amendments the House has been in the painful process of completing would suffer an unmitigated delay.

Given its fierce independence and the senators’ dislike of the thuggish leadership of Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, the Senate, as an impeachment court, is likely to take its own sweet time when it comes to the deliberations of the impeachment complaint.

The entire process may take three months, or six months just like what happened to Renato Corona, who was removed after five months of daily public hearings. Or it could last longer.

Besides, even the Umali impeachment committee could not determine exactly the impeachable offense of the Chief Justice. It did not have any exact idea of the articles of impeachment, which it would bring to the House as a plenary body and ultimately to the Senate as an impeachment court.

Despite the prolonged public hearings of the Umali impeachment committee to establish the probable cause, it is still at a loss on how it would compose the articles of impeachment. There are views that the articles of impeachment would be largely on a legal fiction, which could be a ground for immediate dismissal by the Senate as an impeachment court.

The biggest issue is what appears to be the unwillingness of the House members, who are lawyers, to stand as prosecutors in the Senate impeachment. Although they have been quick to pillory the Chief Justice in the Umali impeachment committee, they are not quick to go to the Senate as an impeachment court. 

Legal theory

Section 2 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution says: “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.”

The witnesses, who appeared at the Umali impeachment committee, merely articulated their personal gripes, and claimed managerial and administrative lapses and issues, but declined to state or alleged categorically any impeachable offense by the Chief Justice. The witnesses were asked several times about the impeachable offense, but they gave hazy answers.

Although Umali said the committee would still conduct three or four more public hearings before the House as a plenary body decides on the impeachment complaint on March 7, the perception is that the committee has not accomplished much to establish the probable cause.

At the moment, certain members of the Umali impeachment committee are tinkering with the legal theory that those alleged managerial and administrative lapses on the Chief Justice’s part constitute negligence. Ergo, they could be interpreted as betrayal of public trust, one of the six grounds for impeachment under the Constitution.

Whether it could stand before the Senate as an impeachment court remains to be seen. But legal luminaries, particularly experts on constitutional law, find it revolting – or downright ridiculous - to view negligence as betrayal of public trust.

Legal luminaries have expressed the view that while the 1987 Constitution has made it extremely difficult for the powers-that-be to declare martial law and use it to perpetuate themselves in power, it is quite relatively easy to engage in the impeachment of impeachable public officials.

It only takes the endorsement of a single lawmaker to bring out the impeachment complaint on the table. Moreover, it takes only the vote of 100 lawmakers to bring the impeachment complaint to the Senate for trial.

Procedural issues

Just in case the impeachment complaint reaches the Senate, the Chief Justice’s camp is likely to raise questions against the inherently flawed public hearings of the Umali impeachment committee.

The public hearings have been defective from a procedural standpoint, as the Umali impeachment committee has yet to give a chance for the Chief Justice’s lawyers to cross examine the witnesses, who appeared in the public hearings.

Although the committee rules initially allowed lawyers of officials facing impeachment complaints to cross examine witnesses who appear during public hearings to establish probable cause, Umali and his ilk have changed it overnight by citing that only the Chief Justice could cross examine, but not her lawyers.

The Senate has two choices to make on this overnight change of rules. Either it sends back the impeachment complaint to the House so that the Umali impeachment committee could rectify its procedural errors or it just dismisses it outright. Either way, it would put the House Of Representatives in the bad light.

Chief Justice’s response

For sure, the Chief Justice would have her day in court. But it is safe to assume that she would not give her left cheek, when those lawmakers have been slapping her on the right cheek. She would say her piece even to the extent of exposing how these lawmakers have been pressuring her to accede to their demands.

She holds plenty of cards against them, particularly those pressures for her to appoint their proteges to key positions in the judiciary, or transfer them to lucrative posts. She intends to expose their machinations so that the whole world would know the reasons behind their obsession to remove her from office.

Moreover, she would answer those critics and enemies, who chose to go to the Umali impeachment committee to wash their dirty linen. For her, the Senate would be the right forum to speak her mind and voice her judgment on the many things that have been brought against her in the open.

The Chief Justice has other weapons. But she would unleash at the right forum, which is the Senate as an impeachment court.

Fight it alone

The Chief Justice intends to bring the fight to the Senate alone. She does not intend to muster support from the judiciary, which she heads. Unlike Renato Corona, who used the judiciary to counter the impeachment suit against him, the Chief Justice wants the entire judiciary and its personnel to concentrate on its job and focus on the judicial reforms her team has initiated and launched.

She wants nothing of those protest mass actions, or walkouts by court personnel, including judges of the lower courts. Or protest rallies, where court people wore black shirts emblazoned with slogans and black armbands. Or those daily protest Masses in the vicinity of the Supreme Court in Padre Faura. Nothing of the sort of what Midas Marquez, a loyal acolyte of Corona, did six years ago.

Incidentally, Marquez is now one of the Court officials, along with Associate Justice Teresita de Castro, who has been appearing in the Umali impeachment committee ostensibly to spill beans against the Chief Justice. Yet, Marquez, in his somnambulating testimonies, could not say with certainty the impeachable offense the Chief Justice has allegedly committed. He is the proverbial trouble maker in the High Court.

The Chief Justice prefers the Court people to stay away from the controversy because a mere expression of support for her could be fatal for their careers. The appointing power is essentially mad with the power in its hand. The people wielding that power would not hesitate to punish the people, who would support her.

They face career dislocations or deadend if ever they come out in the open and support her. They face suspension, banishment, or demotion through various means including their transfer to parts unknown. She does not want them to face the burden. 

She believes that they could best help her by not involving themselves in the impeachment issue. Moreover, the Chief Justice Sereno believes she has the nobility of purpose and cause.

A RIDICULOUS TEN-YEAR TRANSITION TO FEDERAL STATE

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

NOTWITHSTANDING the ongoing debates on the pros and cons of a presidential or parliamentary government, and unitary or federal states, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez has unwittingly provided a ridiculous sideshow by proposing a ten-year transition to a federal state. His proposal belongs to the realm of the bizarre.

If he were not the House top honcho and the country’s fourth highest political leader, it would be tempting to believe that he is a mere comedian to whom we would laugh upon hearing his latest comic spiel. Or he could be one of the guys turned nuts.

But he is serious. He wants a ten-year transition, which means the members of current Congress and local officials would stay on their respective political offices for the next ten years without direct mandate from the Filipino people.

It is definitely too tiresome and troublesome to see the same faces for more than a decade. We could not help but ask what crime did the Filipino people commit to deserve this political punishment.

Let’s go to the main beef.

A ten year transition period is not justified. It would never be justified. It is too long. Our own political history hardly supports this proposal.

The late president Cory Aquino, during her incumbency, did the tumultuous transition from the detested Marcos dictatorship to a restored democracy in a single year. She did the transition amid a failing economy that had the worst postwar recession and a series of destructive and debilitating military coups by rebel soldiers, who could not accept they would be under civilian leadership in a restored democracy.

Installed by the near bloodless 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, Mrs. Aquino did not enjoy any smooth transition. But she knew her social contract with the Filipino people. She threw away the 1973 Constitution, the blueprint of the Marcos dictatorship, adopted a revolutionary government and followed a temporary constitution, replaced all local government officials with officers-in-charge (OICs) and created a commission to run after the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their ilk.

Knowing the imperative was to dismantle the Marcos dictatorship and the institutions and processes they represented, Mrs. Aquino formed a 50-man commission that drated a new constitution. On February 7, 1987, or nearly a year after the EDSA Revolution, the Filipino people ratified the 1987 Constitution as the incontrovertible blueprint of the restored democracy.

Mrs. Aquino did the transition with profound political will. She did not enjoy the convenience of modern technology like wireless telephony and digital technology. But she had the heart and willingness to bring back democracy to the country. 

 Mrs. Aquino knew by heart that the restoration of democracy fell on her lap. She had no choice but traverse the tortuous road to a restored democracy with nary a whimper. She did it in full throttle notwithstanding the political obstacles, which her enemies and other reactionary forces had laid down along the road.

Three months after its ratification, the first elections under the 1987 Constitution were held for members of the new Congress.  A year later, the elections of local officials were held to replace those OICs. The rest is history.

It is not exactly clear why the transition to the envisioned federal state would take ten years. Alvarez would not – and could not - say in concrete and exact, or even in broad - terms details of the proposed transition. He neither discusses what could be expected to achieve during the transition period.

Likewise, he could not discuss any political alternatives just in case the transition has become rocky or chaotic. Alvarez could hardly justify either why the current officials would remain in their posts for the next ten years.

At this point, it is widely feared that the transition would lead not to a federal state, but to a dictatorship that could only lead the country to chaos and disaster.

Given our experience with the Marcos dictatorship, Alvarez’s proposal for a ten year transition would only give flesh to what British parliamentarian Lord Action has said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It is even feared that about 200 political families would get more entrenched in power defeating the purpose of democratizing political power in the country. Definitely, what Alvarez has provided is a recipe for national suicide.