angelic moo

There is something missing in the Supreme Court’s history: it does not mention anything about its role in the establishment of the Marcos dictatorship. This history is summarized in a brochure that can be downloaded from the Court’s website . It begins with a blurb on pre-colonial judicial systems but ends abruptly with the “Filipinization of Supreme Court” from 1916 to 1935. It says nothing about Javellana v. Executive Secretary [1] and Ferdinand Marcos’ successful attempt to adopt a parliamentary form of government. In Javellana , a majority of the members of the Supreme Court declared that the 1973 Constitution was not properly ratified. However, because there were not enough votes to say otherwise, the Court also concluded that the new charter was already in effect—that it had come into effect through popular acquiescence. Marcos dodged term limits by staying on as Prime Minister for another 13 years. The Supreme Court has had to live with the realization that it b

I am a little puzzled over the concern over the coming vacancies in the Supreme Court. In 2009, the Supreme Court will have seven vacancies and constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas and civil society groups are calling for increased citizens’ participation in and closer scrutiny of the choice of nominees to the Court. I have reservations about these efforts and what they seek to achieve. President Macapagal-Arroyo has already appointed 14 different Justices after she became President in 2001, 12 of whom are still sitting on the Court (two have already retired). Of those who are retiring next year, two of them—Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Leonardo Quisumbing—were appointed by other Presidents. This means that in 2009, Arroyo would have increased the number of her appointees from 12 to 14. Chief Justice Renyato Puno, who was appointed by President Ramos will be the only one Justice not appointed by President Arroyo. President Arroyo already appointed 80% of the membership of the Court. After

The US elections have sunk to an all-time low as Republican rallies turn into lynch mobs calling for the death of Senator Barrack Obama. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin should take credit for inciting the crowds as they continue to ignore the issues and launch personal attacks on Senator Obama. Khaled Hosseini, author of "The Kite Runner" reacts to this phenomenon in the Washington Post . Frank Rich also has a take on the topic in The New York Times .

Joe Biden so elegantly wiped the floor with Sarah Palin during the vice presidential debate that only rapid Republicans could not have seen or would not admit it. That there is even some discussion that the debate was a tie can be explained because the audience did not expect a lot from Governor Palin. Queen Latifa got it on the nose during SNL's satirical take on the debate: "Due to the historically low expectations for Gov. Palin, were she simply to do an adequate job tonight, at no point cry, faint, run out of the building or vomit, you should consider the debate a tie." The reality was, as News 7's political editor pointed out: "But this wasn't a tie. Sarah Palin was cheerful and friendly...folksy and puckish...but she did not speak with authority or confidence. In contrast, Joe Biden was all business. His experience--in Washington and in debates--was obvious. At times, this debate sounded as if it were between a seasoned professional and an earnest amate

More on John McCain's campaign: Truthiness Stages a Comeback By FRANK RICH Published: September 20, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21rich.html?ref=opinion The Push to ‘Otherize’ Obama By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: September 20, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21kristof.html?ref=opinion

I saw one of the ugliest moments of the US elections last Sunday when Rudolph Giuliani recited one lie after another with a straight face when he appeared on Meet the Press. It appears that lying to win public office permeates the entire Republican campaign. John McCain is the biggest disappointment of all. Liberal friends who wonder who they would vote for if they were Republican always conclude they would end up voting for McCain because he had one thing most Republicans do not seem to have: integrity. It appears McCain has also discard that feature. Richard Cohen's column in the Washington Post today captured my views on this matter: The Ugly New McCain By Richard Cohen Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Following his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain did something extraordinary: He confessed to lying about how he felt about the Confederate battle flag, which he actually abhorred. "I broke my promise to always tell the truth," McCain sai

There is one other component to the Republican campaign for the presidency that I left out in the last blog: Lies. The New York Times summarized the criticisms well and Paul Krugman's latest piece is also enlightening. FactCheck . org had a specific analysis of McCain's claims about Obama's tax policy proposals and found that "McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again." The list is already endless and the campaign has just begun.

The Republican Party had a stroke of genius during their National Convention (RNC). Before they presented Sarah Palin to the public, the Party's stalwarts took aim at the media—calling them left-leaning and blaming them for the Republican’s tarnished image. The trick worked so well that even after Governor Palin spoke, the media was uncharacteristically quiet. Instead of criticizing her speech, record, or experience, the media painted Palin as the darling of the convention who electrified the crowds. Somehow, the media glossed over the fact that Sarah Palin said nothing—like the rest of the speakers at the Convention—about the Party's policies, programs or plans for the future. These were not on the Republican menu because the RNC had two well-defined goals that week: attack the media and glorify John MaCain. Unlike the other speakers, however, Palin attacked Barack Obama. Her first major speech reeked of bile. She was mean, vicious, and inaccurate with her allegations. Her spe

There was speculation that Hillary Clinton’s combative speech last night was intended to secure a place for her either on the presidential ticket in November or in Obama's cabinet. On the other hand, others opined that Clinton simply needed time to end things at her own pace and that in a couple of days she will do right thing and concede the nomination to Senator Obama. Hillary Clinton supporters proffered a third explanation for her refusal to concede to Barack Obama last night: last night had to be Clinton’s night. I thought that was incredible and Jeffrey Toobin’s reaction as a panelist on CNN was priceless : CNN’s pundits, on the other hand, were pretty much agog. Gloria Borger related an email from a Hillary supporter explaining why she had not conceded her loss or endorsed Obama: “This needed to be her night,” she quoted. To her left, Jeffrey Toobin’s jaw pretty much hit the desk—”What?!” he interjected, suggesting that the night arguably belonged to the candidate who, you k

Nobody expected Hillary Clinton to concede tonight (the end of the primary season) even as Barack Obama earned more than enough delegates to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for the 2008 Presidential election. Still, her speech after winning the South Dakota primary was startling and even unnerving. Hillary Clinton opted not to do the honorable thing: to concede and to move on to help prepare the Democratic Party for the general elections in November. What Clinton did tonight was answer the question which has been lingering since her odds of winning her Party’s nomination virtually disappeared many weeks ago: What does Hillary Clinton want? What she wants, evidently, is to remain relevant to the party. She stayed in the race not to win the nomination—but to broaden her base—to have a large enough number of voters to wield as a weapon. She has crafted a weapon from the votes of 18 million Americans and is using it to threaten her party. Hillary Clinton reminded her party that she c

Senator Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House has ended and even she knows it. The math has not been in her favor for some time now. She tried to run on her strengths as a US Senator and her "34 years of experience" in government service to no avail. Her record could not stand up to Senator Obama's charm. She was unlikable; he was eloquent, even enchanting. His record is not so bad either. She was part of the old Washington crowd that was part of the problem. Obama was a fresh face who promised change "we can believe in." So Clinton tried different angles. She tried drama by shedding tears and launching sharp angry attacks against Obama. She tried comedy--by doing the comedy circuit on television. She tried adventure by claiming to have survived sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia. All these tricks worked a little; it kept the campaign alive, if barely. They tried to change the rules--bring in Florida and Michigan despite the fact that they were penaliz

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s victory in the New Hampshire primary was a costly one. Not for her campaign—it was reinvigorated—but to the cause she had always been associated with: feminism. Since then, Clinton ’s campaign for the White House has used the same formula: make Hillary feminine. Reeling from her loss to Senator Barack Obama in the Iowa caucuses and behind on every poll, Hillary Clinton came into New Hampshire knowing she needed to turn the tide in her favor. She was unlikable, said many, so her campaign machinery turned from an icon of the feminist movement into a blubbering contestant. It worked, sadly, suggesting that Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of a strong woman. She was not any more aggressive than any of the candidates, but she was a woman usurping a role reserved for men and that did not sit well with voters. She has to assume the role we reserved for her. She had to become “the weaker sex”. Still uncomfortable with Obama’s popularity, the Clinton

Chief Justice Reynato Puno ’s lukewarm response to pressure to make the Judicial and Bar Council ’s records open to the public is even more disappointing in light of the fact that the Chief Justice has made significant steps to address other issues gripping the country. For his work, and there is a lot of it since he became Chief Justice at the end of 2006, was recognized by the Manila Times when the broadsheet chose him to be “Times Person of the year.” (Rene Q. Bas, Chief Justice Puno: Times Person of the Year , Manila Times, December 30, 2007.”) The Times recognized the Chief Justice’ accomplishments which include the introduction of the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data to stop the spate of extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the country. They are intended to address the weakness of the petition for habeas corpus. The Chief Justice noted that petitions for habeas corpus usually end up with state agents simply denying they had the missing person in

In my last post I discussed the secret records of the Judicial and Bar Council. Chief Justice Reynato Puno had a very terse and disappointing response to the issue: According to Newsbreak, he said, “I don’t mind telling the public how I vote. But it has to be a consensus [of the JBC].” This is a very peculiar response, especially from the Chief Justice. The clamor for making the records to the public implicates more than the preferences of the members of the JBC; it implicates transparency and accountability of government officials. Instead of addressing the merits of the concerns, the Chief Justice—the Chair of the JBC—shrugs his shoulders and says the JBC refuses to make its records public so there is nothing he can do about it. It would be a very dark day in public service if all our officials are as dismissive about transparency and accountability.