Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Is PNoy’s meeting with Sen. Bong Revilla like GMA’s phone call to Garci?

Share:

And did Revilla tell his party boss GMA about it?

Commentary by Raïssa Robles

Is President Benigno Aquino’s meeting with Senator Bong Revilla during the Corona impeachment trial the same as President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s phone call to Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano while her votes were being counted in the 2004 presidential polls?

Some people seemed shocked that PNoy would meet with opposition Senator Revilla, while the latter was a senator-judge at the Senate impeachment trial of then Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. And it now turns out PNoy also met with opposition Senator Jinggoy Estrada.

I wasn’t shocked. I was amused. As a long-time observer of the wheeling and dealing in Philippine politics, I thought the President really went out on a limb to make good his promise – that Corona would be convicted and that would make it easier to have Arroyo detained as well on corruption charges.

UPDATE as of 12:59 PM, Jan. 24, 2014

Upon the request of some commenters, I have uploaded the entire speech of Senator Bong Revilla. You can read it by clicking here.

I wondered why, in the first place, Revilla agreed to meet with Aquino and Transport Secretary Mar Roxas, both stalwarts of the Liberal Party.

Revilla never revealed – who asked for the meeting?

I wondered whether Revilla told his Lakas Party chair Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo about his meeting with the political enemy. Before or after. Revilla surely knew what unseating the Chief Justice would mean for Arroyo. She would lose her judicial shield and be vulnerable to court suits.

I’m guessing that Revilla never told Arroyo of the meeting. Because after he had cast his “Guilty” vote against Corona, House minority leader Danilo Suarez told reporters that Arroyo was disappointed with the senator’s vote because Revilla – who happens to be president and vice-chair of Lakas – did not vote along party lines. Suarez said:

“He (Revilla) told us it was a personal decision and that it should not be taken as a party matter,” said Suarez. Revilla is president and vice chair of Lakas-CMD.

When Revilla voted against Corona, he said in part:

“As much as the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines expects and demands, and is worthy of all the respect and considerations due to his office and to his person, he in return has the responsibility to be the epitome of a public servant with the highest ethical standards.

Bilang pinakamataas na mahistrado ng bansang ito, ang kanyang panunungkulan ay dapat walang bahid kahit katiting, dahil sa mandato ng kanyang katungkulan at kahalagahan ng kanyang posisyon.

In the end, I arrived with a conclusion that, through his own direct admission, the Chief Justice failed to properly disclose all of his assets in his SALN. This therefore has necessary consequences that attach to the position he holds in trust.

I prayed hard for Divine Providence and guidance in this one great decision of my life.

Napakahirap man, alang-alang sa pagkakaisa at paghilom ng ating bayan; alang-alang sa pagpapatibay ng mga institusyon ng ating pamahalaan; alang-alang sa mga darating pang henerasyon at ng ating kinabukasan; I FIND CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA GUILTY.”

People might remember that it’s not the first time that Revilla abandoned a party chief. In January 2001, he also abandoned the beleaguered President Joseph Estrada and humiliated him publicly by saying, “Ninong, bumaba ka na.”

By the way, there is something very curious about Revilla’s privilege speech. He was speaking all throughout in Filipino and even while he was recounting what had happened inside Bahay Pangarap where he joined President Aquino for breakfast, Revilla was reading from a prepared speech. He’s a multi-awarded actor, right? I wonder why he could not have committed his speech to memory. Or at least not refer to his script those parts where he was talking about himself and his meeting with Aquino, Sec. Roxas and Budget Sec. Butch Abad.

Revilla recounted in his privilege speech:

“Habang nag-aalmusal kami ng pan de sal, kesong puti, itlog, hamon, tapa, sinangag, at mga prutas, bumangka si Secretary Mar tungkol sa mga dahilan kung bakit dapat ma-impeach si dating Chief Justice Corona. Bago kami magtapos, nagulat ako nang sinabi sa akin ng Presidente… “Pare, parang awa mo na, Ibalato mo na sa akin ito. Kailangan siya ma-impeach.”

I can’t believe PNoy begged like that, being the cacique that he is. The words are out of character.

Notice, too, that Revilla claimed PNoy said – “Ibalato mo na sa akin ito.” He did not quote PNoy as saying – “Balatuhan kita pag nagawa mo ito.”

Revilla’s narration indicates that PNoy was asking him a favor.

Revilla said he was taken aback by what PNoy said:

“Aaminin ko sa inyo, ako ay nabigla dahil tila dinidiktahan ako ng Pangulo kaya ang naging sagot ko na lang, ‘Mr. President, I will do what is right. Naniniwala po ako na dapat manindigan sa tama, at gagawin ko lang po ang tama para sa bayan.’”

In his privilege speech, Revilla then castigated the President saying,

“Ginoong Pangulo, kung pag-uusapan lang naman po natin ang tama at mali, tama po ba na habang nililitis ang dating Chief Justice na si Renato Corona ay kailangang makialam ang mismong Pangulo ng Republika sa isang prosesong legal na dapat ay independiyente?”

Revilla used the word “makialam” or meddle in a legal process that is supposed to be independent.

However, if Revilla believes it was wrong for PNoy to “meddle”, why in the first place did he meet with PNoy? Surely, he knew the impeachment case would come up. And so we also have to ask the question – was it right for a senator-judge to meet with the Philippine president during an impeachment case of the Chief Justice with whom PNoy was publicly at odds?

The explanation of Dean Tony La Viña of the Ateneo School of Government is spot on:

“As to whether the President should have intervened at all, the answer lies in the political nature of impeachment proceedings. I would have been surprised if President Aquino did not make any effort to secure the conviction.”

Senator Miriam Santiago also said presidential meddling is a given in our democracy, provided no bribe was offered:

“If President Aquino merely confined himself to attempts to influence the outcome of the impeachment trial last year, he did not commit a crime. But if he bribed the senator-judges to convict the accused, then he is guilty of bribery as prohibited by law and as a ground for his own impeachment under the Constitution. It is not a crime for the President to try to influence the outcome, because an impeachment trial is both legal and political in nature. It is illegal for the President to try and influence the courts, because of the principle of independence of the judiciary. But it is legal for the President to try and influence the senator-judges, because he is the nominal head of his political party, and within bounds, he has the right to assure his political survival.”

The very nature of impeachment invites presidential meddling because he heads the administration party which – if it wants its program of government implemented – has to have majority control of Congress. And impeachment is both a party matter and one of Congress’ powers.

However, did PNoy offer Senator Revilla a bribe?

PNoy said no bribe was offered. His meeting was only meant to provide a counter-pressure:

“Napakaraming reports na confirmed na may mga sector na ang bigat nung pressure na ineexert dito sa mga senador para i-decide ang kaso hindi sa merito ng kaso … parang ang daming sinasabi na i-exhonorate mo si Corona at ito ang mapapala ninyo.

“So tama ba naman na tatabi na lang ako habang lahat itong mga sektor na ito eh talagang nananakot, nangpe-pressure, kung anu-anong ginagawa dun sa mga senador? Palagay ko naman ay natural lang na itanong ko sa kanila, i-confirm ko, at maparamdam ko naman rin sa kanila na meron naman ibang, kung gagawin nila yung tama, ay handang sumuporta sa kanila.”

Secretary Mar Roxas, who had brought Revilla to Malacanang Palace, said a curious thing. He said it was to discuss one of Revilla’s pet bills:

“Senator Bong and I used to be in the Senate together. So, when he said he had some issues to discuss with the President, which included the cityhood of Bacoor and his being head of the Lakas Party, I found a way to set up their meeting.”

Revilla never breathed a word about the cityhood of Bacoor in his privilege speech.

Was it possible that Sen. Revilla was also wheeling and dealing – which again is very much a part of our democracy? Was Revilla willing to meet with the president in exchange for his approval of a law that would convert the town of Bacoor into a city? Was he open to casting a vote to convict Corona in exchange? If that’s the case, who was bribing whom?

Revilla neglected to say the exact date of his meeting with PNoy and Roxas.

All he said was that he took a photo of Mar Roxas inside the latter’s vehicle on the way to the presidential palace “before the conclusion of the impeachment of then Chief Justice Renato Corona.”

Corona was convicted on May 29, 2012.

The palace meeting must have happened before that then.

Sec. Mar said the meeting discussed the cityhood of Bacoor. So the meeting must have taken place before the cityhood was approved and PNoy signed it into law. RA 10160 was approved by Congress on February 8, 2012 and signed into law by PNoy on April 10, 2012 – nearly two months before Corona’s conviction.

If that was the bribe, PNoy was taking a gamble that Sen. Revilla would be true to his word and convict Corona after getting what the Revilla clan had wanted for a long time.

Interestingly, PNoy and Revilla were among the co-sponsors of the creation of Bacoor as a separate legislative district in 2009. It was the first step to cityhood.

Now let’s turn to PNoy. Was his meeting with Revilla the equivalent of that infamous call of a woman referred to as “PGMA” to Garci?

The voice of the woman named “PGMA” sounded very much like President Arroyo in those recorded tapes. PGMA called Garci while the votes were being canvassed. Notoriously, in the Philippines, that was when votes were fraudulently padded.

PGMA phoned Garci on May 29, 2004 to ask: “So I will still lead by more than one ‘M’ overall?” (meaning over a million votes).

Garci replied, “That’s how it would turn out.”

PGMA then said, “It cannot be less than one M?”

And Garci replied, “We will force that outcome. But as of the other day, 982” (meaning 982,000 votes).

PGMA then pointed out, “That’s why.”

In one other conversation, Garci told PGMA he wanted the family of a female witness to election fraud abducted. PGMA did not say anything.

In this case, Garci seemed to indicate that a margin of over a million votes would be “forced” long after the voting had finished. There is no way this could be done legally.

Garci also suggested kidnapping. And the President of the Republic did not say – you can’t do that. That’s illegal.

Now put this side by side with what Revilla said PNoy allegedly told him: “Pare, parang awa mo na, Ibalato mo na sa akin ito. Kailangan siya ma-impeach.”

Here, we can see, PGMA was talking of fraud. PNoy was talking of a constitutional process like impeachment.

What probably stunned a lot of people in the case of Revilla was that PNoy went out on a limb to personally talk to leading opposition figures to lobby for Corona’s impeachment.

It was not PNoy’s best moment but he knew that if he did not secure Corona’s conviction he would have a very troubled presidency and those who voted him to office because of his campaign promise to bring Arroyo before the bar of law would turn against him.

But even then, unlike the woman named PGMA, PNoy did not mention rigging any count, or kidnapping any witnesses.

Comments

  1. Pres. Aquino meeting with sen. Revilla was for the good of our Country….while GMA calling Garci during 2004 Presidential election was for her selfish interest…Nakakatuwa dahil walang masabi dito ang mga butihing mga Bishop kasi nakatanggap pala nang S.U.Vs. para sa Pansariling Kasakiman…

  2. In the last five days from January 26 to 30 Drilldown posted about 60 comments. All of them were posted in between 6 AM to 6 PM of the same day Manila time or 6 PM to 6 AM of the following day New York time. Except during Sunday or on January 26 when Drilldown posted some of his comments during daytime in New York. Except also once on January 29, a Wednesday when he posted a comment at 9:06 AM New York time. It seems that Drilldown is busy with his job during weekdays at daytime in New York.

    It was established before that MRP posted also his comments somewhere in Manhattan to promote the cause of Corona, General Garcia and GMA and to put down PNoy. Not to mention his intention to wreak havoc in Raissa’s blog.

      • konting riddle lang po, kamison, since rene is unavailable.

        m for the 1st name of the mahistrado in the supreme court that was accused of plagiarism, he handled the comfort women case, and disallowed the women to ask for compensation. r for the 1st name of the infamous chief justice that got booted out of office for fiddling his saln. p for the name of the ocean east of our country where most of our nasty storms are hatch. that’s mrp. a deviant.

        • @moonie, hah ha hah

          MRP? si mariano r pacifico ang tinutukoy ninyo.

          ayos lang si @Drilldown. heh he heh.

          there are still some filipinos who share thesame opinions and political stance as @Drilldown’s. it’s good he vents it out here.

    • only a moron would proudly present his ability to link timestamps to poster without even considering the possibility of mere coincidence.

      the stuff cheerleaders are made of. no remedy. lol

    • PITY …is the right word @drilldown not wheeling/dealing … Pasensya sya dahil gumawa sya ng labag sa batas…… PITY Gloria because si RAMOS na marami ding anomalya noong administrasyon nya ay hayoon nakangiti pa , parelax relax lang lang …. PITY Gloria dahil , even how genius she was kung bakit sya pumayag na tumakbo sa pagka congresswoman na dapat ay nagpapahinga na sya… PITY Gloria dahil , kinonsente nya ang HUETING noon sa ating Bansa … PITY gloria dahil kumampi at kinampihan nya pa sina Marcos na kaparehas nya na mas masahol pa kay Revilla… PITY Gloria kung makita mo ang kalagayan nya Veterans Hospital na parang nasa bahay lang nila sa La Vista may immediate specailist na doktor pa sya kung sakaling sipunin sya …PITY Gloria dahil her FREEDOM to travel was curtailed na dapat lang dahil she prostituted the ELECTORAL PROCESS of our country….PITY Gloria , dahil kagaya ni CORONA naka wheelchair at parang malapit na syang mamamatay pero HINDI pag wala na ang media sa TABI nya he he nagbibilang padin sila ng kanilang ninakaw na KWARTA…

        • Buking kana namin @drill down he he ..kay GMA ka at Revilla maki pagpalitan ng mga comments he he ….yaw ka na namin sagutin he he…o kaya kay Nina Cacho Olivares kaya he he Bye baby,,, we hate to see you go but have agood time … Soo long …hmmm… Malaki naman ang pantalon… He he…try another ALIAS pala he he

    • looks like it. I wont indulge him anymore. boring.

      I’m more interested in vhong navarro now.

      • @moonie,
        yes. in the beginning i thought vhong’s news is just a palabas, and it’s turning out na this is bigger than it seems to be…
        getting interesting every time a clip is announced…
        di ba may doktor tayo dito sa CPM? pwede bang paturukan muna para makapahinga naman ung xerox ni MRP?

        • masyado ka yatang maawa-in, vander. it’s costly kung paturukan siya. mahal ang medisina. pwede naman paturukan ng air bubbles into his blood stream, that should mimic blood clot, pero peligroso yan. bawal.

          kung ako lang, I’ll let him die of neglect. let him tire himself out hanggang sa maghingalo at mawalan ng buhay, the xerox overheated at sumabog. together, silang dalawa magsupernova in the galaxy, ha, ha, ha.

      • ALAM mo namang HINDI @drill down ,,,ikaw talaga,,,maka BNAY ka siguro o ROXAS o REVILLA ….kalkalin mo ang Hacirnda Distribution System at pag may hindi MAKATAO ay , many will go with you againdt PNOY including me…. Blind follower ka talaga ng mga OPPOSITIONIST @ drill down….

        • how can it be blind opposition when collusion involves more than one person, pnoy and revilla? both committed wrongdoing.

          just concentrating on the issue, not the personalities involved.

        • Again @drilldown …collusion when their target is for the BAD …but as long a talk or meeting happen for the GOOD of the Pilipino people,,, wala akong makitang COLLUSION dyan..PNOY disuaded Revilla to do the right thing and he DID…voted for the conviction of Corona , otherwise if their was no DISUADING/TALKING that happen then Revilla could have voted for acquittal, because Revilla as glean on his PDAF cases can not discern what is right and what is wrong…

        • collusion when their target is for the BAD …but as long a talk or meeting happen for the GOOD of the Pilipino people,,, wala akong makitang COLLUSION
          —————————————————————————————-

          see, that’s the kind of logic that only cheerleaders blindly accepts.

          first, there’s no way to tell that it’s good for the people. only the future can tell. and not colluding may turn out to be even better if that were to have happened.

          second, this collusion destroys the independence of the legislative and executive branches of the govt.

          finally, this encourages more collusion because it’s “good for the country” palusots even though they may not be. how can you stop this?

        • He he , you mean to say if Corona was acquitted eventhough his SALN were mostly falsified and a lowlly clear of court of the SC was convicted by the SC , it will be good for the people? He he that a magistrate can prostitute the law while others can’t …is good for the people …. I thpught you are an expert of the Constitution @drilldown… BETTER WELFARE for the PEOPLE will negate that collussion in your mind that never happened. I can not see any COLLSION @drildown…between PNOY and REVILLA…. He he pare mag aral ka uli ng BATAS mo o vocabulary mo he he…..ordinary citizen lang kami dito sa RAISSAs blog , contributing what we know , pero ang sa iyo ay journalistic approach but SALA at wala sa good reasoning… Your’s were all COLLUTORY- pang hugas sa bunganga ika nga ng mga doktor…he he …wawa kanaman..

        • the constitution does not say “mr. president, make sure corona is convicted if you believe and have evidence he is guilty or if the special court trying corona is corrupt. do whatever it takes because it’s for the common good, including committing crimes because they are not considered crimes because corona is guilty or the special court is corrupt anyway”. is that difficult to understand and believe that this is not how democracy works?

          most people believe corona would probably still be convicted without being begged to by pnoy because he self-destructed. that was the best possible scenario. if this happened pnoy will not be beholden to congress (unless, of course, there are other unknown deals). there will be no need to collude and bribe to pass the right laws in timely manner. for example, isn’t it baffling why pnoy approved the cybercrime law? was he trying to reciprocate?

        • instead of “or if the special court trying corona is corrupt”, it should be “and if the special court trying corona is going to acquit him”.

  6. @drill down …..their was no INFLUENCE on the part of PNOY only he DISUADED Revilla not to do something bad that is not to vote for Corona’s acquittal….. And what COLLUSION are you talking? Was there any MISLEADING by PNOY when he talked/disuaded Revilla to vote for YES during Corona’s trial? DE NADA…Revilla did the right thing . Because of PNOY , he was able to discern correctly during that trial… FACTs @ drill down

      • Sometimes my 3-year old grandson would tell me “not good, Lolo” when I say something bad. Now I tell you, “not good, Drilldown.”

      • Ohh @drill down common…baka ikaw ang dapat bumalik sa nursery….If you are PNOY and accepted the word INFLUENCE on what you did ….he he patay kana …IMPEACHED kana…sa barangay nyo palang tapos kana…he he … Review again your constitution it seems you missed some points important points @ drildown

        Collusion…..you are using this word , dont do it if you are indicted @drilldown… It can only be use if you want something BAD to happen….. PNOY wanted the right thing and it happen to Corona so he never colluded to anybody…… I am not a journalist or a lawyer but your comments from the start was to INFLUENCE US MERs that PNOY disuading Revillas was for the benifit of PNOY , but it was NOT…. Go back to grade one and tell your arguments to them @drilldown

        • Ah so that’s it you are the cheerleader of the oppositionist he he ..parang kang si MERIAM tupak SANTIAGO ,,,,memorize nya raw ang Phil. constitution ..pero nunka he he salasalabat ang pagkaintindi nya so as her explanations about our Constitution , that even a non lawyer like US will not believe what she was telling on every previleged speeches , interviews andvetc… He he parang kang SYA he he proffessor murin ba si MERIAM he he.

        • unnecessary capitalization = cheerleading

          can’t skip classes if you want to avoid making the same mistakes again.

        • Ha ha @drill down … Then dont SKIP your class he he …i must be learning from you ….never mind about the capitalization nor wrong spelling, good for you that i am answering your comments , while i am designing a wooden bridge made of IPIL good enough to carry 20 tons loading , a farm to market road and it was like building something that will strengthen our Constitution for those PNOY oppositionist he he joke lang…

  8. 1/4

    The founding fathers left the options to charge (an) impeachable offense(s) and convict-or-acquit an impeachable officer to the elective government: The Legislature.

    Alexander Hamilton (in the Federalist Papers No. 65, March 7, 1788) clearly pointed out the POLITICAL nature of impeachment.

    He also somehow predicted the factionalism that it may bring about because impeachment will connect to pre-existing “animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” This is just what happened to Corona when the HOR collectively impeached him (of course, as prodded by the Chief
    Executive).

    The representatives of the people are the accusers against a sitting Justice or President (or any impeachable officer), the accused. The senators-judges (Philippine adaptation of the American Senate, they being jurors) were given the chance to decide the ‘unsitting’ or not of the accused. The perpetual ban to hold public office is included upon conviction of the accused and the possibility of (a) legal proceeding(s) is left on the Judicial branch of government thereafter.

    • 2/4

      As regards the impeachment trial resting on the Senate, Hamilton has these to say:

      The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

      The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.

      Perhaps Hamilton failed to envision the nature of the ‘modern’ Philippine Senate shaped to extreme ‘horse trading’ (wheeling and dealing, to others) through the years that at one time was fueled by a constitutional PDAF and buoyed by a national electorate (rather than mere local representation)* more awed by fame rather than expertise. We will sooner or later find out if the recent turn of events will be kind to whoever is need of votes (or societal support) in the future.

      • 3/4

        *Footnote: Wheeling and dealings that were bordering on the unethical and/or illegal behavior/s. Note that both the Revillas and Aquino were exposed to the ‘modern’ Philippine Senate we had witnessed before and being scrutinized in recent years.

        The ‘modern’ Philippine Senate even debunked the ‘myth’ that attacks on Judicial Independence will always fail (Monsod gave the J. Chase example) and even made reality the fears of those opposing the Senate as the impeachment trial venue (as some of us here likewise fear): my Comment No. 173 here http://raissarobles.com/2012/03/14/cj-corona-made-the-palace-a-counter-offer-to-get-off-the-hook/comment-page-4/#comment-29753

        • 4/4

          Alexander Hamilton enumerated the objections to the Senate as the proposed court for the trial of impeachments (FEDERALIST PAPERS, Federalist No. 66):

          The FIRST of these objections is, that the provision in question confounds legislative and judiciary authorities in the same body, in violation of that important and well established maxim which requires a separation between the different departments of power.

          A SECOND objection to the Senate, as a court of impeachments, is, that it contributes to an undue accumulation of power in that body, tending to give to the government a countenance too aristocratic.

          A THIRD objection to the Senate as a court of impeachments, is drawn from the agency they are to have in the appointments to office.

          A FOURTH objection to the Senate in the capacity of a court of impeachments, is derived from its union with the Executive in the power of making treaties.

          As it later turned out, despite exhaustive debates because of the above-mentioned fears, the politicians in the Senate (yes, like Bong Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada) were all given the sole ‘plum’ role of trying and deciding impeachment cases.

    • 3/4

      Suffice it to say that whatever judgment on the perceived impropriety of both Aquino and the Senate will be left to the discretion of:

      (a) The HOR: when the accusers will finally muster the strength to impeach Aquino, and/or

      (b) The Supreme Court: when finally the Court will muster the strength to entertain tackling the ‘grave abuse of discretion’ the Senate would have faced even at the start of the Corona impeachment (the Judicial Power of Review) if perchance the Court intervened then, respectively.

      In (a), Tatad and Paguia will try their luck in impeaching Aquino while in (b), Corona or his alter-egos will try their luck in stimulating the SC to intervene.

      The homerun in (a) is if and when Bong Revilla will revill that he accepted bribe from Boy Suhol.

  9. 2/3 vote was too much to convict/acquit an impeachable officer and to mention that only ONE complaint can be filed in a year but ANYBODY can file a WEAK complaint FIRST ( no teeth complaint ) AHEAD of the strong one , leaving US lossing more government funds to spent and the culprit might go FREE AGAIN without a taint ,,, so wheeling or dealing if it was USED like in the CORONA TRIAL was also an EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL method and was CONCLUDED for the BETTER WELFARE of the PEOPLE… Imagine if corona was acquitted , a lowly clerk of the supreme court by not declaring on his SALN a stall in public market was removed by Corona’s SC and here the chief justice not declaring almost everything RETAONED as SC because nakalimutan or honest mistake lang……..WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE’ BEST was taken into consideration during the wheeling and dealing as the OPPOSITIONIST of PNOY said during Corona’s trial….

    REVILLAs SIN and the other senators can never be forgiven by steering the issue on his PLUNDER with the CORONAS case…. People are not TANGA anymore , let REVILLA be convicted of plunder and wathc PNOYs moves on our high electricity charges.

    • Wheeling and Dealing if it is improperly done can be determined POLITICALLY … Example , Jackie’s Enrile sins during his younger days was all TRUE but LEGALLY he was never indicted into the crime’s supposed to be committ ed, but later on the last election , although with the excellent performance of his father in HANDLING the CORONAs impeachment case ( wheeleng and dealing also included ) and an abundant of KWARTA spent last election TALO sya…because filipino people decided not to vote for him to be a Senator…..

    • some did not get the idea that impeaching the cj was a difficult process, but you did.

      there are good and important reasons why it was made so difficult which pnoy was not allowed to circumvent because it would virtually make him the one doing the firing instead of congress.

      • Difficult to impeach if the CJ committed slight mistakes that will be acceptable to the normal norm or behavior of common Filipinos , but a blaatant error will be easy for any President to wheeling , dealing for conviction as you had said…For us none lwayers PNOY did not circumbent any because what he did was for the better WELFARE of the Filipino people as your lawyer’s Constitution said ….

        • Circumvent ba atty… He he …di man kami abogado kagaya ni LAPID ika mga , nasa PUSO namin at maliit na pagiisip that never did PNOY circumvent the LAW

        • Impeaching an impeachable official is difficult process? Baka ang gusto mung sabihin ay sa ating masyadong marunung na mga Filipino na kagaya ni Corona , Gloria at mga minions nya that anything /everthing they will twist in order to circumvent the LAW any LAW especially in corruptions ,,, he he kasama ka doon , you’re twisting the Constitution as written in words… But you are not understanding what was inside on it…the thought ….

  10. incurable oppositionist? lol

    despite that, criticism of what’s wrong is much better than blind acceptance of it. constructive criticism seeks to improve and warn. blind acceptance encourages wrong doing.

  11. the constitution was written in the past to guide the future, many details it knows nada of.

    so, in a cj impeachment case, it correctly makes the process extremely difficult, erring on the side of caution. it doesn’t know if the president is a certified saint and the cj a scoundrel or vice versa, so it has to be careful not to allow the mistake of removing a non-guilty cj.

    first difficulty, it doesn’t allow the president to fire the cj. the president could be wrong and that power could be abused easily.

    then it puts up essentially an obstacle course before impeachment trial could even commence.

    then after going to all the trouble of putting up multiple obstacles along the way, it would allow the president to circumvent all of them with a simple shortcut that he can ask/beg/influence privately one or more of the judges during the trial to vote his way?

    nope.

    • see, there’s no room for wheelin’ and dealin’.

      the supreme court also meddled in the impeachment trial when it issued the tro. the justices who voted for the tro should have been impeached. it was unfortunate that the impeachment court decided to be subservient to the supreme court.

      but to everything there is a purpose. to politicians and government officials alike, it is to their benefit/advantage if they collude rather than act independently. easier to get out of jam if they find themselves in because either they have “friends” or they know bartering is possible.

      • wheeling and dealing, is it bad? is it a crime? if it is bad and a crime, then all people who can talk, walk and buy something are all guilty including you and me.
        pumunta ka lang sa palengke, you will see a lot of people wheeling and dealing.

        • did nobody told you that your arguments are all hypothetically based?
          and you are continuously repeating it again and again?
          Now, that’s childish.
          A piece of advise, the drill bit you are using is already blunt, ihasa mo muna o kaya palitan mo na ng bago.

        • unlike the 70s, wheeling and dealing is now made into fine art, it can help you interface in today’s world and achieve goal. your loss if you’re timid and dont know how to conduct a good one. and if you meet obstacle along the way, you detour, regroup, repack ideas and try again.

        • these types of argument are very weak.

          accept them just because it is in fashion lol. accept them only if it leads to the best possible govt which is what everyone is craving for.

          improper wheeling and dealing may achieve a small victory because the goal of removing corona in this case was important. but if you allow this then you have allow more of it without assurances that the goals involved will be just as important and lofty.

          as an example, the next president may be a corrupt one and may attempt to do same to a good justice. if he meddles, then you have to shut up.

        • looks like you’re dreaming of living in a fantasy world. here’s a secret. i know the address of zeus in mount olympus. just in case you want to file a complaint that the world is not perfect for you to live in, let me know and i will give it to you.

        • @ Vibora,

          Wheeling & Dealing is not bad at all as long as it resulted a good outcome. Ang nangyari kay convicted c.j. nato corona ay nararapat lang dahil tinanggap ang puwesto kahit alam na bawal ayon sa ating saligang batas, nagpaka TUTA kay GMA gayong tayo ang nagpapasahod sa kanya, Ang walang awang pag-api nito kay mang ambo na hardinero at pagmanipula nang B.G.Inc.na biglang napunta sa anak ang lahat nang shares of stocks at sa bank accnt.ni nato corona ang pinagbilhan nang lupa B.G.Inc…Buti nga sa kanya…NAKARMA TULOY…Bakit nasa labas pa ito? Sana hindi magbaril sa sarili itong si nato dahil sa sinapit na kahihiyan….Amen…

    • Drill [email protected]

      To what extreme does the constitution go to make impeachment and conviction difficult in your mind? Does the constitution do not really allow removal of innocent Chief Justice? Is there really enough insurance to avoid mistake by the senate? Please tell us.

      • did you not see the process it took to get to impeachment trial.

        the process is very difficult. from there you can infer because it’s not right to remove an innocent justice. plus all the safeguards.

        there are no assurances that no mistake can be made, that’s why it imposes many safeguards.

        • it’s too long to discuss the details. an alternative is for you to go through the corona trial again.

          as a starter, how much effort did pnoy have to exert to get the impeachment going? he may have “bribed” his people in congress to do it.

        • another simpler way to look at it is to ask yourself how many similar impeachment has happened not only in this country but others, too. pretty sure many presidents have wanted to remove some of the justices they don’t like but why were they not able to?

        • isn’t it then that this is one more evidence that the process was made much more difficult because the president has to rely and convince the congress to remove the target?

          wouldn’t it have been easier if the president was granted power to remove the target himself?

          so having denied him this power, why would he be allowed to ask/beg/influence/barter with any of the judges so that the target would be remove according to his wishes? what would be the purpose of the trial if this were so?

        • thereby, he has no control over the outcome of the trial.

          this is to ensure the credibility and impartiality of the president with respect to the outcome.

          it does not mean that the outcome itself is credible or impartial if the the impeachment court itself voted recklessly. but that is the problem that the impeachment court has to answer for if it happened.

          like i say, there are no guarantees of perfection. but the process deems it best for the president not to interfere. because it wouldn’t know whether the president himself, who is the accuser in this case, is the scoundrel or not.

        • if there is an impeachment trial going on and you believe that the president is a scoundrel trying to remove a good target, would you want that president to have the ability to deal with the judges so that the court will vote his way?

        • The complainants against Corona were members of the lower house, some of whom were certified scoundrels according to COA. I did not see the name of the president among the signatories to the complaint.

        • that’s because pnoy signed using invisible ink.

          who got pissed off that corona accepted gma’s bribe of midnight appointment, that corona then helped gma try to flee the country, etc.?

        • Please say what you mean and mean what you say. Otherwise, this argument is better terminated for lack of substance and focus.

        • that was just a hint to say that there is no need to see what was written down who the real accuser was in this case. everyone knows that congress is the one tasked to take on the actual job.

        • and, again, protecting the independence of the branches of the govt is very important. the president does not have the power to remove any of the justices himself because he may do it just to replace them with his allies thereby destroying the judiciary’s independence.

          lol, hope no one objects to this repetition.

        • The real or principal accusers are the people, including the president, through their duly elected agents or representatives.

          As I said before, your last statement is well said.

        • or just prove that it is easy to impeach the sc justices right now that everyone thinks should get what they deserve.

        • I did took subjects on the Philippine constitution but I find difficulty in correlating your ideas with what I learned. To simplify matters just please answer my questions briefly, if you know.

        • To me it was not difficult for congress to impeach and convict a Chief Justice regardless of his guilt or innocence as shown in the Corona trial.

          No mistake was made because the congress deliberately did what it wanted to do.

        • the whole process. the steps that have to be taken in order to put that cj up for trial. and why the pres cannot fire the justice himself. and why the supreme court itself cannot conduct the trial.

          if you think that’s easy, then you’re wrong. unless you can show that the president can remove any sc justice now for whatever reason he thinks. that he can get as far as putting this justice in front of an impeachment court.

        • btw, one reason why it does not want the removal of an innocent cj is because it does not grant the power to fire the cj to the president himself. firing a justice and loading the supreme court with a president’s own justice is extremely dangerous in a democracy.

        • ” loading the supreme court with a president’s own justice is extremely dangerous in a democracy.”
          Now you are beginning to see the light.

        • and another one – If an impeachment attempt is unsuccessful or the official is acquitted, no new cases can be filed against that impeachable official for at least one full year.

        • … how about the impeachment of Billy Clinton re: MONICA…he said he didn’t engage in any sex with her except tasting kisodebolanting…US Senate still acquitted him…a safeguard soap was extended to Billy.

          Btw…only Billy ‘n the majority of the senate said he was innosyente…but the populace was laughing to the point of admitting guilty for him! hahaha

          …was it in the OVAL[tine] ? Now, WH has CCTV in every room! Enovascion.

        • safeguards protect only the process. it does not and cannot guarantee the outcome because no one can.

          if clinton was not convicted and no judge was influenced, then that is the “right” outcome. the process did it’s job by putting the case to be decided in the right environment and that’s all it can do. unhappy people’s recourse is to vote the judges who acquitted clinton out of office or stage protests (w/c could force clinton to resign).

          but if clinton was convicted because someone bribed the judges, then the environment the judges were put under in has been altered and this is wrong. this scenario is what it is being protected.

          what pnoy did was wrong because he disrupted/changed the environment the judges were in during the trial.

        • remember pnoy wants to remove corona because is a judge under the influence of gma and others. this means corona cannot judge impartially.

          now he wants “coronas” to judge corona in the trial. only this time, these “coronas” are under his own influence.

        • @drill down

          PNOY never disrupted/changed the environment the judges were in during the trial… What PNOY DID was STRAIGHTENED OUT or RE-ARRANGED the below average MIND of REVILLA to vote for the conviction of CORONA , being a good father of our NATION and it DID worked. REVILLA voted for Coronas conviction.. and their was no DISTURBANCE during the trial at all … You replay the statement of REVILLA when he casted his VOTE @dril down, and you can conclude that Revilla dicerned on his OWN…. It was not an INFLUENCE nor inducement but PNOY only DISUADED Revilla not to do something BAD for the NATION ..and that was to vote for the acquittal of CORONA….

        • @drill down ,

          If ever Revilla will deliver his 2nd privilege speech accusing PNOY of BRIBING him to vote for CORONAs conviction …. NOBODY will believe on HIM but only his BAD minions of the oppositions LIKE YOU…..

          NAG AARTI nalang sya at ang akala nya ay nasa movie shhooting pa sya doing a FILM ang PANDAY or Jr.. nardong putik eating bullets he he… iyon pala… MAGNANAKAW pala sya ng PERA ng taong BAYAN via NA-POLICE ,, he he

        • lol. stay calm, so you can think clearly. you sound more like the minion now.

          my comments are not about supporting revilla. in fact, he and the other pdaf plunderers should be in jail by now with so much evidence against them. why are the authorities taking so much time enabling them to sway public opinion in speeches like this?

        • whatever revilla said in convicting corona, of course, has to appear like his it;s own judgment even if he was influenced. you expect a crook to be honest? lol

        • you’re talking here about collusion between him and pnoy, if indeed it happened, so this collusion cannot be revealed.

        • Relax lang @drill below ,,, he he you wrote PNOY was wrong and i said you are the one who committed an error on your comments ,, thats all he he RELAX LANG @ DRILL…review first what are your postings here be sure you can DEFEND it he he…. It seems every time you are caught WRONG , you are killing a different turtle to justify youself… He he DEMOCRACY wasn.t it and besides you are an expert of our Constitution isn’t it ? He he

        • prove that you are relaxed by answering this question:

          what sort of fool would reveal an ongoing collusion?

        • @drill down ,, before i will answer your question ,, why did you think PNOY was wrong and disrupted the proceedings and INFLUENCE it? It was very clear PNOY never influence anybody… Lol … Relaxed lang po he he …. Dont TWIST the question and your answer please because we are not born yesterday…he he …. Pogi para lumamig ang ulo mo

        • Drilldown. You mean to say that Bong had to make it appear that his vote for conviction of Corona was his own despite the fact that PNoy influenced him to do the same against his will. Am I correct?

        • begging revilla to convict corona. and maybe a few others, too.

          then after the trial, feeding the crocs with huge amount of pdaf.

        • @drill down… Sign off …muna ako ha … I have my strenghtnof materials class for today so pasok muna ako … And will answer all your comments later…he he ..

      • Mr. Aquino had a political stake in the trial. It would have been irresponsible for him, as a political leader, to ignore the consequences.
        ————————————————————–
        that argument is extremely weak. the more he should not be meddling in order for the outcome to be considered impartial. the process specifically does not want him to have any control over the outcome.

        • How extreme is it? Does the statement do not serve any iota of significance to an ordinary mind, not to mention a CPMer with keen and discerning mind?

          I believe the constitution wants every Filipino, including the president, to have influence or control over the outcome of the impeachment trial by putting their representatives or duly elected senators as the decision makers collectively. If the senators did not heed their wish, they could be replaced during elections.

        • there is a court, there is a trial, there are judges.

          if you don’t get it, then there’s no remedy for that.

        • There were no judges nor court. There were only the senators and the senate.

          Of course anybody including a mediocre can have his own interpretation of the constitution. But can you point to me where in the constitution can I find the word court or judge insofar as the impeachment process is concerned? It could be the remedy.

        • @atty rene , although we are non-lawyers yuo’re RIGHT, on the part of PNOY he had figured the political side on the impeachment trilal more weight than the legal side. It is MORE , MORE irresponsible for PNOY HAD CORONA been acquitted by none expressing his VIEW ( as our President and common filipino ) and the most PNOY told REVILLA the TRUTH around the CORONAs impeachment , which WE KNEW and almost every FILIPINOs knew that Senator Revilla was voted upon only thru POPULARITY and non knowlegeable of the impeachment procedures like most of us Filipinos….As a GOOD FATHER of our nation he told REVILLA to vote for conviction was not CIRCUMVINTING the LAW but an EXTRA – CONSTITUTIONAL procedure to OVERCOME/COUNTER ACT / DEFEAT that constitutional provision of 2/3 vote to CONVICT an impeachable officer.

          THATs DEMOCRACY in ACTION………that 2/3 vote was too much to CONVICT nor ACQUIT a GUILTY IMPEACHABLE PARTY…. PNOY can not just sitdown in MALACANANG by knowing the TRUTH and STAY NEUTRAL . That is more UNCONSTITUTIONAL…

          LALO NGAYON NA NAHULING NAGNAKAW NG BILLION of PESOS si REVILLA di kaya pala sya nag BOTO ng conviction para hindi makalkal ang kanyang NINAKAW sa taong BAYAN at ngayon nabuksan mga ay dapat lang TULUNGAN sya ni PNOY na wag makasuhan? Ganito lang naman ang gusto ng mga REVILLA…BULOK na SYSTEMA…….TAMA si PNOY ,,it will never create chaos in our CONSTITUTION..

        • @ drill down ….CPMERs here are not BLIND followers , in fact we go with the SC’s HACIENDA LUISITAs decissions and we are also observing the implementation scheme. WE go against ROXAs during that TYPHOON DRAMA in LEYTE and we will go against PNOY if he insist on telling us that the EPIRA LAW was being implemented on the RIGHT DIRECTION. And most CPMERs also here thinks that Ferdinand Marcos did not ORDER the killling of NINOY…. NO BLIND FOLLOWERS here , it was only you and your MIND being TWISTED by the DRAMA of REVILLA and the opppositions to get away with their SINs.

        • the political side is the root cause of all that is wrong in the govt. improper wheeling and dealing leading to collusions leading to plunder could not have happen without it. and it should continue?

        • @Drill Down

          Politics refers to people and governance. Maybe you mean the dark side of politics.

        • Maybe you are referring to Article VIII of the constitution by mentioning “judges”, “court” and “trial”. That’s why our mind don’t meet because I read a different part of the constitution that is Article XI.