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.
hik-hik says
Ang GUGULO nyo mga PILIPINO!! Puro kayo kampi kampi. Nagkasala si Bong, nagkasala si GMA, nag kasala si PNOY lahat ikulong! Kung sino nagkasala kahit sino pa man IKULONG!! WAG KAMPI KAMPI – mga uncivilized kasi kayo…
leona says
…naka INOM ka yata…hik hik [ako rin] hik hik
hik-hik says
Manood ka nalang ng YOUTUBE about Jewish people – tignan mo mga paksa nila ang lalalim and mga sagot may utak talaga – nakaka inggit. Pero sa Pilipino puro pilosopuhan, tsismiss na walang basehan. inisan, kun sino nainis talo – parang dyan lang talaga abot ang pagiisip ng mga pinoys..
leona says
hik hik ako…nag pa bili ka pa yata ng isang bote! hik hik…tuma dokkey!
paul says
wasted no time in hearing Panday too and Nardong Kupit Jr. speech.
who would you believe ? a son of a former bureau of custom corrupt official, a known GMA ally, big brother of 80 plus siblings of different mothers and best friend of Napoles for years OR a son of an Icon of democracy and against Marcos dictatorship who plundered our country in debts and who was not involved in any corruption. Bulag or nag-bubulagan or tanga or nag-tatangahan na lang ang maniniwala just like A. Tabernana and Manyakis A. Clavio who are also BINAY-aran media anchors who are for sensationalized news and defenders of opposition.
boots says
and another twist of the story so napoles like who detained benhur luy, sen. bong’s father,
drill down says
this is not how democratic govt should work. it defeats the independence of the main branches of the govt. it leads to overt and/or covert collusion.
raissa says
hmmm.
What do the others think about drilldown’s comment?
baycas says
http://www.nccs.net/checks-balances-limited-and-balanced-government.php
Coordination is the key and gloria through Corona wielded enormous judicial power that resulted in the absence of checks and balances in the 3 branches.
In 2011, the executive and the legislative worked hand in hand to correct judicial power through the political exercise of impeachment.
drill down says
it doesn’t mean that the legislature has to just follow what the executive wants even if they are working on a common goal. what if it turned out that corona was not guilty?
by begging for an outcome, pnoy is asking revilla not to think for himself but just to follow pnoy’s wishes. he is asking revilla not to be impartial.
because revilla’s vote turned out to be the same as what pnoy begged him for, coincidentally or not, both pnoy’s and revilla’s future judgment and dealing with each other are compromised.
what was wrong was he begged for it. he should have just tried to convince revilla to vote a certain way with facts and leave it at that.
moonie says
it’s surprising revilla did not show right indignation at the time. brave and courageous as the men he had portrayed in movies, suave and totally in control of any given situation, revilla could have taken charge and told the prez he is not to be spoken that way and walk out in a huff. thanks for the brekky, mr prez, but, this is not my style and I cannot be ambushed this way. thanks, but no thanks.
drill down says
of course, he won’t. he is thinking of protection for himself in the future. scratch your back, scratch my back.
moonie says
he’s not scratching, he’s stabbing.
yvonne says
You are, of course, assuming that Bong’s recollection of the event is true and accurate, and not slanted to put him in a more favorable light. The President, on the other hand, has an entirely different take of that event.
At the end of the day it boils down to the credibility of the individual person whom we should believe.
drill down says
right now, he is because he is trying to get out of a jam. if he were truly stabbing, he would have done it way before he was facing this pdaf scandal. he kept this card secret until it was needed.
moonie says
it’s still stabbing. done behind the back.
Joe America says
I think politics is a business of influence, and democracy is powered by like and opposing forces wending their way through an issue. To think that a president must sit in his office and only give interviews to the press is rather funny.
drill down says
there are right and wrong ways to influence.
raissa says
True.
kalahari says
Impeachment is a political process and also a numbers game. It’s not meant to dispense justice but to kick-out somebody not allied with the administration.
“It’s not true I think all politicians are morons. Morons are far too intelligent to be politicians.” (jarod kintz)
Parekoy says
“The most stupid ones are the ones who elected these politicians.”
Parekoy, 2014 AC
drill down says
CJ impeachment trial is meant to be an impartial process.
if not, just let the president fire the CJ. why waste money conducting a trial?
if not, the trial could have been conducted by the supreme court instead of the senate. why ask non-judges judge the guilt of the CJ?
Vibora says
I’d rather we have an honest President who acts for the common good than a lying Chief Justice and thieving lawmakers.
Now, if you want to hang PNoy , just wait after he finish his term, but for now we have to bring to justice these people who have brought a continuing misery and poverty.
Tessa says
I agree with you Vibora, well said..
drill down says
the good that you talk about could be challenged and, worse, fully/partially undone if not done properly especially in a sympathetic court. if this happens, then what have you got?
and the wheeling and dealing could compromise pnoy’s ability in combating corruption.
Vibora says
compromise is always present in every “wheeling and dealing” (the term says it all). in real world it is an accepted process, every government and businesses do that. a leader or managers duty is to see what is beneficial for whatever his goal is.
challenged? that will be for the future, the present is we have to ask these corrupts to answer for their crimes.
moonie says
tama, vibora. pnoy brought wheeling and dealing to a new level that instead of being hindrance, it enhanced his ability to fight corruption. you dont wheel and deal only to get the bad end of the stick, but you wheel and deal to achieve goals.
kalahari says
Under Sec. 3(6), Art. X1 of the 1987 Constitution. the senate has the sole power to try and decide on all cases of impeachment.
leona says
In that three sentences written by @drill down, I agree!
It should not be done. It defeats. It leads to scratches of overts and coverts.
But, that is real democrazy [ a human invention in politics].
To expect or have even political-ANGELS won’t help at all…in God’s creation, the ‘executive dept’ was managed by His angels…Lucifer the head. The latter got ambitious, conspired with ‘many’ bongs, tanda and jinggoys atbpa.
What happened? Covert and overt scenarios took place before, at Adams eating that ‘apple,’ and afterwards, here we all now living in this situation .
But, but…all the ‘incidents’ reported or alleged on Sen. Revilla’s and Sec. Roxas, and that of PNoy’s, somewhat are academic…Corona ‘confessed’ his faults and violation of the law. Convicting the ex-CJ was just a supporting act [not covert] as desired by the ex-CJ at that!
But things like that cannot always be like that at the end. So? Drill Down is still correct. Legal and moral sides are still the rule even in a democrazy government.
leona says
… the end part after the conviction of ex-CJ Corona, a month or two afterwards, 18 senators got…how much? … P100M each for their PORK BARREL perks!
A post-reward by Sec. Abad per PNoys’ approval!
That is overt! That is foul…many of our countrymen are without help…that money went only to 18 bad guys/girls…our MONEY! Look…the SC declared the PORK unconstitutional later.
PNoy and Sec.Abad…you have sinned against the people!
vander anievas says
i have watched most of the trial hearings of the impechment. watching the body language and demeanors of the senators, i never expected revilla, tanda, sexy and sotto to vote for TJ’s ouster.
i’ll do what pnoy has done. for the good of the country. it’s purely political.
leona says
…the 3 guys you mentioned were convinced by Tanda that ex-cj Corona INSULTED the senators AND THE SENATE!
… thus, the overheavenly votes : naPIKONVICT !
vander anievas says
mga senores, kung bago nagbotohan ang senate sa impeachment ni TJ ay nawala/umalis/nakidnap si Pogi at hindi nakaboto, mananalo kaya ang bumoto laban sa impeachment?
may silbi pa kaya ang lobbying ni Pnoy?
leona says
Sagot: No. That’s still 17 vs 6. 2/3 [15] votes still gathered. [ correct ba/]
Actually, whether there was that alleged lobbying as reported by Sen. Bong or not, it didn’t serve at all. Why?
Corona confessed! He violated his SALNs on his PESOS accounts. Plus – – – aggravated BY HIS WALK OUT at the Senate Hall.
That’s the proximate reason for his conviction and not his questionable limk to GMA atbpa.
leona says
Sagot: No. That’s still 17 vs 6. 2/3 [15] votes still gathered. [ correct ba/]
Actually, whether there was that alleged lobbying as reported by Sen. Bong or not, it didn’t serve at all. Why?
Corona confessed! He violated his SALNs on his PESOS accounts. Plus – – – aggravated BY HIS WALK OUT at the Senate Hall.
That’s the proximate reason for his conviction and not his questionable link to GMA atbpa.
vernon says
too simplistic.
in a democracy that’s practiced today, the delineating lines between a party in power and the opposition is vague. only issues that create opportunities that may satisfy a politician’s personal motives, or those with vested interests, matter. the old days of principled politicians are over. even the term “principled politician” is now an oxymoron. it’s now about expediency or what would work for the moment until the next 24 hour news cycle, citizens’ lives be damned.
that politicians would lie, is now a given. truth has lost its currency. look and listen to what’s going on around us. what’s pitiful is this; when this guys are caught with their lies they blame the media. DUH!
more power, raissa
drill down says
it’s not simplistic but high standard.
when independence of the main branches are not maintained, manipulation with impunity becomes possible. it’s the road to perdition.
a parallel of this in the business sector that caused the manipulation of stock prices can be found when the wall between investment and commercial banking was removed in the US.
drill down says
pnoy decided to remove corona precisely to improve the independence of the judiciary. corona was bribed with a midnight appointment and thereby cannot decide cases properly. corona’s integrity was seriously impaired for he no longer is able to think clearly for himself. pnoy’s 100% right about this.
but what was pnoy doing begging revilla to vote his way? he denied a “judge” the same independence of thinking he sought in another judge that he wanted removed.
moonie says
not denied, Pnoy was maximizing the outcome he hoped to achieve. you cannot deny or stop a mind from independent thinking, unless the mind is put on sedatives, or in somnambulistic stage as in sleeping at night, or under hypnosis. comatose? that too. the mind will always be thinking, making free associations, brain waves doing branstorming, even at rest, the mind is subtley processing past, present and future events, analyzing. the person may look distracted but otherwise engaged. you can influence a mind though, make it open and conducive to learning.
PNoy denying or stopping bong revilla from independent thinking? absurd. PNoy is president, not hypnotist.
drill down says
your ridiculous arguments speak for itself.
drill down says
remember a president cannot remove the chief justice himself precisely for the same reason of lack of impartiality.
now, by begging a judge to vote his way, he is imposing the very thing he wanted through the judge. the judge is being asked to set aside his own thinking and just follow pnoy.
drill down says
the president’s judgment in an impeachment case may be right, and in this case it was, but it is not deemed to be impartial. this is why a third-party is being asked to validate whether he is right or wrong.
so he can’t impose his not impartial judgment on the judges deciding the case for obvious reasons.
drill down says
gma is no hypnotist either. don’t you think she controls corona’s mind? if not, why impeach him?
yvonne says
Politics is the fine art of wheeling and dealing. Nothing is wrong with that as long as the goal is to get something done for the common good of the country.
Political intransigence should not be mistaken for political independence. Intransigence invariably results in paralyzation.
drill down says
in a democracy, the common good is not determined by just one person.
yvonne says
Agreed. There is nothing in my statement suggesting that the common good should be decided by just one person.
drill down says
tell pnoy that because that’s what he was doing begging.
drill down says
there are limits to wheeling and dealing.
yvonne says
Agreed. That is why I qualified my statement with (1) the goal is to get something done and avoid paralysis, and (2) the goal is for the common good of the country.
drill down says
limits still apply even if the goal is lofty.
yvonne says
OK, I’ll let you have the last words on this. :-)
mushupork says
Taking into consideration that this happened right after almost a decade of GMA style collusion and politics – yup this is democracy at work.
Just because Aquino got elected doesn’t mean that the entire bureaucracy suddenly cleaned up its ranks and started acting like it actually cares for the people it’s supposed to serve.
Does anyone really expect the president not to at least consider whatever leverage he has regarding the removal of the chief justice? Compared to the seemingly Stalinesque style of making people disappear as leverage, Aquino’s methods are tame.
ed celis says
“20 million voted for this actor” , was that during the hello garci election scandal? how much did this pilipino movie actor spend to buy these voters? how long will these liars and thieves in public service be allowed to fool and get paid by the people? thousands of pilipinos died during calamities, millions of poor are starving, without clean water to drink, without toilet, without proper education, denied of basic human rights to live. and yet the philippines has goldmine in luzon, visayas and mindanao. all of the philippine resources are taken away by only a few elite pilipinos and the rest by foreigners. companies are using all our raw materials and paying pilipino workers slave labor wages. the philippines is one of the richest country in the world in terms of natural resources, and yet one of the poorest country in the world. just because of these thieves disguised as public servants. life is very short, change is NOW, justice NOW…
baycas says
gloria knew all along garci’s “soft touch” policy:
(A continuation…)
http://pcij.org/blog/2006/04/01/2-armm-poll-officials-linked-to-electoral-fraud-given-top-regional-posts#comment-23086
baycas says
@raissa asked:
Of course, no, because gloria’s conversations with garci have legal implications. PNoy’s meeting with Bong has none.
In addition, though quite unusual for public officials to be forthright and be transparent, PNoy acknowledged the meeting with Bong while gloria didn’t admit anything. This is simply because her A$$ was on the line then…
Note that gloria didn’t admit using a phone when she talked with that comelec official…talk about foresight…gloria and the gang think far, far ahead…
garci not owning up to his voice, gloria not owning up to her voice, wiretap recordings are illegal…so, what have you? No one uttered the conversations above!
Lusot sila noon.
KMR says
Nice piece Raissa!
If Sen Bong said “I will do what is right…” and then he convicted Corona, so what’s the problem with that? He did what is right! Indeed.
If Sen Bong said he was influenced and voted the otherwise… so then he got no backbone, he cant be a MAN, and that’s his fault.
If Sen Bong is talking about “kailangan ma- impeach”, Eh na impeach na nga si Corona eh! Baka ibig ngyang sabihin ma-convict! Either way, he doesnt understand what’s his talking about.
andrew lim says
THE BEST QUOTES ON THE IDIOCY OF BONG REVILLA
1. From Atty Mel Sta Maria: “Falsus in ano kanyo?”
2. From Stuart Santiago: “Nardong Kupit”
3. From Manuel Buencamino: ” Do not mistake the hole in the ground for your ass. Do not confuse a poltical process with a judicial proceeding.”
baycas says
As in the TV show “Showtime”:
moonie says
nadaganan si pogi ng yellow tonka truck, na confused at magkaruon ng concussion yata.
High5Lagi says
The highest elected official of the nation has the authority to oversee, carry out a course of action and ensure that the highest court of the land is a court the people can truly rely on.There is absolutely nothing wrong when PNoy discusses national issues with Senators. Also, the Senators, in the same way as the President, have obligations to protect the judicial system of the nation.
At noong panahon ng impeachment, nagbigay ng CLOSING REMARKS ang mga Senador na nagba- back up ng sariling paninindigan kung bakit Yes sila for the ouster. Samakatuwid invalid na sabihin na, President persuaded someome to vote in favor of impeachment.
yvonne says
Let’s be clear about Bong Revillarroyo:
1. Bong Revillarroyo was the one who went to, and visited, President Aquino – not the other way around.
2. Impeachment is both a political and judicial process – others like to refer to that process as sui generis. The President expressing his sentiment on the impeachment of CJ Corona is an understandable part of that political process.
3. The Corona connection is a tired smokescreen the triumvirate of Tanda, Sexy, and Pogi has been throwing around systematically to divert attention to the real issue at hand – the anomalous, scandalous, and illegal misuse of PDAF for their personal gains. I will not be surprised if after 6 months it will be Tanda’s turn to talk about and revive the tired Corona connection following the footsteps of Sexy and Pogi.
4. Every time Bong Revillarroyo opens his mouth he is sinking deeper into political quicksand. Is he suggesting that he voted to impeach Corona in exchange for some personal or political favors? So what does that make of him?
noel says
I can’t believe Raissa Robles is actually defending the actions of PNoy and calling it normal or expected. Wow, if this was GMA she would have been crucified for doing that.
raissa says
I’m not defending.
I’m elucidating.
But that’s an interesting statement you made –
“Wow, if this was GMA she would have been crucified for doing that.”
I think the difference is context. If it were GMA, it would have been seen as self-serving. It would have been seen as part of a series of actions that she had been taking to ensure her political survival.
Your observation is spot on.
moonie says
had it been gma, she would not have served almusal, but a full blown ala carte dinner costing 20 thousand dollars.
leona says
Raissa’s last 3 paragraphs here:
“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.
t 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.”
The 1st para…is that a fact?
2nd para…PNoy’s act [if true…it’s normal for him to secure a conviction] to comply his promise…normal again.
3rd para…Raissa is correct: PNoy did not mention rigging senators’ votes; did not kidnap Revilla too!
Spotted on indeed! Sen. Rev’s privileged speech insinuated something that PNoy’s did get ‘a balato’ from him…GOSH! The senator was the one who got that balato 2 months after…P100M na PORK! Where did this money go…the senator did not say and will never, except “MY SIGNATURE(s)” is/are forged!”
baycas says
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1953/aug1953/gr_l-5275_1953.html
The maxim, ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,’ should only be applied in cases where a witness wilfully and knowingly gives false testimony.
baycas says
http://www.pinoyechannel.net/sen-bong-rivilla-privilege-speech-full-transcript-and-video/
The rule should only be applied when a witness “willfully and knowingly gives false testimony.”
—–
Note: Wasn’t able to view Revilla’s speech in the senatedotgovdotph site…is it not worth posting?
baycas says
Bong Revilla’s lawyer was quoted in October last year. It’s as if lawyer Bodegon just did what he preached. Can we now apply the Latin maxim Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to Revilla’s speech?
leona says
Yes @baycas! …but in reverse FALSE IN ALL false even in ONE! Faltus in OBUS faltus in ISA!
letlet says
I think the prime reason Revilla brought up this meeting with Pres Aquino is to shift his guiltiness to our president, finding the perfect scapegoat for his plunder case or dragging down Aquino with him. That’s what guilty people do.
baycas says
Much was written regarding the accounts of that ‘fateful’ day when Revilla was brought by ‘Boy Pickup’ to ‘Boy Tango’ and ‘Boy Miron’. The perceived unsaid and the unwritten would perhaps be significant at present especially that there was a rumored ‘plea bargain’ offer of returning the loot in order to avert humiliation and prosecution.
Probably the unsaid and unwritten conversation before the complaint against Revilla was filed went this way:
leona says
… dAboys: i-BABAON KA ULI….mas malalim na hukay!”
Martial Bonifacio says
Thank You Raissa for the good article. You have raised interesting points and if i may add since you brought up the word “memory.”
Don’t you find it interesting that Sen. Revilla have a good sense of memory for him to narrate in detailed fashion the incident, from the time he was picked-up by Mar Roxas to the specific foods they ate for breakfast at Bahay Pangrap.
“Pandesal, Kesong Puti, Hamon, Tapa, Sinangag at mga Prutas.” -Sen. Revilla
Yet to this day he does not remember where he allocated all of his PDAF? Sudden memory loss? And excuse himself by saying that Benhur Luy forge all the signature evidences even the confirmation letters that COA/Mrs. Grace Pulido-Tan have.
KapsAmazingStories indeed.
Martial Bonifacio says
By the way somebody send me this link of a audio recording and it’s similar to Gloria’s “hello Garci” but starring the alleged agimat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqjCagbmQ-4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKqjCagbmQ-4&app=desktop
Hopefully you can take the story of Sen. Revilla regarding that audio recording since its circulating in Social media. It was posted last year Sept 2013.
leona says
“My VOICE was FORGED!”
“But that is ME…a handsome empty SONAofa…botch!”
baycas says
Bodegon, Revilla’s lawyer, distinctively made the impeachment trial a “legal” one according to what Revilla delivered in his speech:
xxxxx
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.”
It’s as if Revilla was wondering why Corona was impeached and the President was still trying to explain why Corona was charged with impeachable offenses and stood to lose his CJ post.
Bodegon apparently didn’t choose his words right because Corona was already impeached as early as 2011. Bodegon’s script should’ve been “Kailangan siya (Corona) ma-convict.”
Besides, the impeachment trial was not truly a legal one as the badly written script tried to convey…because Corona just lost his position and forever barred from holding public office. Conviction from impeachment will NOT mean LOSS of property, liberty, or life.
It’s very different from a legal process which Bodegon, or Revilla for that matter, hoped everyone to realize. However, evident from the negative public reaction, Bodegon (and Revilla) failed.
leona says
“Ginoon Pangulo! Tama ba pumunta ako rito sa yo?” Asks BONG.
“TAMA! Kasi wala kang ULO!” Answered PNOY.
vander anievas says
@leona,
akala ko, Tama, kasi wala kang utak!…hahaha
leona says
@vander…Tama ka. Kung walang ulo nasaan ang U8TAK?
Again, kung may utak nasaan ang walang…ulo utak nakalagay saan?
Eh…kung utak at ulo ay wala, nasaan?
hahaha
vander anievas says
hahaha, tama… parehong wala. baka nasa ibaba…:)
leona says
Bahong utak ‘o ulo!
hahaha
baycas says
Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/70119/kaps-amazing-stories
leona says
Right! @baycas.
It was not kidnapping of Ben Luy but kidnapping of a BIG POT OF GOLD…Pork Barrel PDAF!
Kudos to all investigating journalists!
Thank you. Keep up the INTERNET! The Pope Francis LOVES IT! It’s God’s GIFT.
crichton_prime says
That’s selective memory at it’s finest!
chit navarro says
A great commentary, as always, RAissa.
Nope, the President’s meeting with Bong Revilla (“Senator” is only for the kagalang-galang) IS VERY DIFFERENT from that of PGMA’s phone call with Garci.
At this point in time, I believe the masa have already made up their mind that Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada & JPE are all guilty. What we are all waiting for now is the filing of the case at the Sandiganbayan and these three and their cohorts will be brought to jail. That will be the highlight of the Aquino presidency and I hope it will really be realized before PNoy’s term ends.
And yes, I love the article of Rene Saguisag but I just can’t understand his take on “Jojobama”…. does Rene still have the same faith and trust in his old friend?
baycas says
If only a Marcos will be pitted against a Binay, then Rene (Saguisag) will surely side with Jojobama…
leona says
Kaya…mga foxes nga sila. Fox holes are their havens!
parengtony says
please allow posting of this link:
http://manilatimes.net/yup-bring-it-on/70179/
leona says
I have this query to Rene…’Is it true you [Rene] were stopped for driving a hot-car MERCEDES Benz [allegedly from the Custom’s etc] assigned officially to his public official wife at one day?’
True or false?