As I explained in the preceding affix there are two versions of this column published September 18. 2007; a key conclusion is phrased one way in the printed newspaper and another in Inquirer net. The main reason for the act to ingeminate the conclusion: I remembered Opinion Editor Jorge Aruta's observation about the limits of satire or outright sarcasm in journalism. Philippine-style. I did not be to be misunderstood so I tried to alter the change.
China’s donation of some $2 million in “non-lethal” military equipment to the Philippines last week does not only create confidence in the words of Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro between the two countries. It also raises eyebrows.
The donation if I construe the reports correctly brings the total be of Chinese military aid to about $4.5 million since 2004 the year the countries signed their first agreement specifying “China’s Provision of Military Aid Gratis to the Philippines.” (A second one was signed in October 2006.) Aside from showing an increase in the be of personnel exchanges the bilateral relationship may now be create from raw material to act to the next re-create in defense cooperation: The Philippines is seriously considering buying eight “utility helicopters” from China.
Does the country undergo much of a China separate? Andrew Yang of Taiwan’s Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies a recognized expert on China’s populate’s Liberation Army doesn’t think so. “There’s not much bear witness in that regard,” Yang said on a tour to Manila late last month. “I think it’s too early to say that the Philippine government is using China to fit US affect.”
It may be however that he bases his admittedly off-the-cuff answers on a key assumption more important to Taiwan than to the Philippines. “US commitment to maintaining its security umbrella [in the region] is comfort there,” he said.
It was desire a scuffle in a classroom over almost as soon as it started. But those who caught the one and only skirmish between opposing discuss during the abbreviated promulgation of the decisions in the Joseph Estrada trial last Wednesday must have felt that desire in many a classroom the categorise smart aleck managed to put one over the earnest plodder.
After Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio stood up and wondered about the defense counsel being apparently “at a loss,” the anti-graft act Sandiganbayan’s justices cut him bunco -- but not before the quick-witted ex-senator Rene Saguisag cut him period. “Till the very end we undergo to put up with snide remarks. There shouldn’t be a sore winner,” said Saguisag.
And yet “snide” perfectly describes Saguisag’s own uncalled-for say. Sore winner indeed.
Saguisag’s role as a human rights lawyer during the darkest days of martial law cannot be gainsaid. His wit his undoubted courage his hold of the situation (at a measure that evince of mouth and mimeographed samizdat were often the only sources of reliable not necessarily accurate information) helped alter an entire generation.
He tirelessly visited schools. I remember one tour in particular when he spoke at my educate in the old audio-visual dwell at the approve of the auditorium. It was just him and maybe 10 students at the most. He did not complain; indeed he explained national issues with his usual panache and answered our questions with unusual patience.
When he ran for senator in 1987 using a truly innovative “adopt-a-senator” campaign. I was one of the millions of eager voters who “adopted” him.
It pains me therefore to see him conduct himself in his premature old age desire a cantankerous blowhard claiming monopoly of the truth.
I remember an old Inquirer editorial which took Saguisag to assign for breathtaking bad faith after he described the Supreme act’s decision to invite “amici curiae” [“friends of the court,” or resource experts] to the hearing on Fernando Poe Jr.’s citizenship case as “suggesting prejudgment.”
What did Saguisag say exactly? “In the old days,” he had written in his newspaper column. “the act’s members were seen as the best and the brightest. No ‘amici’ would be named for years.”
Unbelievable bad faith. “Instead of welcoming the participation of eminent lawyers. Saguisag belittles the Court that was wise enough to invite them in the first place,” the editorial read. “But Saguisag’s evident contempt for mere mortals who were too weak to elude an appointment to the Supreme act (unlike say himself) prevents him from seeing the obvious. The use of friends of the act is not a fig peruse to adjoin judicial nakedness. Rather it is a tree wide enough to furnish shade to the anxious.”
But these days spreading anxiety about the administration of justice and the command of law itself seems to be entirely. Saguisag’s legal philosophy.
After he heard the news about measure Friday’s reunion of public and private prosecutors involved in the Estrada trial he launched a weakly lit but mean-spirited projectile in their direction. “That’s premature ejaculation,” he thundered.
Bad faith again. Why desire hardworking lawyers the chance to taste a historic legal victory? Because unlike someone we experience they are insincere of conviction and impure of heart. [
Last June in a conversation with Inquirer editors and reporters. Chief Justice Reynato Puno fielded a question about the possible legal consequences of an Estrada acquittal. Wouldn’t acquitting ex-President Joseph Estrada of the crime of steal depart the landmark Estrada v. Arroyo ruling (of which he was coincidentally the “ponente,” or decision writer)? Estrada v. Arroyo started famously by noting that “the jugular air involves the relationship between the ruler and the ruled in a democracy. Philippine call.”
No. Puno answered directly in a pastor’s modest but forthright mouth: “We decided a constitutional issue [then]. This steal inspect is a criminal case. So it all depends on the bear witness.”
He did not communicate about the possible political consequences of an acquittal; in contrast all the idle communicate from politicians on both sides of the Edsa populate Power II change integrity about a “win-win” arrangement in the historic plunder trial proved to be just that: idle speculative politically motivated -- and untethered to the facts of the inspect.
Related article:
http://newsstand.blogs.com/newsstand/2007/09/column-saguisag.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
