Christmas at the Imperial's

December 23, 2008.

70's/80's get-up. Dynamite cheer. Charades. Karaoke kings and queens. Christmas carols. A surprise dance number. Swing. Good food. Wonderful people. Lots of laughter. Family time. Great times :)

Super Ferry Photoshoot - October 2008

This one's because of Anj and for Anj :)

I was definitely inexperienced, and it was awkward at times. So thanks for staying with me the whole day, Anj! You're The Best! Hehe :p

The first few shots are from Christa's and Kate's cameras, the last nine are by the official photographer, who was kind enough to send us a few of the shots he took.

The pseudo-costume party.

11.01.08

Party at John and Paul's house.
Halloween and post-birthday celebration.
Photos grabbed from Mr. B. Malibiran

:)

Happy birthday, "Baby Rose" :)

I don't remember what Yosh was looking at, but I think it was one of her balloons :)

She'll probably kill me for these pictures, but what the heck, she'll get over it.

Twenty-something years ago, she was once this cute little girl Mommy called, "Baby Rose". For those of you who do not know the story behind her current nickname, "Byosh", well, this is how she got it... Baby Rose was just too long and complicated for my one year old tongue and I could only pronounce By-os. Mommy thought of making it sound more sophisticated and unique. Thus, "Byosh" :)

Twenty-something years ago, this was us. Twenty-something years later, we're pretty much the same, save for the haircuts, matching clothes, the weight, and the height.

Truth is, we are different in so many ways, but we are sisters, through and through. We fight about the simplest, silliest things and the tough, more complex stuff, but fights never last a day, and apologies are never required.

We have been through so much but we never grew apart. In fact now, I think we are closer than ever.

So, here's to you, Yosh, for being the Best(her)! Hugs! Happy birthday! I love, love you :)

Rihanna and Chris Brown Concert

Start:

Nov 16, '08 8:00p

Gaya-gaya puto-maya :)

Mood: Wasting time and loving it

Music: It's Friday, I'm In Love :)

And this, I snatched from Fria.

School Life Survey

Kinder 

1. Ano ang sinasabi mo noong bata ka pa na gusto mong maging paglaki mo?

* I remember always saying that I want to be a lawyer like mommy.

2. Ano ang isang bagay na na-enjoy mong gawin noon? 

* Playing with barbie dolls and paper dolls!

3. Bakit? 

* I had fun changing my dolls' clothes ;)

4. Pumapasok ka ba ng ganitong age? 

* Hmmm, not Kinder, but Prep A sa Holy. 

5. Sinong 'buddy' mo noon? 

* Christine Joy Miranda, but actually, nung Prep B na ata un :)

6. Anong pangyayayari ang hindi mo makalimutan? 

* Dancing ballet on stage at the "Gym". I was supposedly a flower. I remember making a wrong turn because I missed the last day of practice and our teacher changed that part of the routine pala. She did tell me about it before we went up the stage, but I guess I was too nervous to pay attention. I felt so embarrassed after and mommy kept saying that nobody noticed, haha!

7. Kilala mo pa mga teachers mo?

* Ms. Gabriel for Prep A and Ms. Legaspi for Prep B

8. Iyakin ka ba noon? 

* I don't think so. I liked being in school :)

Grade School 

10. Sinong principal nyo noon? 

* Sister Florencia. I think she was the nicest.

11. Anong paborito mong laro? 

* 10-20 (hustler, haha!), Jump rope (as in "I love you, teddy bear, teddy bear days), chinese garter, patintero, agawan base.

12. May club ka bang sinalihan? 

* In school we were compelled to join a club every year, so I joined reading club, singing club, young writers' club, girl scouts club, cooking club.

13. Maingay ka ba sa klase? 

* Haha, nope. I was very obedient. I was the student usually asked by the teacher to list down noisy and standing girls clandestinely.

14. May kinakatakutan ka bang teacher noon? 

* I don't really remember, but since Fria mentioned it, si Ms. Orduna for reading class in Grade 3 or 4 ba 'yon? She was quite tough!

15. Bakit? 

* She hardly smiled!

16. Pano ka pumupunta sa school? 

* School bus ni Mr. Cesar and eventually ni Mr. Palanca.

17. Marunong ka na bang mag-commute ng panahong ito? 

* Nope.

18. Paano ka mag-aral? 

* I was very diligent then. I'd finish all reading assignments and written homework before going to bed (I wish I can say the same for law school!). No tv on weekdays.

19. Mahilig ka bang kumain ng tusok-tusok? 

* Nope. Bawal kumain ng tusok-tusok.

20. Responsable ka bang estudyante? 

* Yup, as I said, I was quite diligent ;)

High School 

21. Saan ka nag-high school? 

* Holy Spirit (same nung grade school)

22. Anu mga section mo? 

* Sibol, Biyaya, Kagitingan, Sandiwa 

23. May-CAT ba kayo noon? 

* Nope, the nuns thought it was not appropriate in an all girls school. We had swimming instead and scouting in fourth year.

24. Naging officer ka ba? 

* N/A

25. Kumakain ka ba habang nasa klase? 

* Nope :)

26. Tamad ka bang pumasok? 

* Nope, I liked school, but then, as I got older, I got more and more lazy to wake up early!

27. Sinong principal nyo noon? 

* Ms. Castillo

28. Kilala ka ba nya? Ano tawag nya sa'yo? 

* Yup, because I was member of the Student Council. She called me by my first name, "Katherine"

29. Paano? 

* (Fri, I think it's asking kung paano ka kilala ng principal mo, or something like that.)

30. May award ka bang natanggap nung highschool ka? 

* Yup, honor student, leadership award, and loyalty award, haha!

College 

31. School mo? 

* UP Diliman

34. Meron ka bang org na sinalihan? 

* Yup

35. Ano? 

* UP Economics Society

36. Naniniwala ka ba na pag college ka na,matatagpuan mo ang true love mo at hindi sa highschool? 

* Haha, nope! Wala namang deadline or definite time for true love. It comes when it comes. It's when your mind and your heart are saying the same thing. Hahaha! :)

37. Embarrassing moment? 

* Sheesh! When I was in college, I hated driving with my slippers, sandals, or shoes on. So, right before I drive, I'd remove them and drive bare feet.  One time, my friends and I decided to get burritos and barbecue somewhere in UP village. We were all excited as it was one of those spontaneous things.   I dint realize that I took off my left sandal right before I even got my left foot inside the car. When we got to the place where we were supposed to get the burritos, I discovered that my left sandal was lost! Of course, it was nowhere inside the car. I couldn't think of how I could've lost it, until I remembered taking it off not inside the car, but outside the car. So, we all went back for it. Lo and behold, it was right there at my parking space. Nakakahiya, parang tsinelas na nagsa-save ng parking space :)

38. Unforgettable moment? 

* EHS moments :)

39. Pano gumalaw ang mga tao sa eskwelahan mo?

* Iba-iba. I love UP for the range of different things I've learned from the different people I've met.

40. Sosyal ka ba?

* Simpleng mamamayan :)

"Finishing Strong" - Team Hoyt: Dick and Rick Hoyt

Got this from Mona and Anj.

If this isn't inspiring, what is?

Counting the days

and looking forward to moments like this.  Exactly 22 days from today, I shall venture into the unknown. I am physically and mentally tired, frustrated, and scared, all at the same time.  I look forward to lighter, happier days.  This worry-free baby triceratops (is it? it doesn't matter) is an inspiration. Oh, sigh.

M Party

May 2008 at A Venue.

Twenty things left unsaid.

Tagged by Anj.

The rules are pretty simple:

- List 20 things you want to say to 20 people but know you NEVER will.

- Don't say who they are

- My twist is... well, I don't have one :)

1) I feel weird around you because you know something that (supposedly) only two people in this world know about.

2) Sometimes, your arrogance turns me off.

3) I think you're very special. If only you feel the same way about yourself, things will be so much easier.

4) I wish I were as brilliant as you. You amaze me.

5) Please stop staring, it's rude.

6) Your burp is distracting.

7) You have no idea, but you make me feel so small.

8) It's really none of my business, but I honestly think that you deserve so much better than that.

9) Why do I have the feeling that you're not very fond of me? Did I do something wrong?

10) Think before you speak.

11) You're the one person I wish I've never met. --- [Sorry, harshness, hehe :p]

12) There's really no harm in being honest about it.

13) I don't like what you did to my friend so please don't ask me to respect you the way I used to.

14) Indifference, that's what it is.

And like fria, that's about it because I can't think of 6 more! :p 

Ateneo Law School Graduation 2008

April 27, 2008 at the Meralco Theater.

----
Coz it has been awfully quiet in here! :)

Paul wouldn't let me upload the other pictures he took (this is supposed to be just a 30-minute break from studying, so next time na lang :)), but he was kind enough to scan these.

The last one was taken by Doranne :)

Primer on the Supreme Court Decision in Neri vs. Senate Committee and its Implications

In General:   

What is the case of Neri vs. Senate Committee? 

This case is about the Senate investigation of anomalies concerning the NBN-ZTE project.  During the hearings, former NEDA head Romulo Neri refused to answer certain questions involving his conversations with President Arroyo on the ground they are covered by executive privilege.  When the Senate cited him in contempt and ordered his arrest, Neri filed a case against the Senate with the Supreme Court.  On March 25, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Neri and upheld the claim of executive privilege.   

What is “executive privilege”? 

It is the right of the President and high-level executive branch officials to withhold information from Congress, the courts and the public.  It is a privilege of confidentiality which applies to certain types of information of a sensitive character that would be against the public interest to disclose.  Executive privilege is based on the constitution because it relates to the President’s effective discharge of executive powers.  Its ultimate end is to promote public interest and no other.  

Is executive privilege absolute? 

No.  Any claim of executive privilege must be weighed against other interests recognized by the constitution, like the state policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest, the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, the accountability of public officers, the power of legislative inquiry, and the judicial power to secure evidence in deciding cases.  

Did the revocation by the President of E.O. 464 on March 6, 2008 diminish the concept of executive privilege? 

No.  Executive privilege may still be invoked despite the President’s revocation of E.O. 464 because it is based on the constitution.   

On the Contents of the Supreme Court Decision:   

What events led to the filing of the case before the Supreme Court?  

On April 21, 2007, the DOTC and Zhing  Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), a corporation owned by the People’s Republic of China, executed a “Contract for the Supply of Equipment and Services for the National Broadband Network Project” (NBN-ZTE Contract) worth US$329,481,290.00 (around PhP 16B).  The project sought to provide landline, cellular and internet services in government offices nationwide and was to be financed through a loan by China to the Philippines.  President Arroyo witnessed the contract signing in China.   

After its signing, reports of anomalies concerning the project (e.g., bribery, “overpricing” by US$ 130M, “kickback commissions” involving top government officials, and loss of the contract) prompted the Senate, through the Committees on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon), Trade and Commerce, and National Defense and Security, to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation.  The inquiry was based on a number of Senate resolutions and in connection with pending bills concerning funding in the procurement of government projects, contracting of loans as development assistance, and Senate concurrence to executive agreements.   

In one of the hearings held on Sept. 26, 2007, former NEDA Director General Romulo Neri testified that President Arroyo initially gave instructions for the project to be undertaken on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangement so the government would not spend money for it, but eventually the project was awarded to ZTE with a government-to-government loan from China.  He also said that then COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos, the alleged broker in the project, offered him PhP 200M in exchange for NEDA’s approval of the project.  Neri testified that when he told President Arroyo of the bribe offer, she told him not to accept it. But Neri refused to answer questions about what he and the President discussed after that, invoking executive privilege since they concerned his conversations with the President.  The Senate required him to appear again and testify on November 20, 2007. On November 15, 2007, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita wrote the Senate Committees and asked that Neri’s testimony on November 20, 2007 be dispensed with because he was invoking executive privilege “by Order of the President” specifically on the following questions:   

1.Whether the President followed up on the NBN project?

2.Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?

3.Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe?

 

When Neri failed to appear on November 20, 2007, the Senate required him to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt.  Neri explained that he thought the only remaining questions were those he claimed to be covered by executive privilege and that should there be new matters to be taken up, he asked that he be informed in advance of what else he needs to clarify so he could prepare himself.   

On Dec. 7, 2007, Neri questioned the validity of the Senate’s show cause order before the Supreme Court.  On January 30, 2008, the Senate cited Neri in contempt and ordered his arrest for his failure to appear in the Senate hearings. On February 1, 2008, Neri asked the Supreme Court to stop the Senate from implementing its contempt order, which the Court granted on Feb. 5, 2008.  The Supreme Court also required the parties to observe the status quo prevailing before the issuance of the contempt order.   

What reasons were given for the claim of executive privilege? 

Executive Secretary Ermita said that “the context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China.”  Neri further added that his “conversations with the President dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of the bribery scandal involving high government officials and the possible loss of confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the Philippines.” 

What issues were considered by the Supreme Court in resolving the case?   

The Supreme Court said there were two crucial questions at the core of the controversy:   

1.Are the communications sought to be elicited by the three questions covered by executive privilege?

2.Did the Senate Committees commit grave abuse of discretion in citing Neri in contempt and ordering his arrest?

How did the Supreme Court resolve these issues? 

The Supreme Court first recognized the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.  The Court said that the power extends even to executive officials and the only way for them to be exempted is through a valid claim of executive privilege.   

On the first question, the Supreme Court said that the communications sought to be elicited by the three questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege, which is one type of executive privilege.  Hence, the Senate cannot compel Neri to answer the three questions.   

On the second question, the Supreme Court said that the Senate Committees committed grave abuse of discretion in citing Neri in contempt.  Hence, the Senate order citing Neri in contempt and ordering his arrest was not valid.      

What are the types of executive privilege? 

1.state secrets (regarding military, diplomatic and other security matters)

2.identity of government informers

3.information related to pending investigations

4.presidential communications

5.deliberative process

In what cases is the claim of executive privilege highly recognized? 

The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the constitution to the President, such as the commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic powers of the President.  Information relating to these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others.    

What specifically are the executive privileges relating to deliberations or communications of the President and other government officials? 

These are the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege.  

How are the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege distinguished? 

The presidential communications privilege applies to decision-making of the President.  It pertains to “communications, documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential”.  

The deliberative process privilege applies to decision-making of executive officials.  It includes “advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” 

Unlike the deliberative process privilege, the presidential communications privilege applies to documents in their entirety, and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones.

Moreover, congressional or judicial negation of the presidential communications privilege is always subject to greater scrutiny than denial of the deliberative process privilege.   

What is the type of executive privilege claimed in this case?   

The type of executive privilege claimed in this case is the presidential communications privilege.   

Is there a presumption in favor of presidential communications?  

Yes.  Presidential communications are “presumptively privileged”.  The presumption is based on the President’s generalized interest in confidentiality.  The privilege is necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential advisors and to provide the President and those who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.   

The presumption can be overcome only by mere showing of public need by the branch seeking access to presidential communications.  

Who are covered by the presidential communications privilege? 

Aside from the President, the presidential communications privilege covers senior presidential advisors or Malacanang staff who have “operational proximity” to direct presidential decision-making.   

What are the elements of the presidential communications privilege? 

The following are the elements of the presidential communications privilege:     

1. The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power”.

2. The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself.  The advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.

3. The privilege is a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate or compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and that the information sought is unavailable elsewhere by an appropriate investigating agency.  

What are examples of “quintessential and non-delegable presidential powers” which are covered by the presidential communications privilege? 

The privilege covers only those functions which form the core of presidential authority.  These are functions which involve “quintessential and non-delegable presidential powers” such as the powers of the president as commander-in-chief (i.e., to call out the armed forces to suppress violence, to declare martial law, or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus), the power to appoint officials and remove them, the power to grant pardons and reprieves, the power to receive ambassadors, and the power to negotiate treaties and to enter into execute agreements.   

Are the elements of the presidential communications privilege present in this case? 

Yes. The communications elicited by the three questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege because:   

First, the communications relate to the power of the President to enter into an executive agreement with other countries.

Second, the communications are received by Neri, who as a Cabinet member can be considered a close advisor of the President. 

Third, the Senate Committees have not adequately shown a compelling need for the answers to the three questions in the enactment of a law and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.

Does the grant of the claim of executive privilege violate the right of the people to information on matters of public concern? 

No, for the following reasons:   

1.Neri appeared before the Senate on Sept. 26, 2007 and was questioned for 11 hours.  He also expressed his willingness to answer more questions from the Senators, except the three questions. 

2.The right to information is subject to limitation, such as executive privilege.

3.The right of Congress to obtain information in aid of legislation cannot be equated with the people’s right to information.  Congress cannot claim that every legislative inquiry is an exercise of the people’s right to information.

Was the claim of executive privilege properly invoked by the President in this case? 

Yes.  For the claim to be properly invoked, there must be a formal claim by the President stating the “precise and certain reason” for preserving confidentiality.  The grounds relied upon by Executive Secretary Ermita are specific enough, since what is required is only that an allegation be made “whether the information demanded involves military or diplomatic secrets, closed-door Cabinet meetings, etc.”  The particular ground must only be specified, and the following statement of grounds by Executive Secretary Ermita satisfies the requirement:  “The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China.” 

What reasons were given by the Supreme Court in holding that it was wrong for the Senate to cite Neri in contempt and order his arrest? 

1.There was a legitimate claim of executive privilege.

2.The Senate’s invitations to Neri did not include the possible needed statute which prompted the  inquiry, the subject of inquiry, and the questions to be asked.

3.The contempt order lacked the required number of votes.

4.The Senate’s rules of procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation were not duly published.

5.The contempt order is arbitrary and precipitate because the Senate did not first rule on the claim of executive privilege and instead dismissed Neri’s explanation as unsatisfactory. 

 

Implications of the Supreme Court Decision:   

Who has the burden of showing whether or not a claim of executive privilege is valid? 

Executive privilege is in derogation of the search for truth.  However, the decision recognized Presidential communications as presumptively privileged.  Hence, the party seeking disclosure of the information has the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of the confidentiality of Presidential communications.    

This presumption is inconsistent with the Court’s earlier statement in Senate vs. Ermita (April 20, 2006) that “the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure”.  It is also inconsistent with constitutional  provisions on transparency in governance and accountability of public officers, and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.  

Does the decision expand the coverage of executive privilege?  

Yes, the decision expands the coverage of executive privilege in at least two ways:     

1. The decision explained that the presidential communications privilege covers communications authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. This means that the privilege applies not only to communications that directly involve the President, but also to communications involving the President’s close advisors, i.e., those in “operational proximity” with the President.  There is no definition of “operational proximity”, so it is not clear how far down the chain of command the privilege extends. This expansion of the coverage of the privilege means that information in many areas of the executive branch will become “sequestered” from public view. 

 

2. The decision also stated that the presidential communications privilege applies to documents in their entirety, and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones.  This means that the privilege protects not only the deliberative or advice portions of documents, i.e., communications made in the process of arriving at presidential decisions, but also factual material or information concerning decisions already reached by the President. 

 

How will the decision affect other investigations?  

The decision makes it easy for the President to invoke executive privilege, since what is required is only that an allegation be made “whether the information demanded involves military or diplomatic secrets, closed-door Cabinet meetings, etc.” This in effect will  enable the use of executive privilege to hide misconduct or crime. According to Fr. Bernas, S.J., the implication of the ruling is that once the “presidential communications privilege” is invoked, no evidence is needed to support it even if there are valid reasons for disclosing the information sought. “This would revolutionize the doctrine in a manner that can affect all other investigations.  This can, for instance, hamper effective use of the … writ of amparo and writ of habeas data.  It can also cripple efforts to battle official corruption ….”  

In particular, what is the effect of the decision on the Senate’s power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation?  

The decision severely limits the Senate’s power of legislative inquiry and its ability to investigate government anomalies in aid of legislation.  The decision encroaches upon matters internal to the Senate as an institution separate from and co-equal to other branches of government.   

The decision, for instance, requires the Senate to give its questions in advance of its hearings.  But this is a requirement applicable only to the question hour and not to inquiries in aid of legislation.  Moreover, it is impractical, since follow-up questions of Senators will be difficult to anticipate.  

The decision also requires the Senate to publish its rules of procedure on legislative inquiries every three years. But the Senate traditionally considered as a continuing body.  Senate committees continue to work even during senatorial elections.   By tradition and practice, the Senate does not re-publish its rules.  To require publication of its rules every three years is unnecessary and inconsistent with its tradition and practice.   

Did the Supreme Court ruling establish a doctrine on executive privilege? 

No.  Although the vote is 9 – 6 in favor of upholding the claim of executive privilege, two of the nine Justices concurred merely in the result, while one Justice argued not on the basis of executive privilege.  Hence, only six out of the nine Justices explained their votes in favor of the claim  of executive privilege.  Six out of a total of 15 Justices do not establish a doctrine.   

Can the Senate continue with its investigations despite the Supreme Court ruling? 

The decision does not stop the Senate from continuing with its investigations and from undertaking other inquiries, although the government has already declared that officials will not appear unless the Senate rules are first published. Should Neri (and other officials) appear, the Senate can ask him questions other than the three questions.  But Neri may again invoke executive privilege on other questions, which could result in another case before the Supreme Court, and the cycle may be repeated again and again. Such a situation, particularly where there appears to be a pattern of concealment in government activities, will ultimately be harmful to public interest.   
 

Prepared by:   

Atty. Carlos P. Medina, Jr.

March 30, 2008

In other news: Sumilao exodus ends; now the planting begins

Sunday morning, I woke up to another wonderful news! :)

Sumilao exodus ends; now the planting begins

By TJ Burgonio, Michael Lim Ubac

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 01:04:00 03/30/2008

MANILA, Philippines—Young Higaonon farmer leader Napoleon Merida Jr. has been having recurring dreams of planting crops in the verdant fields of Sumilao, Bukidnon, since December.

Now, 24-year-old Merida and the rest of the 166 Higaonon farmers can start tilling more than a third of the 144-hectare ancestral land that they had been struggling to reclaim for more than 10 years.

“After the celebration, I can start planting palay and corn,” Merida, president of the San Vicente Landless Farmers’ Association composed of second-generation Higaonon farmers, told the Inquirer yesterday.

Today, the farmers will be flown home to Mindanao on an Air Force C-130 plane for a thanksgiving Mass to be celebrated by Malaybalay Bishop Honesto Pacana and Cagayan de Oro Archbishop Antonio Ledesma.

In a compromise settlement principally brokered by Manila Archbishop Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, the property owner San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI) agreed to donate 50 hectares in the original site to the farmers, and acquire the remaining 94 ha elsewhere.

‘Everyone won’

A joint statement by the two parties released by Malacañang said:

“All protagonists have won. SMC will be able to continue with [its] project and has also clearly demonstrated that it is a corporation with social responsibility.

“The farmers will get the land they have sacrificed and worked for through many years with a promise of a better life for their families.”

According to the statement, the government has “demonstrated its commitment to land reform and social justice, and that it is a government that cares for the poor and is committed to fighting poverty.”

It said the Church, led by Cardinal Rosales, also “played its role as a Church of the poor and peacemaker on earth.”

“Much can be done if we work together,” it added.

Signing rites

The contending parties formally signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) spelling out the terms of the settlement at the chapel of the San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe, Makati City, with Rosales and Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo among those serving as witnesses.

“Definitely, this is a big victory for the farmers,” Rosales said later in an interview.

The signing ceremony ended with cheers from the farmers, wearing white T-shirts and white headbands, who had marched all the way from the headquarters of Caritas Manila.

“Today, our exodus ends. Today, we finally become tillers of the land we have owned since the beginning,” said 21-year-old Elgine Merida, reading from the farmers’ prepared manifesto.

Even San Miguel Corp. (SMC) president Ramon Ang, who had broached the idea of the 50-ha donation to the farmers, heaved a sigh of relief.

“I’m happy because this had a happy ending,” Ang said.

SMC, Southeast Asia’s largest food and beverage firm, is the parent company of SMFI.

Backdoor negotiations

The MOA ended three months of “backdoor negotiations” mediated by Rosales between the farmers and SMFI executives.

The basic agreement was sealed as early as March 3, the two camps said in a statement. The MOA was finalized only on Friday night, according to Napoleon Merida.

The signatories were Ang and SMFI president Francisco Alejo, Napoleon and Samuel Merida, Larry Carejo and Mercy Serona from the farmers’ side, Antonio Medina of the Norberto Quisumbing Management Development Corp. (NQMDC), and Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman and Philippine Information Agency Secretary Conrado Limcaoco in behalf of the President.

The others who signed as witnesses were Christian Monsod, a consultant of the farmers, their legal counsel Arlene Bag-ao, and SMFI lawyer Wilfredo Peñaflor.

According to the joint statement on the MOA read to the media:

SMC is to release 50 ha in the original site to qualified farmers “by deed of donation” and acquire 94 ha in adjacent lands to complete the 144 ha claimed.

The rest of the disputed land will remain with SMFI as it pursues its plan to convert the property into an agro-industrial complex.

The farmers have identified their preferred parcels of land outside the original site from a list provided by SMC, and have also organized a new cooperative, Panaghiusa sa mga Mag-uumang Nakigbisog alang sa Yuta sa Sumilao (Panaw-Sumilao), composed of initial qualified beneficiaries to be named owner of the land.

Pangandaman, under orders from President Macapagal-Arroyo to expedite the process of determining the qualified farmer-beneficiaries, has conducted a technical survey delineating the 50 ha.

All pending cases on the land dispute are to be dropped.

Courtesy call

The farmers later called on Ms Arroyo in Malacañang to present her a copy of the settlement agreement and thank her for her support.

They were accompanied by Limcaoco, Pangandaman, Ang and Fr. Anton Pascual, the executive director of Caritas Manila.

Both Pangandaman and Ang declared the settlement agreement a “win-win solution.”

Emerging from the meeting with Ms Arroyo, Ang told reporters that SMC had turned the title to the 50-ha property over to the farmers.

“Today, upon signing [of the agreement], they now own the land. Tomorrow, when they return, they will step on land that belongs to them,” Ang said.

According to Pascual, the Sumilao land is “not only a pastoral but also a personal [issue]” for Cardinal Rosales, who was assigned to Bukidnon as a bishop 20 years ago and personally knows the farmers.

Pascual thanked Ms Arroyo for intervening in the land dispute, saying: “Through her, the wheels of justice turned and she was able to help the farmers.”

‘Triumph of persevering spirit’

Arlene Bag-ao described the agreement as “a triumph of the farmers’ persevering spirit.”

Ang, who gave much of the credit to Rosales for the forging of the agreement, said he thought of donating the 50 ha the first time the farmers protested SMFI’s agro-industrial project.

“We were surprised when they started complaining. We thought we had ironed out everything with them. During the public hearing most of them signed the endorsement for us to put up the factory,” he told reporters.

The DAR originally awarded the land to the farmers in 1995 through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. But in 1996, on appeal by landowner Norberto Quisumbing through the NQMDC, then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres Malacañang reversed this and approved the land’s conversion from agricultural to agro-industrial.

In February 2002, the NQMDC sold the 144-ha property to SMFI.

In November 2004, the farmers petitioned for the cancelation of the conversion order, charging that NQMDC had violated the terms by not implementing the five-year development plan that it had proposed to undertake on the land.

In October 2007, the farmers walked from Bukidnon to Manila to take their case to Malacañang.

“We would have wanted that they give us the whole 144 hectares so we won’t be far apart. But we’re happy as it is,” Napoleon Merida said Saturday.

Said Marlon Manuel, a lawyer for the farmers: “A lot has happened, and we believe that this is the best long-term settlement.”

Voluntary offer to sell

Manuel said the 50 ha would be opened for cultivation to all qualified farmers, including those who did not go through the initial process of identification.

The 94 ha, on the other hand, will be put under the CARP’s Voluntary Offer to Sell scheme, and will be acquired by the DAR from SMC on the farmers’ behalf, he said, adding that it would be up to the DAR and SMC to process the scheme.

Ang said SMC had acquired the 94 ha, which could be occupied and tilled in a month’s time.

“We’ve made the advance payment. But the amount is not important. What’s important is that the farmers are happy,” he told reporters.

He said the land could be paid for “over a period of 30 years.”

Ang said the MOA signing could be just the start of a partnership with the farmers.

He said SMFI would provide new means of livelihood, and build infrastructure such as schools, markets and hospitals once its agro-industrial complex became operational.

SMC offers help

“Despite the misunderstanding, and the bad publicity, we will continue the project, and we will support everything that you need. Whatever you need, we will help you,” Ang told the farmers.

He said SMFI had decided to invest on farm land in Sumilao with the intention of making good business and helping the farmers.

He stressed that when the company bought the land, it was unaware of any land dispute between the former landowner and the farmers.

“We had no bad intentions when we went to Sumilao. We never intended to hurt the rich, much less the poor,” Ang said.

Rosales’ tribute

During the signing ceremony, Rosales paid tribute to Ang for his sincerity and to the farmers who, he said, by their “faith in God, goodwill and trust [in other people],” helped seal the agreement.

“God gave us light and inspiration so that any problem here on earth will have a solution. This is the solution offered by God. Thanks to God,” the cardinal said.

Father Bernas on the SC's decision

Sounding Board
A dangerously crippling decision 

By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:30:00 03/31/2008

MANILA, Philippines - Without resorting to the language of Governor Salceda, indeed it can be said that the President is the luckiest woman. The Court could have decided that Romulo Neri should answer the three questions pregnant with cloudy foreboding: (a) Whether the President followed up the NBN project; (b) Whether the President directed him to prioritize the ZTE; (c) Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe.

But the Court placed all three questions under executive privilege, and nothing derogatory to the woman, if there was any, as many thought, could come out.

The interest of this piece, however, is not about derogatory imputations but about the scope of executive privilege. Executive privilege, as almost everyone knows by now, is the prerogative of the President to withhold certain types of information from Congress, from the courts and from the public. It is a constitutional right of the President which she alone can claim, but she might also direct the executive secretary to claim it.

Thus, Secretary Ermita, presumably by authority of the President, wrote to the Senate: “The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Given the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President, he [Neri] cannot provide the Committee any further details of these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.” Neri also added (also by authority of the President?) that his answers might endanger national security.

The type of executive privilege claimed here is “presidential communication privilege.” Presidential communication is presumptively privileged; but the presumption is subject to rebuttal. Thus, whoever challenges it must show good and valid reasons related to the public welfare.

What reason did the Senate have? Recall that this was in the course of a legislative investigation occasioned by, among others, pending bills about foreign loans. The topic of foreign loans is special. It is not the sole domain of the President. Under our Constitution foreign loans may be incurred by the President but only with the prior consent of the Monetary Board and in accordance with laws passed by Congress. Hence the Senate had very good reason for finding out how the ZTE-NBN loans were handled and how the very unique experience under it which had attracted national interest could contribute to legislation.

When the claim of privilege is disputed by Congress, how and by whom is the dispute to be resolved? US decisions, strewn all over Justice Leonardo-De Castro’s ponencia, say that it is the Court that decides whether the claim of privilege has foundation.

That was the reason why the Court called for the oral argument on the subject. The Court wanted to find out, without compelling Neri to reveal legitimate secrets, how Neri’s answer might affect diplomatic relations and national security. As Chief Justice Puno observed, “The Court cannot engage in guesswork in resolving this important issue.”

Neri was not at the oral argument to explain. When his lawyer was asked to explain, Neri’s lawyer was clueless. His answer, repeated like a mantra, was “I cannot fathom.”

One might also add that, if there was any possible cause for impairment of diplomatic relations with China, one such possible cause would have been the cancellation of the contract. But no diplomatic problem arose from the cancellation.

The Court could have asked for an in camera session for Neri to explain his claim within the hearing of the Court alone. Such a procedure, followed by American practice, could have enabled the Court to sift what was privileged and what was not and then to allow the revelation of what was not privileged. But the Court did not use the procedure, probably because it was already obvious from the oral argument that the claim of privilege could not be sustained. It was, to paraphrase Neri’s lawyer, unfathomable.

But, lo and behold, the ponencia ruled that the matter was covered by executive privilege. Was it fathomed by guesswork, as Puno suggested? That is the way it looks to me.

The implication of this ponencia that shows no effort to look into the underlying substance of the claimed privilege is that once the claim of “presidential communication privilege” is claimed, no evidence is needed to support it even if there are legitimate reasons calling for disclosure. This would revolutionize the doctrine on executive privilege in a manner that can affect all other investigations. This can, for instance, hamper effective use of the recently promulgated writ of amparo and writ of habeas data. It can also cripple efforts to battle official corruption, which is a world-recognized specialty of the Philippines.

But did the Neri decision establish this paralyzing and stifling doctrine? We need to count heads. Two of the nine Justices concurred merely in the result without bothering to explain their concurrence. One Justice chose not to argue from executive privilege. That leaves six of the nine. Six out of 15 do not establish a doctrine, especially since the six concurring opinions might just as well have been unwritten.

The case clearly calls for a reconsideration to give the Court a chance to clarify what doctrine of executive privilege it really wishes to establish. Does the Court want to sublimate guesswork?

Happiness is what I feel :)

I 639. IBRAHIM, Ysnaira A.  640. ILAGAN, JR., Casiano A.  641. ILAO, Julan C.  642. ILARDE, Maila Katrina Y.  643. IMPERIAL, Dinah F.  644. IMPERIAL, Paul Rodulfo B.  645. INDAR, Rahma A.  646. INOTURAN, Florinda P.  647. INTERIOR, Enrico S.

Coz you see, I cannot be any prouder :)

Congratulations to you and to all who made it! :)

How devastating.

Because i cannot, for the love of God and country, come to terms with the how and the why of the Supreme Court's recently promulgated decision.

The voting was 9 to 6. 8 of the 9 justices who voted to grant Neri's petition are all appointees of PGMA. The other justice, on the other hand, is expected to be appointed Chief Justice when Justice Puno retires before 2010.

Tell me this isn't a devastating blow to Philippine democracy.

-----

"The giant question on the scope and use of executive privilege has cast a long shadow on the ongoing Senate inquiry regarding the alleged and attempted bribery of high government officials in the consummation of the National Broadband Network (NBN) Contract of the Philippine government.  With the expanse and opaqueness of the constitutional doctrine of executive privilege, we need to open a window to enable enough light to enter and illuminate the shadow it has cast on the case at bar.  The task is not easy, as the nature of executive privilege is not static, but dynamic.  Nonetheless, if there is a North Star in this quest, it is that the end all of executive privilege is to promote public interest and no other." (emphasis mine)

- Opening statement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno in his dissenting opinion in Romulo L. Neri vs. The Senate Committee on the Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on Defense and National Security.

Yehey!

I cannot contain my excitement.  We are watching Across the Universe tomorrow! Never mind that there's a Commercial Law Review quiz at 7:00 p.m. (and I haven't really studied for it yet). I am so looking forward to tomorrow! I am reserving 14 tickets! Tell me if you wanna come join us! We're watching the 10:30 p.m. show at Glorietta 4.

Yehey! :)

Finding Nemo (The Manila Oceanpark Experience)

We were there at around 11am, and the line outside was already pretty long. We really should have gone earlier.

Paul called it the "soft opening". Well, it could have been that. The whole process - from entering, walking through the park, and exiting - was unsystematic, almost chaotic. They really should try to do something about that or most guests and visitors will miss out on the experience.

Here are a few pictures taken using my camera-phone. They did allow us to bring a camera, but we were told not to use it with the flash, (baka magulat daw ang mga fishies! :p). Paul however just gave up taking pictures (even though he was supposed to be the official photographer). With everybody pushing and shoving to get a better look, it was quite impossible to take decent ones! We dint even see Nemo!

Apologize only from the heart, mean it, say it with all SINCERITY and HUMILITY.

Again, it's all about you, isn't it? YOUR reasons. YOUR justifications. YOUR predicament.

I'm usually quiet about issues and controversies around school, but when you drag the name of the Ateneo Human Rights Center in your futile attempt to save face, I will make my voice heard.

You do not get to claim that "you operate only on one word: TRUST" because we know that is not true. If what you did was not betrayal, then what is?

You do not get to make it appear to me and to all those present in that meeting, or to any Ateneo law student for that matter, that you did not have a choice, because you did, and we all know what it was.

You do not get to impress on me or on anybody that YOUR stand is the only valid stand, and anything other than that is "sitting on the fence", "not responding", "choosing to be quiet", or "choosing what's convenient". We chose to stand for truth, accountability, and reform, at hindi ibig sabihin niyan na hindi kami naninindigan.

You never really got it, my friend. Maybe you never will. Sayang naman ang halos tatlong oras na "exchange of ideas". Ito rin pala ang kahihinatnan.

You do not deserve to be called my leader.

Please stop saying that you did not mean it and that you were just put on the spot. Please. I ask not for any explanation from you. You do not have my sympathy. You will not have my sympathy.

You made a complete fool out of me, and out of each and every person who stayed and waited for whatever it was you had to say. Surprise, surprise, it turned out to be just one of your deceptive and manipulative speeches.

Shame on me for actually believing that I could trust your word. Shame on me for actually believing that I could trust you. Shame on me for giving you the chance to redeem yourself. Those last few bits of respect I had for you are now gone, and somehow, I feel a sense of release.

So wallow in self-righteousness and carry on feeding your insatiable ego. After all, those are the things you do best.

Buong Bansa Sinisigaw: Tama na, itama na!

Father Bernas in his homily this evening said, "Exorcise the devils that roam this country."

Join us tomorrow in the interfaith rally in Ayala for truth, accountability, and reform.

Meeting time is at 1:30 pm at the Ateneo Law School atrium.

Ipaglaban ang Katotohanan, Pananagutan at Tunay na Pagbabago!

BUSINA: Buong Bansa Sinisigaw: Tama Na, Itama Na!

Magpakatotoo, Managot, Magbago


Busina as a form of concrete communal action.

Busina refers, first of all,evi to “Busina para sa Katotohan” – a noise barrage or rally – to express outrage at current political events and to call for truth, accountability and reform. It is a concrete form of communal action that citizens have used effectively since the famous noise barrage of April 6, 1978 in Metro Manila. That mass action successfully demonstrated public support for the Laban ticket headed by Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino on the eve of the Interim Batasang Pambansa elections which were eventually marred by massive fraud.

The use of Busina as a political symbol and instrument of communal action is to call attention to danger, to expose wrongdoing, to express disgust, and to wake up citizens to act decisively.

The current Busina was initiated by 80 PO/NGO leaders and staff from PAKISAMA, CODE-NGO, PhilDHRRA, PhilSSA, PhilCOS, Ateneo students, and social activists of the Black and White Movement and Akbayan, who voiced out their sentiments outside Ateneo Gate 2.5 on February 7, the day of Jun Lozada’s early morning press conference. The 6 pm protest action along Katipunan Avenue has increasingly attracted support. More passing motorists and people in the area have responded by joining the protests. A big contingent of the Ateneo-Jesuit and Miriam communities took part in the noise barrage of February 14. On February 22, the eve of the anniversary of the start of EDSA I, the Watch, Pray and Act Movement (especially CEAP, PPCRV and SLB) endorsed the protest action which led to a coordinated “Busina para sa Katotohanan” in several points in Metro Manila and nationwide. There were noise rallies in Katipunan (Ateneo and Miriam), E. Rodriguez (St. Joseph’s College), Espana (UST), Morayta (FEU), and Taft (DLSU-CSB-St. Scholastica’s College). There were other protest actions in Quezon Circle (FDC), GMA7-Timog (Laban ng Masa) and Quezon Avenue (Urban Poor Alliance). Across the Philippines, there were similar noise barrages in San Fernando, Imus, Daet, Jaro, Bacolod, Davao and Zamboanga.

The aim is to sustain and broaden this coordinated action by getting more individuals and groups of people involved in more converging points across the country. The plan is to undertake the noise barrage every Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 6-7 pm. This is being supported by CEAP higher education institutions. It was also agreed upon at the meeting of Watch, Pray and Act movement last February 25 that schools at the basic education level will hold their noise barrage at 3 pm. On both schedules, the Busina will be preceded by a prayer for the nation (Angelus at 6 pm and Prayer for Divine mercy at 3 pm). Churches near these converging points will also be requested to join the Busina with a Kampana (Katotohanan, Pananagutan, Panalangin).

Busina as a framework for Communal Action for Truth, Accountability and Reform

What brings the various individuals and groups in Busina together is the advocacy for Truth, Accountability and Reform, which can be also summarized in the name and slogan for which Busina is an acronym -- Buong Bansa Sinisigaw: Tama Na, Itama Na.

A. Upholding the Truth

1) Defend the truth amidst malicious attempts to muddle it (e.g., the discrediting of Lozada)
2) Provide support to whistleblowers by offering sanctuaries and financial support
3) Call on Secretary Neri and others in government to speak up on corruption and abuse of power
4) Demand the lifting of E.O. 464; Ask the Supreme Court to rule on petitions regarding executive privilege (NEDA documents and Neri's testimony)
5) Establish truth centers for awareness-building, reflection and formation toward sociopolitical engagement

B. Promoting Accountability

1) Investigate and indict those culpable of serious crimes
2) Monitor closely proceedings underway at the Office of the Ombudsman
3) Push for the creation of an Independent counsel to investigate and prosecute wrong-doers
4) Facilitate coordinated action among concerned citizens, lawyers groups and conscienticized civil servants to build cases leading to the conviction of those who have violated the public trust

C. Working for Meaningful and Long-term Reform

1) Reform the loan procurement, BOT and other development project approval systems to ensure transparency and accountability at different stages; promote freedom of information
2) Depoliticize, further professionalize, and strengthen the capacity of the Civil Service
3) Restore trust in the electoral process: revamp the Comelec; modernize elections; address warlordism and dynasties; promote party-building
4) Give greater numbers of people, especially the poor, a real stake in democracy: push for strict implementation of agrarian reform and other programs for inclusive and sustainable development
5) Form real communities of faith-discernment and action for the common good towards building a political culture with a social conscience

Busina as a network or political alliance

Busina is also an effort to bring together various individuals and organizations in our networks through coordinated communal action using a common political framework. A key part of the network is the Watch, Pray and Act Movement which includes the Catholic Education Association of the Philippines (CEAP), Manila Archdiocesan Parochial Schools Association (MAPSA), Interdiocesan Catechetical Ministry (ICM), Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting, and Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan (SLB).

Another important node is the Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) which includes the Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA), Partnership of Support Service Agencies (PhilSSA), National Confederation of Cooperatives (NatCCO), Caucus of Bicol Development, IloiloCODE, MinCODE, Urban Poor Alliance (UP-ALL). Other groups which have aligned with Busina are the Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA), Philippine CO Society (PhilCOS), the Coalition for a Citizens’ Constitution, and Aksiyon para sa Kapayapaan at Katarungan (AKKAPKA). There will be efforts to bring in the various Ateneo-Jesuit communities (in Manila, Naga, Davao, Cagayan de Oro, Zamboanga). Also at the core of the alliance are Pugadlawin, Lente, Pandayan and Team RP (a group of students and young professionals led by Harvey Keh). There is also coordination and continuing dialogue with like-minded individuals in One Voice, Black and White, Akbayan and Laban ng Masa.

The “GMA Resign” Call and the Challenge of Defending and Deepening Democratic Institutions

There are individuals and groups within Busina who have called for President Gloria Arroyo’s resignation since 2005 and continue to hold that position as a matter of principle. At that time, the CBCP recognized the call for President Arroyo’s resignation, as well as for a Truth Commission and impeachment, as legitimate options within the framework of working for accountability, constitutionality, non-violence and effective governance. While the bishops did not call on President Arroyo to step down, they asked her to discern “to what extent she might have contributed to the erosion of effective governance and whether the erosion is so severe as to be irreversible.”

Busina, however, also recognizes the concerns of people who want constitutional processes to work out fully in the search for truth and accountability. Moreover, when faced with the President’s refusal to resign voluntarily, many of them will not be willing to push the demand for her to step down to a point where democratic institutions may be harmed in the long-term, especially if a political vacuum is created for groups with an anti-democratic, adventurist or power-grabbing agenda to try to seize power. For those who hold this position, the impeachment process remains a viable option for both bringing out the truth and exacting accountability from the President, while at the same time also strengthening liberal democratic institutions.

Thus Busina wishes to provide a framework within which there can be continuing communal discernment and action among individuals and groups who have differences of opinion on the current call for Arroyo to resign, but who can agree that there is a need to struggle for truth, accountability and reform in a manner that defends and deepens democratic institutions.