Protecting pretense and privilege

Because one person sought protection from having to complete a self-ignited allegation, refusing to perfect accusations and hiding behind secrecy and privilege, we may have just inadvertently endangered the last pillar holding up our increasingly endangered democracy. It is the classic 1380 rhyme of a kingdom lost for want of a nail.

Whatever the impetus, the result is undeniable. By allowing wanton privilege, we open the floodgates to unchecked criminality. Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. put it most eloquently when he said that we’ve now “allow[ed] the cover-up of a crime.” Not only would we be validating our notoriety as the most corrupt in the region, by the weight of our justice system, we institutionalize, farm, fertilize and provide firmer ground for plunder.

We refer to congressional powers of inquiry as it applies to checks and balances upon the Executive. Its parameters are encompassed under three rules; two are constitutional while the third is vaguely drawn by Executive Order 464 and the Supreme Court’s subsequent interpretation of it.

One, Congress is vested with the prerogative to request Cabinet secretaries to appear as resource persons. Two, when the inquiry is in aid of legislation, this turns compulsory and is strengthened with the power to cite for contempt.

Under the Constitution’s Article VI, Section 21, appearance is mandatory, exempting only a VALID CLAIM of executive privilege (caps supplied). This rule does not change even as personages that comprise the Senate change.

On September 28, 2005, amid the $530-million Northrail scandal and an inquiry into the military’s complicity in election fraud, the Palace quickly dug a wormhole allowing resource persons a convenient escape. Malacañang told the Senate that military men could not attend hearings without the consent of the President (the subject of the electoral fraud accusations) pursuant to EO 464 coincidentally issued that same day.

Although EO 464 has since run aground, people still fear resurgent curtailments of congressional checks to limit transparency for effective legislation and an informed public.

The outrage surrounding the broadband deal is not only about overpricing. It is about accumulated disgust over matters done in secrecy. When people are told that they will have to pay in blood for their staple because of the high cost of fertilizers, they remember when fertilizer funds were secretly stolen to install a politician. When they hear candidates secretly whispering, “’yung dagdag, ’yung dagdag,” they realize how their votes are stolen. When electoral counts are proclaimed in the dead of night and contracts are signed at the witching hour and then lost in hotel rooms, the public likely, albeit wrongly, connects the dots.

Seen along a continuum, inclusive of attempts to dismantle the Senate through constitutional tinkering, while unfair, many fail to understand how higher values are bestowed on privilege and secrecy over the people’s right to truth. Add moronic stabs at the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms’ jurisdiction by a sundry set of sycophants, and the spectrum from sanity to stupidity is encompassed.

We must respect the law and the Supreme Court’s decision. The law must, likewise, recognize the people’s values and sense of equity. A kingdom lost against minutiae protecting privileges that conceal the truth is tragically ironic.

In the broadband issue, the arguments should have been between capital sources. It should have been about politically benign procurements. It should have been about measurable viabilities, cost-benefit analyses and the merits of borrowing and official development assistance against the build-operate-transfer model.

Comparative analyses reveal cost discrepancies and overpricing. Same with intangible costs where development charges and commissions hide. Had the National Economic and Development Authority’s (Neda) analysis not been deliberately hidden from the Senate under the cloak of executive privilege, these would have been apparent.

But bribery is a different matter not subject to comparative analysis. When this involves clandestine criminality at the highest levels, and when secret betrayals are involved, it turns ludicrous when the entity introducing these wild cards hides the full truth behind secrecy. It was the former Neda head who revealed Gloria Arroyo’s knowledge of the bribe and then suspiciously hid her reaction under executive privilege.

The imbalance between protection from contempt against the damage to democratic institutions is highlighted considering that executive privilege is solely the Executive’s, yet the latter was absent in its assertion save for a recital of suppositions (as opposed to a VALID CLAIM and assertion under Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution) from the executive secretary.

In Senate v. Ermita (GR 169777, April 20, 2006), Sections 3 and 2 (b) of EO 464 were declared invalid for allowing implied claims of privilege. Implied claims are invalid per se when these leave ambiguous how requested information could be classified privileged. Thus, grounds must be affirmed.

On September 26, 2007, when executive privilege under EO 464 was first invoked at the Senate, no executive assertions then existed. While a person might be a presidential alter ego, that is specific to the appointment. The Neda head is not the alter ego on “state secrets on military, diplomatic and national security matters.”

Only months later, on November 15, 2007, invoking executive privilege, did Malacañang write and request that scheduled testimonies be dispensed with.

Does the mere recital of suppositions constitute valid assertions of executive privilege? Was the Executive’s November 15 letter sufficient basis to trash the Senate, lose the kingdom and scuttle what is left of our democracy?

All’s well that ends well.

That’s the obvious conclusion now that the Sumilao farmers and San Miguel Corp. have hammered out what appears to be a win-win solution for both sides, and we’re glad that this case highlighting the long-standing problem of agrarian reform and social injustice in this country is now over.

Returning from a conference in Mexico, I witnessed an unusual scene. An American at Cabos airport was attempting to pay for his drinks with a British 20-pound note.

I have yet to find a person who will sincerely say that he does not want to be wealthy. While there may be those who claim they prefer not to be wealthy, I really doubt that they really meant what they say.

Through the Looking Glass: Protecting pretense and privilege

Because one person sought protection from having to complete a self-ignited allegation, refusing to perfect accusations and hiding behind secrecy and privilege, we may have just inadvertently endangered the last pillar holding up our increasingly endangered democracy.

Coast-to-Coast: On rice and ODA: Fix the problem, not the blame

It is a sad commentary in our time that for every problem coming our way, the preferred and, in some instances, the only solution by people who should know better is to fix the blame, not the problem.

The Entrepreneur: No threats, please

A big mistake!

That’s the first thing that came to mind after reading reports that a member of the Cabinet had threatened to send tax examiners to private companies following the Makati Business Club’s (MBC) statement calling for the resignation of officials in connection with the controversial national broadband network (NBN)-ZTE contract.

Reflections from the Mirror: Rice prices rise

The opposition is insisting that the country is undergoing a rice crisis and that the administration is to blame for the rising prices of the different varieties of rice.