Is there time?

There is. I would even say, at the risk of sounding obscure there will only be time if there is the will to make Charter change happen. Without that will from our leadership, there would never be any time. That by the way is true of any idea. Unless the journey is made from the mind to reality, it will not happen. To say there is no time is to be complicit to the deception (grander than Carpio’s ‘grand deception’) that Charter change through people’s initiative in this country would ever be allowed to traverse that line.

It annoys me when those against Charter change put all the roadblocks and then tell those who tried their hardest - sorry folks, there is no more time. A fellow commissioner tried to comfort mourning colleagues that ‘if you feel devastated about the Supreme Court decision’ how do you think Pedrosa feels, she went through this two times.

I may be doubly mourning, but it is not so much for the razor-thin margin of one among those who decided. I mourn more because the one vote came from Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban. In doing so he betrayed his own 1997 dissenting opinion that had given so much hope to many and encouraged them to try again. I feel sorrier for the man, his failure to see the perfidy of his betrayal, and worse, that he should now proclaim that he did so because he wants to leave a legacy of ‘independence’. As for betrayal, this is a facet of character about which reason cannot comprehend. I did not know that independence of mind was the issue on trial. If it was, then we have just wasted precious time debating issues, both legal and factual. on whichever side you were for. It would not have mattered.

I am told that he did not only break the tie, he actually campaigned among the other justices to put down the people’s initiative. We could go on and on about the different concurring and differing opinions but with the statement coming from Justice Panganiban himself that he was out to prove his independence then arguments or procedures were useless. He was going to vote against it anyway. It is an admission that clarifies the problem at hand. He wants President GMA punished.

* * *

It would be unfair if no mention was made that eight justices voted for the sufficiency of RA 6735 as the basis for people’s initiative on amendments: Justice Reynato S. Puno, Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justice Renato C. Corona, Justice Dante O. Tinga, Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Justice Cancio C. Garcia, Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. It is said that Justice Azcuna made an eleventh hour change. Azcuna, an appointee of former President Cory changed or was made to change his mind.

As Raul Lambino of Sigaw ng Bayan says although Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban opined that RA 6735 is sufficient in his separate opinion in 1997 Santiago v. COMELEC he did not categorically state in his separate concurring opinion in the Lambino petition that the court should abandon the ruling in Santiago case. Justice Consuelo V. Santiago on the other hand agreed with Justice Puno that Santiago v. COMELEC is not a binding precedent. Thus, the vote in favor of the adequacy of RA 6735 was 8 while there are 7 against. If the law is adequate, then the Lambino petition should have been remanded to the COMELEC.

* * *

Speaking of another contentious issue, we should pay close attention to the ongoing debate on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. The Iranian ambassador rightly complains how little is reported about his country’s position in the Philippines. To give Iran equal time here is the latest.

"Deputy Foreign Minister for economic affairs Alireza Sheikh Attar warned on the consequences of approval of the US resolution against Iran and the possibility of a reciprocal reaction and said that isolating Iran will be against the interests of world economy.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the first three-day ECO ministerial meeting which ended today, he said, "It is impossible to isolate Iran in the world of today, given its high potentials and capacity."

As for the draft-resolution of the so-called 5+1 group on Iran’s nuclear issue, he said that it has been challenged by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, adding that China and Russia disapprove its contents. Even if they manage to reach agreement at the upcoming session, UNSC non-permanent members and other countries will express their views in this respect. Therefore, the proposed draft should not be taken as the final resolution," he added.

Neither will sanctions work. Iran’s reaction in case of sanctions against it, he said that the current draft-resolution proposes not a total sanction, rather a nuclear and ballistic missile sanction. "In practice, Iran has never benefited from foreign nuclear products and services," he added.

* * *

Letter: On 10/28/06, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote in response to my column, "Panganiban’s Legacy": Excellent poignant, factual analysis, Ms. Pedrosa. With your permission, I would like to "cross-post" your column at the PDS, 10/28/06 as per attached -to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/responsible_phil_media<

There is an on-going thread in this e-discussion group on precisely the same subject. This is not a typical blogger’s-type website discussion group, where only one (bigoted) point of view is heard. This is a very responsible, mature, well-informed group of netizens whose common thrust is to promote more accountability and responsibility in Philippine media...and to encourage media to focus more intently and purposefully on other critical issues of societal survival...i.e., alleviation of the poorest of the poor.

I believe your analysis and point of view hits the essential and most fundamental issue of self-rule and self-governance — smack squarely on the head..." walang paliguy-ligoy, no double speak, no euphemism, no jargon..." Just simple. Plain (clear and good) English. Grammatical pa! Responsible-accountable, and therefore dependable political punditry, I call it. My answer, of course is a big yes.

I have had the pleasure of meeting you and Ambassador Pedrosa, years back, during the wedding and reception of your daughter Veronica. Very memorable celebration. And the announcement that evening that the PIRMA initiative was (again and finally) turned down by the Supreme Court did not dampen the merriment, as I recall...just as I believe that this latest decision of the SC...will not dampen the spirit of the people despite the solicitous attempt of the SC to rationalize — justify how and why they frustrated the will, ignore the mandate and "bale walain ang boses ng taong bayan." I daresay, the (illusory and delusional, if enigmatic) "legacy" that Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban has arrogated unto himself for his own self-aggrandizement...is at best, like a drop of water...that rolls off a duck’s back...it is not going to hold...for it will not (should not) pass or survive the true and the objective, the penetrating and the acid test of "people-based constitutionality." And I am encouraged , as I am heartened by your analysis today. More power to you. Noblesse oblige. Pepeton

My e-mail is [email protected]