Response to Senator Cayetano's Proposal to Name Corrupt Political Dynasties

Political dynasties are themselves issues of their own, Senator Cayetano. It does not need to be a corrupt political dynasty, in order for a political dynasty to be an issue. Political dynasty, per se, is a corruption of a democratic and republican system of government.

Political dynasties perpetuate the existence of a subservient, ill-informed, and politically uneducated citizenry. It encourages the common individual to believe that bios politikos is reserved for the few, and thus the many needs to just shut up.

As if destined by the stars or written within their genes, it creates the perception that politics are run by those who are born to rule; they are those who, through proper breeding, have good political acumen that courses through their blue-blooded veins which can be passed down from generation to generation.

Political dynasties reinforces the notion of politics as the "work" of a few enlightened individuals as opposed to the deliberation of the many, vulgar crowd. The untransparent discussions of the elite are efficient and necessary to alleviate the burden of policy-making amongst pleasure-seeking individuals within a consumer-defined and materially-driven polity.

Lastly, it testifies to the immaturity and incapacity of the citizenry to effectively govern themselves. From voters that tend to favor the popular, regardless of their credentials (or the lack thereof), to the scarcity of non-dynastic candidates, political dynasties deprive the nation of the talents and skills of capable individuals from all backgrounds, regardless of blood-ties.

Thus, we are deprive of the fruits of diverse perspectives, insights and opinions; the competition of ideas does not exist because not all ideas prolong the existence of a family's hold onto power.

~

Good Riddance

Good riddance. It is about time the drama-king got fired. In his capacity as Chief Justice, to interpret a Marcos-era bank secrecy law as justification for absolving himself from the requirements of a more recent law on the accountability of public servants shows his self-serving and corrupt logic.

Common sense suggests that old laws are repealed, implied or expressed, by new laws. R.A. 6713 is m...ore recent and it requires "cash on hand or in banks" be disclosed and this law has a repealing clause. More so, the language of the 1987 Constitution, a more recent and more legitimate social contract (compared to the perverted 1973 Constitution), backs R.A. 6713.

I hope his dollar accounts would give him much consolation; he will need it for his criminal defense. Without the clout of his judicial robes, things could get expensive. No more pro bono legal representation!

I pray the Tanodbayan will extend the same courtesy the impeached and convicted public servant showed to her when she hauls (or drags) him to the Sandigandayan. It will teach future generations of politicians and judges to shed their entitlement mentality and thus, the lesson of humility.

In a country where the rule of law reigns supreme, erring agents and interpreters of the law are treated the same as laymen. Justice knows no kamag-anak, kaibigan, kaklase or kabarilan.

Oh, I can't wait for the Philippine FOI Bill to be enacted into law.

Aquino Administration's Defense of a Pagcor Official's Act: Pure Baloney

Common industry practice, a non-cash gift and taxpayer savings. Wow. These are the Aquino administration's justifications for shielding a Pagcor official's act of accepting non-monetary gifts? These same justifications will lead the pursuit of matuwid na daan to baku-bakong daan.

Common "industry practice" can be interpreted to mean the same crooked ways of how some in the Philippine and foreign private industry have connived with corrupt public officials through bribery in their quest to further their company's quarterly earnings.

Bribery can also be in the form of non-cash gifts. The stand of this administration testifies to the inadequate, outdated and inutile approach of tackling corruption and the laws that define it in the Philippines: talk about a neanderthal perspective to the ever-growing sophistication of this social evil.

Government savings? I would rather pay what is due to the public treasury than be used as a reason for public officials to commit sanctioned bribery. Hospitality provided by foreign government institutions in the course of an official function (e.g., reciprocal diplomatic exchanges of gifts) is understandable.

But hospitality provided by a private institution, even in an official capacity, is always suspect, not above suspicion, and definitely not immune to perception of corruption.

Questions

The right of senators to ask questions should not be limited to a mere observer status common in judicial proceedings. Senators are neither judges bound by court rules of the judiciary even though they may elect to be guided by such rules. It is absurd to limit the capacity of each senator to make inquiries based on a perceived procedural error.

To apply the strictest level of requirement on evidence on a process in which the maximum penalty is no more than perpetual removal from any public office is not grounded on precedent. Does impeachment conviction deprive a person of his/her fundamental right? Is perpetual removal from any public office considered "cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment" that the person accused may take refuge on the bill of rights?

I believe the answer to the two questions asked requires us to answer this question: is public office a fundamental right of a citizen?

Verification and Plagiarism

Verification can only be achieved by reading the document? I thought verification means affixing the signature (confirming acknowledgement) of a declarant, the content being the sole responsibility of the declarant regardless of whether be it true or otherwise.

In any case, raise your hand if you have read your credit card agreement word-for-word before signing it. What about when you bought a car or house? Did you read everything in the document you signed, even the fine print?

Do all lawmakers read the bill they vote on? Last time I heard, the most recent US healthcare law comprised of a thousand five hundred pages. When majority opinions were published, did the majority read the dissenting opinion(s) and were the dissenting opinion(s) given the opportunity to be read and heard?

Due process takes course because the declarants need to defend their statements; the accused have a chance to face his accuser, call witnesses for his defense, and refute the accusation in an adversarial setting.

Last question, why on earth is a political process essentially operated by the Rules of Court? Because there is no originality. Mahilig mag-plagiarize.