Month: February 2008

breaking news

Breaking News: Finally, the President speaks on ZTE, 8:21am today (being finalized)

(draft being finalized)

         Finally, the President speaks.  She said: The night before the signing of the ZTE contract she was advised that there were irregularities in the contract. (DZRH interview 8:00 am this morning as quoted by www.gmanews.tv)     

         I will put here the direct quotes from  her (and my translation) so you could look at it with me; the syntax of the direct quotes is strange, at best awkward. I did not include the paraphrased form as it appears in the gmanews.tv website.    

         “Sumbong sa akin the night before signing of the supply contract, that was one of many signings. (Pero) paano mo i-cancel the night before, may ibang bansa kang kausap. (www.gmanews.tv quoting DZRH), she said.  (“I was told the night before  signing of the supply contract, that was one of many signings. (But) how do you cancel the night before, you’ve already agreed with a foreign country?”).     

         “Pero sa unang pagkakataon kausap ko ang pangulo ng China para sabihin kailangan kanselahin ang proyekto. Sa una nagulat, sa pangalawa, naintindihan niya at magkaibigan pa rin kami kahit kanselado ang proyekto (www.gmanews.tv  quoting DZRH), she added. (“But at the first opportunity, i talked to the President of China to tell him that the project needs to be cancelled. On one hand, he was surprised, on the other, he understood and we were still friends even if the project had been cancelled.”)      

         “Ang taumbayan galit sa katiwalian ganoon din ako,” she said. (“People are angry with corruption, and so am i.”)        

          Referring to her suspension of 11 ODA projects and how she asked transparency groups like the Bishops’-Businessmen’s Conference, the Makati Business Club, and Transparency Accountability Network monitor the procurement and bidding processes, she said “Ito ang reporma sa sistema para mabawasan ang katiwalian sa pamahalaan.” (“This is the reform in the system to lessen corruption in government.”)

        Those are the direct quotes.

       [to be continued, for my comments on language pertinent laws, defensibility or indefensibility of the President’s “confession” (if you look at the language, it is studied to the point of being a literal translation from English); be back this afternoon.]

nothing

teapot

sharptilamsik.jpg Jose “Pinggot” Zulueta. Tilamsik series, first one-man exhibit. Published with express permission from the artist (thanks much!). Asinta images. Right-clicked from http://www.asinta.netfirms.com             

        The march  of law students today to call for the resignation of  Gloria is acronymed ASAR  or ASARAN (Advocacy for …. etc.), coming in the heels of the statement of members of the U.P.Law Community on “Truth and Accountability”.  

                Anyway, I saw this post in Atty. Teddy Te’s blog at www.tedte.blogspot.com

              i wonder what this is all about? (well, actually, i have an idea;  because  of  the publicized  Deanship tussle; i’m just trying to be cute, ha-ha). Atty. Teddy Te gives us  an idea who this person is who doesn’t want the statement on “truth and accountability” to  go around  not on substantive disagreement but on… oh, read the post, he asks rhetorical questions in the end: 

         From Atty. Teddy Te, quote

         “Would that we were to once again remember what it is that is truly important to us and not be weighed down by minor details like “why call it a law community statement if it did not reflect a majority view?” or even more minor details like “who gets the credit?” or “whose turn is it before the camera?” But I think that might be an even more difficult task than to get Gloria out.” Closed-quote.    

            It’s so  ASAR naman. [i admit i sometimes have my share of pettiness, but during those times, i know i’m being petty and try my best to be professional; at other times i just avoid individuals i don’t like, they’re a waste of time, instead of sowing intrigue that’s unproductive); we go on our merry way and try to rise above  it all (ahem, but i still avoid them, ha-ha), there are things far bigger than ourselves, and i’m publishing this just to alert people about these  politicians and candidates- wannabes, they are the same kind as Gloria] 

            From Atty. Teddy Te’s blog, Thursday, February 21

                    Quote “I have no words . . . (by Atty. Teddy Te)      

                     Quote “. . . to describe just how disappointing it is that some faculty members (I won’t name names here because my source will get into trouble) and students of the law school choose to nitpick instead of 1) being constructive or 2) simply getting out of the way. (For perspective, go to Lobit’s multiply site for her text exchange presumably with some student who, to her credit, she does not identify; for perspective on the faculty member/s, let us just say that media friends have been hounding me for comment on what they have been saying.) 

              

       Quote “Yesterday, the Dean and some members of the faculty and students issued a statement that was carried over the media. It was deliberately sub-titled “A Statement from the UP Law Community” NOT “An OFFICIAL Statement of the UP Law FACULTY AND STUDENTS” or “An OFFICIAL Statement of UP LAW.” To my mind, “community” means a group of people united by some principle or purpose; and those who signed the statement were.

        Quote “Some have said we should have deliberated–we did.       

        Quote “Was everyone invited? Yes.      

        Quote “But not everyone invited chose to go. And I respect that; I respect your silence on the matter–but I would ask that you respect as well the sentiments of those who chose to participate and sign.     

       Quote “I have my first draft which is radically different from the one that came out to show just how deliberated upon the statement was. Truthfully, and the Dean and the others who were there will tell you–I do not completely agree with everything there. For instance, if that were my statement, it would consist only of the following words–‘GLORIA, GET OUT–NOW!!!” But I was writing for a community and, therefore, my own thoughts and opinions and even style of writing would have to be subordinated to what the others felt they wanted.     

         Quote “Were contrary opinions entertained? Yes. I have always held the belief that the Senate investigations have outlived their purpose and should be terminated with dispatch; many who were around did not. So, I respected that and did not put that in the final draft that appeared.    

          Quote “Why did I sign it if it did not exactly reflect what I believed in? Because I believed it was time for UP Law to speak up and because it contained the essential points I wanted said–Gloria must go. Everything else in the statement was a means toward that end.     

        Quote “It is frustrating to see us fighting each other instead of the common enemy right now. That, by itself, is a victory for Gloria and Mike Arroyo and their minions.      

        Quote “Unity cannot be legislated or forced because many times egos get in the way. Would that we were to once again remember what it is that is truly important to us and not be weighed down by minor details like “why call it a law community statement if it did not reflect a majority view?” or even more minor details like “who gets the credit?” or “whose turn is it before the camera?” But I think that might be an even more difficult task than to get Gloria out.” Closed-quote.   

Rules of Court

Passport to hell and back (pardon the language)

twobalandra.jpg Vincent Balandra, “Untitled”, Oil on Canvas, 91 x 60 cms., 2002 Kulay-Diwa Gallery of Philippine Contemporary Art. Rightclicked and downloaded with express permission (thanks much!) from the webmaster at www.kulay-diwa.com         

       Lawyer-client conference: “Nasa  ‘yo ba  ‘yung passport ni Jun Lozada?” (“Is Jun Lozada’s passport with you?”), and the rest is now  attorney-client privilege, for that must have been how the lawyer came into possession  of  the passport he returned:  Yesterday morning,  SPO4 Rodolfo  Valeroso’s lawyer returned  Jun Lozada’s passport  to him in court  [was it in open court? If it wasn’t marked in evidence: marking it (with the important sub-markings of course; sometimes it’s the submarkings that tell the story) would have been a high point of the proceeding.]           

         As i understand it, the lawyer  returned it  and people were grateful or felt vindicated.  Maybe it wasn’t necessary to squeeze  or shake down the other party’s (Valeroso)  possession as, i think, it is a res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself), his client’s possession  of the passport by itself without explanation is incriminating enough. It is also corroborative and i’ll leave the other lawyers to illustrate the  corroboration; by this blog’s count, it is the third  batch of corroborating evidence coming from government officials, this blog has a series on  it (corroborating) in this case and we haven’t  even gone into  a  “hypothetical discussion”  of the alleged wiretapped conversation posted in youtube; maybe tomorrow.           

          Some other lawyer who’s ruthless and not content with  writing it in the pleading,  would want the judge  to literally see with his/her own eyes the argument unravel or spelled out,  even if technically it doesn’t become part of the evidence, he’d/she’d make the lawyer invoke privilege, the ruthless will ask three or four questions on the manner of taking to make opposing counsel invoke privilege.           

           I know that would be rude to pañero who did the lawyerly  honourable thing by returning the passport. But i like to illustrate how ridiculous the defenses are. (the morning proceding is over,  so i guess it’s alright to write about it, it’s been more than 12 hours .)      

        Pañero could say, (if he doesn’t want  to invoke  privilege) “your honor, his   client gave it to my client and my client didn’t know how to return it” or something to that effect. Privilege and right against  self-incrimination  may shield Valeroso and lawyer from being forced to answer questions but it is  a PR disaster and politically makes the person “look guilty” (i know.  A refusal to answer does not get into evidence but let them invoke it). Do you know why President Gloria never expressly invoked any of these even at the height of the Hello Garci controversy? I’ll explain it in person, i don’t like to blog about that detail.        

      

          (for chrissake sake, sila naman ang ipitin.)              

        An explanation on the other hand (“his client gave it to my client… etc.”) opens up the other side  to more questions, once they open a door, opposing counsel and the court are entitled to ask more questions on a topic they had opened.   (Anyway it’s over, i can write about it.) 

          

         I’ll be darned if somebody walked away with “murder”.