This Morning’s Thought

This thought came to me just when I was going out for an appointment. I texted to this to blogger friends so I would not lose it.

Anyway, I think I know why the executive department welcomed all challenges to Proclamation 1017.

Simple. Once oppositors thereto file a case in the Supreme Court, the sub judice rule kicks in and all media discussion on the merits of the proclamation should cease.

Then all the supreme court needs to do is take its sweet time until everything boils over.

Now, 17 groups really took the bait.

Brilliant, isn’t it?

All ‘Bout the Money

“All ‘Bout The Money”
by Meja

Sometimes I find another world
inside my mind
when I realise
the crazy things we do
It makes me feel ashamed to be alive
It makes me wanna run away and hide

It’s all ’bout the money
It’s all ’bout the dum dum…….
And I don’t think It’s funny
to see us fade away
It’s all ’bout the money
It’s all ’bout the dum dum…
and I think we got it all wrong anyway

We find strange ways of showing
them how much we really care
when in fact
we just don’t seem to care at all
This pretty world
is getting out of hand
So tell me how we fail to understand?

It’s all ’bout the money
It’s all ’bout the dum dum…….
And I don?t think It?s funny
to see us fade away
It’s all ’bout the money
It’s all ’bout the dum dum…
and I think we got it all wrong anyway
Anyway

Cause it’s all ’bout the money

It’s all ’bout the money
It’s all ’bout the dum dum…
And I don’t think it’s funny
to see us fade away
It’s all ’bout the money
It’s all ’bout the dum dum…
and I think we got it all wrong
Anyway

It’s all ’bout the money
It’s all ’bout the dum dum…
And I don’t think it’s funny
to see us fade away
It’s all ’bout the money
It’s all ’bout the dum dum…
and I think we got it all wrong anyway
Anyway

“Who to Arrest” for Dummies

For those who are either too lazy or too dense (read: dumb) to figure out who will be arrested in the following days, I’ll make it simpler for you…

Here’s the list of those who will be arrested:

1. Members of the Communist Party of the Philippines, New People’s Army and the Nationalist Democratic Front (if they can catch them, heheheheheheh!)

2. Prominent members of the so-called “left leaning groups” such as, but not limited to party list representatives of such groups like AKBAYAN, SANLAKAS, ANAKPAWIS and BAYAN MUNA (they got Crispin Beltran already, almost got Ka Satur, some more may follow)

3. Possibly members of some “civil society” groups, such as, but not limited to, the Black and White Movement, the Hyatt 10, etc. (include former President Cory Aquino here)

4. Prominent pro-Estrada/FPJ personalites and groups (the name of Susan Roces came up…)

5. Magdalo and other coup groups (and probably their sympathizers, associates), insert all “disloyal” military/police men here

6. Peping Cojuangco, his daughter Mikee Cojuangco-Jaworski (another case of “rebellion complexed with catering” where the instruments of the crime are chicken sandwiches, macaroni salad, corn and cookies), Boy Saycon and all people in that meeting at Peping’s house

Of course, this is just the list according to the Palace’s own chronology…

There will be others soon (probably “unfriendly” media practitioners), unless these people do something about it…

Not launch a coup, silly!

I don’t want to be arrested also. My kids are still young… Don’t scare me, I’m already scared…

They should file a case in the Supreme Court seeking an injunction against the executive department from implementing Proclamation 1017 and all orders emanating from it… These people can legitimately claim to be real parties in interest (and not mere taxpayers…)

That’s the legal thing to do… and of course, I’m playing armchair lawyer here…

Chronology of a Conspiracy

For my personal record purposes, I will “copy paste” the Palace’s chronology of events which alleged led to Proclamation No. 1017. I copied this from Jove’s Blog, but according to him, this is already in the OPS website.

From this, one can easily deduce who will be arrested in the forthcoming days.

CHRONOLOGY OF CONSPIRACY

Proclamation No. 1017 was issued to thwart a conspiracy to overthrow the government among the communist rebel movement, certain military officers, and some members of the opposition. The following is a chronology of events leading to the proclamation of a state of national emergency:

BEFORE THE WEEK OF 19-25 FEBRUARY 2006

Anti-Arroyo Groups Planned Massive Protests

• The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) directed front organizations to stage mass protests on 24 February, with 5,000 participants from Metro Manila and 25,000 from nearby provinces.

• CPP-linked groups mount lightning rallies from 17 to 22 February. In recent weeks, CPP’s New People’s Army intensify attacks on government troops.

• Bayan Muna leader Cong. Satur Ocampo said the aims of the protests is to coalesce with other anti-Arroyo groups, including the pro-Estrada and Hyatt 10 camps; and establish a renewed relationship with former president Cory Aquino.

• On 20 February in Alex Grill, Matalino St., Quezon City, the Black and White Movement, Akbayan, and other anti-Arroyo groups announced plans to march 20,000 protesters on 22 February around Metro Manila, converge at the People Power Monument on 23 February, and possibly move to Mendiola on 24 February.

• Pro-FPJ groups under Susan Roces declared that they would join anti-Arroyo protests on 24 February, at the People Power Monument and Mendiola.

• Pro-Estrada/FPJ supporters hold daily vigils and masses at the People Power Monument since 12 February.

Emerging Alliance Between Rebel Soldiers and Communist Insurgents

• On 17 January, four officers among the Magdalo group on trial for the 2003 Oakwood mutiny, escaped military custody.

• New People’s Army spokesman Ka Roger Rosal offered sanctuary to the four escaped Magdalo rebel soldiers.

• A captured document titled “Oplan Hackle” detailed plans for bombings and attacks starting on the Philippine Military Academy alumni homecoming on 18 February.

• The Hackle document also included a plan to spring more Magdalo soldiers.

• On 21 February, one of the escaped soldiers, Lt. Lawrence San Juan, was arrested while plotting with two NPA figures in a communist safehouse in Batangas province.

• Documents of the Magdalo-NPA meeting were captured and would be declassified.

23 FEBRUARY / THURSDAY

Plot to Oust President Arroyo

• In an evening meeting at the home of former congressman Peping Cojuangco, Cory Aquino’s brother, businessmen and mid-level officials plotted moves to bring down the Arroyo government.

• As reported by Time Magazine, longtime Arroyo critic Pastor “Boy” Saycon called someone whom he identified as a U.S. official about his group’s plans if President Arroyo is ousted.

• Saycon also phoned a man code-named Delta, whom Saycon identified as B/Gen. Danilo Lim, commander of the Army’s elite Scout Rangers. Lim said it was “all systems go” for the planned movement against President Arroyo.

• According to Saycon, Time reported, a military component was to march on Friday morning to the EDSA Shrine, near the People Power Monument where protests were to converge.

• At the Shrine, Time said, the troops would be met by Catholic bishops and a Marine general. The general would read a statement withdrawing support from the Arroyo government.

Threat to the Military Chain of Command

• Late that afternoon, meanwhile, B/Gen. Lim and Marine brigade commander Col. Ariel Querubin told AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Generoso Senga that restive young officers and soldiers planned to join rallies on 24 February, so as to provide critical mass and the armed component to the protests.

• Lim and Querubin said they might not be able to dissuade these troops from their plan, and there were indications that the two may also join them.

• After Lim and Querubin left, Gen. Senga discussed the problem with the Army, Navy and Air Force commanding generals.

• Lim and Querubin were called to join the top-brass meeting and advised to stop troops from joining the protests, but they did not seem willing to do so.

• After Lim and Querubin left, Gen. Senga and the major service commanders took steps to secure the AFP chain of command and its loyalty to the duly constituted government.

• They called all major military commanders in the country.

• Navy chief Adm. Mateo Mayuga spoke with the Marines.

• At Gen. Senga’s advice, Lim submitted to the AFP Chief of Staff’s custody.

Suspicious Actions at PNP Special Forces

• On 23 February, residents near Camp Sto. Domingo, base of the Philippine National Police Special Action Force (SAF) were told to take precautions because some SAF elements were planning to defect
.
• PNP Chief Gen. Arturo Lomibao asked SAF commander Gen. Franco about SAF situation and told him to disavow any SAF defection.

• Franco issued statement. He was later relieved without incident, along with two other SAF officials.

24 FEBRUARY / FRIDAY

• By early morning on Friday, 24 February, all military commanders and forces were accounted for and solidly behind the chain of command.

• While the situation was under control, in Gen. Senga’s assessment, it was still fluid and could change.

• The AFP leadership meets daily to assess the situation and take necessary action.

• The military has also embarked on a campaign to enhance the troops’ allegiance to constitutional government, and their understanding of the national situation.

Advised of the foregoing military and civilian developments, the President and the Cabinet decided on the morning of Friday, 24 February, to issue Proclamation 1017.

May God have mercy on us all…

Much ado about nothing?

The Marine “stand-off” over at Fort Bonifacio may be over.

But I was shocked how agitated the people are. It seems that any soldier seeking people support, from this point on, will get a throng of people by his side.

But they should not be used this way.

And they should allow themselves to be used.

People are agitated as it is.

People are already jittery.

Proclamation 1017 and its companion General Order No. 5 are not helping the situation a bit.

These are serious times.

Tensions and emotions are high.

I hope and pray no one gets hurt.

And the same goes for their rights…

Philippine (Acting) President’s/Vice-President’s Oath of Office

I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines,
preserve and defend its Constitution,
execute its laws,
do justice to every man,
and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation.
So help me God. (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)

[From Section 5, Articl VII, 1987 Constitution]

Pledge of Allegiance to the Philippine Flag

I am a Filipino
I pledge my allegiance
To the flag of the Philippines
And to the country it represents
With honor, justice and freedom
That is put in motion by one nation
For God, humanity, Nature and
Country.

Philippine Patriot’s Pledge

I love the Philippines.
It is the land of my birth;
It is the home of my people.
It protects me and helps me to be strong, happy and useful.
In return, I will heed the counsel of my parents;
I will obey the rules of my school;
I will perform the duties of a patriotic, law-abiding citizen;
I will serve my country unselfishly and faithfully
I will be a true Filipino in thought, in word, in deed.

Philippine Oath of Allegiance

I solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines,
and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto, a
nd that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation
or purpose of evasion.

SO HELP ME GOD.

Blog Lecture No. 58: Freedom of Expression

In an unprecendented move, Punzi’s Corner Blog shall be blog-lecturing not once, but twice in one day… but I will rely on our teacher, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. on this one…

What is the constitutional provision on freedom of speech, expression and of the press?

Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution states:

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.

What does “speech,” “expression” and “press” include?

They include all forms of expression, whether oral, written, taped or disc recorded. It also includes movies and symbolic speech such as wearing of armbands as a symbol of protest.

What are the prohibitions regarding the freedom of speech clause of the constitution?

This constitutional provision prohibits:

1. Prior Restraint
2. Subsequent Punishment

What is Prior Restraint?

It means official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. This may come in the form of warnings of closure or unjustifiable licensing systems, etc.

As a matter of fact, I believe any form of regulation or move by the state that would have a “chilling effect” on the freedom of speech is covered by the rule against prior restraint.

How about raiding and closing a newspaper for fear it may publish reports “damaging” to the present adminsitration?

It may be covered by this prohibition.

“Such closure is in the nature of privious restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law and constitutes virtual denial of the freedom to express themselves in dissent.” (Burgos Sr., vs. Chief of Staff, AFP, 133 SCRA 800 [1985])

Is the prohibition against prior restraint absolute?

Of course not. But any such system of prior restraint comes to court bearing a heavy presumption against constitutionality.

What are the exemptions?

According to Near vs. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931), it is as follows:

When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its error that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.’ No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops. On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government.

Hence, in simple terms:

1. When a nation is at war, any utternance that cannot be endured so long as men fight.
2. Actual troop movement and other tactical/security matters again at time of war (or arguable rebellion and/or insurrection).
3. Obcenity, at any time
4. Incitements to acts of violence or the overthrow by force of an orderly government.
5. Of course libel is likewise unprotected speech, at any time

What is subsequent punishment?

Simply put, this punishes speech or expression after the fact.

What are the standards of allowable subsequent punishment of expression?

There are three standards:

1. The Clear and Present Danger Test
2. The Dangerous Tendency Test; and
3. The Balancing of Interest Test.

What is the “Clear and Present Danger Rule”?

According to Schenck vs. United States (249 US 47):

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Hence:

1. There must be a danger
2. It must be clear and present; and
3. Such danger is of such substantive evil that the State/Congress has a right to prevent

Give examples of this danger.

For example, lawless violence, disorder, chaos, rebellion, etc.

What is the “Dangerous Tendency Test”?

Speech may be curtailed or punished when it creates a dangerous tendency which the State has the right to prevent. All it requires is a rational connection between the speech and the evil sought to be prevented.

What is the “Balancing of Interest Test”?

It rests on the theory that it is the Court’s function in the case before it when it finds public interests served by legislation (or executive action) on the one hand and freedom of expression on the other, to balance the one against the other and to arrive at a judgment where the greater weight must be placed.

In short, it rests on the basis that constitutional freedoms are not absolute and that it may be abridged to some extent to seve appropriate and important interests. (paraphrased from Gonzales vs. Comelec, 27 SCRA 899 [1969])

What do we follow here?

It is the Balancing of Interest Rule.