The Ombudsman-Garcia Deal: Another Dark Episode in Philippine Justice

MANILA
On 19 December 2003, exactly seven years and two days today, Juan Paulo Garcia, son of then AFP comptroller Major General Carlos F. Garcia faced arrest by United States Customs at the San Francisco airport for failing to declare US$ 100,000 that he brought in cash. The US Court confiscated the money without fine.

General Garcia explained almost a month later (12 January 2004) to the Fines, Penalties and Forfeiture Office that the amount came from "savings, honoraria, and dividends from savings" made through the years. And the money was intended to pay for the initial downpayment for a condo unit of his son in New York.

On 2 August 2004, General Garcia wrote a letter to AFP Chief of Staff General Narciso Abaya who ordered the initiation of a probe telling a different story, that the money was intednded to pay for his wife's medical check up and teh medication of his eldest son.

On 14 September 2004, Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo received the transmittal from US Customs about the Garcia dollars, and initiated an investigation, which the Office found out prima facie case against Garcia, and ordered AFP to suspend him for six months without pay. The Philippine Star columnist Jarius Bondoc broke the story to the public.

On 12 October 2004, the AFP started a courtmarial proceedings against General Garcia, and brought him back to his quarters inside Camp Aguinaldo. Fifteen days later, the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under Republic Act No. 1379 against Garcia. Two days later the Sandiganbayan granted the application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Garcia received teh summons and the writ on November 2.

Shortly after the Office of the Ombudsman indicted the Garcias for plunder on 6 April 1005, Clarita and the three Garcia sons--Ian Karl (30), Juan Paulo (27) and Timothy Mark--disappeared. A warrant of arrest was issued against him in May 2005, and General Garcia was transferred to Camp Crame.

On 2 December 2005, the general court martial convicted General Garcia of undeclared wealth, dishonorably dismissed him from the military and sentenced him to two years of hard labor.

On 25 February 2009 two Garcia sons, Juan Paulo (27) and Ian Karl (30) were also arrested after an indictment (issued in December 2008) in San Francisco. They were detained in the Northern District of California for bulk smuggling charges related to the $100,000 they were caught transporting to the US from the Philippines in 2003. The brothers were charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bulk cash smuggling and one count of bulk cash smuggling. The grand jury also charged Juan Paulo with one count of failing to file a report on the import of monetary instruments, and one count of making a false statement to a government agency. Juan Paulo got arrested in Pontiac, Michigan while Ian Carlg got nabbed in Las Vegas.

On 12 March 2009 Garcia wife Clarita and son Timothy Mark (25) were arrested in the United States based on a provisional arrest warrant that the Philippine authorities requested. Timothy Mark was arrested on March 4 in New York City in an apartment that he and her mother bought for $765,000 (P36.7 million) with him as the "sole resident." Clarita was detained at the Wayne County jail in Detroit, Michigan.

Except for General Garcia, the rest of the members of the family are all US citizens and are subjects to extradition.

On 14 December 2009, the Office of the Ombudsman filed a money laundering case against Garcia and his family with violation of Section 4(a) of RA 9160 (the Anti-Money Laundering Act). The Office found that the Garcias have a total deposit of P303.27 million and withdrawal of P73 million and US$967,215.99 in at least 10 banks, the funds being proceeds of plunder. (More details)

On 30 November 2010, Juan Paolo and Ian Karl were handed down sentence of "time served" by the US District Court Judge of the Northern District of California in San Francisco.

The Plea Bargain

The Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan approved a plea bargain with General Garcia to go scotch-free of the plunder charge if Garcia pleas guilty of lesser crimes--direct bribery and money laundering--and agree to return about P130 million. On 18 December 2010 (Saturday), just barely four years after his arrest, Garcia walked free from a detention facility in Camp Crame after posting a bond of P60,000.

By contrast, former Ombudsman Marcelo said, the Ombudsman continues to hide details of the plea bargain. So there’s no telling if the P135.4 million is complete or also a bargain.

A Convoluted Thinking

Returning about P130 million is in itself an obvious admission of guilt for stealing P302 million from the government. And if our arithmetic is correct, around P172 million still remained in Garcia's possession somewhere. The Ombudsman agreed to drop the plunder case to recover 43 percent of the funneled amount, while the corrupt military officer got to keep the bigger share 57 percent of the loot. No big deal punishment to satisfy the crime. The logic looks very convoluted however you want to look at it.

Add to that the fact that, as what former Ombudsman Marcelo said, the P302 million supposed to have been forfeited already when Garcia defaulted in his defense: "Garcia’s assets already were forfeited by his default in the civil case. The P303.2 million was the assessed value of residences, commercial buildings, farms, resorts, and vehicles in the Philippines, two condos in New York City, and a house in Ohio. Added to these were millions of pesos and dollars in bank deposits." In short, these are identified properties already.  

Rule 116 Section 2 of the Rules of Court provided that plea bargain deals must only be made before or after the arraignment of the accused, not long after the trial has started. The trial started way back 2006, and the prosecutors have rested their case more than a year back. This also belies the Ombudsman claim under Marcelo that its case against Garcia was strong. This deal then is an affront to the hardwork of the Marcelo Ombudsman.

Former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo said that the Supreme Court ruling in People of the Philippines v. Mamarion applied the plea bargain only to accessories of the crime, not the principal accused, in this case Garcia. And assuming that plea bargain may be allowed this late, the Ombudsman prosecutors failed to seek approval of the aggrieved parties--the Department of National Defense and the Commander-in-Chief President PNoy. This method of finding excuse to justify an already decided move smells all too familiar these days, particularly in the controversial cases lately decided by the Supreme Court itself that caused uproar among Filipinos. Did the Supreme Court success in deciding cases like this now become a mainstay in the Philippine legal system? 

Former senator and currently The Philippine Star columnist, Ernesto Maceda, stated it clear on the very generous deal that the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan gave to General Garcia: "It is easy to surmise that General Carlos C. Garcia would have been willing to return the entire P302 million in exchange for release from jail if the prosecutors had insisted. In a civil case for forteiture of teh P302 million, Gen. Garcia did not answer and is in default. After all, we believe P302 millin is not even the entire amount amassed by the Garcias. He has much more. How about millions deposited in other relatives and friends' names? How about the millions in jewelry and expensive bags purchased? How about cash in a personal safe somewhere? Yes, General Garcia now gets to enjoy a pabaon of P170 million or more of AFP funds he had amassed."

A Justice that Smells

Jarius Bondoc, in his column Gotcha in The Philippine Star, wrote: "Sources at the Office of the Ombudsman had tipped off this writer in September that a secret deal was filed with the Sandiganbayan late 2009. Both the court and the Ombudsman withheld copies." Why should they?  

Extradition for "Another Deal"?

Here's another interesting matter. In March 2009, the Office of the Ombudsman worked on the extradition of Garcia's wife and three sons that the United States law enforces arrested in February 2009 for bringing $100,000 in cash undeclared into the American soil. The status hearing of their extradition case of Juan Paolo and Ian Karl was set on 26 January 2011 before the US Magistrate Judge at the US Northern District Court of California. Timothy Mark's was on 12 January 2011 before US District Court Judge of Southern District of New York.

Now, doubts will arise right away into the minds of the Filipino people. Will this extradition turn into a means to set the Garcia wife and children free through another deal? Maybe another 43 percent of the loot returned?

Sandiganbayan Approved the Deal

On 9 May 2011, the second division of the Sandiganbayan approved the plea bargain on the ground that Garcia complied with all teh requirements in the plea bargain arrangement. It also junked the motion for intervention that the Office of the Solicitor General filed, citing that the deal was "irregular" and "not right." 

What Others Say

Laila De Lima, Secretary of Justice: "I don't think that deal can be submitted to the Sandiganbayan without the imprimatur of the Ombudsman herself... I should say it can be a ground (for impeachment). It's a betrayal of public trust when you lackadaisically approve deals like that to the detriment of teh people, the government." (Source)

Ernesto Maceda, former Senator: "This plea bargain strengthens the perception that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was appointed to her position by GMA to protect GMA and erring officials of her Administration. It gives further assurance to criminals that it is easy to get away from jail time and decisions can be bought from corrupt policemen, prosecutors and judges." (Search for the Truth: "Crime does pay," The Philippine Star 21 December 2010

Simeon Marcelo, former Ombudsman: "It is an affront on the President's declared war against corruption." (Source)

Makati Business Club, Management Association of the Philippines, official statement: "Four days after the Sandiganbayan approved Mr. Garcia's motion to post bail, the full details of the plea bargain agreement are known only to a few. Such critical details as the amount and form of a supposed financial settlement have not yet been disclosed to the public... Beyond the matter of transparency, however, what is truly at issue here is the decision to entertain plea bargain talks in the first place." (Source)

SOURCES
Kathrina Alvarez: "Sandiganbayan okays Garcia plea bargain," Sunstar Network Exchange 9 May 2011 

Nikko Dizon, Marlon Ramos & Christine Avendaño: "Garcia deal may peril US aid; Aquino wants it undone," Philippine Daily Inquirer 21 December 2010

Reinir Padua: "Ombudsman working on extradition of Garcia's wife, 3 sons," The Philippine Star 9 March 2009

Joseph Lariosa: "3rd son of Gen. Garcia now also detained in US," GMA News.TV 18 March 2009

Ernesto Maceda: "Search For the Truth: Crime does pay," The Philippine Star 21 December 2010

Jarius Bondoc: "Gotcha: General Garcia plea bargain 'irregular'," The Philippine Star 20 December 2010

GMA News Research: "Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia," GMA News.TV 10 April 2008
___: "Interpol help eyed for Gen. Garcia's missing kin--report," GMA News.TV 6 July 2007
Joseph Lariosa: "Gen. Garcia's sons sentenced to time served in US," GMA News.TV 30 November 2011

Gays in the Philippine Military

GENERAL
The winds of gay rights is winning legal battles in the seat of Western democracy as the United States Senate voted to overturn the military's 17-year ban on openly gay troops. In the Philippine perspective, this came a bit late as the country lifted its ban way back March 2009.

The American Jurisprudence

On 18 December 2010 (Saturday), the US Senate voted 65-31 to repeal the Clinton-era ban on open gays in the military, popularly known as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on the issue. This 1993 law has already dismissed over 13,500 service members who made open their sexual orientation. And for the first time in American history, gays will be openly accepted in by the armed forces.

"Under the bill, the president and his top military advisers must first certify that lifting the ban won't  hurt the troo's ability to fighting," went a report from Ann Flaherty of Associated Press.

US President Barack Obama said: "It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed."

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: "No matter how I look at the issue. I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." 

Philippine Jurisprudence

In March 2009, "the Philippines became the second country to in a week to officially end the ban on gays serving in the military," Jennifer Venasco reported for the 365 Gay. Gay behavior in public however remains in check by Article 200 of the Revised Penal Code, which considers it a "grave scandal."

Ernesto Torres, AFP spokesman: "Once inside the organization, they have to live by a code of ethics and they have to observe decorum if they want to remain as members of the Armed Forces." 

New Bills Signal a New Philippine Era

On 17 December 2010 (Friday), PNoy and officials of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) unveiled the new generation of Philippine peso bills, which will be released in time for Christmas. They are made up of 80% cotton and 20% abaca. They also have antibacterial components that can last up to more than three years for higher-denominated ones.

The new designs came as first time in 25 years. Design Systremat and Studio 5 collaborated in designing the reverse as well as the obverse sides of the new bills.

The lower denominations P20 and P50 will be released a head in time for Christmas. The other denominations will be out the first week of January 2011.

New Security Features

The main reason for these new designs was the combat of conterfeiters who, BSP officials said, have already almost perfected their copies of the current bills.

The bills contain a patch with colors that change from blue to green and then back to blue at a 45-degree angle. Its photo insets also changes into its numerical denomination, as can be seen in the P500 bill.

They also have micro prints and security threats that are harder this time to counterfeit. The 200, 500, and 1,000 denominations contain a 4-mm security thread embedded on the paper.

New Look

The P1000 bills still features the portraits of Josefina Llanes Escoda, Vicente Lim, and Jose Abad Santos. At the back of this new bill, 130,000-hectareTubbataha Reef spreads.

The P500 bills contain an inset that contains the photo of the late Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr., father of PNoy. At various angles, his photo changes to 500. In the reverse side, it features the Subterranean River National Park in Punta Princesa, Palawan.

The P200 bills shows at front the former President Diosdado Macapagal, together with the inaugural of her daughter former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. At the back appears Bohol, with emphasis on the tarsier (the world's smallest monkey) and Chocolate Hills both found in the province.

The P100 bills feature the picture of former President Manuel Roxas. In the reverse side, it shows the Bicol region, with emphasis on Mayon Volcano and the famous butanding (whale shark) found in the region. It used to be place for the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) building.

The P50 bills show the bust sketch of former President Sergio Osmeña with the reverse side featuring Taal Lake of Laguna, which replaces the picture of the National Museum.

The P20 bills feature the portrate of former President Manuel Quezon. The reverse side shows the Banaue Rice Terraces, replacing the picture of Malacañang Palace.

Sources

Sheryll Mundo & Alvin Elchico: "Philippine peso bills take on new generation look," ABS-CBN News 18 December 2010
Asian News Network: "Former Philippine president 'disappears' from new P200 bill" 19 December 2010

Motives and Greed: Darkness Descends on the Judiciary

Darkness descended in the Philippine judicial system.

After the Supreme Court succumbed to making decisions rich with questionable motives ["We should question the Supreme Court's motive." Deputy Speaker Lorenzo Tañada III], certain court justices that the high court apparently sanctioned gave in to the call of salary greed.

Jess Diaz of The Philippine Star reported on 8 December 2010 that "SC spokesperson Midas Marquez was in touch with SC Deputy Administrator Raul Villanueva and Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Antonio Eugenio for the judges’ appropriate action against the supposed budget cut." This activity occurred amidst the SC public denial of their involvement in said plan to protest against alleged "cut" in judiciary budget.

However, Rep. Rolando Andaya Jr. (Camarines Sur), who chairs a subcommittee in charge of the judiciary budget, said that "contrary to claims that the appropriations for the judicial branch has been reduced, the P14.3 billion represents an increase of P1 billion over this year’s funding of P13.3 billion."

Andaya also disputed the "claims of judges that they have not been getting their salary increases since 2007 or 2008." He said they received increases taken from their allowances, part of which was added to their basic pay. “It is the amount of allowances, which should be equivalent to 100 percent of their basic salary, that they now want restored,” he said. The allowances came from internal fees that the courts collected, while salaries came from the national budget. 

Justices of the Supreme Court, despite their clamor for more funds for their allowances, are actually receiving compensation higher than President Aquino’s salary, Andaya clarified.

Now we have a court that play politics to satisfy their greed, and is willing to bend the law to justify their interests. This year marks the dark night in the Philippine judicial system.

RULING ON EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 1

Senior Associate Justice J Carpio wrote:
"This Court, in striking down EO 1 creating the Truth Commission, overrules the manifest will of the Filipino people to start the difficult task of putting an end to graft and corruption in government, denies the President his basic constitutional power to determine the facts in his faithful execution of the law, and suppresses whatever truth may come out in the purely fact-finding investigation of the Truth Commission. This Court, in invoking the equal protection clause to strike down a purely fact-finding investigation, grants immunity to those who violate anti-corruption laws and other penal laws, renders meaningless the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, and makes public officials unaccountable to the people at any time...
"History will record the ruling today of the Court’s majority as a severe case of judicial overreach that made the incumbent President a diminished Executive in an affront to a co-equal branch of government, crippled our already challenged justice system, and crushed the hopes of the long suffering Filipino people for an end to graft and corruption in government."

RULING ON MIKEY ARROYO REPRESENTATION OF SECURITY GUARDS PARTYLIST

Senator Francisco Pangilinan said:

"How on earth can we legally and morally say that a son of a former President represent a party-list organization for security guards? He does not represent security guards. Even a third grader can tell you that. He (Mikey Arroyo) represents his mother and their family and their personal and political interests, and the Supreme Court expects us to accept and respect its decision saying it isn't so and he truly represents the marginalized security guards sector?

"Herein lines the highest court of the land... But when the Supreme Court decides, doubts are immediately cast. For how long can you trust a Supreme Court with a spate of bad decisions, such as allowing a marginalized sector to be represented by a marginalized?

"How can future generations find wisdom from the whims of a few magistrates? The Supreme Court, to be above all, must rise beyond personal dictates." [Mario B. Casayuran: "High Court asked to rise beyond personal dictates," Manila Bulletin, 18 December 2010]


This article also appears in Kuro-Kuro on 22 December 2010.

Truth Under Attack?

In the Philippine laws and juriprudence, if you look for legal loopholes you are expected to find one. And if you have a Supreme Court that justifies an associate justice's verbatim lift up of statements from other authors without attribution, truth becomes a commodity that the high court may have shamelessly abused.

On 07 December 2010 (Tuesday), the Supreme Court has declared the Aquino Executive Order No. 1 as "unconstitutional," ruling that the Truth Commission "violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it singles out of graft and corrupt practices in the previous administration" of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Petitioners Louis Biraogo (businessman), Edcel Lagman (Albay), Rodolfo Albano Jr. (chairman, Energy Regulatory Commission), Simeon Datumanong (Maguindanao), and Orlando Fua Sr. (Siquijor) argued that commissions like the Feliciano Commission, Melo Commission and Zenarosa Commission, while created by executive issuance, did not have full quasi-judicial powers that were given to the Truth Commission.

Of the 10-5 vote, those who composed the majority (see story) were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Diosdado Peralta (2009), Lucas Bersamin (2009), Mariano del Castillo (2009), Martin Villarama Jr. (2009), Jose Perez (2009), and Jose Mendoza (2010). Mendoza authored the decision.

Associate justices who desented were Antonio Eduardo Nachura (2007), Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio (2001), Conchita Carpio Morales (2002), Maria Lourdes Sereno (2010), and Roberto Abad (2009). Sereno was the sole appointee of current president Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. The rest were appointed during the administration of Arroyo. 

The present Supreme Court has been known lately for making very controversial rulings that can be perceived as a play with the letters of the law while not necessarily being faithful to its spirit. These rulings include the "midnight appointment" of Chief Justice Corona himself (which the majority of associate justices ruled not covered in the Constitutional provision against midnight appointments), and the justification (accidental deletion of attribution is so convenient to be believable as we are talking here of lawyers not ordinary clerks) of Del Castillo's proven (the accidental deletion of attribution defense is in itself an admission) lifting up of other author's opinion without attribution when writing his own opinion in the case on Japanese comfort women ["The Supreme Court's Plagiarism Scandal," Newsbreak]. And this present ruling against the creation of the Philippine Truth Commission may as well be one of these highly head-shaking decisions.

Premeditation to Oppose EO 1

In her dissenting opinion, associate justice Maria Lourdes Sereño intimated that there was already an intention to subvert EO1 in the part of the majority SC justices. According to Frank Malilong ("Supreme Court's red herring," SunStar Cebu, 9 Dec 2010), "she described the majority's suggestion that 'there was a way to tweek EO 1' as a 'red herring.'" Red herring, according to wikipedia, is "a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance," in this case, the search for truth of graft and corruption committed in the previous administration.

And the majority simply waited for any hint that a priority be given on seeking the truth in relation to the Arroyo administration. The reality, she said, is that “there is no way that it can be done without loss of dignity to the incumbent presidency” since the Court is in fact ready to strike down the EO “the moment the prioritization hints on focusing on the Arroyo administration.”

This information confirms that the majority of the SC justices already held a bias towards protecting the Arroyo administration and against EO1.

The Issue of Violating Equal Protection Right

Associate justice Sereño disputes the ruling that EO 1 violated the equal protection right based simply on an earlier but worse precedence in Arroyo's Administrative Order No. 78. AO 78, according to Sereño even singled out a group of people for investigation. She wrote, AO 78 “zeroed in on the investigation of ‘the rebellion of misguided military officers last July (2003)’ in order ‘to investigate the roots of the rebellion and the provocations that inspired it,’ and concludes that ‘this rebellion is deplorable.’”

This gives us an idea on how SC twisted law in order to protect the Arroyo administration using a very twisted logic, the same kind of logic used in exempting the appointment of Chief Justice Coloma from the Constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments as well as its subscription to the very convenient "accidentally deleted attribution" defense against the plagiarization offense that associate justice Del Castillo committed in his "Japanese comfort women" ruling, in order to protect the associate justice.

I can only say that the current Supreme Court has lost its moral ascendency to discharge blind justice on issues relating to the Arroyo administration because of these immoral maneuvers of the majority of justices.

Dissenting Opinions

ANTONIO CARPIO, Senior Associate Justice: "The majority opinion’s reasoning is specious, illogical, impractical, impossible to comply, and contrary to the Constitution and well-settled jurisprudence. To require that “earlier past administrations” must also be included in the investigation of the Truth Commission, with the Truth Commission expressly empowered “to investigate all past administrations,” before there can be a valid investigation of the Arroyo administration under the equal protection clause, is to prevent absolutely the investigation of the Arroyo administration under any circumstance...
"Here, petitioners do not claim to be adversely affected by the alleged selective prosecution under EO 1. Even in the absence of such a claim by the proper party, the majority opinion strikes down EO 1 as discriminatory and thus violative of the equal protection clause. This is a gratuitous act to those who are not before this Court, a discriminatory exception to the rule that only those “adversely affected” by an alleged selective prosecution can invoke the equal protection clause. Ironically, such discriminatory exception is a violation of the equal protection clause. In short, the ruling of the majority is in itself a violation of the equal protection clause, the very constitutional guarantee that it seeks to enforce.
"The majority opinion’s requirement that “earlier past administrations” in the last 111 years should be included in the investigation of the Truth Commission to comply with the equal protection clause is a recipe for all criminals to escape prosecution. This requirement is like saying that before a person can be charged with estafa, the prosecution must also charge all persons who in the past may have committed estafa in the country. Since it is impossible for the prosecution to charge all those who in the past may have committed estafa in the country, then it becomes impossible to prosecute anyone for estafa...
"A person investigated or prosecuted for a possible crime cannot raise the defense that he is being singled out because others who may have committed the same crime are not being investigated or prosecuted. Such person cannot even raise the defense that after several decades he is the first and only one being investigated or prosecuted for a specific crime." (Source)

CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, Associate Justice: (to be added)

MARIA LOURDES SEREÑO, Associate Justice: (to be added)

ROBERTO ABAD, Associate Justice: (to be added)

What Ordinary People Said [Source 1]

ROBERT REYES, activist priest: “By declaring the truth commission unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has declared (Arroyo) untouchable.It’s like saying that you can’t do anything with Arroyo as long as majority of the SC is with her.”

RODOLFO “Jun” LOZADA, whistle blower [$329-million NBN-ZTE deal]: “GMA (Arroyo) was clever enough and until now she’s still clever to make sure that her back will be protected by leaving so many cohorts and allies behind to the extent of creating laws that guarantee them tenure."

AMADO VALDEZ, dean of law [University of the East]: “How can there be a violation of equal protection when she is in a class by herself? How could she claim she will be isolated? I don’t think the Truth Commission can be invalidated on that ground.”

RENATO REYES, secretary-general [Bayan]: “The Truth Commission decision was preceded by other decisions involving Arroyo’s midnight appointments and a status quo order on the impeachment case vs. the Ombudsman. If this trend continues, and extends to the Ombudsman impeachment case also pending before the SC, there will be fewer avenues to make Arroyo accountable."

What Senators Said

FRANCIS PANGILINAN: “The Supreme Court might have unwittingly sent a message that abuses and corruption under the Arroyo (administration) should not be investigated. Its effect on the public mind is that it absolves Mrs. Arroyo from the scandals and her involvement in anomalies and abuses in government. The last time I checked, GMA was no longer President and the practice of suppressing the truth as state policy ended with her. The Supreme Court ruling preventing the government from investigating the former president makes me stop to pause and think."

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Senate President: "The President can’t create an office like that, in my opinion, and then appropriate money for it. I also entertained some doubts about the validity of the creation of the Truth Commission.” (read report)

FRANKLIN DRILON: “Clearly, this decision is one of the many legal obstacles laid down by the Arroyo administration to prevent the former administration from being made to answer to the Filipino people for its abuses and and excesses. Its putting in place nearly 1,000 midnight appointees to key government positions is another example of that attempt to suppress public accountability.” (Source) "Gloria Arroyo on April 16, 2001 signed EO 12 creating the Philippine Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC)." (Source)

What Congressmen Said

LORENZO TAÑADA III, depute speaker: “Frankly, this is disastrous. We should question the Supreme Court’s motives. What’s the difference between this and the Melo Commission, which was also created by executive order?”

WINSTON CASTELO (Quezon City): “Unfortunately, the SC misread the intention (of the Aquino administration) and found more legal technicalities than ferreting out the truth.” (Source)

TEODORO CASIÑO, Bayan Muna party-list: “The Arroyo court is playing its role to the hilt in protecting the ex-President.”

NIEL TUPAS JR (Iloilo), Chairperson (Committee on Justice): "The Truth Commission was basically set up for the purpose of investigating because the body tasked by the Constitution to investigate and prosecute graft and corruption seems to have lost credibility... I don't think the Ombudsman is the right person to handle those cases." (Source)

A Stink From Afar

EDUCATION

Many times, a lack of transparency gives away the rotten acts that need to be hidden from scrutiny before the lawful authorities in government. And the case of Mandaue City College-Ibabao smells stinky even from afar.

The Mandaue City College, located in Ibabao-Estancia and that Dr. Paulus Mariae Cañete administered, has been ordered close by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) on the ground that it "is operating higher education programs without legal basis and (is) not in compliance with the policies, standards and guidelines" of the Commission. Cañete was an appointee of former mayor Thadeo Ouano.

Executive Director Julito Vitriolog signed the closure order. But when representatives from CHED central office, CHED Central Visayas, and the Office of the Solicitor General came to the campus to serve the order, Cañete ordered the security guard to bar the officials from entering the campus. After a heated confrontation with the MCC officials in the gate, the representatives posted the order at the front of the MCC school building to meet the serving requirement.

Two MCCs exist in Mandaue City. The other MCC operates at Don Andres Soriano Avenue. And according to CHED, this MCC has complied with the Commission's requirements.

When current mayor Jonas Cortes demanded financial accounting report from MCC-Ibabao in 2007, the school officials refused to submit the report, forcing the mayor to order the school closed. A case before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas still waits for a resolution. (See the report.)

If MCC Administrator Cañete has nothing to hide before the Mandaue City government, why not provide the requested financial accounting to the city executive? If she believes that MCC-Ibabao is legit, why not face CHED squarely and answer the charges of inadequate compliance of standards and requirements?

These behaviors unbecoming of an appointed government official must be stopped to weed the field of government service from unwieldy servants like these MCC-Ibabao officials. My sympathy goes to its 500 students that may have to switch schools at mid-semester to ensure they spend time in schoole with valid credits. But getting back what they paid the school may not be without problems.

A disappointing situation,  but a necessary action from a government that needs some cleaning in their ranks to do.

UPDATE

On 04 December 2010, Cañete said she will be filing charges against CHED and the Mandaue City government for closing the school [Read report]. In short, she will be sueing the government supervising agencies for closing the school. The question is: on what ground? Subordinate offices are and will always be subject to its supervising agencies.

I now begin to feel that Cañete seems to believe that she owns the school, and the not the Mandaue City government directly. It is also almost certain that she feels she works for herself as the "owner" of MCC-Ibabao instead of being an appointed government employee assigned as an administrator of a government institution.

Indeed, it is fascinating how self-interest (and perhaps self-preservation too) can convince people what to think even if these thoughts are very far from the truth.