Ermita's autumn in New York

To the chagrin of some quarters who had hoped he would no longer show up in the Palace, chief of staff Eduardo Ermita returned to his post yesterday, but continued to fuel the ever louder murmurs of the supposed irreconcilable rift with DILG secretary Ronaldo "Goebbels" Puno. The issue was no longer the bribes scandal allegedly masterminded by the latter without a by your leave from the latter.

The issue this time was over who sent the list of nominees for the Comelec vacancies to the poll body. Irregular, Ermita said. Normal, Goebbels shot back in a fashion which somehow looks credible because he seems to really believe what he is saying. "Rift, what rift?' he asked in the manner of one who's savoring the upper hand but who self-consciously wants to look magnanimous.

Ermita was at least greeted by a congratulatory press release (warning:you might find the image offensive) on the success of his mission from the Palace, based on his own account. Ah but for the small kindnesses one gives oneself in times like these.

For it was Fall in New York, where he was dogged by the pesky human rights activists, and the aunt of Jonas Burgos, who confronted him in a forum, where he had
a civil but tense exchange with former PCGG commissioner and defense assistant secretary Ruben Carranza Jr., now a fellow at the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ).

Ruben, a former student of UN special rapporteur Philip Alston, whose report on the Philippines was dismissed by Malacanang, says he can't believe Alston believed anything Ermita said at the meeting in the UN.

Erap in his own tortured words, days before the pardon

The Philippine Onion has this exclusive on the state of Erap's mind in the days prior to his release. Who are you to judge him?

Sex, lies, and Abalos or Just another day for the Chairman

And death threats and wiretaps. What else could be added to this brew?

Today has been just another day for Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos, who reportedly reported for work to preside over election dispute hearings, presumably after his routine at the golf course. Undaunted by what we consider the explosive testimony of Jose de Venecia III at the Senate, the chairman, after emerging from the hearings, simply reiterated his blanket denials and would not speculate on what could be motivating JdVIII and the columnist Jarius Bondoc. Unlike DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza, who called the 'rantings' fairy tales of a 'losing bidder' (what bidding?). The sons of the FG, meanwhile, called the testimony 'black propaganda,' but did not explain why the son of the House speaker would risk prosecution and his and his father's future.

If you are a well-meaning and upright citizen hoping to shame the chairman into resignation, or worse, into suicide, yours is a losing battle. The reason Abalos comports himself the way he does is his confidence he will go down only with the rest of the boys, and girls, and the school marm who are at the very core of our society's power structure. If we were a functioning democracy, JdVIII's revelations alone would have been enough to trigger a wave of resignations and immediate indictments. But it is not, and, depending on the appreciation of the silent majority, our society can either implode , or revert to business as usual (BAU) mode. If the former, we risk manipulation by forces just as insidious and unethical as those they want to replace, especially in the absence of a democratic mass movement strong enough to take the reins. But that is still a better option than BAU, whose rottenness and workings JdVIII may have unwittingly exposed.

First, look at Abalos's disingenuous protestations. On the alleged sexcapades in Shenzen: my sexual prowess is myth. On his alleged power-brokering or 'commissioning' : who am I to wield such influence? I can attest to the chairman's integrity, to the effect that he, in hell, would rather consult his lawyers rather than his conscience, and this guy could swindle the devil himself as long as he could get away with it.

Second, take the narration of JdVIII at face value and appreciate that the guy has exposed his own culpability under our graft and corruption laws. But more important to me is the value of his own account of the way deals are made in this country.

• Would the proposal of his company have been taken seriously if he were not the son of his father?
• Would he have had access to high officials, the DOTC and Finance secretaries? Why would the DOTC secretary arrange a reconciliation meeting between two entities unless the secretary considered them part of the boys' network?
• His testimony also implied that his President knew of Abalos's brokering efforts and of his own proposal.
  

Now look at why Abalos apparently failed to, excuse my language, cover his ass with a cover story underpinned by 'plausible deniability?' Simply because he considered the young man and the father part of the 'old boys.'

In recent weeks, acquaintances in the energy sector have reported that their colleagues have admitted regularly delivering millions to the mystery man from procurement deals. I can only hope that at some point they find their balls and free themselves from this vicious circle or cycle.

And what of Romulo Neri? I was in a meeting with him last year with stakeholders of a foreign-funded project. I was initially turned off because he admitted to me that some columnists were in his payroll but this was mitigated by his independent attitude toward power sector regulation. I just hope he will surface and stand for his convictions, if any remain. I know that he has always been a player. In the next few days, we will know the game he has chosen.

And what about my favorite morally challenged senator? During the impeachment hearings in 2000, she questioned the testimony of a UP law graduate, insinuating that Ms. Banal's behavior was questionable because it was unlike her own documented opportunism. Yesterday, she questioned JdVIII's integrity on the same grounds. You want her to commit hara kiri. Chew your fingers.

In haste, Sandiganbayan jiustices forgot death penalty had been abolished

Just over an hour ago, the verdict in the plunder and perjury trial of former President Joseph Estrada was read, and the most telling sign of haste was that the justices forgot the death penalty had been abolished. The clerk of court said:

...the penalty for (plunder) is a minimum of reclusion perpetua and a maximum of death. But there having been no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the minimum of the two is hereby imposed...

None of the anchors of the ANC, nor the legal experts in the studio notice the egregious error. Neither did the former president's lawyers advert to this in their immediate reactions to media.

'extra-judicial killings'

You have to give it to the intrepid Ricky Carandang of ANC. He always manages to interview the most unlikely guests, and last night’s were truly exceptional: Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna. Listening to the justices reassured me that the judicial branch has at last and at least have been seized by the problem of extra-judicial killings, actually an inappropriate phrase since we no longer have the death penalty, and for good reason, and thus we cannot have judicial killings. The two justices were only being diplomatic in refraining from publicly castigating the two other branches---especially the executive---for their inaction and perhaps, even complicity in the murders and disappearance of political activists. Our alleged president would not have shown any concern had not human rights organizations mobilized international opinion on the spate of killings and disappearances. One can only wish that the supreme court had the power to fire justice secretaries, because the one we have does not know the meaning of shame.

Azcuna enlightened mewith a discussion of the Minnesota protocol, where, if the victims are last seen with military or state agents, it is the burden of the latter to explain and extricate themselves. After all, it is the state which is supposed to have a monopoly of the gun. This protocol becomes more relevant in the case of a government which has taken Donald Rumsfeld’s logic: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus, the state can arrest you, torture you, and bomb other countries to kingdom come on mere suspicion of terrorist inclinations.

I don’t know if the justices volunteered to be interviewed, but if they did, they chose the interviewer well. Carandang is competent, prepares well in advance, and has exemplary interviewing skills. More likely it was he who approached them and the justices could not refuse. In any case, the interview was to bring attention to this Monday’s summit on extra-judicial killings and one can only hope it succeeds.

Also yesterday, Conrad de Quiros discussed his frustrated search for the movie ‘Missing’ which affected me too. It was played not too long ago in one of the cable movie channels. I think it is available from the many movie websites abroad.

And before I forget, I really appreciated The Big Picture’s interview with the officials of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and former economic planning secretary Felipe Medalla on problems with the estimates of GDP growth. Unfortunately, this was not carried intelligently by the national papers. Among the respectable columnists, only Ciel Habito mentioned the problem and the discussion but he did not have the space for a satisfying follow-up. ( I asked my niece Charo Logarta whether she found the latest estimates credible and her response was to the effect that these were not estimates but ‘actual’ figures as she understood them from a press conference. I had to remind her that figures based on a survey or sample should be treated as estimates.)

I will say my piece on these issues some other time.