Pacquiao has not lost neither power, nor speed

Pacquiao knocks down big sparring mate

By Jun Medina, Special Correspondent

HOLLYWOOD, California: Filipino ring icon Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao knocked down welterweight sparring partner Arron Robinson on Friday, sending a strong message to Mexican-American superstar Oscar de la Hoya at the Wild Card Gym here.

Pacquiao, the pound-for-pound No.1 boxer in the world, caught the five-foot-10 Robinson with a big left hook flush on the jaw that sent him crashing to the seat of his pants.

The knockdown stunned the small crowd that included Pacquiao’s wife Jinky and her twin sister Janet.

Robinson (6-2-1, 4 by knockout) said he did not see the punch coming, and added that he was surprised by Pacquiao’s punching power.

The newest of Pacquiao’s sparring mates, Robinson, 28, is a native of Hawthorne, California and is nicknamed “The Energizer” for his vibrant movements in the ring.

Apart from the two rounds sparring with Robinson, Pacman also did six rounds against chief spar mate Rashad Holloway and three rounds against Michael Dellas Jr.

Under trainer Freddie Roach’s watchful supervision, Pacquiao’s routine also included his usual routine on the double-end bag, speed bag, plus 1,200 sit-ups.

Roach said he will taper down his prized ward’s sparring as he peaks for the December 6 super fight with the legendary de la Hoya, 35, and considered the sport’s biggest draw.

At a conference call the previous day, Roach declared Pacquiao has retained his explosiveness, speed and power despite moving up from lightweight to welterweight.

“His [Pacquiao’] explosiveness and speed together are unstoppable,” Roach said in the free-wheeling conference call as part of the super fights promotional drive.

Asked how Manny will fight at the opening bell, Roach replied, “We are going to attack, attack, attack.”

The three-time trainer of the year acknowledged that Pacquiao would have to neutralize the bigger de la Hoya’s left jab and his lethal left hook.

“The jab is our biggest obstacle. We have to get around it and that’s what we are working on everyday in the gym,” Roach said.

Roach said he considers Pacquiao the most athletic among the 22 world champions he has trained. He said James Toney was the most talented but had no discipline.

“Manny is the best pure athlete,” said Roach, who also described the four division world champion as the most disciplined in training and the one with the best stamina.

Asked what would be the key to Pacquiao’s victory, Roach snapped: “Getting inside the jab, working the body and breaking Oscar down.”

SOURCE: The Manila Times Internet Edition, 20081123spo1.html

Philippine Politics, Issue 2:The rising cost of supporting incompetent politicians

by YVONNE T. CHUA

---

Our latest series summarizes some of the key findings of a two-year-study conducted by the PCIJ on Philippine legislatures which are published in an upcoming book called, The Rulemakers: How the Wealthy and Well-Born Dominate Congress.

Part Two of the series describes how expensive Congress has become. In 2002, taxpayers spent nearly P1 million every month on each senator and close to P500,000 on each congressman. Moreover, even as most government agencies tightened their belts, Congress continues to legislate increases for itself. On the average, the upkeep of legislators has risen 10 percent every year since 1994. In 1999, this leaped to as high as a 60-percent increase in the House and a 72-percent increase in the Senate compared to the previous year’s.

---

	The Philippine Congress

IN 2002, taxpayers spent P939,472.47 every month on each senator and P429,601.79 on each congressman, based on published reports.

Shocking as these amounts may sound, they reflect only part of what Filipinos pay for their legislators’ upkeep. Government auditors themselves say they are in the dark over how Congress spends most of its money, in part because there is hardly any paper trail to help them scrutinize how lawmakers use public funds.

What they do know is this: On the average, the upkeep of legislators has risen 10 percent every year since 1994. In 1999, this leaped to as high as a 60-percent increase in the House and a 72-percent increase in the Senate compared to the previous year’s.

The hefty rise was due to the fact that lawmakers gave themselves a raise. Their basic salaries were upped that year. In addition, there were significant increases in the budget for foreign travel in both chambers as well as in local travel among congressmen.

Even as allocations for basic services such as education and public health have increased by only small increments in the last decade, Congress has used the power of the purse to put much more money into its own coffers.

The Rising Congress Budget
Rate of Increase in the General Appropriations Act and the Budgets of the House of Representatives and the Senate, 1994-2003

FISCAL YEAR	GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT	% INCREASE	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES	% INCREASE	SENATE	% INCREASE
1994	332,694,974,004	–	1,171,924,000	–	472,000,000	–
1995	387,397,933,000	16%	1,264,282,000	8%	516,670,000	9%
1996	394,855,182,000	2%	1,477,000,000	17%	562,926,000	9%
1997	433,817,543,000	10%	1,530,424,000	4%	703,084,000	25%
1998	546,743,816,000	26%	1,841,184,000	20%	918,648,000	31%
1999	585,097,506,000	7%	1,827,486,000	-1%	900,302,000	-2%
2000	665,094,141,000	14%	2,380,624,000	30%	1,008,295,000	12%
2001	665,094,141,000	0%	2,380,624,000	0%	1,008,295,000	0%
2002	575,123,728,000	-14%	2,625,952,000	10%	1,046,598,000	4%
2003	609,614,730,000	6%	2,833,574,000	8%	2,833,574,000	28%
	AVERAGE	7%		11%		13%

Source: General Appropriations Acts, 1994-2003

Since the early 1990s, it has legislated generous increases for its own budget, which includes not only the basic pay of the lawmakers and their staff, but also their travel expenses, allowances, expenses of various congressional bodies, as well as the salaries of officers such as the Senate president and speaker of the House and the budgets of their respective offices.

From 1994 to 2003, the General Appropriations Act or GAA, which sets the national budget for a fiscal year, increased annually by an average of seven percent. In comparison, the House budget had an 11-percent average yearly increase; that of the Senate posted an average 13-percent rise.

In 2002, when the total national budget shrank by 14 percent, Congress raised its own budget -by 10 percent in the House and four percent in the Senate.

Yet the increasing sums for the legislature have not been matched by a rise in the number of laws passed. Since the 11th Congress, the legislative mill has churned slower and slower. Congress’s efficiency hit an all-time low in the years 2001 to 2004, when the legislature approved a measly 76 bills, compared to an average of 400 to 500 laws enacted in previous three-year congressional terms.

The slide began in the 11th Congress, although it is the 12th Congress that deserves the slacker’s prize. It boasts of a record low not only in the number of laws approved, but also in terms of the total number of bills filed. In addition, the percentage of bills filed to the number of bills passed is a mere one percent, compared to the three percent chalked up by earlier legislatures.

Before martial law, the Constitution fixed the annual compensation of senators and congressmen at P7,200 each, unless otherwise provided by law. The amount included per diems and other allowances, excluding only traveling expenses to and from their districts of congressmen, and to and from their places of residence of senators, when attending sessions of Congress.

There is no similar provision in the 1987 Constitution. Instead, the charter leaves it to the law (meaning the lawmakers themselves) to determine the salaries of members of Congress. It only prohibits any increase from taking effect until after the full term of all members of the Senate and the House approving such a raise has expired.

There is, however, a provision in the constitution that is supposed to guarantee the public access to information regarding the other sums legislators get from the government. That is why every last quarter of each year, the Commission on Audit (COA) publishes an “itemized list of amounts paid to expenses incurred” for each senator and for each congressman in a leading daily.

But the published COA lists apparently fall short of real Congress figures. The lists from 1994 to 2002, for example, represent only 47 percent of the total House budget published in the GAA and 26 percent of the Senate budget. Where the rest of the budgets went is unclear, because COA provides no such details.

Various reports and legislators themselves talk about amounts congressmen receive as officers or chairs of committees and “allowances” from the speaker, as well as cash advances and reimbursements for official activities. But these items are nowhere in the list of expenses of the House.

Increasingly Costly Lawmaking
Budgets of 1st to 12th Congress*

CONGRESS	SESSION YEAR	BILLS PASSED	CONGRESS BUDGET (P)	BUDGET/BILLS PASSED (P)
1st	1946-1949	428	15,106,160.00	35,294.77
2nd	1949-1953	543	24,825,219.68	45,718.64
3rd	1953-1957	1,078	30,122,930.00	27,943.35
4th	1957-1961	1,401	50,916,263.00	36,342.80
5th	1961-1965	1,192	150,318,700.00	126,106.29
6th	1965-1969	1,481	157,889,900.00	106,610.33
7th	1969-1972	512	210,625,556.00	411,378.04
8th	1987-1992	1,000	4,498,495,562.00	4,498,495.56
9th	1992-1995	534	4,634,149,000.00	8,678,181.65
10th	1995-1998	573	6,054,386,000.00	10,566,118.67
11th	1998-2001	415	8,876,539,000.00	21,389,250.60
12th	2001-February 6, 2004	76	11,231,882,000.00	147,787,921.05

*Budgets for each Congress are computed by adding the full legislative budgets for the first to the second to the last years of each congressional term. The budget of the last year of each term is excluded; instead this is computed as the first year’s budget of the next Congress.

Source: General Appropriations Acts (1946-2003) and Congress of the Philippines

In the Senate, amounts received by senators for similar duties are indistinguishable from other expenses such as advertising. According to a state auditor assigned to that chamber, these are lumped under the heading “Other MOE (maintenance and operating expenses).”

The auditor says though that the expenses of senators in the performance of their duties as officers and committee chairs are incorporated into COA’s published itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each legislator.

But this does not seem to be the case. For instance, the amounts that appear in the Senate records for the senators’ settled MOOE (maintenance, operating, and other expenses), including foreign travel in 2002 were, on the average, 112 percent more than the figures published by COA. In short, the COA list reflected only about half the senators’ MOOE that year, when the government paid a total of P77.5 million for the overseas travel of 173 congressmen and 11 senators.

COA’s published list also showed that Senate President Franklin Drilon spent P6 million in MOOE that year. But the Senate’s ledger showed he accounted for P21 million or 250 percent more than what COA released to the public. The COA list also did not state the Senate president’s expenses for foreign travel in 2002, which added up to P1.3 million.

Moreover, Senate records pinpointed certain committees for which some senators drew additional MOOE. This means the discrepancy between the COA list and the Senate accounts was even bigger for these lawmakers.

Outgoing senator Ramon Revilla, for example, was given P21 million in additional MOOE in connection with his functions as chairman of the committee on labor, employment and human resources development. The late senator Renato Cayetano drew an extra P19 million as the Senate’s representative to the Joint Congressional Power Commission of the two chambers of Congress.

In 1997, the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) observed that many items in the Congress budget “are not liquidated and audited in the same manner as expenses of public funds by all other government officials where proofs, documents, receipts, contracts, vouchers, and other pertinent documents required by law, rules and regulation are submitted to justify these expense before COA would pass them in audit.”

“There is no mechanism,” continued the PCAGC, “by which they (members of Congress) are made to account for funds they received in the same manner as all other government officials are periodically made to account for the funds entrusted to them, either through the regular or special audit of COA or by Congress during budget hearings or in the committee investigations conducted ‘in aid of legislation.'”

As a general rule, the law demands that public officials submit receipts, contracts, and other documentary proof when they liquidate cash advances or ask to be reimbursed for expenses. There are exceptions, of course, among them the representation and transportation (local) allowances or RATA given to certain public officials – chief of division up – for official functions.

Given as direct payment to the official concerned or as a cash advance drawn by the cashier and supported by an approved payroll listing the officials entitled to RATA, these are considered “commutable,” therefore nontaxable and not subject to liquidation. All COA demands is a certification that the public official spent the money for the purpose.

Another exception, although not as all-encompassing, are “extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses” authorized under the GAA for activities ranging from meetings, official entertainment, or public relations, to membership in government associations, contribution to charitable institutions, or office equipment and supplies. Unlike RATA, these expenses are supposed to be paid on a reimbursement basis.

COA does allow public officials to submit either receipts and other documents as proof of disbursement or a certification by the public official before he or she is reimbursed. The rule, however, applies only to national government agencies. And extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses cannot be used for salaries, wages, allowances, and intelligence and confidential expenses.

Intelligence and confidential funds are paid through a cash advance to the agency head. To pass in audit, the project officer is simply required to submit a liquidation voucher directly to the COA chairman. The rules allow the voucher to be supported only by a photocopy of the paid disbursement voucher of the cash advance, a certification of the agency head, and approval of the president (plus the Special Allotment Release Order and Allotment and Obligation Slip in the case of a national government agency). No receipts, contracts, or other proof are demanded.

Because the bulk of the published MOOE of representatives is consolidated with the basic pay in the payroll, they are no longer required to liquidate the lump sum of more than P200,000 released to each of them at the start of every month. They simply acknowledge receipt of the money. They do not even sign a certification the money was used for the purposes for which it was meant for, says a senior COA auditor.

Apparently to go around the liquidation and taxation requirements, the House avoids classifying MOOE as “cash advances” or “allowances,” even if this is the way members of the chamber commonly see them. Instead, the House classifies them as “monthly allocations” or “outright expenses.” As a result, congressmen get away with not having to submit any document to account for these funds.

They are not expected to submit a payroll of their district staff or report their functions, salaries, and withholding taxes. No one starts asking if they do not produce a report on the research their offices should supposedly undertake. There is no demand for them to produce the list of consultants they have hired, as well as the contracts they draw up for those whose services they need. As far as the current rules go, how the legislators spend their public affairs fund is their business, and their business alone.

In the Senate, maintenance and operating expenses or MOOE are released through separate vouchers. But the only supporting document that is often demanded is a certification signed by the senator or his chief of staff that the amount was spent in the discharge of official function.

The sums are based on a voucher signed by the senator or his chief of staff, supported by an approved expenditure program for the month and a certification by the senator concerned that the budget for the previous month had been spent. “Extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses” are also lumped together in the MOOE and released as cash advances, not on a reimbursement basis.

COA personnel acknowledge that the standard rule in all other government offices is to liquidate cash advances that are sourced from MOOE, including petty cash, as well as travel and field operating activity expenses. Except for salaries, they say, the rest of the money paid to a representative should fall under this rule. But since these objects of expenditures are disbursed as “monthly allocations” or “outright expenses,” and not as cash advances, to a congressman, the government auditors say this frees the lawmaker from the obligation to liquidate the expenses.

An auditor who has been detailed at the House defends the setup: “The concept is, they (the congressmen) will spend the MOOE. How they operate their offices is up to them. They have the discretion because of the peculiar demands of their (district) office.”

COA, says the auditor, presumes good faith on the part of the congressman and regularity in the use of his monthly allocations. He adds that state auditors can only assume congressmen will abide by government rules on hiring, procurement, travel, meetings, and activities or projects.

But a supervising auditor of COA insists that the arrangement at the House is not sanctioned at all by law. No law or COA circular authorizes a representative’s expenses for supplies and other items for the maintenance of his or her office as “outright expenses” to be paid through payroll, he says. Other COA personnel, including auditors assigned to the House, admit as much. (The Senate, unlike the House, does not consider MOOE as “outright expenses.”)

“The system is defective,” laments the supervising auditor. “These are clear lapses in accounting and auditing procedures. How do we know if the congressman spent the money if he doesn’t account for it? What if he pocketed it?”

“If you really want transparency, congressmen must liquidate all the money that is released to them,” a veteran legislative officer remarks. “But they don’t. Well, even if they did, we know a lot would be fabricated.”

One auditor, though, is more forthright regarding why COA essentially leaves the House of Representatives alone. “The House is a political body,” he says. “We don’t want to get into trouble.”

Many of his colleagues agree. For instance, they point out, while COA is a constitutional body, the appointment of its chairman needs to be confirmed by the 25-member Commission on Appointments consisting of legislators from both the House and the Senate.

COA also finds itself at the mercy of Congress when budget time comes: The legislature wields the power of the purse. Horsetrading becomes inevitable, especially in the assignment of auditors. One senior congressman, for example, threatened to bypass the COA chairman’s appointment unless an auditor, who turned out to be a personal friend, was reinstated in a Metro Manila town. COA caved in.

Another auditor is even more blunt, saying, “We’re scared of congressmen, we’re scared of the system. Babalikan kami (They’ll seek revenge). We don’t want to tolerate corruption, but nothing happens to our reports. We just become subjects of harassment, and other people even make money out of our reports.”

Auditors who question irregular or corrupt practices in the agency — which is part of their work – are often quickly reassigned. — With additional reporting by Avigail Olarte and Booma Cruz

The findings of the PCIJ’s study of Congress are published in the book, The Rulemakers: How the Wealthy and Well-Born Dominate Congress.

SOURCE: PCIJ Online, congress2.html

Philippine Politics, Issue 1: Political system is less representative than ever

This new series of summary reports on “Philippine Politics” is inspired by published reports by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). I post a series here to inform all of you and introduce the great work of PCIJ. I also post it here to encourage a new, active look at politics in our homeland. I believe that many of us have grown resigned to the way things are in the Philippines and have become too cynical about the value of our political system.

Much of these beliefs are true, but I also believe we create the political system we get. And as we change — as we are changed by other ways to govern — so too will our political system change.

by SHEILA S. CORONEL

---

Our latest series summarizes some of the key findings of a two-year-study conducted by the PCIJ on Philippine legislatures which are published in an upcoming book called, The Rulemakers: How the Wealthy and Well-Born Dominate Congress.

The first part of the series deals with the composition of the legislature. We found that 18 years after the fall of Marcos, Congress has not become a more representative institution. Today?s legislators are richer now than ever before. While poverty levels since 1986 have remained at roughly between 30 to 40 percent of the population, lawmakers have become wealthier.

In 1992, the average net worth of congressmen was P8 million. By 2001, it was P28 million. In the Senate, the average net worth increased from P33 million in 1998 to P59 million in 2001. A quarter of all senators today have a net worth of above P100 million.

Today’s legislators are also older and better educated and tend to stay in office longer than their predecessors. Moreover, the great majority of lawmakers come from political families. In the House of Representatives, two in every three members come from political families.

---

	Speaker Jose de Venecia and other leaders of the 12th House of Representatives

EIGHTEEN years after the fall of Marcos, Congress is not becoming a more representative institution. In fact, today’s legislators are richer now than ever before. While poverty levels since 1986 have remained at roughly between 30 and 40 percent of the population, lawmakers have become wealthier.

They are also older and better educated. As the results of a two-year PCIJ study of legislatures since 1898 show, members of the post-Marcos Congress tend to stay in office longer than their predecessors.

Moreover, most lawmakers come from political families, meaning that they have relatives who are currently holding or once held elective posts. In the House of Representatives, two of every three are members of political clans. The vast majority of these are second- and third-generation politicians with parents and grandparents who had been elected to public office.

In less than two months, Filipinos will be voting for a new set of legislators. Senatorial candidates have been campaigning since February. This week, they will be joined by those vying for seats in the House. If the results of previous elections are a guide, then the likelihood is that most of the legislators who will assume their seats in July would be so unlike the people who voted them to power.

The typical representative or senator cannot be more unlike the typical Filipino. The legislator is likely to be male, middle aged, and college educated, most likely with a degree in law. He has previously held a local government post and there is one chance in two that he is related to a former member of Congress.

He is also into business and has multiple income sources. He has property for rent, earns salary from a profession, and has investments in company shares. He is well off, with a net worth (most likely understated in his statement of assets) in millions of pesos. And the likelihood is that the longer he stays in Congress, the richer he becomes.

In 1962, only 27 percent of representatives were classified as upper class. In 1992, it was 44 percent. Over time, the assets of legislators have grown. In 1992, the average net worth of congressmen was P8 million. By 2001, it was P22 million. In the Senate, the average net worth increased from P33 million in 1998 to P59 million in 2001. A quarter of all senators today have a net worth of above P100 million.

The typical Filipino, meanwhile, is likely to be below 35, with a few years of high-school education, and an annual income of about P150,000 in 2000. The demographic profiles couldn’t be more unmatched.

Legislators are Getting Richer

TERM	AVERAGE NET WORTH (P) OF REPRESENTATIVES	AVERAGE NET WORTH (P) OF SENATORS
9th Congress (1992-95)	8,401,072.28	–
11th Congress (1998-2001)	20,589,862.25	32,908,657.45
12th Congress (2001-2004)	21,914,669.72	59,358.557.06

Five congresses — the Eighth to the 12th — have been constituted since the fall of Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. The legislators elected to these bodies have hardly been representative of those they represent. In that sense, they have not been different from the past, when members of Congress were drawn from a narrow elite in terms of property, education (since 1898, they have been trained mainly in law) and social standing.

There have been changes, though. There are now many more women in Congress than there have been in the past. In the current House, there are 40 women, about 18 percent of the body, compared to only one percent in 1946, six percent in 1965, and 11 percent in 1992.

Today’s legislators are also better educated than their predecessors, with 27 percent of all representatives boasting of postgraduate degrees, compared to only 18 percent in 1965.

The sources of their wealth are more diverse, indicating that many more business interests are represented in Congress, which can no longer be described as “landlord-dominated” legislature. The caciques of old have been replaced by real-estate developers, bankers, stockbrokers, and assorted professionals and businesspeople.

The changes reflect the changes in the Philippine economy, with the decline of agriculture and extractive industries (logging, mining) and the increasing importance of manufacturing, trade, and services. The changes have been obvious since the 1960s, when new men from business and the professions were elected to the legislature.

The rise of these new legislators mirrored the increasing political assertiveness of new sections of the business elite and the upper professional class that emerged in the 1950s and 60s. That period saw the birth of a manufacturing sector that produced previously imported goods for the local market. While many of those who became part of the manufacturing capitalists were large landowners, there were also those from the professional middle class and local traders who joined the ranks of the new rich and then sought seats in Congress.

Philippine legislatures have been hospitable to the entry of the newly affluent. Their ranks have been open to the constant infusion of new blood. The post-Marcos Congress is even more diverse in composition than its predecessors. It includes, aside from the old landowning families that have been in legislatures for 100 years, also new entrepreneurs, especially those in construction, real estate, and services that emerged among the fastest-growing economic sectors in the late 1980s and 1990s; middle-class professionals, especially lawyers from leading law firms; and leaders of nongovernmental organizations.

The legislature also has local officials or government bureaucrats able to build a base in their districts even if they are not backed by old wealth. In addition, the halls of Congress have recently accommodated celebrities from the movies, the mass media, and sports.

The legislature has traditionally opened to its members a world of privilege that enables the enterprising among them to take advantage of moneymaking opportunities and to accumulate wealth. A Congress seat can be used as a passport to the land of dealmaking, allowing aspiring politicians entry to the bastions of great wealth and privilege. In this sense, the legislature can be said to be an agent of mobility, allowing talented aspirants from the lower and middle classes entry to the narrow corridors of power and the most exclusive enclaves of the very rich.

Such mobility, however, is still limited to a narrow range of Philippine society. For sure, the more occupationally diverse membership from the more modern sectors of business, the mass media, and civil society means a wider range of perspectives and interests than at any time in the past. The trend toward increasing diversification that was noted in the 1960s continues today.

Moreover, the entry of party-list representatives in the 11th and 12th Congress enlarged that range, as it gave representatives of marginalized social sectors seats in the legislature. Despite this, however, Congress remains a fortress of privilege, its gates open to the new and aspiring rich, but closed — except for some narrow openings — to the poor and powerless.

The route to Congress, for the most part, is still via local government posts. Although recently, some have taken a shortcut, either through the media or the movies, or inherited their posts directly from a relative facing the three-term limit, the usual route is still for prospective legislators, even those who come from political families, to vie for “lesser” elective posts.

This trend was evident from the start. Political office in the Philippines has always been hierarchical: Aspiring politicians went up the political ladder from local to national office, from the House to the Senate, and from the Senate to the presidency. The upheavals caused by martial law disrupted this flow. The formula no longer works for those aspiring for the Senate and the presidency. But the path from local office to the House remains well trodden, although it has been fast-tracked for many because of the three-term limit.

In the 12th House that assumed office in 2001, 138 representatives — 61 percent — had been in public office prior to their first election to a post-Marcos House. Fewer representatives now come from the executive branch. Most of them — 49 percent of all representatives or 81 percent of those who had held public posts — had been elected to local office.

This shows the importance of a local political base in winning a House seat. Political families have the edge, because they can mobilize local patronage and political networks for their electoral forays. The same is not true of the Senate, however, because name recognition is more important in that chamber, allowing celebrities from the media and the movies to win hands down in national races even if they don’t have a base in their districts. There are fewer celebrities in the House, although that is changing.

The passing on of a legislative seat from one generation to another provides evidence of the caste-like structure of the legislative elite. Four in every ten representatives in all the post-Marcos Congresses had relatives in previous legislatures. A third had parents who were in public office.

These are unusually high percentages and are an important index of the extent of real “democratization” that has taken place. But they still show, though, that Congress is not closed to those who do not come from powerful families. The flipside of the equation — six in every 10 representatives are not related to former legislators and seven out of 10 do not have parents who were in public office — should not be overlooked.

Once in Congress, however, legislators tend to stay there. The pattern since 1946 is for the number of first-termers in the House to decrease as time goes by, as congressmen hang on to their seats, using the perks and the powers available to their office to perpetuate themselves in power. Conversely, the number of those with multiple terms increases with time.

The trend is evident in the post-Marcos House as well, where the turnover rates would have been faster, as shown in the steep decline in the number of first-termers from the Eighth to the 10th House. By the 10th Congress, only 17 percent of representatives were on their first term, compared to 72 percent in the Eighth House.

This rapid decline was stemmed by the constitutional prohibition on more than three consecutive terms. The impact of the ban is evident in the sudden rise to 60 percent of the number of first-termers in the 11th House, only to decline again when a new House came to power in 2001.

Taken altogether, however, the turnover rate in the post-Marcos Congress is slower than that in pre-martial law years, despite term limits. From 1946 to 1961, an average of 51 percent of all members of Congress were new. The average for all the five post-Edsa congresses is only 46 percent. It would seem that there is less mobility in the post-Edsa legislature.

Political Families Rule Congress

HOUSE	NUMBER	%	% WITHOUT PARTY LIST*
8th (1987-1992)	122	62%	62%
9th (1992-1995)	128	64%	64%
11th Congress (1998-2001)	136	62%	65%
12th Congress (2001-2004)	140	61%	65%

*Party-list representatives were elected only since the 11th Congress.

Looking at the history of the Philippine legislatures from the 1898 Malolos Congress, it would seem that families, not parties, are their most enduring feature. Regimes come and go but the families remain. Political parties are formed and disbanded but the clans that make them up stay on.

Families survive wars, dictatorships, and uprisings. The most enduring political families are the best evidence of this: The Aquinos and Cojuangcos of Tarlac, the Osmeñas of Cebu, the Romualdezes of Leyte, and the Marcoses of Ilocos Norte, among others, have been in Philippine legislatures for four generations. Some families eventually go into decline after successive electoral defeats or the death of a powerful patriarch, but others, stronger and more resilient, hang on and flourish.

	Tarlac Rep. Gilberto Teodoro of the enduring Cojuangco clan

Data gathered for the PCIJ study show the persistence of political families since the fall of Marcos. The reality is still that politicians are elected largely by mobilizing their kinship networks and family assets (e.g. money, name recall, connections). Once in office, they pave the way for other relatives to be either appointed to the bureaucracy or elected to government posts. Within a few years, a newly elected legislator will likely have kin in local office, various government agencies, and state-owned corporations. Before long, the next generation takes over.

Two-thirds of the legislators in the post-Marcos Congress are members of political families. Of these, 70 percent are second and third-generation politicians. Nearly all of them also have multiple relatives in public office.

In the Eighth Congress, the first post-Marcos legislature, 61 percent or 122 of 198 representatives were from political clans. The proportion has remained pretty much the same since then, despite the entry of party-list representatives in the 11th and 12th House. In the 12th Congress, which was elected in 2001, 61 percent or 140 of 228 representatives came from political clans. In the 11th House, it was 62 percent. If the percentages are computed without the party-list representatives, however, the numbers increase to 65 percent for the 11th House and 66 percent for the 12th.

The figures indicate that term limits set by the 1987 Constitution, which banned representatives from seeking more than three consecutive terms, did not make a dent on clan power. Representatives who were elected in the Eighth House, for example, could sit only up to the 10th Congress. And yet, the number of political family members in the 11th House is not much different from the ones before it. In many cases, the clans simply fielded other family members to replace those who faced term limits. In other cases, rival clans merely took the place of the incumbent ones.

The findings of the PCIJ’s study of Congress are published in the book, The Rulemakers: How the Wealthy and Well-Born Dominate Congress.

SOURCE: PCIJ Online, congress.html

Dela Hoya reveals his strategy

De La Hoya: I can’t lose

WITH just more than a week away from what could be the greatest fight of the year between two of the best boxers at present, the legendary “Golden Boy” Oscar De La Hoya has formulized a strategy to defeat Filipino world champion Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao in their upcoming Dec. 6 super fight at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.

De La Hoya believes that his new trainer Ignacio “Nacho” Beristain will be the key to his victory in his fight with Pacquiao.

“Neutralizing his speed. I don’t think it’s about being the bully in the ring. That’s where Nacho comes in. How do I beat him, Nacho? … Strategy is very, very important. I can have anyone train me physically to get in shape and go in there and do what I do, and I could probably beat him. But to make the fight easier, to make the fight so that I’m never in danger, that’s where Nacho comes into the play. The strategy, little things. That’s what he brings,” the 35-year-old former Olympian said in an interview with the Ring Magazine.

De La Hoya—who boasted that he has very good conditioning and can last the whole 12 rounds—feels he can stop the Filipino boxing icon in the early rounds or the later rounds, whichever comes.

“Maybe in the first few rounds, maybe that’ll be my moment to go in there and finish him off. Or maybe it’s the later rounds the way (Fernando) Vargas faded. So, you know, we’ll have to wait and see,” said the six-division world champion.

However, De La Hoya’s main concern is Pacquiao’s speed and unpredictability.

“Being unpredictable with his punches. He’s a wild child. He throws punches from all angles, from different angles. And he’s fast. And he’s lighter. We have to find a way to neutralize him,” said De La Hoya.

One reason

Even with Pacquiao’s bulking up 17 pounds from the last time he saw action to reach their catch weight battle of 147-pounds, De La Hoya thinks that the 29-year-old Gen. Santos native will be as fast as ever.

“I think Manny Pacquiao is still going to be quick at 147. He’s really fast at lightweight, like fast. Even if he gains 10, 15 pounds he’s going to be fast. A slow Manny Pacquiao is still a fast opponent,” said De La Hoya.

When asked by The Ring Magazine if he will hang his gloves for good if he loses to Pacquiao, De La Hoya replied, “It’s not even crossing my mind. There is no way I can lose this fight; it’s out of the question. Losing this fight … I mean (would be) devastating. That’s one reason I chose this fight, because it’s so motivating. You train harder because you don’t want to lose. I can’t lose.” (EKA)

Decent psycho-babble on Dela Hoya

Analyzing De La Hoya in the wake of Pacquiao’s afternoon press conference

November 24, 4:30 PM

by Colin Seymour, S.F. Boxing Examiner

My fellow boxing scribes are writing about Manny Pacquiao today because he held a telephone press conference, so I’m dodging the pack by thinking about Oscar De La Hoya instead.

With Top Rank poobah Bob Arum standing over him Monday, Pacquiao did his best not to make any revelations of the sort that led to admonition for trainer Freddie Roach last week from the promoter. And, although he obviously isn’t looking past his Dec. 6 welterweight match with De La Hoya, Pacquiao said he figures his next fight will be at 140 pounds. That more or less confirms rumors that Pacquiao vs. Ricky Hatton is a coming attraction for 2009.

Pacquiao is under far less pressure to win Dec. 6 than De La Hoya, who last week said anything short of a knockout of Pacquiao will be substandard. Although I’m rooting for Pacquiao and his fans dominate my readership, I have rooted against De La Hoya only three times (Pernell Whitaker once and Shane Mosley twice) since Oscar moved up from lightweight, after fighting Jesse James Leija in 1995, and finally started fighting people his own size.

De La Hoya was a monster at 130 and 135, with too much length and power and underrated speed. Even at 147, De La Hoya looks too big to be a welterweight, and that’s part of the reason the Pacquiao fight is perceived as a mismatch.

De La Hoya is all-American to a fault. The Golden Boy still seems a bit artificially packaged, but his public persona is extremely likeable and attractive. He’s got to be one of the biggest babe magnets in the history of boxing, if not No. 1, and despite the aspersions of some people concerning his machismo, he hasn’t ducked any challenges and even took on Bernard Hopkins and took his lumps from the bigger man.

That’s the only bout he ever lost decisively, although a couple of wins were also too close to call.

So there’s reason to care about him, even if you’re rooting against him Dec. 6.

SOURCE: http://www.examiner.com, x-802-SF-Boxing-Examiner~y2008m11d24-Analyzing-De-La-Hoya-in-the-wake-of-Pacquiaos-afternoon-press-conference

The mystique of Pacman

A Pacquiao primer for Americans: Why Filipino’s mystique is no mystery

November 28, 2:00 PM

by Colin Seymour, S.F. Boxing Examiner

Pacquiao gives away one of 500 turkeys on Sunday
in Los Angeles (AP Photo/Ric Francis)

Manny Pacquiao is widely acknowledged to be the best Asian boxer ever and the most revered living person in the Philippines, population 90 million. Millions of Filipino-Americans also worship him. Heck, many Mexican fans are claiming Manny as one of their own as well because of his determined, courageous style and the plaintive qualities citizens of the two nations share.

But I’m not taking it for granted that most American fans – especially those who follow only the heavyweights – understand what makes Pacquiao the equal (and more) of Oscar De La Hoya as a draw for their Dec. 6 welterweight megafight in Las Vegas. So let’s boil it down:

• Pacquiao is an impossibly quick left-hander who forces non-stop action and lands power punches with the quickest release in the sport. He is resourceful and versatile. He takes a solid punch and is never deterred.
• In his signature fight, against the imperious Mexican featherweight legend Marco Antonio Barrera in 2003, Pacquiao was barely billed in what was seen as filler on Barrera’s schedule. As Pacquiao, moving up in weight class from super-bantamweight, quickly proved he was too fast for Barrera to handle, it first seemed Barrera might be hard-pressed to win a decision, but by mid-fight the little underdog was humiliating Barrera and it became thinkable he might stop him. Which he did, in the 11th round.
• Pacquiao has been a superstar since then, winning most of his dramatic brawls with the likes of Erik Morales, Juan Manuel Marquez, Jorge Solis and Oscar Larios, and winning Mexican fans in the process. Some even try to assess Manny’s place in the pantheon of the Mexican fighters he resembles, such as southpaw featherweight Vicente Saldivar and bantamweights Carlos Zarate and Ruben Olivares.
• Pacquiao, who turns 30 on Dec. 17, is an unprecedented source of pride in the Philippines, where the fanaticism is Beatles-level and the interest is so exhaustive that yours truly is finding the vast majority of his readership there. Yet he still projects humility, in stark contrast to De La Hoya’s aristocratic charm, as I’ll illustrate in my next article. Pacquiao remains a man of the people.
• He truly has a legendary mystique. The 5,000 Filipinos who have tickets for the big fight won’t be the only reason you can expect the crowd to be overwhelmingly pro-Pacquiao.

SOURCE: x-802-SF-Boxing-Examiner~y2008m11d28-A-Pacquiao-primer-for-Americans-Why-Filipinos-mystique-is-no-mystery

Roach: Dela Hoya is “weak of mind and body”

Trainer aims jabs at new, if familiar, foe

De La Hoya too slow to stop Pacquiao, says man who once worked in opposite corner

Steve Marcus

Trainers Buboy Fernandez, left, and Freddie Roach unwrap Manny Pacquiao’s hands after a workout at Wild Card Boxing Club in Hollywood, Calif., where Pacquiao is preparing for his Dec. 6 welterweight fight against Oscar De La Hoya.

By Jeff Haney

Thu, Nov 27, 2008 (2 a.m.)

HOLLYWOOD — When Freddie Roach verbally levels someone, he does it with precision.

There’s no bluster, no hyperbole.

It’s as cold and clean and decimating as a straight right hand that connects with the tip of the jawbone.

In the gym last week at his Wild Card Boxing Club, where he is training Manny Pacquiao for his Dec. 6 welterweight fight against Oscar De La Hoya, Roach laid out his analysis of the match.

It included biting criticism of De La Hoya’s mental state, his training routine, his trainer, his right hand, his ability to deal with left-handers in the ring, his age and his stamina.

Whew.

The classic diatribe culminated in Roach describing De La Hoya as weak of mind and weak of body.

He did it in typical Roach fashion, speaking in a matter-of-fact tone, with his signature quiet but simmering intensity that always leaves you thinking Nick Nolte should play him in the biopic.

The temptation is to dismiss some of the commentary as mere motivational fodder designed to inspire his fighter. The sport’s consensus pound-for-pound champion, Pacquiao will fight the most important bout of his career against the man who wields more clout than anyone in boxing.

But if Freddie Roach was acting, he deserves one of those stars on the sidewalk a few blocks north of the world-renowned Wild Card.

In recounting a major reason he agreed to train Pacquiao to face De La Hoya, for instance, Roach thought back to the specific details of an incident in the early stages of De La Hoya’s camp preceding his 2007 fight with Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Roach, who was training De La Hoya at the time, brought in left-hander Ivan Calderon, then a 105-pound world champion.

“I wanted Oscar to spar with Calderon for the first week, just to get his feet wet,” Roach said. “And Oscar just couldn’t hit this guy, no matter how hard he tried. This little southpaw was too quick for him.

“I remember it very well, because I got very mad and said, ‘Oscar, go hit this guy once and show him who the boss is.’ He just couldn’t do it. That’s why I know Pacquiao can use his speed to outmaneuver Oscar. He’s just too fast for Oscar, I believe.”

De La Hoya disputes this particular account of l’affaire de Calderon. But in Roach’s mind it was enough to persuade him to back Pacquiao, a reigning lightweight champ who built his fearsome reputation by winning world titles at 112, 122 and 130 pounds.

De La Hoya returns to welterweight in the Dec. 6 bout at the MGM Grand Garden Arena after fighting at 154 pounds or higher for the past seven years.

“Size doesn’t win fights,” Roach said. “Speed and strategy win fights. Manny’s stronger and faster. He’s just not taller.”

Roach also relishes the opportunity to face off with an old nemesis, De La Hoya’s new trainer, Ignacio “Nacho” Beristain.

Bad blood between the two men can be traced to an episode in which Roach attempted to put his arm around Beristain’s shoulders for a photographer. Beristain rebuffed him, uttering a vulgar phrase in Spanish that essentially questioned Roach’s manhood. Roach became livid when he later found out how the words translated.

“I never liked Nacho,” Roach said. “The guy disrespected me.”

Under Beristain, a slimmed-down De La Hoya has opted to train at or slightly below the 147-pound welterweight limit. Roach, however, sees that tactic as favoring his fighter.

“Oscar might be at weight, but he’s killing himself to make it,” Roach said. “I think he’s going to be weak going into the fight. I believe they’re taking us lightly.”

Roach has clashed with De La Hoya on whether the fighter abandoned their blueprint in the middle rounds of his loss to Mayweather. He predicted Pacquiao, with his quickness and lateral movement, will throw De La Hoya off his game plan once the men enter the ring.

“Oscar loses focus in there,” Roach said. “His mind wanders. I know his habits pretty well. There’s some tension between us, but it’s nothing personal with me. It’s just that mentally he loses sight of the game plan at times. He blamed me for the loss to Mayweather, and hopefully he’ll be blaming me for losing this one too.

“Some people are weak-minded, like Oscar. Some people are strong-minded, like Manny.”

For his part, Pacquiao would not touch that one. The most popular public figure in his native Philippines, Pacquiao plays it down the middle in interviews. His pleasant, low-key personality is one reason. Another is the fact that English is not his first language.

“For me, it’s all about doing my job in the ring, winning the fight,” Pacquiao said.

He and Roach mesh well, Pacquiao said. He loves running in the hills above Hollywood, and he thrives in the gritty urban atmosphere around the gym, which presents a stark contrast to the pastoral environs of De La Hoya’s camp in Big Bear Lake, Calif., 100 miles to the east.

Sure, he naturally feels some pressure, but no more than De La Hoya does. De La Hoya is 39-5 with 30 knockouts but just 3-3 in his past six fights; Pacquiao is 47-3-2 with 35 knockouts.

De La Hoya will be the most skilled opponent he has faced, not just the biggest, Pacquiao said. He’s prepared to slug it out with De La Hoya toe-to-toe or fight a more tactical match, and he’s ready to make such an adjustment on the fly.

A victory by knockout or by decision would be equally sweet.

“Every fighter believes in his power, and me, too,” Pacquiao said. “I believe in my power. So the knockout would be a bonus.”

Pacquiao has been training at 151 pounds, with 6 percent body fat. His well-muscled physique came from plyometrics (loading then contracting muscles in rapid sequence) and a high-protein diet rather than weightlifting, Roach said. He expects Pacquiao to officially weigh in at 147 pounds and step into the ring weighing 150.

Under Roach’s direction, Pacquiao has sparred with up-and-coming professionals such as Rashad Holloway, Marvin Cordova and Amir Khan. Roach placed a $1,000 cash bonus on the table for any sparring partner who knocks Pacquiao down during a session. No one has collected.

“I can take (De La Hoya’s) punches,” Pacquiao said. “I spar against bigger guys and I can handle their power.”

Just as impressive, Roach said, is Pacquiao’s willingness to learn, to adapt. Roach called it an about-face from his experience with De La Hoya, who tends to pay attention to just one man: Oscar De La Hoya.

“Oscar is Oscar,” Roach said. “He’s had a lot of success, and he’s not going to change. At this point he doesn’t listen to anybody but himself.”

Jeff Haney can be reached at 259-4041 or at haney@lasvegassun.com.

SOURCE: PACLAND, trainer-aims-jabs-new-if-familiar-foe

Impeachment attempts reveal who we are and how far we still need to go

I don’t know why we, Filipinos, are so stuck on such dramatic, sensational, and fanatical ways of changing leaders… If we don’t overthrow a leader, we impeach him. Life is not a soap opera, unlike how some Filipinos may like it to be.

Watching from the outside, what I see are common Filipinos being manipulated once again to install new rulers without taking an election. This latest attempt at impeachment, in my mind, is yet another cynical attempt by the elite to exploit the masses to grab power. You have pro-Arroyo elites locked in a nuclear war against anti-Arroyo elites. When will we finally stop our annual reckless ritual of taking our home country into the brink of a revolution?

Putting aside the reasons for impeachment for a moment, what does this manner of changing leaders achieve in strengthening the people’s trust and confidence in their government? How does this empower the people to take their role in choosing their leaders seriously?

How does this build confidence around the globe of the ability of Filipinos to rule themselves in a rational, civilized way? How does this lay the foundation for a genuine democracy that is truly based on the power of the people, instead of the power of the old oligarchs?

Finally, how does it rehabilitate our badly-damaged state institutions?

Yes, voting remains hollow in the Philippines, and the authenticity of the people’s voice does not yet ring true in elections. But we cannot abandon the vote. We further erode its power and value each time we do.

At some point we need to outgrow our brand of political adventurism and immaturity. This might be a pipe-dream, but a strong Philippine electorate remains the worthwhile ideal. Impeachments and other sensational ways of changing leaders do not take us there.

Roach: Why Dela Hoya can no longer pull the trigger

De La Hoya’s best days over – Roach

By Nick Giongco

LOS ANGELES — Here’s another proof why Oscar De La Hoya can no longer pull the trigger, according to Freddie Roach.

During his eight-week trainer stint with the Golden Boy last year in Puerto Rico, Roach made a startling discovery that led to him uttering the oft-quoted remark about De La Hoya’s stagnation.

“With Oscar, we only had two good days with the mitts (which HBO taped) the whole time and with Manny Pacquiao, we have good mitts sessions everyday,” said Roach on Tuesday night, less than two weeks before the two heavenly bodies collide at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas on Dec. 6.

“He doesn’t have the explosion of Manny Pacquiao. He doesn’t have that pop,” said Roach, who went further by saying that Pacquiao is on top of the world, while De La Hoya’s best days are long over.

“Timing is everything in life. You start with De La Hoya beating (Julio Cesar)

Chavez. Can De Le Hoya beat Chavez during his prime? No freaking way. And can he beat him when he’s an older man? He killed him,” Roach said, referring to De La Hoya’s two vicious stoppage wins over Chavez in 1996 and 1997.

“Pacquiao will do a lot of damage on him. If Steve Forbes can hit him that easily, Manny Pacquiao can do a lot more damage,” said Roach, obviously one of the many disappointed fight figures who saw how De La Hoya struggle against Forbes in his last bout last May.

In an interview with USA Today, Pacquiao said he wants to come up with a performance that will go down in history as one of the best.

“The point of this fight is to do something that people will never forget,” said Pacquiao.

SOURCE: Manila Bulletin Online, SPRT20081127142105.html

Pacquiao’s winning strategy

Pacquiao must attack early – Roach

By NICK GIONGCO

LOS ANGELES – After another hard day’s work at the Wild Card Boxing Club in Hollywood, trainer Freddie Roach took time out to have dinner with a female French journalist from L’Equipe before giving a Manila journalists a lowdown not only on the progress of Manny Pacquiao, but his innermost thoughts about the Dec. 6 super-fight with Oscar De La Hoya.

“A lot of people think that if Manny gets past four rounds, he’ll be okay,” Roach said on Tuesday night after training with mixed-martial arts star Anderson Silva. “I don’t think so.”

Pleased with Pacquiao’s eight-round sparring session earlier in the day, Roach said allowing De La Hoya to gain momentum is close to being suicidal.

“I have talked with Manny while we’re doing the mitts and I told Manny to go out in there in the first round and let him (De La Hoya) know that this is a (expletive) fight right away.”

“I mean if you give Oscar De La Hoya momentum, he’ll grow. He’s a very skittish person. If you take it away from him right away, he’ll fold. He’s mentally not strong,” Roach said.

Roach had sensed something was amiss when the Golden Boy faced Floyd Mayweather in May last year.

“He can’t focus on a gameplan. All of sudden he stops missing the jab. Why in the world would he do that? Hmmm, I know why. And we’re going to take advantage of that.”

Pacquiao has been sensational since showing up for training at the Wild Card, a non-descript sweat shop on Vine Street near Santa Monica that has become a shrine to die-hard boxing fans.

“We’re there,” Roach answered when asked about Pacquiao’s physical and mental conditioning.

“The sparring partners have done so well and Manny has dominated them when he wanted to. Overall, I am happy where he is at right now.”

Over the weekend, Arron Robinson, a black super-welter who carries the nickname of “The Energizer” had to fill in for Marvin Cordova, who fell sick, and Pacquiao expectedly tore him apart.

“We got Robinson, who is the Energizer, but was not the energizer against Manny Pacquiao.”

Even though he admits that De La Hoya “has got a good left hook and can knock you out with one punch, that left hook,” Roach remains more than optimistic that the 29-year-old Filipino will get the job done in stunning fashion.

“I don’t know if I’m crazy or not but I’m so confident there’s no way we’re going to lose this fight. Nooo way. I don’t see it,” Roach said.

4th impeachment attempt fails

Not sufficient in substance, says Justice Committee
House Committee junks impeachment complaint, 42-8

By BEN R. ROSARIO and EDMER F. PANESA

The Committee on Justice of the administration-dominated House of Representatives yesterday threw out a fourth attempt to impeach President Arroyo, ignoring the plea by minority members to declare the latest impeachment complaint as sufficient in substance and let her answer the charges.

Voting 42-8, the committee headed by Lakas Rep. Matias Defensor of Quezon City dismissed the complaint filed by businessman Jose “Joey” de Venecia III and several others for being “insufficient in substance.”

The results of the voting led to disappointment among the complainants and impeachment endorsers, particularly Pangasinan Rep. Jose de Venecia Jr. “As predicted, they played the numbers game. They used their numbers, numerical superiority. E wala na talagang magsasucceed na impeachment complaint dito sa bansa natin kung ganun ang prosesong gagamitin nila. This is a defeat of truth and justice,” the former speaker said.

The Justice Committee’s decision now goes to the plenary session of the House. Defensor said that a vote of one-third of the entire House membership would be enough to overturn the committee decision but he aired confidence that it will be upheld overwhelmingly when voted upon in the plenary.

“The opposition failed to prove that the President had a direct hand in the extra-judicial killings and they failed to substantiate their claim that the President committed illegality in the contracts entered into by the government,” he said.

Defensor said the committee will prepare its report and have it calendared for next week.

The voting on the impeachment complaint came after the committee heard the summation of arguments of pro- and anti-impeachment teams yesterday.

House Minority Leader Rep. Ronaldo Zamora summed up the arguments of the pro-impeachment group while Lakas Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay did the same for the anti-impeachment side.

Zamora insisted that the complaint had passed the test of substance. “The impeachment complaint consists of recital of facts that constitute an offense against the President of the Republic. We feel that we complied with the requirements of the Constitution and rules (on impeachment),” the lawmaker from San Juan City said.

The complaint cited four grounds for impeachment and 11 causes of action, including the following:

—Betrayal of public trust in connection with the $ 329-million National Broadband Network (NBN) deal with China’s ZTE Corp., the sale of the country’s gold reserves in Mt. Diwalwal in Compostela Valley to ZTE Corp., and the tampering with the results of the 2004 presidential elections;

—Culpable violation of the Constitution involving the ZTE deal, the approval of the allegedly overpriced $ 503-million Northrail project, and the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances;

—Bribery for the ZTE scandal and the alleged distribution of bribe money to House members in exchange for the referral of a weak impeachment complaint, to prevent consideration of a strong opposition-supported complaint last year.

—Graft and corruption concerning the R728-million fertilizer fund scam in the Department of Agriculture, the R5-billion swine scam involving Quedan and Rural Credit Corp. (Quedancor), and the “Hello, Garci” controversy.

Zamora urged the committee to declare the complaint sufficient in substance so it can proceed with the determination of probable cause, in which stage the President will be asked to answer the charges.

He asked the committee to take into consideration a photo presented by De Venecia during last Monday’s hearing, showing the President and her husband, a ZTE representative, and the former Speaker.

Zamora, reiterating a statement of De Venecia, said the picture was taken during the President’s “secret visit” at the ZTE headquarters in Shenzhen on Nov. 2, 2007, at a time when the Chinese telecommunications firm was bidding for the NBN project.

Lagman, in his summation, said that while it is true that pictures do not lie, “biased viewers do.”

“The picture at the Shenzhen golf course simply and only depicts the personalities in the photograph. No more, no less. Definitely, it is not a criminal pose or a mug shot. Neither does it portray a criminal act,” Lagman said.

He said at least five causes of action in the complaint were “recycled and rehashed grounds” as these were “previously adjudicated and dismissed in the prior impeachment cases in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

He said the scuttled ZTE-NBN deal, the so-called “Garci tapes,” the fertilizer scam, the Northrail contract, and extrajudicial killings “are already barred by res judicata or prior judgments in previous impeachment cases.”

He added that the alleged irregularities in the ZTE deal, Diwalwal gold, fertilizer funds, and swine program were “not attributable” to the President for they were committed by other officials in her government.

“No culpable overt and personal acts of the President were alleged. We all know that actionable culpability must be vicarious. Liability must be personal. The dolo or culpa of an agent cannot be attributed to ensnare the principal,” he said.

After Lagman’s summation, five more opposition congressmen were also allowed to talk. They were Reps. Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro City, Teofisto “TG” Guingona III, Risa Hontiveros of Akbayan, and Satur Ocampo and Teodoro Casiño of Bayan Muna.

Before the actual voting on the sufficiency in substance of the impeachment complaint, party-list Reps. Liza Maza of Gabriela and Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis moved for the disqualification of committee members aligned with the Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (Kampi), the political party founded by the President, and those who allegedly benefited from the fertilizer fund.

Maza claimed the committee was “tarnished” by the presence of members who allegedly received bribe money during a breakfast meeting in Malacañang in October last year while an impeachment case against her was pending in the House of Representatives.

“They must be disqualified if they would not inhibit themselves,” she said.

Mariano noted that at least 22 committee members were included in the list of former Undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc Joc” Bolante as having received R3 million to R5 million each in fertilizer funds.

However, both motions of Maza and Mariano were turned down by the committee.

Committee Chairman Defensor ruled that the committee has no authority to disqualify any member, saying that a motion for inhibition or disqualification is addressed to the member concerned.

After Defensor ruled on the two motions, Lagman moved to dismiss the complaint for being insufficient in substance. Zamora objected, prompting Defensor to call for the division of the committee.

The Justice Committee is expected to report its decision to the plenary for either adoption or rejection next week.

The minority needs the votes of at least 79 congressmen or one-third of all the members of the House to override the decision of the committee.

Asked if they have the numbers, De Venecia said: “It’s possible but improbable. I don’t want to raise false hopes.”

Officials of the House led by Speaker Prospero Nograles appealed to critics of the President to respect the decision of the Committee on Justice. “It is now time to move on and allow government to carry out its programs that are aimed at cushioning the impact of the global financial crunch on the country,” he said.

“We are racing against time. Ensuring that our people will have food on their tables is our most urgent task and responsibility. Let us move on.”

Senators, bishops, Erap express dismay over House decision

Senators yesterday expressed dismay over the decision of the House of Representatives Justice Committee to dismiss the impeachment complaint against President Arroyo on the committee level.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. said the decision to junk the impeachment complaint did not actually surprise him as many of the members of the House are “beholden” to Mrs. Arroyo.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson said that though the impeachment complaint, the fourth filed since President Arroyo started her term in 2004, had “died,” the issues hounding the President are still alive.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano said that after the junking of the impeachment complaint, it is expected that Malacanang will now push to extend the term of President Arroyo beyond 2010.

Sen. Francis Escudero said: “Nakakalungkot na tulad ng dati, hindi man lang pinayagan mailabas and ebidensya bago man lang mag-botohan (It is disappointing that just like before, they did not allow the evidences to be revealed before making they start on voting).”

Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III also said he is dismayed as the settling of the issue has once again been delayed to the detriment of the people.

“Malinaw na umaandar ang tren sa Kamara dahil binigyan ng puwang ang testimonya. Dito naman talaga papunta,” Sen. Manuel Roxas II said.

Catholic Church leaders said they were not surprised by yesterday’s junking of the fourth impeachment complaint against President Arroyo, saying they have long been expecting it.

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) President and Jaro, Iloilo, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo said the decision of the House committee on justice to junk the impeachment complaint against the President was not surprising due to the number of her allies in Congress.

CBCP Spokesman Msgr. Pedro Quitorio said, “It has always been the sentiment of the bishops that this will not prosper because this is a numbers game.”

Basilan Bishop Martin Jumoad added. “We have been expecting this junking of this impeachment complaint against President Arroyo… it will not prosper in Congress.”

Puerto Princesa Bishop Pedro Arigo said, “Sad to say that up to now, we are trying to evade the truth and the consequences of speaking of the truth… I think they (congressmen) are not that kind of people you will expect to come out with the truth.”

Archbishop Lagdameo urged the faithful to continue the search for truth behind the allegations against the administration despite the junking of the impeachment.

Former President Joseph Estrada lamented the partisan actions of Palace allies in their treatment of the impeachment complaint.

“These congressmen who have chosen to take the side of injustice are an embarrassment to the House of Representatives. They have made a mockery again of the impeachment proceedings, allowing themselves be used by the administration instead of joining the call to find the truth,” he said. (Hannah L. Torregoza and Leslie Ann G. Aquino)

ULAP, LMP, other leagues of officials praise House committee

Officials of the 18,000-strong Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines yesterday praised the House Justice Committee for promptly dismissing the charges against President Arroyo and asked national and local officials to go back to serious work and tackle the more important problems confronting the nation.

ULAP President and Mandaluyong City Mayor Ben Hur Abalos said, “The complaint is nothing but a scrap of paper stitched together by the political ambitions of a few.” He said no single sector of civil society came out openly in big or small numbers to back the impeachment move.

The League of Municipalities of the Philippines, representing 1,500 municipal mayors all over the country, said that the current global financial crisis dictates that all Filipinos must work together and unite behind the government to stem the economic difficulties brought about by the recession.

LMP National President and Binalonan (Pangasinan) Mayor Ramon Guico Jr said: “The task at hand is to insulate Filipinos from a likely global recession. We must rally behind the government so it can effectively craft and mobilize support behind an action plan to further strengthen the domestic economy.”

The League of Provinces of the Philippines (LPP) also came out just as strongly in favor of a concerted patriotic action to tackle the financial meltdown, a position shared by the Vice Governors League, Provincial Board Members League, Vice Mayors League, Philippine Councilors League, Liga ng mga Barangay, Sangguniang Kabataan, National Movement of Young Legislators and the Lady Legislators League of the Philippines.

SOURCE: Manila Bulletin Online, MAIN20081127142119.html

Pacquiao: “Twenty years from now,… I want my name to be at the top level of boxing history”

Pacquiao eyes career-defining win vs. De La Hoya

Enlarge By Nick Ut, AP Manny Pacquiao credits his hard work and faith in God for his success in the ring.

By David Leon Moore, USA TODAY

LOS ANGELES — At the end of Manny Pacquiao’s long workout at the Wildcard Boxing Club in Hollywood, after the 100 or so lucky fans who have been waiting outside in the parking lot have been let in to see their hero, Team Pacquiao calls for a moment of silence.

Then Pacquiao walks to one corner of the ring, bows his head into the ropes, and the noisy gym becomes respectfully silent.

A minute or so later, Pacquiao raises his head and walks across the ring, smiling at the admiring crowd.

“Amen,” some of the fans say.

Pacquiao, the 29-year-old Filipino lightweight champion who is considered the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world, repeats this routine daily as he prepares for his much-anticipated showdown in Las Vegas on Dec. 6 against Oscar De La Hoya.

The ring prayer represents half of what Pacquiao says makes him such a great fighter, a fierce competitor who started as a 106-pound teenager and has held world titles at 112, 122, 130 and 135 pounds.

The other half is what he has just done in the two hours before his prayer — a grueling, non-stop workout focusing on speed, strength, strategy and endurance.

“What I have done in my career,” he says, “is because of my hard work and my belief in God.”

It’s a career that would take a quantum leap if he can take down De La Hoya at 147 pounds, the welterweight limit. Pacquiao has never before fought in a division higher than lightweight, where the limit is 135 pounds. De La Hoya will presumably have an advantage in power, as well as in height and reach. So it is De La Hoya, though he is six years older, who is considered the favorite.

That’s precisely why Team Pacquiao believes a victory will be a turning point for the feisty southpaw who is a national hero in his native Philippines.

“Twenty years from now, 30, 40 years, I want my name to be at the top level of boxing history,” Pacquiao says. “That’s why it’s really important for me to win this fight. It’s the biggest fight of my career.

“The point of this fight is to do something that people will never forget.”

Freddie Roach, Pacquiao’s longtime trainer, says a victory “would elevate Manny to superstar status. He’s not quite there yet. This is definitely a turning point.”

Their strategy to pull off the upset is partly obvious and partly a secret Roach says he learned when he trained De La Hoya in a losing effort against Floyd Mayweather Jr.

“It’s no secret Manny has to take the jab away from Oscar, get inside the jab, fight at short range,” Roach says. “Oscar is a distance fighter. He has long arms. I don’t think it’s a huge problem. But it is our biggest problem.

“And it’s no secret we’re going to attack the body first and break him down.”

So what is the secret?

“All the techniques we apply right now, we don’t tell to anybody,” Pacquiao says. “Just me and Freddie only.”

Roach says this much: “I know why Oscar’s jab in the Mayweather fight stopped working. Mayweather didn’t make an adjustment. Oscar forgot to do something.”

What?

“You’ll see,” Roach says. “That’s part of our game plan, of course. It will happen in the fight.”

The much-discussed jump in weight is really much ado about nothing, Pacquiao says.

“My regular weight when I’m not training is 155,” he says. “Right now I’m about 150 and I think I’m in better shape than I’ve ever been. I’m ready to fight.”

As for a game plan if Pacquiao wins, Roach says he’d like Pacquiao to fight twice more.

“I’d like to see him fight Ricky Hatton (the 140-pound champ) and beat Hatton, which I think we can,” the trainer says. “I think Floyd Mayweather will come back. I’d like to see Manny fight Floyd and beat him, and then call it a day. He’d have nothing else to prove.

“He’d be considered one of the greatest fighters of all time. He’d be a champion in five weight divisions.”

How does that sound to Pacquiao?

“He said that?” Pacquiao says. “Two more? OK. That’s fine. That’s enough.”

Arroyo impeachment likely not to prosper, according to minority leader

House minority leader expects impeachment’s defeat

---

abs-cbnNEWS.com | 11/26/2008 8:28 AM

Send to friend

House minority leader Ronaldo Zamora admitted Wednesday that the impeachment complaint filed against President Arroyo has no chance of being declared sufficient in substance in the administration-dominated committee on justice.

“I’m not hoping that we’re going to win here because we are outnumbered five to one,” Zamora said in an interview over ABS-CBN’s morning show, “Umagang Kay Ganda,” hours before the House committee on justice decides on the complaint’s sufficiency in substance.

The justice committee, headed by Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor, was expected to endorse the complaint for plenary debates.

Zamora said the complaint has better chances once brought to plenary, but admitted that getting the support of at least 80 congressmen or one-third of the total number of House members is a daunting task.

“We have better chances in plenary. We need to get one-third at the plenary, which is very difficult,” he said.

With the expected loss, Zamora said his group is hoping to at least be given a chance to show their evidence at the plenary. He is also counting on the House to let the complainants themselves present the case to congressmen.

Jose “Joey” de Venecia III, son of former speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., and missing activists mother Editha Burgos are among the impeachment complainants.

The young de Venecia’s complaint was based on the botched broadband deal between the government and China’s ZTE Corp while Burgos represents the victims of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

The justice committee found the complaint sufficient in form last Tuesday and will vote on its sufficiency in substance today (Wednesday).

Falsified complaint

Pro-impeachment lawmakers threatened to withdraw from the proceedings after Defensor refused to decide on the allegation of Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. that the complaint was a falsified document.

Barzaga said the impeachment complaint was a falsified document because it was notarized on Oct. 10, 2008 but was executed on Oct.11, 2008.

Rep. Manuel Zamora then asked Defensor to act on the accusation of Barzaga. “The complainants have been here for the past two days trying to make a case,” he said.

Defensor, however, said the committee has no jurisdiction to determine if it is falsified or not. This prompted former Speaker Jose de Venecia and Rep. Teofisto Guingona III to walk out of the session.

Barzaga agreed to withdraw his statement to allow the proceeding to continue. The session resumed and the remaining pro-impeachment lawmakers agreed to stay.

Zamora said that the committee should have raised the issue when the committee determined the complaint’s “sufficiency in form” last week.

“They should have raised it before and not now,” said Zamora.

Defensor, however, said that he was surprised that the issue was raised.

The justice committee found the complaint “sufficient in form” last Tuesday and is now determining its “sufficiency in substance”. A summation of arguments is expected tomorrow.

SOURCE: ABS-CBN News Online, house-minority-leader-expects-impeachments-defeat

Details of Opposition’s case for impeaching Arroyo

JDV, opposition solons detail alleged Arroyo offenses

---

by JESUS F. LLANTO, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 11/24/2008 4:14 PM

Send to friend

After former House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. linked President Arroyo to the National Broadband Network (NBN) deal with China’s ZTE Corp. and to the alleged attempts to bribe some House members, pro-impeachment lawmakers detailed the president’s involvement in two anomalous contracts.

Pro-impeachment lawmakers on Monday implicated the president to the controversial contracts of North Rail and the agreement that would allow ZTE Corp. to pursue mining operations in Mt. Diwalwal, Compostela Valley.

Gabriela Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan told the House justice committee that Arroyo violated the constitution when she approved the contract that allows ZTE Corp. to explore, process and use mines in Mt. Diwalwal despite her earlier order for a suspension of mining operations in the area.

“The president sold our gold resources to ZTE,” Ilagan told the panel, adding that the contract is disadvantageous because 90 percent of the revenues will go to ZTE and only 10 percent will go to the Philippines.

The 8,100 hectare Mt. Diwalwal, Ilagan said, covers a forest reserve that includes an ancestral domain.

Ilagan questioned why the contract was awarded to a ZTE Corp, which has no prior experience in mining. He also noted that the same ZTE officials involved in the NBN deal are also the ones involved in the Mt. Diwalwal.

Meanwhile, Bayan Muna representative Teddy Casiño said that president also violated the constitution when she approved the Northrail contract with China National Machinery and Equipment Corp.

The contract, Casiño said, has no approval from the Monetary Board, is not covered by the government auditing code, and has provisions that are disadvantageous to the government because it is “grossly overpriced”. He added that there was no competitive bidding for the contract.

Other cases

Other cases presented at Monday’s hearing were the alleged involvement of Arroyo in the P728-million fertilizer fund scam that was purportedly used to boost her 2004 campaign kitty, the 2004 electoral fraud, and the human rights violations under Arroyo’s administration.

Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo, said that Arroyo is “criminally, civilly, administratively, and publicly liable” for the extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances.

He alleged that Arroyo approved “extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances, illegal arrests, and torture of activists in legal organization members of organizations critical or opposing her government policies and programs.”  These are allegedly “main components of her government’s counter insurgency program.”

Ocampo added that Arroyo allegedly failed to prosecute the perpetrators of the human rights violations.

“Recital of facts”

San Juan Rep. Ronaldo Zamora, meanwhile, reiterated that the presentation of the endorsers of the complaint today is just a “recital of facts.”

“We are not here to determine the guilt or innocence,” Zamora said. “ We are here to lay down the reasons on why we have filed the complaints.”

Zamora added that every speaker on impeachment will be an endorser of the complaint so that each of them will be familiar with the cases.

Anti-impeachment lawmakers are expected to speak tomorrow while a summation and debate is expected on Wednesday.

The House committee on justice declared last Tuesday that the impeachment complaint was “sufficient in form” and the committee is now in the process of determining its “sufficiency in substance.”

JDV’s testimony

Zamora, meanwhile, added that former Speaker De Venecia’s earlier statements are explosive and can help boost their case.

“The people on the picture should answer the allegations,” Zamora said referring to de Venecia’s testimony this morning.

De Venecia showed a picture showing himself with President Arroyo, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, former elections chief Benjamin Abalos and a ZTE official.

Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, meanwhile, agreed that the statement of the former Speaker strengthened the impeachment complaint but “is unlikely to add numbers.”

“Don’t expect additional impeachment backers. True, it will be more expensive for Malacañang to ensure control over the House majority…but at the end of the day, the administration still has control over the House majority,” she said.

Palace reaction

In response to De Venecia’s disclosures, Presidential Deputy Spokesman Anthony Golez said “impeachment is a political process and JDV’s statements were mere political sentiments which serves personal political interests.”

“We recognize the congressman’s sour graping and we can see that he is still hurting over his ouster as House Speaker by the vast majority of his colleagues for the loss of trust and confidence as their leader,” Golez said.

SOURCE: ABS-CBN News Online, jdv-opposition-solons-detail-alleged-arroyo-offenses

Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia defends President Arroyo in impeachment complaint hearing

[kyte.tv appKey=MarbachViewerEmbedded&uri=channels/48209/278517&tbid=k_35&premium=false&height=445&width=425]

After approving the first, House moves to second threshold in Arroyo impeachment complaint

House declares De Venecia impeach complaint ‘sufficient in form’

---

By CARMELA FONBUENA, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 11/18/2008 11:52 AM

Printer-friendly version | Send to friend

The House Committee on Justice on Tuesday unanimously declared the impeachment complaint filed by national broadband deal controversy star witness Jose “Joey” De Venecia III and opposition lawyer Harry Roque “sufficient in form.”

Without any objections from the committee members when the motion was called, committee chairman Mat Defensor declared, “the motion is carried.”

The motion to determine the complaint’s sufficiency in form was made by Baguio City Rep. Maurico Domogan.

The committee will now move on to the more challenging part—determination of  the complaint’s “sufficiency in substance”—whether or not the allegations against President Arroyo are substantial.

The “De Venecia” complaint cited the alleged involvement of President Arroyo in the anomalous US$329-million national broadband deal with Chinese company ZTE Corp., the P728-million fertilizer fund mess that was purportedly used to finance her 2004 presidential bid, the alleged bribery of House member, and the human rights violations under her administration.

The complaint has so far been endorsed by six members of the House — Casiño, fellow Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo, Gabriela’s Liza Maza, Anakpawis’ Rafael Mariano, Bukidnon’s Teofisto Guingona III and former speaker and administration ally Jose de Venecia Jr.

Inhibition of many solons sought

The committee officially started its hearing on the impeachment complaints at 10:30 a.m. today. Casiño and Maza called for the inhibition of congressmen involved in two allegations against the President—alleged bribery of congressmen and governors, and the fertilizer fund mess.

“We don’t want the proceedings to be tainted,” said Casiño, one of the six endorsers of the first impeachment complaint filed by the younger de Venecia and Roque.

Deputy Speaker Amelita Villarosa of Kampi admitted to her involvement with the alleged bribery allegations. But Villarosa clarified that she only admitted to giving money to two congressmen—Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante and La Union Rep. Thomas Dumpit. (Kampi is a political party founded by the President)

”I’m not involved with the rest. There will be a point when it is needed. It will voluntarily from me. I prefer to stay now and see how the proceedings go,” Villarosa told the committee.

But Maza said, “I think the proper time is now.”

About 190 congressmen in the 13th Congress were allegedly involved in the fertilizer fund mess, too. A number of them were reelected to the 14th Congress.

The committee has no power to force the committee members to inhibit, however.

How about other complaints?

Aside from the “De Venecia” complaint, three other complaints were filed in the House of Representatives. The congressmen have not decided whether or not to consolidate them.

One of them was filed by political analyst Manolo Quezon. He filed a complaint-in-intervention to the ‘De Venecia’ complaint to include the alleged constitutional violation committed by President Arroyo by allowing the government peace negotiators to enter into a Moro homeland accord with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

Lawyer Oliver Lozano, who was behind previously filed impeachment complaints that were dismissed—also filed a complaint-of-intervention for the same purpose.

Another impeachment complaint was filed by a certain Guilllermo Sotto.

SOURCE: ABS-CBN News Online, house-declares-de-venecia-impeach-complaint-%E2%80%98sufficient-form%E2%80%99

4th impeachment attempt has popular support

The 4th impeachment case filed against GMA is supported by Filipinos

---

By Conrad Angeles, reader | 10/27/2008 3:24 PM

Send to friend

The 4th impeachment case filed against GMA is supported by Filipinos

This is in contrast to what congressmen allied to Aling Gloria are saying that the new impeachment case will not prosper considering that no solons will endorse it to the House of the Representatives except the group of Rep. Teddy Casino and Rep. Satur Ocampo.

I think they are mistaken because members of the lower house are just observing. For example, last week Rep. Jose De Venecia revealed that he will not endorse the impeachment complaint filed by his son against Aling Gloria due to delicadeza.

But last Saturday (Oct. 25) his mind changed and he decided to endorse and support his son’s bid in complaining about his former ally’s various irregularities since occupying the palace in 2001.

The endorsement of the former head of the lower house must not be belittled by LAKAS-KAMPI camp. At present the Speaker of the Lower House and his allies predicted that the 4th impeachment against GMA will be like the first, second and third impeachment that were thrown in the trash due to technicalities.

Baka naman nagpapalakas lang kayo ng loob mga iho. Ngayon palang sigurado ako marami pang solon ang susuporta kay Ginoong Jose De Venecia Sr. at ng kanyang anak.

If the allegations against Aling Gloria are merely fabricated I think a UP Professor will not waste time in filing a case against GMA. To tell a lie is so easy but to invent an allegation is difficult. All allegations are supported by documents that came from COA and other branches of the government. Besides, why are some lawmakers afraid to file an impeachment case against a regime that is full of alleged anomalies?

Matanong ko nga kayo. Ano ba ang nangyayari sa Pilipinas sa kasalukuyan? Di ba lahat puro luho tulad ng biyahe ng Senior PNP’s officials dahil daw sa trainings o conference. Niloloko na naman tayo, kasi yun daw perang dala ni Dela Paz e Intelligence Fund. Yun e para magamit nila ang EO 464. Again?

But the truth is, those are rewards by Aling Gloria to them (PNP’s) for supporting her alleged stolen regime for the last seven years..

As a matter of fact, if by this time we failed to impeach GMA, please bear in mind. The Philippines has nothing to reach. Mark my words, my countrymen.

SOURCE: ABS-CBN News Online, 4th-impeachment-case-filed-against-gma-supported-filipinos

Dejavu impeachment complaint vs Arroyo

JDV and son to testify in impeachment complaint hearing in House

---

abs-cbnNEWS.com | 11/24/2008 12:04 AM

Send to friend

Father and son, Jose Jr. and Jose “Joey” de Venecia III are all set to testify at the House of Representatives’ Justice Committee for the resumption of the hearings on the impeachment complaint against President Arroyo Monday.

The House justice committee is set to resume its hearings on the impeachment complaint filed by Joey de Venecia, among others, and decide if the complaint is “sufficient in substance.” The justice committee, headed by Quezon City 3rd district Rep. Matias Defensor Jr. last Tuesday declared the complaint “sufficient in form”

The young de Venecia said the House committee would start discussions on the facts of the complaint..

“Tomorrow will be a telling time for this impeachment complaint – to prosper or will it just be ignored and junked by the administration congressmen in the justice committee,” Joey de Venecia told ABS-CBN News correspondent Cecille Lardizabal in an interview Sunday.

Eight allegations

“There are about eight allegations in the case – one is the ZTE-NBN [national broadband network deal]which I have first-hand knowledge of and also what my father today disclosed in the papers. Secondly the human rights violations. These are the people who have been kidnapped, killed, abducted during the term of Ginang [Mrs.] Arroyo and note, not one general has been accused or even a case filed on,” said Joey.

The other allegations, he said, are the issues concerning North Rail, fertilizer fund scam involving former Agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante and Quedancor scam.

“Another allegation is ZTE, according to Atty. Harry Roque one of the complainants – ZTE was granted a mining license to mine gold in Mt. Diwalwal which is … ZTE is not in the business of mining,” said the young de Venecia.

Another allegation was the alleged P500,000 payoffs to congressmen last year during the third impeachment complaint against the president.

“If you remember during the impeachment complaint of last year there were bags of P500,000 which were given to congressmen in Malacañang,” said the young de Venecia. “And of course the 2004 electoral fraud.”

Father’s first hand-knowledge

The former House speaker has confirmed to ABS-CBN News Channel Sunday that he will be at Monday’s justice committee hearing.

“Definitely. Because I was invited to endorse the impeachment complaints. So I would be there attending the hearing tomorrow, the committee on justice,” said the elder de Venecia.

Joey however said his father, the former House speaker, would testify on what he knows out of those eight allegations.

“First-hand knowledge of my father is primarily NBN ZTE, North Rail and P500,000 suhulan sa (bribery in) Malacañang,” said the young de Venecia. The elder de Venecia was still House speaker when the alleged payoffs to congressmen in Malacañang happened.

The two de Venecia’s have already said that First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo was involved in the scrapped NBN deal between the Philippine government and China’s ZTE Corp.

In a hearing at the Senate investigation on the alleged overpriced and graft-ridden NBN-ZTE deal, the young de Venecia who is the probe’s key resource persons and whistleblower said he was told by Mr. Arroyo to “Back off!” from pursuing his proposal to the government’s NBN project.

The elder de Venecia for his part echoed Sunday in a phone interview on ABS-CBN News Channel what was contained in his new authorized biography which is set to be launched in the United States next week.

“Maliwanag na the turning point in the ZTE…sordid ZTE affair was the luncheon meeting and the golf game sa Shenzhen where maliwanag na maliwanag na ang First Gentleman, Si Chairman Abalos, at si Presidente Arroyo finally made the decision among themselves to give to award the project to ZTE in spite of the fact na magkakautang ang Pilipinas ng almost P16 B,” said the former House speaker.

Mr. Arroyo has consistently denied allegations on his involvement in the NBN-ZTE deal. On the latest statement of the former House speaker that he suggested that China’s ZTE Corp be given the NBN project Mr. Arroyo said: “I never suggested anything. That JDV is a liar and you can tell him to his face…Don’t believe him.”

Right forum for JDV Jr.

The young de Venecia said the hearings on the impeachment complaint in the Lower House is the right forum for his father to divulge what he know instead of the Senate hearings where the former House speaker was also invited.

“I think this is the right forum for him to divulge it because firstly the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is investigation primarily in aid of legislation. Tomorrow what we’re going through right now is the impeachment case against the president,” said Joey, adding that before, his father “was a staunch ally of the president.”

Joey said that other congressmen will speak on the other allegations.

Joey: Not optimistic

Joey however admitted that he was not the optimistic that the justice committee will declare the complaint “sufficient in substance” and with that have it passed to the House plenary and have the president impeached.

“In terms of getting the president impeached I think that’s a long shot because of the fact that the numbers of Congress are a lot more than the number of the minority,” said the young de Venecia.

Previous impeachment complaints in the Lower House have also failed, all of them during the elder de Venecia’s terms as House speaker.

The young de Venecia also said that President Arroyo holds a powerful weapon –“the power of the purse”.

He said that in practice, those congressmen who would not toe Malacañang’s line would not be released their pork barrel funds.

Criteria for victory

The young de Venecia said however that he would already consider the it a success if the House justice committee would allow them to fully present their allegations as well as evidences.

“At the very least in the justice committee that the allegations against the president and the evidences to back up the allegations both in documents and testimony will be transparent and will be allowed by the justice committee chairman [Rep.] Mat Defensor so that the public and even Congress itself, will actually know what really transpired, what these allegations are really about,” the young de Venecia said.

De Venecia said that the proper elaboration of their allegations would also provide President Arroyo the proper forum to respond.

“It also allows for the President of the Philippines to answer these allegations,” said the young de Venecia adding the Justice committee hearings would be the right forum for these answers to be given based on the allegations.

Joey said however that he would persist for the fight for the “truth.” He said that he would already consider it a success if the complainants would be given the time to elaborate on the allegation as well as present their evidences.

“If we are able to do that as complainants and hopefully we have the sentiments of the Filipino people, then I think we have achieved a victory,” said the young de Venecia. “Payagan kami magsalita, mag-debate, ilabas ang ebidensya at payagan si GMA [Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo] sagutin ang alegasyon (Allow us to speak, debate, present our evidence and allow Mrs. Arroyo to answer the allegations).”

SOURCE: ABS-CBN News Online, jdv-and-son-testify-impeachment-complaint-hearing-house

Renewed pursuit of amending Philippine constitution driven by upcoming Arroyo appointments of justices to Supreme Court

New cha-cha move tied to ‘Arroyo Supreme Court’

---

by CARMELA FONBUENA, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 11/22/2008 4:13 AM

Send to friend

Recent developments to amend the 1987 Constitution in the lower House show how the administration congressmen carefully planned their strategy. Their disastrous attempt in the 13th Congress taught them whose support really matters—the Supreme Court.

According to Rep. Luis Villafuerte, president of Arroyo’s political party, Kampi, said the goal of the new effort at charter change is bring the issue to the Supreme Court and force it to rule on whether the two houses of Congress should vote jointly or separately in amending the charter.

Arroyo critics have expressed fear that a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court would rule in favor of joint voting. And since President Arroyo will be appointing seven justices in the Supreme Court next year, the best time to push for charter change is now.

Former Senator Franklin Drilon said he knew it was just a matter of time before Arroyo’s allies would make their move.

As of last count, the resolution to convene Congress into a Constitutent Assembly already has at least 156 signatures.

“The plan is to bring the issue of voting jointly or separately before the Supreme Court. The only way that charter change will succeed is when the Supreme Court rules in favor of joint voting. But not even [Senate President Juan] Ponce Enrile will approve that,” Drilon told abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak.

In 2006, congressmen pushing for charter change via people’s initiative lost by a single vote in the Supreme Court.

This new attempt at charter change was born last September when Bohol Rep. Adam Relson Jala, a member of the administration party Lakas-CMD, filed a petition before the Supreme Court, urging it to validate joint voting of the combined members of both houses of Congress as the proper procedure in convening into a Constituent Assembly to amend the Constitution.

Hardly any attention was given to Jala when he filed on August 13 House Resolution No. 730, which calls on the Senate and the House of Representatives to convene into a Constituent Assembly to amend the Constitution. Jala wants a shift to a unicameral system.

Joint voting

A three-fourths vote of Congress is required to convene into a Constituent Assembly. Joint voting—as opposed to separate voting by both houses of Congress—will make the 23-member Senate irrelevant.

In separate voting, a three-fourths vote is required in each chamber to convene into a Constituent Assembly. That means at least 179 congressmen and 18 senators, voting separately, should agree.

In joint voting, the three-fourths vote would require a total of 196 signatures regardless of whether the 23 senators participate.

A week after Jala filed the petition, the Supreme Court junked it on the ground that it was “premature” because there was no conflict or controversy over the issue of charter change.

Political observers said it was only a matter of time before the administration congressmen would again push for a Constituent Assembly in order to give the High Court the legal basis to decide on the issue.

The Supreme Court is key

Making sure that their steps would not be blocked is a hard lesson they learned in the 13th Congress.

Similar to Jala’s proposal, then House Speaker Jose De Venecia Jr. wanted a unicameral parliamentary form of government. But when the Senate opposed the move to convene into a Constituent Assembly,  they instead pursued People’s Initiative (PI).

Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) and PI are the two other ways to amend the Constitution.

Con-Con was the process taken in 1971 to draft a new Constitution. Delegates to the Con-Con were elected by the people.

In PI, the law provides that the petition should be backed by the signatures of at least 12 percent of the total registered voters. In addition, least 3 percent from every legislative district should approve the petition.  Failure to reach 3 percent in just one district would be enough to block the initiative.

The problem with PI is that while there is Republic Act No. 6735 or the “People’s Initiative and Referendum Act”, this only applies to minor amendments to the Constitution. It does not apply to major revisions of the Constitution such as shifting to a parliamentary system of government.

In the 2006 charter change attempt, administration congressmen, governors, mayors, and the group Sigaw ng Bayan collected signatures nationwide to support charter change via PI.

But the Senators, the Catholic church, and civil society opposed it. The 2006 cha-cha attempt almost succeeded were it not for the split Supreme Court (7-7) decision on the PI.

At present, the opposition-dominated upper chamber is still firmly opposed to administration congressmen’s charter change initiatives.

In the 14th Congress, the administration lost its staunchest charter change advocate—former House Speaker Jose De Venecia. Nevertheless, it remains determined to pursue charter change, and the strategy is back to Con-Ass.

Reports are rife that some administration senators will also sign the resolution calling on Congress to convene into a Constituent Assembly.

Mastermind: Nograles

Congressman Luis Villafuerte told ANC Friday that it is no less than House Speaker Prospero Nograles who is leading the campaign to get signatures for cha-cha.

The fresh move at charter change was appartely firmed up last  August. A week after Rep. Adam Jala of Bohol filed HR 730, Nograles also filed on August 20 HR 737, which proposes to scrap the 40 percent limit on foreign ownership. Being the House Speaker, his resolution gained ground immediately.

In September, the committee on constitutional amendments held hearings on the resolutions. The committee did not go as far as discussing the merits of the resolutions, but they agreed to hold four public hearings to consult the public on charter change.

But Nograles struck down what the committee agreed on, saying the chamber doesn’t have the money for public hearings.

Instead, he proposed that all congressmen should consult their districts. On September 13, Nograles instructed them to consult their districts on three priority issues—charter change, reproductive health bill, and the extension of the land acquisition and distribution component of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

Meanwhile, on his own, Nograles collected signatures to support his resolution. On October 1, his office released a statement saying that his resolution had gained 160 signatures or a clear majority.

Although Kampi had supported Nograles as early as October, deputy Speaker Amelita Villarosa told reporters back then that constitutionalists in the party knew that Nograles’s bill had to be corrected.

As a law-making body, Congress cannot propose amendments to the Constitution. It must first convene a Constitutional Assembly, which is the body tasked to amend and revise the Constitution.

The new resolution calling on Congress to convene a Constituent Assembly, which has been signed by at least 156 congressmen, is the logical step in pushing for charter change.

Extend President’s term?

Nograles, however, said his original resolution only intends to amend the economic provisions of the Constiution which limit foreign ownership. He said the US-led global financial crisis can be an opportunity for the country if it is equipped to attract foreign investments.

“Our strong economic fundamentals should be our best selling point in offering refuge to relocating American investments. However, we cannot maximize our potential as an attractive destination for investments which are now relocating out of the US because of our equity restrictions,” he said.

But even if Nograles’ resolution does not include a proposal to extend the term of the President, critics of President Arroyo have been constantly watchful of any move by administration congressmen to touch the Constitution.

They said that once a Constituent Assembly is formed, there is no guarantee that it will limit its amendments or revisions to economic provisions. They said the main objective of this effort is to extend the term of the president.

However, the eldest son of President Arroyo, Pampanga Rep. Juan Miguel Arroyo, earlier denied to abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak that there was an attempt to extend Arroyo’s term.

“First of all, I don’t see any legal way to extend her term,” he told abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak. “How can economic provisions be used to extend the term of the President?,” he said.

Many people, however, no longer believe the administration’s pronouncements on charter change.

“Action speaks louder than words. The latest cha-cha move in the House initiated by no less than the president’s son and Kampi stalwarts reveals the gameplan for President Arroyo’s continued rule via Charter change. We shall fight this at all cost,” said Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro Casiño.

SOURCE: ABS-CBN News Online, new-cha-cha-move-tied-arroyo-supreme-court

Speaker Nograles approves charter change debate in the House

Nograles gives ‘go ahead’ to Cha-cha debates in House

---

abs-cbnNEWS.com | 11/22/2008 11:29 PM

Send to friend

Speaker Prospero Nograles said Saturday that he has given the House committee on constitutional amendments [approval] to tackle proposals for Charter change (Cha-cha).

“We have a Committee on Constitutional Amendments not only in the House but also the Senate precisely to handle proposals pertaining to proposed amendments on the constitution. As long as it does not interfere with our normal legislative work, [La Union Rep. Victor Francisco] Ortega’s committee can go ahead in considering proposals on Charter change,” Nograles said in a statement.

Nograles’s statement came amid news that renewed moves by the administration for Charter change has been gaining support in the lower chamber.

The speaker’s House Resolution 737, which seeks to amend economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, already has 163 signatures.

Another resolution being circulated by President Arroyo’s political party, Kampi, has reportedly gained the support of at least 156 congressmen.

Kampi’s resolution proposes to convene Congress into a Constituent Assembly and tackle amendments to the constitution.

At a press conference in Quezon City, Nograles said that compared to Kampi’s resolution, his was “more detailed” as it mentions specific provisions that should be amended.

“[Kampi’s resolution] is a generic resolution. It only called for a joint session of the Senate and House to propose constitutional amendments. There were no specific amendments mentioned, they just copied provisions of the Constitution, although there’s nothing illegal about that,” Nograles said during the weekly “Kapihan sa Sulu” press conference.

Nograles said his resolution aims to relax strict economic provisions in the constitution that has been preventing foreign investors from entering the country.

No term extension

The speaker, meanwhile, assured that Ortega’s committee has not received any deceptive Cha-cha proposal that would extend Mrs. Arroyo’s term.

He assured critics of the renewed Cha-cha efforts that elections will push through in 2010.

“There will be an election in 2010. There is no proposal to extend the term of anyone,” Nograles said, adding that even if Cha-cha happens before 2010, there is a law that prohibits its framers from benefiting the amendments.

He also assured the public that his Cha-cha resolution is “purely focused on the restrictive economic provisions…”

Cha-cha talks started in Senate

In an effort to cool down criticisms against the lower chamber, Nograles reminded the public that Cha-cha talks actually started from the Senate.

“It is important to note that the federalism initiative came from the Senate through Senator Aquilino Pimentel, a respected Mindanaoan and a prominent member of the political opposition,” he said. “We may just pick from where Sen. Pimentel started.”

He said talks about Cha-cha were revived by Pimentel’s Resolution 10, which proposes to convene Congress into a Constituent Assembly to tackle amendments to the constitution that would pave the way for a federal system.

Pimentel had been warned by several sectors that his resolution might be used by the administration to revive Cha-cha talks.

At least 16 senators signed Pimentel’s resolution. The number, however, was reduced to 15 after Sen. Rodolfo Biazon withdrew his support.

The senators who signed Resolution 10 were Manny Villar, Francis Pangilinan, Edgardo Angara, Pia Cayetano, Juan Ponce Enrile, Francis Escudero, Jinggoy Estrada, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., Juan Miguel Zubiri, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda and Noynoy Aquino.

SOURCE: ABS-CBN News Online, nograles-gives-go-ahead-cha-cha-debate-house