Renouncing my interest to Politics

From this day on, I announce that I renounce my interest on the field of Politics due to the obvious indecency and immorality of the same.

In these days, in most of the cases, the major purpose of politics is not anymore for public service but for fame and power. Even if I have a degree in Political Science but I see politics in the Philippines not anymore a field of decency and integrity, I'm withdrawing my dreams to be involved and work for politicians sapagkat sobrang nakakawalang gana na.

Anything that I studied in my undergrad courses are just mere theories and infeasible studies that is not anymore effective in our society considering the behavior of most of the Philippine politicians. I really have a big dream for these country but I think that I should find another way other than the political path because it's a very hopeless path.

Even if I don't adhere to any religious affiliations, I am a man of law and justice. In my earlier years, I believe that politics is the partner and can go hand in hand with justice but now, I feel the other way concluding that POLITICS (not the field of political science per se) IS THE ENEMY OF LAW.

As I along with my fellow law students observe, the politicians are the number 1 violators of law. They are the one making laws but they often don't follow the same. They even make laws that is advantageous to them.

One example is a certain senator who is also a graduate of the said most prestigious law school (of course, it's not UST) who sends to jail (for contempt and disobedience) a witness who is alleged to be lying. In the first place, lying is not a ground for contempt in senate proceedings for the Revised Penal Code enumerates the grounds:

1) if the witness is summoned and the same disobeyed
2) if the witness rejects to be sworn or be in solemn affirmation
3) if the witness REJECTS TO ANSWER LEGAL QUESTION
4) if a person prevents the witness to be summoned
5) if a person incite the witness to disobey the summon

Lying is not enumerated in the crime and we have a principle in criminal law which says expressio unius est exclusio alterius (what is not included shall be excluded). The witness answered the question and the law does not distinguish if the answer is truth or not; the witness will just violate the law if he refuses to answer the question. Another point is that only the courts has given the power to determine if a person is lying or not and absolutely, SENATE IS NOT A COURT.

That means that the detention of that witness has no legal ground and therefore, that senator should be charged for arbitrary detention. The problem is that a legislator is immune of charge if the penalty is lower than six years. Arbitrary detention has a penalty less than six years so the senator is safe and that is a clear manifestation of abuse of power. The main purpose of these senator is not public service but gaining publicity to acquire more fame and power. Many politicians are doing this due the fast approaching of the 2010 election and not very known to the public the that these politicians violates the law.

That example is just one of the vast instances of the politicians violating the law and other example may be found on my previous blog entries. The same is also true to the executive department (not just the legislative and the oppositions) of the government which everyone (I hope) already knows and understands.

I'm really tired of these things!

The Philosophy of False Hope and Idealism

False hope is defined as prestation promised to be true or circumstance assured to be a fact in the future which is caused by person's luck dependent minds that strongly believes in certainty of a very uncertain future event.

False idealism is defined as the state of absolute perfection and and denies relativity and failure.

A lot of people is depending on this what we call the false hope because this gives them courage to positively go on in their lives. People who believe in the certainty of the uncertain have ideals plans in life, knowingly impossible, still continue to hope but most often they fail. The idea of a Plan B is mostly not considered by them because of their idealism (or we can also say, false idealism). Unplanned Plan B always lead to the doom of a person's life and recovery is very hard.

Even though that there are a lot of ways achieving or consummating a plan or dream, people who adheres false idealism don't know considers those other ways because at the first place, they don't even know that there are other ways. The darkness of idealism devoured their creative minds that results to linear thinking.

Not all events in our lives are result of our efforts. There are events that are simply impossible to happen no matter how much effort we exert because their are other great factors like intellectual capacity, physical appearance, or even special skills or talent which is inherent to a person. All persons are unique and gifted with one or more of those mentioned but if a person is not gifted by a certain characteristics and that is a requisite on what dreams he/she whats to consummate, there is really a big problem. No matter how much effort one exert, if his/her inherent characteristics and plans are not compatible, most probably, that person shall fail.

The first thing to do is not to know what we want in the present (wants changes as times goes by), but to know what is our inherent talents or skills (it is really hard to do and it really takes time). After successfully doing so, that is the time to contemplate about knowing your self. Think about the plans which are compatible with your inherent capabilities and surely, success is just an inch away from your position.

Not all hopes are will happen and not all dreams are ideal. It may be ideal to the majority (majority who adheres to false idealism), but you are certain that what you are pursuing is not impossible and purely achievable.

The Paradox Between Political Science and Law

If we will have to analyze the function of a lawyer (prosecutor, defense counsel or magistrate as the case may be) and a political scientist (political analyst or politician as the case may be), we can see a very different points of view on the issues. A political scientist's function is to plan and create laws and policy to promote the welfare of the society while a lawyer does his best to promote justice by proper application of the law.

In the issue of criminal justice (in general) in the Philippines:

A political scientist would say that the Revised Penal Code (which is made in the 1930's) should be amended because first of all, there are many loopholes in our penal system; the penalties of distiero and civil interdiction is so obsolete and in fact, the penalty of interdiction in the Spanish penal law (where our revised penal code was patterned) is already repealed. That law is really outdated. Another thing is the name of the penalties! What the hell is that reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal etc? Those terms should be changed into ordinary terms that ordary people would understand.

In the lawyer's point of view, no matter how obsolete those laws are, there are still the law. the only job of a lawyer to follow them how illogical they are. If you want change, it is the job of the congress to change it. But however, those people in Sentate and House of Representatives are just making themselves popular and not making important laws that our countries need. The lawyers cannot do something about the change in law becasue that's beyond their job.

In the issue of the senate investigation on Bolante, Lozada, et al:

A political scientist (most but not all) would say that the senate is doing a good job of knowing the truth. They are doing something good for the benefit of our nation. Those ombudsmen are very slow in doing those investigation that's why Senate can be a good forum for it.

In that issue, a lawyer would argue that those senators are just abusing there powers. Yes, they have the constitutional power to investigate but it is for the aid of legislation. Where's the legislation anyway? After the investigation of Lozada, did they do any legislation? Those people in congress are just doing it for the aid of there election. They (senate) are already accusing their witness (Bolante) guilty without the final judgement of a judge. If fact, there is a ground that the detention of Bolante is abitrary which is punishable by Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code.

In the issue of the Alabang Boys:

A lawyer would comment on the issue on this manner: The prosecutors shouln't prejudged in the alleged bribery. The case is dissmised by the DOJ is the grounds that the buy-bust is void because o improper procedures. In criminal procedure, if the buy-bust operation is not properly done, the case shall be dismissed by the prosecutor. The media men even agravates the issue by not knowing the law first before reporting on the national television. If we will review the reports of the media, it seems that the prosecutor is one doing wrong because all they know to to expose issues and often not thinking if they reports is proper or not.

A political scientist would say that it is clear that criminal justice here in the Philippines is just for the rich. If a poor (who doesn't have money to pay lawyer and don't know his rights are) is illeglly arrested, he will still go to jail for sure.

In the issue of presedential pardon:

(There is a case that there are military men who were convicted in final judgement but pardoned by the president after one day of conviction.)

A political scientist would comment that it is so unjust to pardon those people. Where's the justice in that case?

A lawyer would say that it's the prerogative of president and no one can question it. Lawyers do not protect the president herself, but rather just protecting the president's constitutional power.

Disclaimer: Not all lawyers and political scientist would argue what is written above. Those are just some of my thoughts as a graduate of political science and a student of law with some insights of my proffesors in both fields.

Being a law student is really a major shift of point of view from the field of political science. But in a way, I can say that it isa also an advantage because I'm exposed in the different sides of the issues.

Now, it's up to us if what will be our opinion and how we will think regarding on those issues.

Different Circles

The human society is made up of so many circles which can be permanent or temporary. In my experience, most of the circles are just mere temporary and only few remains permanent. In some cases, there are individuals who are trying to enter a circle even though it's obvious that they are out; in other words, "losers." Sometimes, there are instances (which is inevitable) that certain individuals are kicked-out of the circle for obvious or sometimes poetic reason. If we will have to wiegh, the latter is more painful than the former. One of the most famous remedy of the latter is go back to his/her former circle that he/she already abandoned. In the case of the former, I cannot think of any remedy based from experience because it seems that no circle accepted him/her or he/she don't like to be part of the other circle saving the circle he/she really wanted to be belonged. It's really unfortunate but that's reality. All dreams are not destined to be met. Losers will always be losers if they don't make a major change and realization in their life. Past is past while present is present but (the most important) past will never be present.

On My Plans for 2010 - Senator Escudero

lifted from Senator Fracisco Escudero's Blog
http://www.chizescudero.com/chiz/Downloads.php


On My Plans for 2010
December 2, 2008, 12:29 am

Dahil sa mga naglalabasang surveys na kasali ako sa top 5 ng mga presidentiables, marami ang nagtatanong kung nangangarap daw ba akong maging presidente ng Pilipinas sa 2010. Ang masasabi ko lang ay oo. May pangarap ako tulad ng sinumang pulitiko siguro ngayon na humawak ng mas mataas na puwesto. Ang maganda sa pangarap, ito ay libre at hindi kailangang bayaran. Subalit ang mahalaga sa akin ay hindi kung ano ang gusto ko. Gusto ni ganito na tumakbo, gusto ni ganyan na tumakbo. Hindi mahalaga kung ano ang gusto kong takbuhan. Ang mahalaga, ano ba ang gusto ng ating mga kababayan na tatakbuhan ko o gusto ba nila akong tumakbo sa darating na halalan.

Ang mga kababayan ko ang humahawak ng desisyong ito at hindi ako. Subalit kung ipriprisinta ang pagkakataon, hindi ako tatalikod at hindi ko pababayaan ang pagkakataong manilbihan sa mas mataas na kapasidad, para sa mas nakatataas ding interes ng mahihirap nating mga kababayan.

Subalit napakaaga pa upang sagutin ang mga katanungan kaugnay sa halalan. Ni hindi pa nga ako lubusang kuwalipikado na tumakbo sa 2010 dahil ang minimum age sa pagtakbo bilang presidente ay 40 anyos. Kamakailan lang ako sumapit sa edad na 39. Sa isang taon pa ako sasapit sa edad na 40. Sa ngayon, mahirap pang sumagot sa isang tanong na hindi pa naman ako kwalipikadong sumagot.

Qualified na po ako na tumakbo sa 2010 ngunit hindi pa ako nagpapasya. Subalit kung tatanungin ninyo ako kung gusto ko ba o hindi, gusto ko at bakit ba hindi? Subalit panahon ang makakapagsabi kung tutuloy nga ba ako o hindi. Gusto ko sanang mabigyan ng ganyang pagkakataon habang bata pa ako, dahil kung hihintayin ko na tumanda ako na kasing tanda ng ibang pulitiko, baka pareho na rin nila ako at wala na akong pinagkaiba. Ngayon habang pinanghahawakan ko ang mga paniniwala, prinsipyo at paninindigan, nais ko sanang mabigyan ng ganyang pagkakataon na makatulong sa ating bansa.

Ngunit king sino man ang susunod na pangulo natin, ang dapat pagtuunan ng pansin ay tatlong bagay lamang. Trabaho para sa mga Pilipino, dito man o sa ibang bansa. Sapat na suweldo para matustusan ang pangangailangan ng mga kababayan natin. At abot-kayang presyo ng bilihin para sa gayon hindi magutom at maghirap ang ating mga kababayan. Tatlo lamang ang dapat pagtuunan ng pansin, walang labis, walang kulang.

Kung saka-sakaling mapagdesisyunan ko na tumakbo bilang pangulo at palaring magwagi, ang gagawin ko ay yung kabaligtaran ng ginagawa ni Pangulong Arroyo sa maraming bagay. Partikular na ang pagtitiyak na mayroong transparency at accountability sa pamahalaan. Ang sama ng loob ko sa gobyerno ito ay simple. Mayaman ang Pilipinas at may pera ang gobyerno. Hindi nga lang nakararating sa mga tao at hindi nararamdaman ng tao. Huwag nilang sabihing kulang ang pera at hindi nila kayang serbisyuhan ang pangangailangan ng ating mga kababayan, dahil kaya at dapat pwede. Kinakailangan lamang ay isang tapat na pinuno na nalalaman ang kanyang ginagawa.

Sa sinasabi kong ito, hindi nangangahulugan na nangangampanya ako o tatakbo ako, sinasabi ko lang kung ano ang dapat at nararapat.

Dalawa lamang ang plano ko para sa ating bansa. Una, hindi ako magnanakaw. Pangalawa, tunay na gagampanan ko ang nararapat na trabaho at obligasyon ng gobyerno sa ating mamamayan. Iyan ay ang bigyan sila ng pagkakataong umasenso at gumanda ang buhay upang ang mahirap ay hindi kailangang mamatay na mahirap. Ito ang trabaho na dapat gampanan ng pamahalaan, saan man, sino man ang nakaupo.

Darating ang panahon para sa pamumulitika, ngunit hindi ngayong araw ang pahanong na ito. Sa mga maagang nangangampanya at maagang nagdeklara, at maagang sumigaw na sila'y tatakbo, sila na lamang at hindi ako sasabay sa kanila. Sa dami at lalim ng problema na kinahaharap natin sa ngayon, ito na lamang ang ating harapin muna. Sa pagdating ng araw ng kampanyahan at araw ng pamumulitika, tinitiyak ko sa inyo na palagi akong sasama at palaging sasabak sa pamamahala ng kapasidad bilang patunay at pagkilala na dapat manilbihan ang mga nakakabatang henerasyon. Hindi na namin hihintayin na kami ay tumanda pa. Darating po ang panahon na ito ngunit hindi nga lang po sa ngayon.

1st year 1st semester grades

At last. The Office released our grades!!!
My grades are not that high. The only information that I will give is that I don't have a failing mark and I'm not in probation. My QPI is above 78 (QPI below 78 will be subject to probation).
I feel that the second semester shall be trice more difficult so need to work more harder to save me from debarment.

Senate inquiry in aid of legislation?

I'm very annoyed how some of the senators act nowadays.

This is an excerpt from a news report in inquirer:

Retired police comptroller Eliseo Dela Paz admitted Saturday sole responsibility for the alleged unauthorized release of the P6.9 million from the Philippine National Police (PNP) intelligence fund.

But Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago refused to believe Dela Paz's claim, which she called "heroic."

"Your own office, Mr. Dela Paz, is saying that you are guilty of violating applicable laws when you ordered, and verbally at that, the release of P7 million. Do you agree or not?" Santiago said.

"I agree your honor," Dela Paz said.

Santiago was citing the results of the PNP initial investigation into the Moscow incident, which stated that "The only basis for the release of P7 million from the confidential intelligence fund from the PNP was the verbal instruction of Police Director Dela Paz. Therefore it could not be denied that irregularity attended the use of government funds."

"Do you agree that your superior official, such as the PNP chief [Director General Jesus Verzosa] and the DILG [Department of Interior and Local Government] secretary [Ronaldo Puno] should be absolved, and instead, all blame and guilt should be pinned on you? Do you agree with this situation? Because in effect that is the consequence of this statement in the PNP report" Santiago asked.

"The release of the P10 million for the travel expenses for the supposedly contingency fund is based on my instructions," Dela Paz said.

"That's very heroic. You are assuming all guilt. But I have to tell you as a lawyer and a former trial judge that you are facing a regular sentence of 20 years or more than that. Are you ready to do that? Go to jail 20 years, leave your wife your child, your vision impaired child, just so other people can be free? Because I refuse to believe, Mr. Dela Paz, that you are the sole perpetrator of the crime or offenses stated in these two reports. I believe you are part of a bigger conspiracy and that…you are willing to assume responsibility for others. That seems for me to be the most humanitarian view of the situation," Santiago said.

read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20081115-172406/Dela-Paz-takes-blame-for-Moscow-mess


Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution reads:
"The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected."

It is very clear that the respective committees of senate has the power to conduct investigations on any matter provided that it is in the aid of legislation. Some of us are amazed on the superbness on how the senate conducts its investigation. There are two famous investigation at our present times: The ZTE issue and the Fertilizer Scam issue. And now, the issue of General De La Paz. There are no indicators that these senators are making these investigations in aid of legislation. Why are they conducting these hearings? The always answer is to know the truth. Then, where is the legislation then? Nothing I suppose. I'm not opposing the idea that knowing the truth is not important. But this things should be made in the proper forum. The proper forum for these should be the ombudsman and the courts. The result of senate investigation will not hold any bearing at all because first of all SENATE IS NOT COURT. SENATE IS A LEGISLATIVE BODY AND NOT JUDICIARY. Senate can only be judiciary in nature when in time of an impeachment trial. Currently, the Office of the Ombudsman (which I know, the proper agency for that) is conducting currently the investigation on the issue of Police Director De La Paz. If the senate is also conducting an investigation, IT IS REDUNDANT AND JUST WASTING TALENT AND RESOURCES. There are alleged secret intent why some senators are conducting those investigations. One of those is for the sake of political marketing which they easily exposed to media when investigating on those such contreversial matters. The 2010 elections is fast approaching. You know what I mean. My last concern that really annoyed mo is the statement of Senator Santiago address to Police Director De La Paz:

"Go to jail 20 years, leave your wife your child, your vision impaired child, just so other people can be free? "

It's very personal and unethical... Pati 'yung pamilya niya dinamay pa. Maybe, some of you will say that I wrote this entry because a friend of mine is affected. I not saying that Police Director De La Paz is guilty or not in that matter because the investigation of the ombudsman is not yet through. Pero kahit saan niyo tingnan from legal basis, political science basis or even moral basis, maling-mali talaga ang gingawa nila... Kelan kaya magbabago ang pouitika sa Pilipinas?