For the many who have enthusiastically supported or joined EDSA II, myself among them, the final push was almost certainly the failure of the constitutional process (the remedy of impeachment) to hold then President Estrada accountable for charges of multiple impeachment offenses. (President–elect Noynoy Aquino himself has threatened to go directly to the people the EDSA way had the people’s will in the last presidential elections been tampered with by massive cheating.)
We know now of course that the Supreme Court has in effect legitimized the great public disorder of 2001 by holding that what actually occurred in EDSA II was not really an uprising of sorts but speechifying, yet intense enough to force the beleaguered Estrada into “constructive resignation.” As a result, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, a latecomer to the EDSA II movement, was voted in by the Court only because the incumbent was booted out in the EDSA fashion (Arroyo now claims she was “thrust” into the presidency apparently by operation of the law on constitutional succession). There was then no opportunity for the Filipino people to learn or demand from Arroyo the unfurling of her philosophy of governance for prior public vetting.
My own enthusiasm immediately petered out on the very day President Arroyo delivered her first policy speech upon being swept into power. Arroyo made no grand promises of reforms (or, for that matter, transformation) following what everyone but the Supreme Court believed had been a rebellion, except for her to govern the country business as usual, i.e., to keep the status quo.
“During my administration, democracy and the market will be the guiding principles of my domestic and foreign policies,” she announced. The vision articulated no doubt had a calming effect on the Establishment. In the same speech, Arroyo made the further assurance that her “administration will resist the temptation to adventurist initiatives and directions for the sake of appearing to be innovative.”
Like Barack Obama, Noynoy Aquino was elected president on a promise of great change. But while Obama acknowledged that change would not be easy, Noynoy during the presidential campaign confidently asserted that it is “extremely possible” because “the solutions have been there all along.”
I have come to believe early on that a Noynoy presidency can be transformational (and by it I really meant liberatory) drawing support for such a belief from the published platform of the Liberal Party and at least from two of Noynoy’s key legislative proposals, Senate Bill No. 1370 requiring businesses to grant annual productivity incentive to all workers in the private sector amounting to no less than 10% of the company’s net profits and Senate Bill No. 2036 amending the Wage Rationalization Act by increasing the penalties for non-compliance of the prescribed increases and adjustments in worker’s wage rates.
On the other hand, the Liberal Party economic program includes the promise to: break up monopolies in public utilities; mobilize Filipino capital towards a vigorous program of industrialization and employment creation; target high value-added industries to accelerate the country’s development process; build industrial partnership by ensuring every employee’s right to participate in business decisions and by promoting the concept of employee co-ownership.
By contrast, Arroyo apparently concerned about a change for the worse has avowed to shun adventurism and innovation for their own sake, something that fits her well into the mold of a prototypical conservative in the ideological spectrum whose publicly professed vision is to conserve aged-old traditions and institutions such as market democracy. If Arroyo were to claim to be a reformer at all, it would be fair to say that she, having been a president for nine long years, is at best an incrementalist.
I have posed this question before:
If [Arroyo’s] accession to presidency has been justified by Chief Justice Davide on the principle of salus populi est suprema lex, reliance upon the market and formal democracy alone without social justice and stewardship on the part of the nation’s patricians would look like a policy disconnect to the rhetoric of advancing the welfare of the Filipino People. For, social justice, the main tool for the advancement of its cause being state intervention through “the humanization of laws and equalization of social and economic forces,” is traditionally antithetical to free market that follows, first and foremost, the dictates of “rational self-interest.”
At the other end of the spectrum is liberalism which comes in different formulations, one of the most acceptable of them being “liberation or freedom from traditions.” Someone who believes that change for the better is “extremely possible” and is willing to experiment on a new governance paradigm is quintessentially a liberal (in the modern sense).
Modern liberals (as distinguished from classical liberals) believe that guarantees of individual rights are meaningless where individuals are bereft of the wherewithal (such as suitable education and gainful enterprise or employment) to exercise or benefit from those rights. Whereas classical liberals demands limited government and emphasizes freedom from restraint or negative liberty, modern liberals requires greater government involvement especially in matters of economic affairs to promote positive liberty. Classical liberalism which seeks to empower the commercial class and forms the basis of laissez-faire capitalism has somehow metamorphosed into conservatism.
This earlier post of mine I hope will help differentiate the one ideology from the other:
In political life in general, there are as many individuals or groups of individuals doing their best to transform our political habits, practices and institutions as there are others at the opposite end trying equally hard to conserve those habits, practices and institutions.
Radicals in this contest are seen as impatient with snail-paced reforms that leave behind their tracks a great mass of distressed losers. Conservatives, on the other hand, content with trickle-down progress, are regarded as reverential to certain time-honored values and traditional authorities that are deemed to serve well the existing order and a few winners who benefit most from it. In the face however of the perceived failure to justify the perpetuation of the system in place, drastic measures would be attempted paving the way in the process for the ideology of revolutionary transformation. For instance, feudalism or the old economy based on slaveholding, having lost its reason for being, has given way to industrial capitalism, and then capitalism itself, in need of reforms, has been subjected to serious challenge mounted by rival ideologies such as Marxism and socialism.
In 1989, conservative thinker Francis Fukuyama, in The End of History?, dared to claim that the big question has been settled with the supposed triumph of “liberal democracy” which he hailed as the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government”; and that if at all flaws in that triumphant ideology might still be extant, they were rather due to “incomplete implementation” than “in the principles themselves.”
Ideologies are secular (not religious) beliefs in the abilities of man to establish the good society on earth. In the Western world, whether the good society for the greatest number would come in spurts or trickle is driven by the claims of two competing ideologies, one promotes the preservation of allegiances to established order and the other advocates the rupture of bonds from such order, or the values, thoughts and institutions that support it; yet both of which are all the same based on liberal democracy.
There is historical basis in the contention that liberalism grew out of the friction between government and business, with the latter asserting freedom from interference by the former. It was in that sense a negative liberty (freedom from), which insists further on continued protection by the government of such liberty so recognized. Therefore, the progenitor of modern liberalism is economic (or market) liberalism.
Before the emerging power of the merchants and manufacturers sought privileges against restraints, it had always befallen upon the government to provide for the well-being of the nation and its people and toward that end direct and control the national economy. Then, Adam Smith wrote a convincing treatise to reinvent the wheel, arguing instead for a self-regulating economy where the efficient producers of goods and services in free competition are supposed to outsell the less efficient ones and consumers as a result get better products for their bucks than when government interferes with such freedom. Smith’s postulate was the early beginning of laissez-faire economics and inter-national trade.
Democracy on the other hand is about the assumption by the people of the responsibilities of government. It is in a sense an aspect of positive liberty, of self-determination or the realization of the individual’s fullest potential. Political participation is a solemn exercise of this liberty.
Unfortunately, a large population is often too raucous to make decisive action. Democratic governance would then require the initiative of an organized group or the commitment of an elite citizenry to run the government in the name of the people. The growing complexity of modern life has also reduced the expression of political sovereignty to the practical requirement of government by representation. When the undercurrent of elitist democracy converges with the rush of economic liberalism to make up the ideology of market democracy, there is the peril that the blend could end up only in the protection and maintenance, constitutionally or otherwise, of rights and rents already vested (in those who may have attained “market power”) and deference to old habits and modes of thinking rather than in experimentation and innovation with a view to the substantive distribution of opportunities to the impoverished majority desperately aspiring to secure them, or at least the safeguard against invasion of basic rights. x x x
Indeed, democracy is threatened at any time political equality is violated (such as when the vote assigned to each particle of sovereignty is not properly counted or valued) just as in instances where political sovereignty is disregarded (such as when the will of the majority is adulterated or simply set aside post-elections through logrolling, cronyism, patronage and other political rent-seeking activities). In fact, there is as much failure of democracy when ordinary citizens lose the power of effective control over leaders resulting in utter lack of public accountability, as there is market failure when market-dominant minority engages in predatory market behavior because of unrestrained market power.
The observation that political elites are oftentimes helpless against well-entrenched economic elites who normally come out unscathed and blameless in the power play somehow dovetails with [Yale Law School professor] Amy Chua’s observation that fair, honest and democratic elections bring to power anti-market forces. Chua explains the polarity this way: “Markets concentrate wealth, often spectacular wealth, in the hands of the market-dominant minority, while democracy increases the political power of the impoverished majority.”
What’s basically being argued here is that Liberal Party’s Noynoy Aquino is ideologically a liberal over against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s stark conservatism. But even as a liberal, Noynoy’s aspirations are focused on the positive rather than the negative aspect of liberty.
As a modern liberal, we could look up to Noynoy Aquino as “someone,” as John F. Kennedy puts it, “who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties.”
We should not expect Noynoy Aquino to label himself in his inaugural address a political this and that the way his father, the martyred Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr., had expressly described himself a Christian socialist. We hope however to learn further from such a momentous occasion more indicia of our new leader’s political values and philosophy by the priorities of governmental policies and programs he plans to pursue, and when and how.
Popularity: 3% [?]
One of the reforms that I really want President-elect Aquino Noynoy to accomplish as soon as possible is MARITIME SAFETY. This was the subject of Noynoy’s speech last December 2009.
from Dec2009-Statement of Sen. Benigno “Nonoy” Aquino III
The state of maritime transport in the Philippines seems to be a continuing “national tragedy.” During the last few days alone, we have witnessed two more ships sink, Catalyn B and MV Baleno-9, killing a still undetermined number of passengers.
. . .
We have seen too many people die as a result of this administration’s inability or unwillingness to enforce the law. A government that repeatedly fails to ensure the safety of its citizens has no reason to continue in office.
————-
He will probably need till December 2011 to make huge changes.
In the meanwhile, I await November 2010 and the smugglers and tax evaders that Noynoy promised will get jailed.
MV Princess of the Stars sank on June 21, 2008.
Sana nga, pursugihin ni Noynoy the enforcement of maritime laws sa Pilipinas. Malaking bagay kung, on June 21, 2015, Presidente Noynoy can say that Pilipinas has had less than two hundred drownings under his administration.
Mike H, on reforms on maritime safety, we are exactly on the same wavelength. If there’s been criminal negligence in those disasters, those liable should be prosecuted just like smugglers and tax evaders who wreak havoc with our economy. But remember, prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law is just part of carrying out justice. The president as the Chief Executive cannot just jail them. That would be Marcosian. We also need incorruptible judges to throw the books at all the culprits. Remember too that after about 13 years of court battle, the 26-billion peso or so (before penalties and interests) tax evasion charge against Lucio Tan was thrown out by a metropolitan trial judge. Someone has to check out the lifestyle nowadays of that judge (I have estimated before that 26-billion or so is enough to rehabilitate war-torn Mindanao).
Abe, you really should be on the A-team.
Did noynoy make “1370″ a banner-item for his incoming administration? Did Noynoy promise to turn Bill No. 1370 into law? The Bill-words said “productivity incentives”, but Makati Business Club audience may interpret “1370″ as a 10%-tax on corporate profits, which of course clashes with Noynoy “No New Taxes”.
I have my own criticisms of Senate Bill 1370. For one, as the Cusp I think has pointed it out, Noynoy has to “cost” it out (the way Obabma’s health care reform legislation has been costed) if the initiative will be presented anew.
Is it in the nature of a tax? I doubt it. Taxes go into the government coffers. The incentives look more like “profits” to be shared by co-partners or co-owners of the enterprise.
I guess the challenge for Noynoy is not so much to raise new taxes as to expand the tax base. Generating more employment opportunities for Filipinos for example is likelier to do trick for the latter approach.
I do not think the Noynoy administration will push Senate Bill 1370 to become law.
What??? You don’t think President Noynoy Aquino will push for Senator Noynoy Aquuino’s bill 1370 to become law?
I hold him by the very standard he imposed on himself and made as his battlecry: “kung walang korap, walang mahirap!”…
…and Hacienda Luisita.
ricelander, the Filipino people have rejected overwhelmingly the Hacienda Luisita black propaganda in the last elections.
You mean the Hacienda Luisita has already been decided in the last elections? I thought he made a promise to resolve the issue…
How sad you call it black propaganda. You should tell that to the farmers of Hacienda Luisita.
“Indeed, democracy is threatened at any time political equality is violated (such as when the vote assigned to each particle of sovereignty is not properly counted or valued) just as in instances where political sovereignty is disregarded (such as when the will of the majority is adulterated or simply set aside post-elections through logrolling, cronyism, patronage and other political rent-seeking activities).”
Precisely. The “trade of favors” that underlies the Philippine economy and social progressions is a ghost to most, its implications misunderstood, its end result – mediocrity and cheating and abuses of so many – not tangibly identified as “wrong”. It is the pervasive choice of wrong over right that runs from the barangay to the palace that needs to be overcome, and it does not take legislation to do it. It requires commitment from the people broadly and widely.
Also, liberal minds are wide open to change, and if Mr. Aquino follows the same pattern of selection of leaders by favor instead of skill, he is not liberal. He is not even conservative. He is just more of the same.
Great article. Thanks for stoking my thinking.
It is so nice to have a legitimate president. I hope he realizes how precious is the honor and how great the responsibility.
Joe
Joe, isn’t the “trade of favors” that underlies the US economy also a ghost to most Americans?
Think BP for example. About 72 % of its political campaign contributions went to the Republicans, who chant “Drill baby drill!”
Filipinos are just great imitators (especially of their former mentors), so they say. But I agree, what our leadership needs are value-commitments. And this post is hoped to be also a reminder to those around Noynoy today to imbibe his core (liberal) beliefs and share his visions for the country.
Abe,
It is possible to find incidents of favor-trading in the US, but such trading is not a foundation of economic and social well-being. Generally skill is the basis of hiring and promotions, not favor, and generally values are swapped, not promises and hopes.
Most Americans back the efforts to root out the ghosts of unsavory favor trading; they don’t engage in it themselves.
I was asking a question, Joe, if you have noted it. But “it is possible,” “generally,” and “most” are of course safe qualifiers for smart answers. Seriously, however, I agree with you “quantitatively” speaking.
Some decades ago (which means not to long ago), American meritocracy was also a myth. But America has matured politically, part of which owing to the conscience of its civil society.
Philippines is a maturing democracy (Filipinos may even get ahead of Americans in terms of recapturing the true essence of democracy). It will go through certain transitions just like an older democracy as the United States but it will get there. I believe the Noynoy presidency is a watershed to the critical transition.
Abe,
Yes, tap dancing is a way of squeezing black and white into grey when one does not have the actual statistics to back up one’s argument. But I’m glad we are on the same page. Actually, the Philippines has the opportunity to surpass the US on quality of democracy as the US descends into partisan anger and relentless obstruction of well-intended legislation. One heading up, the other down.
Barrack Obama promised change and hope during election. He promised to stop the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. We really have change: a U.S $12 trillion deficit. The hope turns into dangling hope. American soldiers are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.They don’t have a good strategy to win the wars. It is another Vietnam scenario. British Petroleum has polluted the coast of Louisiana and some other States. The oil spill still continues. (Caused by lax supervision of the safety in offshore drilling.) Barrack Obama has encouraged Offshore Drilling. Now it is an environmental catastrophe. The Hope has turned into polluted nightmare.
I am afraid that Noynoy Aquino will turn up even worse. The Man does not know where to start to tackle the country’s problems. He is just good in extolling the goodness of EDSA and his parents.
Barack Obama is blaming the Gulf oil
-spill-economic and ecological disaster onto the Bush administration, and for now and for probably 5 or 6 more months, the American voters will tolerate this. 9 to 12 months of “BLAME THE PREDECESSOR” is usually given the new-President. But only 9 to 12 months.Same with Noynoy. Though Noynoy didn’t really do anything to cause GMA to leave Malacanang, Noynoy would have a year of blaming GMA for the lack of money to hire more teachers/increase teacher salary, rice-self-sufficiency problems, high electricity prices or the next round of floods. But only till June 2011.
Here is my pakiramdam what awaits the Noynoy administration. Even before June 2011, a few Pinoys and a number of media columnists will write — “Eh ano nga ba ang nagbago? Wala namang iba, pareho pa rin.” And even before June 2012, a few Pinoys will grumble — “aba… mas magaling pa noong panahon ni Gloria!”
Now, Noynoy extend the “honeymoon”-months by meeting a few of his campaign promises. Months added to “honeymoon” depends on the number of tax-evaders and smugglers that Noynoy hauls into jail by November2010.
Same response as above. How would you feel Mike H if your parents are hauled into jail for tax evasion without due process.
Noynoy did not promise to haul people off to jail without due process. He says he has former members of the RATS and RATE teams to make sure (one) he has the list of evaders and smugglers; (two) he does the jailing based on proper procedures.
Mario,
The problem is always the little misleading slants on things. The Iraq war is being wound down according to Obama’s timetable. He would error to simply yank the troops out. The strategy has been changed in Iraq. I will leave it to people with a lot more information than you to determine if it is working. Lax supervision of the oil industry is a problem of government failing, both democratic and republican. Obama is interested in breaking dependence on mideast oil, which is the reason for backing offshore drilling. You would prefer nuclear meltdowns or brownouts, the latter the Philippine way.
I sense you can criticize but not offer solutions. You have not suggested where the Man start.
“You have not suggested where the man start.”
Ok Joe, I suggest he starts with Hacienda Luisita. I tell you, the moral force such an action would create will be tremendous, earth-shaking, immeasurable. People will be saying, oh boy the man truly means business, c’mon fellas, let us do our share. When you mean to lead, truly mean to lead, start with yourself as an example, begin with your own backyard, whip into line your very own. Less than that, it is just the mouth talking. For the next few months, his anti-corruption drive would net small fishes and tadpoles. But when the initial shock and awe of his drive dissipates– Hacienda Luisita looming large on the background– oh, it will be a sneering “What business have you got putting us to jail when we’re simply trying to make a living just like you do with your Hacienda!”
ricelander,
Good place to start, and it would indeed be “shock and awe”.
I caught his interview on CNN. I rather think he had imbibed too much coffee, as he was jittery and talking faster than his brain was working, but one key perspective was on education, and the 44% drop-out rate which he finds wholly unacceptable. That, too, is an excellent starting point.
I did not catch it, Joe. I’ll probably watch it on Youtube. I’ve read gushing reviews though of Noynoy on that one.
On the drop-out rate, that’s high indeed. Good that he knows and appreciates it. Several factors are at play, but on the main in boils down to one: walang pera, no money. See, when on survival mode, going to school is “luxury”.
Another place for momentous “shock and awe” is for Noynoy to accomplish by November 2010 if not sooner his campaign promise — that he sends to jail people he already knows from his LIST OF SMUGGLERS AND TAX EVADERS.
Wouldn’t that be shocking (a per-sidente who fulfills a campaign promise) and awesome (smugglers, tax evaders in jail)?
————
Then there is hope that the revenue leaks do get plugged.
There is hope that there will not be tax increases.
Hey Joe:
I did not apply for the job of President. It is Noynoy Aquinos job to know where he will start. He told us, he can do the job. And we, the gullible Filipino voters believed in him.
I will tell you honestly: the job of President in our country SUCKS. It will need a Superhuman Brain to solve our festering problems. The problems are as numerous as the summer flies that are now buzzing in the garbage dumps.
Hey Mario,
So you would turn down the job of president of the Philippines if offered because it sucks? It generally sucks because no matter which direction you choose, there are opposing interest groups who loudly proclaim you are an idiot for choosing differently. It helps to understand the motivation behind the actions, and the goodness of intent. I think Obama is doing a fine job, and I hope Aquino has backbone and durability. His mind generally works well, in my view . . .
I see in this morning’s news the White House has confirmed its commitment to withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 2011. It seems to me that Obama generally says the right things then does what he can to implement what he says. The opposing voices are loud, sometimes clear, and that comes into play in democratic institutions. A president is different than a dictator.
Obama inherited a broken nation under Bush. On top of it, he also ran smack dab into a vicious financial turmoil that almost wiped out the biggest U.S. banks and threatened the bankruptcy of his country. The $12 trillion deficit was necessary for survival although a lot of die hard capitalists and conservatives disagree with his recovery strategy – as usual. Iraq and Afganistan have been relegated to the back burner given the critical nature of the economic upheaval. Given the trials and tribulations Obama was subjected to when he took office things have gotten better for the U.S. of A compared to 2 years ago.
As for Noynoy, impatience on the part of the public and incessant ranting and politicking from the opposition will make him look inefficient like Cory, Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo. I always thought that the Phil president must be given a chance for reelection so he either redeem himself or suffer the ignominy of losing a reelection if he stank in his term. A single 6 year term doesn’t give the president an incentive to perform for a reelection. It looks like a license to plunder, some sinister plan concocted by the politicians
to say ” OK – tapos ka na, kami naman”.
The U.S. $20 billion dollar promised compensation is just a figure of sum. BP will go bankrupt, if it pays that amount. Anyway, the B.P. CEO Hayward, went yatching in England this weekend. While his company is polluting the Coast of Louisiana.
Promises are made to be broken. Once the heat is off on BP. They may or may not pay the amount. Look at what happened at the EXXON VALDEZ spill in Alaska, many years ago. Did EXXON payed any compensation? Not a dime, I think…
There’s a world of difference when you spill oil in the god forsaken wilderness of Prince William Sound, Alaska as opposed to the coast of Louisiana where you are likely to decimate the fishing industry displacing the livelihood of thousands of people.
BP must not only compensate for the expensive clean up effort but likewise the lost income of the people engaged in the fishing industry. Whereas in the Exxon scenario people were clamoring about the environmental consequence of the oil spill, the BP scenario is more serious as both the environment and livelihood of thousands of people are implicated.
Mario, let me ask you one question: Where do you place yourself in the ideological spectrum?
My reason for asking, if you are wondering, is that right now, some conservatives are claiming that the BP undertaking obtained by Obama to set aside a $20 billion victim compensation fund is government interference with free market. I want to know if you agree with such a claim, Mario.
“And even before June 2012, a few Pinoys will grumble — “aba… mas magaling pa noong panahon ni Gloria!””-Mike H
Totally agree. And I sure know those few Pinoys who will grumble like that even before June 2011…and they’re, DYARAAAAN, rego, Bencard, and most probably Mike H, :). Gloooria, Gloooria, Gloria! hehehehe.
bert: bencard grumbling safe to ignore. Worry about Amando Doronilla (he wrote about Noynoy selection for cabinet and other administration positions). And worry about grumbling “Why hasn’t Noynoy given a pardon or whatever-it-takes legal-hocus-pocus so that Trillanes and Lim are freed?”; grumblings from Mong Palatino about the need to increase the budget for Pilipinas public schools; grumblings about “akala ko,iba na. Ano na nangyari sa Morong43?”, “…. at saka…nasaan si Jonas Burgos?”
I hope it is done and over with.. but possibility is….”Hah?! May nabaril na namang peryodista?!!, aba, baka magalit ang mga Pranses at Aleman kay PresiNoy!!!”
I am eager for Noynoy to deliver on smugglers-and-tax-evaders to Jail so he gets a longer honeymoon period.
Mike H is not a grumbler. He is not old enough. He is a counter-advocate, finding points of view that oppose expressed thinking. Bencard is a grumbler. I am older than grumblers, and have achieved the position of highly wise, a standing warranting great respect, if not outright admiration. You are still just a young punk, but a likable one. heh
and rego? it’s all about his ego. no meaningful grumble there, to say the least.
Let me bring this back to Abe’s thoughts :
[Yale Law School professor] Amy Chua’s observation that fair, honest and democratic elections bring to power anti-market forces. Chua explains the polarity this way: “Markets concentrate wealth .. in the hands of the market-dominant minority, while democracy increases the political power of the impoverished majority.”
What’s basically being argued here is that Liberal Party’s Noynoy Aquino is ideologically a liberal over against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s stark conservatism.
Now Noynoy is sounding just the way I like my leader. Where is he getting these “new” ideas I wonder.
BrianB, I think whether these ideas are “new” to Noynoy really depends on how much we have known Noynoy. I don’t know Noynoy that much to say that he is ignorant about the relationship between social justice and positive liberty for example. I voted for him as our new leader as a packaged deal and based on my inner guts.
In truth, we have to be thankful of the unexpected emergence of Nonoy as the result of Cory’s passing else we would be witnessing the resurrection of Erap, mauled and given up for dead, ascending to his throne once more, typical of his movie exploits.. Thank Noynoy for staving off an Erap win which would have been a TOTAL MOCKERY of the Filipino race, allowing a convicted plunderer to win back the highest seat in the land.
bw,
You make a lot of sense.
“Palace sees early Supreme Court ruling on Luisita labor case”-Philippine Star
Of course! What can we expect but that. When it comes to PGMA’s Supreme Court, the palace knows best. So what’s that to President Noynoy, he does not own Luisita. Give the land to the farmers, as Noynoy promised…then woe to the farmers. For in a few more years they will be selling them to the rich capitalists oligarch…and return to being poor and landless, as usually happened to these hapless lot. The farmers were offered share of stocks. That could be more beneficial to the farmers in the long term now that Noynoy is president. Their leader are hoodwinking those innocent farmers for political mileage. Sad.
Abe is correct in saying this Luisita case is being used as political propaganda by the ideologue leaders and by the political opposition to discredit Noynoy Aquino. Sad indeed.
so what do you think?? Do you think Noynoy Aquino sends in troops to close Pilipinas Supreme Court if Justice Corona decides against the Hacienda Luisita Cojuangco business interests?
And consider this — Noynoy has always said he will disregard a supreme court with GMA appointees, and still, Pilipinas voters elected him presidente. Pinoys-in-Pinas will not mind if Noynoy closes supreme court, will they? Noynoy can just use that to explain things to French and German ambassadors and to Barack Obama.
I said that if the PGMA’s Supreme Court want to spite Noynoy, let them give Luisita to the farmers, it’s not Noynoy’s anyway. Noynoy promised to resolve that Luisita problem if he wins the election, let’s have PGMA’s Supreme Court solve that for him. Claro? Good.
One of the things I like about the PGMA Supreme Court and Justice Corona in particular is the “NO! NO! NO!” to GMA administration’s push for MOA-Juridical Entity/Ancentral Domain argument.
A Supreme Court that is too chummy-chummy or that likes to give the per-sidente its every wish — not good for a country. An independent Supreme Court as counterweight is important especially if the per-sidente is Marcosian and throws temper trantrums and threatens EDSA marches or sending in of troops to get his or her way against an independent Supreme Court.
Independent Supreme Court…yes. An independent and fair chief justice…we’ll see more of those in the coming near future. Or less of those.
I believe, though, that cooler heads (like Mar Roxas, Ochoa and Soliman) should prevail over the Kamag-anaks to deter Noynoy from being Marcosian about Luisita. Only Bongbong and Imelda can be Marcosian, heh heh heh.