The Trillanes's Mandate

The editorial of Inquirer is quite incisive. To quote:

Should [Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV] accused of leading a coup d'etat be allowed either temporary or conditional liberty, to allow him to discharge his duties as a new member of the Senate? Should he enjoy a change in his custody status, from military detention to perhaps the custody of the Senate? Not least, should his election to the Senate, on the strength of over 11 million votes, be considered as absolving him of his liability?

A friend who is now a Dutch citizen lamented that in the Philippines, anybody who wants to be a senator must first stage a coup d' etat. Just like Honasan and Trillaness. Such a thinking, he continued, makes the Filipinos an "inexplicable political morons".

(Well, my friend isn't Miriam Santiago. Too bad he isn't that we can't rid a country with at least one genius liar.)

Well I may not be proud to be a Filipino. Neither am I proud to be an inexplicable political moron. But if such a moronic state could give sanity to elections, so be it. The way I read the signs, the election of Trillanes simply means a wake up call to those "seated in the most high". If the Filipinos are satisfied, why would they exchange chocolates for "delimon"? Or a castle for a "barong-barong"? Nobody would even want a "tinapa" in exchange for a beefsteak (unless he/she is a Hindi).

At first I also believe that the Filipinos are an irrational voter. It's hard to predict what they want and who will they choose. Add the mud that the Catholic church spread by saying "Ang pera sa bulsa, ang boto sa balota". But th was before. It was only lately that I realized Filipinos are what Samuel Popkins call as a "Reasoning Voter". They vote retrospectively and prospectively. They want to punish their officials for not performing well, and they sometimes have "moronic" choices because they think that someday, somehow, things will still change. And for that reason, they chose Trillanes.

But as to Inquirer's question on the fate of Trillanes, the only possible reply is: Read the signs. The signs are clear and these are written already on the ballot.

To Acquit, Or Not To Acquit?

To Acquit, Or Not To Acquit?

This remains the question as the axe of the SandiganBayan remains hanging in the air. Will it cut Estrada's head? Or will it cut the rope that will hang Estrada's head?

But while the axe remains raised, advertisements apparently trying to condition the mind of the public are almost everywhere. The advertisements, allegedly from a group who calls itself "Mahal Kita Pilipinas", is asking for the public to respect the court's decision. Teka, wala pa ngang desisyon ba't ganun na ang tema? Hmmmnnn...

But while the Estrada camp is troubled and the public seems "walang paki", let us do some mind games and try to forecast what the verdict will be, IF, indeed, Malacanang has a hand on the Erap case. Of course, we will not dwell into the evidences. That is for the court and the prosecutors to determine. What our game will do is to forecast what the impression will be of Erap's acquittal or non-acquittal.

To Acquit: If Erap will be acquitted, Gloria in the Palace will be limited in her moves. Siyempre, kung dati ang dance niya ay cha-cha, baka sweet na lang ngayon. Erap will always be watching, di ba? Erap is still a political boss and can still command a crowd. Second, if Erap will be acquitted, it will also mean in one way or another that Gloria in the Palace cheated her way to the presidency in 2001. O di ba? The public might say: Di naman pala talaga nagnakaw si Erap ba't pa siya pinalayas sa puwesto at ikinulong? Worse, the acquittal will further re-enforce Erap's innocence. Bakit kamo? Dahil ang korte na mismo ang nagsabi at ang korte na yan ay nasa ilalim pa ng pamumuno ni Gloria in the Palace. Ibig sabihin, wala talaga silang nakuhang ebidensiya when all odds are supposed to be with Erap. Di ba?

Siyempre, the acquittal will also mean the EDSA 2 is wrong. And so with its organizers.


Not To Acquit. If Erap will not be acquitted, magkakaroon ng restlessness lalo na from the camp of Erap. Worse comes to worst, EDSA 4 pero ang model ay EDSA 3 aka "The rise of the masses". Whether it succeeds or not, affected ang economy. Bababa ang halaga ng piso. (Makabili na nga ng dolyar mamya.) Troubled ang Gloria.

But the trouble will be short-lived. Kung maha-hire nga nila ulit yung nagtrabaho na spinmeister during the Garci scandal, baka wala ngang mangyayaring trouble. Hero pa ang ale. Bakit? Kasi puwedeng mag-may-i-proclaim ang Gloria in the Palace na grant niya ng executive clemency si Erap. O di ba? To note, malaki-laki rin ang hatak ni Erap na mga kongresista so baka push to the max na ang Cha-Cha. In 2010 or earlier, prime-minister/queen pa ang lola.

Siyempre, suporta na rin ang Erap. Kesa "Goodbye Tanay, Hello Taning" na siya sa Bilibid. Mahirap dun, no? And he will make sisi na hindi niya binigyan ng atensyon ang mga kulungan sa bansang Pilipinas during his term. Mahirap yun. Magmatigas naman siyang lalo, kulong na nga siya, baka me kaso pa siyang terrorism. 40 years ata sa preso ang parusa dun, no? Unless ok lang sa kanya dahil tulad sa kanyang mga pelikula, gusto niyang maging hero against the evil dwarf .... err, evil giant ...., err... sino na nga yun? Snow white?

So most logical option, "Support Gloria, Support Gloria, Go!" na ang rahrah niya.

Again, the non-acquittal will also mean tama ang EDSA 2. Tama si Gloria, tama ang mga kakutsaba niya, at tama ang civil society na ginamit niya. O di ba, oks na oks?


Conclusion: To acquit or not to acquit? Siyempre not to acquit na.

Anti-Terrorism law is Plain and Simple Terrorism Law

Army Chief Hermogenes Esperon Jr. admitted that they can resort to wiretapping, if needed. He qualified on to say that wiretapping will be done to probable suspects of terrorism.

Now, they are talking.


It is an elemental principle that no person shall be deprived of his rights. But with the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Law (Human Security Act), anyone suspected of being a terrorist can be wiretapped. And at will. (Note Esperon's words: If called for.) Which simply means, no one is secure and that there is really no such thing as privacy of communication under the Human Security Act.

Ganito na ba ka-desperado ang gobyerno? It appears that the term Human Security Act is no security act at all. It is plain and simple terrorism. The law terrorises the people by implying: Hey, take note I am wiretapping you.