The Silence of the Lamb... err, Gonzales

After the long-delayed and much awaited decision in Chavez vs. Gonzales, the Supreme Court on February 15 finally laid to rest the issue on whether or not to air the "Hello, Garci!" proceedings. The ruling: the tapes can be aired.

Kaya pala tameme si Raul Gonzales the past few days at si Sergio Apostol na lang ang medyo maingay. Kala nga ni Tikboy, nasa hospital na naman ang lolo kasi biglang preno ang machine gun mouth sa panahon ng krisis. Yun pala, nabingi din ang Supreme Court dahil sabi ni Chief Justice Puno: We slide to the issue of whether the mere press statements of the Secretary of Justice and of the NTC in question constitute a form of content-based prior restraint that has transgressed the Constitution. In resolving we hold that it is not decisive that the press statements made by respondents were not reduced in or followed up with formal orders or circulars. It is sufficient that the press statements were made by respondents while in the exercise of their official functions. Undoubtedly, respondent Gonzales made his statements as Secretary of Justice, while the NTC issued its statement as the regulatory body of media.Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for and on behalf of the government in an official capacity is covered by the rule on prior restraint. The concept of an “act” does not limit itself to acts already converted to a formal order or official circular. Otherwise, the non formalization of an act into an official order or circular will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition on prior restraint. The press statements at bar are acts that should be struck down as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to free speech and press.

There is enough evidence of chilling effect of the complained acts on record.The warnings given to media came from no less the NTC, a regulatory agency that can cancel the Certificate of Authority of the radio and broadcast media. They also came from the Secretary of Justice, the alter ego of the Executive, who wields the awesome power to prosecute those perceived to be violating the laws of the land.

Ang tanong lang, matututo kaya si Gonzales sa nangyari? That we don't know. Pero me kasabihan: You can't teach old dogs with new tricks.

Sabagay, di naman aso si Gonzales. Pero yung kapitbahay ni Tikboy na si Aling Gloria, me aso na ang pangalan Raul. Kumahakol din yun lagi pero hindi sa may-ari. Lagi kasing binibigyan ni Aling Gloria ng buto si Raul, eh.

When money talks

Why did Jun Lozada blow the whistle for the ZTE-NBN deal?

It is said that Jun Lozada asked the help of Malacanang para di siya humarap sa Senado. Baka daw kasi magsalita siya ng totoo. In response, people from the palace promised Lozada to bring him to London. Pero ng makaalis ang eroplano, ibinaba lang siya sa Hongkong. Nagtipid daw kasi ang Malacanang. To get even, Lozada went back to the Philippines and exposed what he knew.

Though this is just a joke, whispering spirits from Malacanang admit a grain of truth in the story. Dahil sa expose dati ni Gov. Ed Panlilio na binigyan siya ng half million, nalaman ng ibang kapartido ni GMA na un-equal pala ang hatian sa Malacanang. At dahil me mga hindi na masyadong nalalangisan, dumadami ang mga "wait and see". At dahil umagos ang pera sa panahon ng pagpapatalsik kay Speaker Jose De Venecia, pumintig ang mga puso at nabuhay ang mga dugo.

In simple terms, when money talks marami ang nakikinig. And money needs to flow steadily to keep the audience from going away. Ang problema, hindi ganun ka-steady ang source ng pera. Sooner or later, mauubos din ito. And it might be impossible to do another ZTE. Lalo pa ngayon na mapagbantay na ang mga tao at aktibo na rin ang media.

Can't a sinner become a saint?

In yesterday's Senate hearing on the ZTE Broadband Scandal, Miriam "I lied!" Santiago confronted Jun Lozada with documents on the latter's alleged irregularities. She even portrayed Lozada "as a self-dealing government executive with political ambitions who acted as an agent for Jose de Venecia III, the first whistle-blower on the broadband scandal."

According to Santiago, she was merely testing the credibility of Lozada. Lozada, though, did not deny and admitted Santiago's accusations, mea culpa. Which reminds me of her "I am sorry" speech during the elections for her "mistakes" in supporting Erap and the EDSA III. Just to aid Tikboy's memories, Santiago was the one who spoke during the EDSA III and called on the people to storm Malacanang. She was also famous for saying she will jump from the airplane if ever Erap will be ousted. But when her obligation to jump was due, she just said: I lied, hehehe.

Because of her "mistakes", she lost the 2001 Senatorial elections. Fearing another failure, she asked for an apology over the media and sided with Gloria Arroyo. The people forgave her ... and won.

But with her reactions at Lozada, it appears that she forgot her past mistakes. And she forgot that the people also gave her another chance -- that is, by re-electing her. Or maybe she was not really forgiven and she doesn't think it that way. It could be that she also cheated her way to the Senate so why entertain the idea of the voters forgiving her? As she laughingly admitted that she lied, she can also laughingly admit that she cheated during the elections -- that is, if there are evidences shot at her face. So why, indeed, should she think of being forgiven and return the favor by also giving others another chance?

Kung sabagay, ang lohika ni Miriam ay "once a thief, always a thief". If this is the case, she remains to be a liar as a liar is a thief of truth. And her apology is nothing but a pure politically-motivated activity to boost her campaign. And if the logic is indeed "once a thief, always a thief", her boss, GMA, is also guilty for stealing people's votes as the "Hello, Garci!" remains undisputed to this day.

O di ba?