Business Circuit

A government of wolves

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves," according to De Jouvenel.

We have a society of sheep, made more meek by the Catholic bishops. They in turn created a government of wolves. They denounce corruption but would not support a popular movement to force the corrupt out of power.

Let no one, therefore, wonder or ask questions on why we are what we are: De Jouvenel provided the answer before it could be asked.

In this sense, the Catholic bishops helped create the government of wolves under whose yoke we strive to live. We are oppressed by the powers of the President who has become calloused to charges of lying, cheating and corruption.

Yet she says, there is too much politics in this country that waylays growth. The President can lie with a straight face.

Such a leader is indeed capable of running a government of wolves largely because the Catholic bishops are helping create a society of sheep. They are having the best of both worlds.

A jurist in GMA’s pocket?

My informant in Malacañang told me that CA Justice Kit Villaluz would be appointed to replace Angelina Gutierrez Sandoval as associate justice in the Supreme Court. In fact, the appointment of Villaluz was supposed to have been signed on the day the information was leaked to me.

I believed it because there were no talks on who would replace Art Brion as secretary of labor. Brion was also a contender for the job left by Justice Gutierrez.

Suddenly, the appointment of Brion was announced. Big surprise?

My informant told me that a senior justice assured the President that Brion would vote in favor of the government in the Neri case.

That is most unkind. Not even the President could rule the mind of Brion in exchange for an appointment to the Supreme Court.

I thought that it is bad enough that the President pressures the Court to her advantage.

The court is destroyed when a jurist offers cooperation to the Chief Executive. Or yields to pressure from her.

There is 70 percent resistance to President Arroyo to stay in Malacañang. There are two main reasons for this.

First, she got a term of nine years - when the Constitution limits it to six - without being elected by the people. She grabbed most of the term of Joseph Estrada, the president who obtained the highest-ever mandate.

Second, she cheated in the 2004 elections. Then she went on to tolerate corruption that she used to rally the people against Estrada.

Now she wants more power in the form of absolute executive privilege. And she got it from the Supreme Court.

I thought that the wisdom of the Court would dictate that she be stopped on her tracks before she completes her term in 2010. No. The Court extended her power to hide the truth and conceal a crime.

That is the only meaning of the grant of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court declared EO 464 partially unconstitutional. It voided provisions which went beyond the limits of executive privilege.

We might say that the only issue left for the Court to resolve is whether or not the President can invoke that privilege to commit or conceal a crime.

The Constitution as interpreted by the Highest Tribunal limits executive privilege. The President cannot increase or diminish it.

That, to me is the Constitutional issue.

But the Constitutional issue was converted to diplomacy with China.

On this basis, Romulo Neri or any cabinet official in his situation is prevented by executive privilege from appearing before a congressional investigation.

If the privilege is denied, Neri will be summoned by the Senate. If he does not honor the summons, he will be arrested.

The conclusion is that executive privilege shields the President from telling the truth. If the same privilege is denied, she will be forced to tell the truth and prevented from concealing a crime.

The choice is obvious.

The Arroyo regime helped Joc Joc Bolante escape to the United States after squandering about one billion pesos intended for the farmers but was spent instead in the campaign of Gloria Arroyo in 2004.

Sounds like plunder to me.

Bolante, then undersecretary of agriculture, ran into immigration troubles in the United States where he is now detained.

Is it against the laws of the United States for the Philippine government to file petition for extradition of Bolante? Is it against the laws of the United States to grant such a petition when its object is detained?

But there is an important point missing.

The point is that no charges have been filed against Bolante, or if there is one pending before the Office of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman is not doing anything about it.

Another example: Tina Tuazon, said to be a relative of First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, flew out of the country in spite of a hold-departure order issued by the Court.

Ms. Tuazon is allegedly involved in a scam that left victims losing millions of dollars.

These cases do not even involve executive privilege.

If the administration tolerates these two cases, how many more offenses can the President commit if she is granted executive privilege?