|
LAWYERS CONDEMN PRES.
ARROYO’S DETERMINED EFFORTS
TO SUBVERT CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS SHE IS REQUIRED
TO UPHOLD
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers condemns the Executive Department’s
persistent efforts to subvert the Constitution and the laws it has sworn
to uphold. The refusal of the PNP to attend the Senate investigation, the
belated Ombudsman investigation and the threats of harassment suits
against witness Jun Lozada are nothing more than attempts to undermine the
Senate investigation into the ZTE-NBN corruption scandal. These
orchestrated acts by top government officials loyal to Pres. Gloria
Arroyo, however, only adds more credence to the evidence which show that
those responsible for acts of corruption in the ZTE transaction is not
only limited to former Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos but actually
involve Pres. Gloria Arroyo and her husband Atty. Mike Arroyo.
PNP Officers criminally and administratively liable
The refusal of PNP officers to attend Senate hearings ostensibly because
“the PNP cannot discuss the matter publicly in order not to interfere with
due process” citing the complaint for obstruction of justice filed with
the Ombudsman is not only an open defiance of congressional authority but
also violates the PNP officers’ oath under Sec. 40 of the Administrative
Code of 1987, requiring all public officials to “ obey the laws, legal
orders and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities”. The
NUPL finds it incomprehensible how “publicly discussing the matter” before
the Senate can violate due process rights considering that the Senate is
an official investigation and not a symposium. Furthermore, the PNP can
always ask for executive session if they feel that their statements may
violate due process rights. Based on this theory, Gen. Razon and his
subordinates, are henceforth, precluded from giving media interviews on
the Lozada kidnapping.
The filing of a petition asking the Supreme Court to legalize the non
attendance of Gen. Avelino Razon and his subordinates has no legal or
constitutional basis. Gen. Razon and his subordinates cannot claim the
right to self incrimination as the basis for their non attendance because
the Supreme Court expressly prohibited this insidious scheme to preempt
congressional investigations in Sabio vs Gordon [GR 184340, October 2006],
to wit:
Anent the right against self-incrimination, it must be emphasized that
this right may be invoked x x x only when the incriminating question is
being asked, since they have no way of knowing in advance the nature or
effect of the questions to be asked of them.” That this right may possibly
be violated or abused is no ground for denying respondent Senate
Committees their power of inquiry.
Furthermore, Sec. 19 of the
Senate rules expressly prohibit ‘preemptive’ claim to self-incrimination :
Sec. 19. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
A witness can invoke his right against self-incrimination only when a
question tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate him is propounded
to him. x x x No person can refuse to testify or be placed under oath or
affirmation or answer questions before an incriminatory question is asked.
His invocation of such right does not by itself excuse him from his duty
to give testimony.
In such a case, the Committee, by a majority vote of the members present
there being a quorum, shall determine whether the right has been properly
invoked. If the Committee decides otherwise, it shall resume its
investigation and the question or questions previously refused to be
answered shall be repeated to the witness. If the latter continues to
refuse to answer the question, the Committee may punish him for contempt
for contumacious conduct.
This blatant disregard of the
Senate’s authority to conduct investigation is another attempt to preempt
the investigation and subvert the search for the truth behind the ZTE
scandal. This makes all the respondents subject to criminal and
administrative charges that may be filed after Pres. Gloria Arroyo ceases
to be President on or before 2010. Absent a TRO from the Supreme Court,
Gen. Razon has no recourse but to attend the Senate hearing on February
26.
DOJ Fact Finding
The NUPL also condemns Pres. Arroyo’s continuing misuse of the Department
of Justice through her Justice Secretary. The threats publicly aired by
Sec. Raul Gonzalez of DOJ plans to investigate ZTE witness Jun Lozada’s
finances and file criminal cases against his brothers and sisters for
perjury not only smacks of harassment but also a not so veiled attempt to
silence Mr. Lozada.
The arrogance implied by Sec. Gonzalez’ threats against a lowly public
official in Mr. Lozada is matched by his cowardice to investigate the
involvement of FG Mike Arroyo and Chairman Abalos in the ZTE deal and
other anomalies. After Sec. Neri charged, under oath in an official
congressional investigation, Chairman Abalos of bribery, the voluble
Justice Secretary did not found the charges worth investigating. The DOJ
cannot make investigations which would pre judge the exercise of its
official function of conducting preliminary investigation if criminal
complaints are filed against any party involved in the ZTE corruption
scandal. Furthermore, the Justice Secretary has constantly expressed his
loyalty and fealty to Pres. Arroyo and his biased views against Mr. Lozada
and those that seek to reveal the truth behind the corruption charges
against Pres. Arroyo disqualifying his department from conducting
investigation.
Ombdusman Investigation a diversionary circus
The Ombudsman investigation is another such attempt to confuse the people
and divert the attention from the Senate investigation. The Ombudsman is
required under Sec. 15 (1) of RA 6670 to :
1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any
act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan x x x
The ZTE contract was cancelled or suspended by Pres. Gloria Arroyo because
of the irregularities—a clear admission that corruption may have taken
place. Under the law, the Ombudsman should have acted as early as last
year, on its own, because the scrapped contract ‘appear’ illegal or at the
very least, improper.
The Ombudsman has constantly refused to investigate such a blatant display
of corruption and overpricing despite the admission by Pres. Arroyo of the
irregularities involved. The Ombudsman has in fact, disregarded the
statement of a Cabinet member, Sec. Romulo Neri, that he was bribed by
Chairman Abalos, a clear sign of the biased exercise by Ombudsman
Merceditas Guttierez of her functions as a supposed independent Ombudsman.
Guttierez can be found guilty in an impeachment proceeding if only for
this inefficiency. The attempt of the Ombudsman, which has not seriously
acted on the Fertilizer Scam case and Jocjoc Bolante for years, to
intervene only now when the ZTE issue is generating interest and after the
tenth complaint was filed, shows its utter lack of respect to its own
mandate and task under the law and the Constitution.
NUPL demands of Pres. Arroyo to desist from using her office and those of
her subordinates in preempting serious investigations on the ZTE deal
precisely because she and her family are the ones being charged with
corruption in the said issue. This is not only required by the Anti graft
and corrupt Practices Act but by the principle of delicadeza, the
unwritten law governing ethical actions of public officials. Pres. Arroyo
is not only accountable for her acts but is also accountable for all the
violation of the Constitution and the laws committed by her subordinates
to illegally protect her from congressional investigations.
Reference Person : Atty. Neri Javier Colmenares-Secretary General
Date : February 24, 2008
Download statement
Other NUPL statements:
■
Spratlys agreement unconstitutional: joint marine
seismic undertaking is void
■
Mindanao lawyers, law students, paralegals:Oust
Gloria Now! Uphold the Rule of Law and the People's Sovereign Will!
■
Lawyers condemn use of legal processes to cover up
crimes: Bringing the issue to the coursts is a legal trap
■
Lawyers condem abuse of executive privilege: Sec.
Neri liable for perjury if he lies in Senate investion
■
Issuance of Arrest Warrants for Sec. Neri and Mr.
Lozada a legitimate exercise of the Senate’s constitutional powers:
Compelling the of FG Mike Arroyo on pain of contempt also urged
■
Cabinet members involved in the Lozada abduction
criminally liable
|
 |
 |
During
the next half year, it became clear that American and Filipino visions for
the islands’ future were at odds. U.S. forces seized Manila from
Spain—keeping the army of their ostensible ally Aguinaldo from entering
the city—and President William McKinley refused to recognize Filipino
claims to independence, pushing his negotiators to demand that Spain cede
sovereignty over the islands to the United States, while talking about
Filipinos’ need for “benevolent assimilation.” Aguinaldo and some of his
advisers, who had been inspired by the United States as a model republic
and had greeted its soldiers as liberators, became increasingly suspicious
of American motivations. When, after a period of mounting tensions, a U.S.
sentry fired on Filipino soldiers outside Manila in February, 1899, the
second war erupted, just days before the Senate ratified a treaty with
Spain securing American sovereignty over the islands in exchange for
twenty million dollars. In the next three years, U.S. troops waged a war
to “free” the islands’ population from the regime that Aguinaldo had
established. The conflict cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of
Filipinos and about four thousand U.S. soldiers.
Within
the first year of the war, news of atrocities by U.S. forces—the torching
of villages, the killing of prisoners—began to appear in American
newspapers. Although the U.S. military censored outgoing cables, stories
crossed the Pacific through the mail, which wasn’t censored. Soldiers, in
their letters home, wrote about extreme violence against Filipinos,
alongside complaints about the weather, the food, and their officers; and
some of these letters were published in home-town newspapers. A letter by
A. F. Miller, of the 32nd Volunteer Infantry Regiment, published in the
Omaha World-Herald in May, 1900, told of how Miller’s unit
uncovered hidden weapons by subjecting a prisoner to what he and others
called the “water cure.” “Now, this is the way we give them the water
cure,” he explained. “Lay them on their backs, a man standing on each hand
and each foot, then put a round stick in the mouth and pour a pail of
water in the mouth and nose, and if they don’t give up pour in another
pail. They swell up like toads. I’ll tell you it is a terrible torture.”
On
occasion, someone—a local antiwar activist, one suspects—forwarded
these clippings to centers of anti-imperialist publishing in the
Northeast. But the war’s critics were at first hesitant to do much
with them: they were hard to substantiate, and they would, it was
felt, subject the publishers to charges of anti-Americanism. This was
especially true as the politics of imperialism became entangled in the
1900 Presidential campaign. As the Democratic candidate, William
Jennings Bryan, clashed with the Republican incumbent over
imperialism, which the Democrats called “the paramount issue,” critics
of the war had to defend themselves against accusations of having
treasonously inspired the insurgency, prolonged the conflict, and
betrayed American soldiers. But, after McKinley won a second term, the
critics may have felt that they had little to lose.
Download and read the complete article here
|
Annals of American History
The Water Cure
Debating torture and counterinsurgency—a century
ago.
Many Americans were puzzled by the news, in
1902, that United States soldiers were torturing Filipinos with water. The
United States, throughout its emergence as a world power, had spoken the
language of liberation, rescue, and freedom. This was the language that,
when coupled with expanding military and commercial ambitions, had helped
launch two very different wars. The first had been in 1898, against Spain,
whose remaining empire was crumbling in the face of popular revolts in two
of its colonies, Cuba and the Philippines. The brief campaign was pitched
to the American public in terms of freedom and national honor (the U.S.S.
Maine had blown up mysteriously in Havana Harbor), rather than of sugar
and naval bases, and resulted in a formally independent Cuba.
The
Americans were not done liberating. Rising trade in East Asia suggested to
imperialists that the Philippines, Spain’s largest colony, might serve as
an effective “stepping stone” to China’s markets. U.S. naval plans
included provisions for an attack on the Spanish Navy in the event of war,
and led to a decisive victory against the Spanish fleet at Manila Bay in
May, 1898. Shortly afterward, Commodore George Dewey returned the exiled
Filipino revolutionary Emilio Aguinaldo to the islands. Aguinaldo defeated
Spanish forces on land, declared the Philippines independent in June, and
organized a government led by the Philippine élite.
|
