|
For the past 20 years, The Filipino Express has provided the Filipino American community the best news, arts and entertainment coverage from around the United States and the Philippines.
|
|
This website includes selected articles from this week's edition of the Filipino Express. Not all the stories published in the printed version appear on this site.
|
|
|
|
To tell us what you think about Filipino Express Online or to comment on the stories published here, E-mail us at Filexpress@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank God for the Supreme Court
|
|
|
|
ONE of the glaring characteristics of the martial law years under then-President Marcos was a spineless Supreme Court. Supposed to be a co-equal branch of the government, the High Tribunal was reduced into a rubber stamp, providing legal legitimacy to the dictatorial whims and caprices of Marcos and his cronies.
Nowadays, despite the Arroyo government desperate to outdo the Marcosian dictatorship, we have a Supreme Court who is standing up to Malacañang machinations, fiercely protective of its independence and passionately committed to nothing but justice.
Just last week, the Supreme Court threw out the so-called People’s Initiative aimed at amending the Constitution. Mrs. Arroyo and her allies had hoped that a Charter Change would allow them to stay in power beyond what the present Constitution states.
The junking of the Arroyo-backed People’s Initiative was the latest in a series of legal debacle suffered by the Arroyo administration at the hands of the High Court.
First, the Court said Arroyo’s Executive Order 464, which bars officials from the Executive branch from testifying in the Senate, violates the basic democratic principle of check-and-balance and transparency.
Next, the Supreme Court stated in no uncertain terms that her administration’s policy of Calibrated Preemptive Response, which authorizes police to break up demonstrations and arrest protesters, “has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom.”
A week after, the Court ruled that another Arroyo creation: Proclamation 1017, which gives Arroyo martial law powers without actually declaring it, is unconstitutional.
Unlike during the martial law years, the Filipino people can depend on an independent-minded Supreme Court to block any attempt by the state to extend and expand its powers, to mangle the highest law of the land and to trample on the rights of the people.
Thank God for the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THERE is a pathology of deception. And its most virulent form affects even constitutions.
Ferdinand Marcos’ “Citizen Assemblies” uncorked this contagion with their farcical “ratification” of the dictatorship’s constitution. It infected the martial law Supreme Court, searing a sorry indelible image: the late Chief Justice trotting behind Imelda Marcos, as parasol bearer.
Like malaria or TB, this disease mutates. In the mid-90s, it’s more vicious form was House Resolution No. 40. With terms ending, panicky members of Congress scrambled to anoint themselves into a constituent assembly, so they could. They tailored the Constitution, closer to their hearts’ desires.
Then, like now, noble reasons were offered. President Ramos claimed the 1987 charter needed 147 amendments -- revision really. It would “pole-vault us into the 21st century”, he gushed. No one could recall what the 146 corrections were. But all were dead-certain about the 147th. It’d scrap the cap on their terms of office. “Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath,” Antonio wails in “The Merchant of Venice”.
The Supreme Court last week skewered a mutated pathology of deceit in it’s decision junking the “People’s Initiative” launched by Sigaw Ng Bayan ( a.k.a. the Arroyo administration ) .
With the Union of Local Authorites, Sigaw claimed that 6.3 million signed up for “reforms”. These ranged from breaking centralized governance gridlock, revising stifling economic provisions plus a shift to a parliamentary system.
But “you can fool too many of the people too much of the time”, humorist James Thurber writes in “Fables For Our Times.” And that’s what Sigaw & Co tried to pull off, the Court said.
For a “People’s Initiative” to be valid, citizens must draft proposals to amend specific sections of the Constitution, the hard-nosed Senator Joker Arroyo lucidly argued before the Court. And the proposals must be contained in a petition. Only then does signing follow.
The Department of Local Governments and Sigaw, however, stood that criteria on it’s head. All they cranked out were signature forms. All they had was an incomplete draft for a new charter. They didn’t even bother to draw up the requisite petition.
In July, a Social Weather Stations survey already found that six out of every 10 signatories were not shown the draft charter. This blacked out the plan to lift cap on term-of-office. What HR40 failed to get would sneak in through the back door.
Skimpy Sigaw annexes didn’t show that Members of Congress would automatically become interim parliamentarians, skipping elections. This is the notorious “No-El” provision that a firestorm of protest earlier incinerated. Which goes to prove that not only cats have nine lives.
Also unexplained was the plan that unelected parliamentarians would decide when to call for a vote, if ever. In effect, they’d “determine the expiration of their own term of office,” constitutional scholar Joaquin Bernas, SJ, points out. That’s a blank check. And only fools issue them.
Wait. There’s a bid for a second blank check : 45 days after ratification, the Interim Parliament, would convene. For what? “To propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution”. Such as allowing the President to appoint 30 parliamentarians? “A fool and his money are parted soon,” the old proverb says.
Deceivers, however, need deodorizers. Judas did it with a kiss. Casca, Brutus, Cassius scrambled for “enforced ceremony” to justify knifing Ceasar. To save Rome, these “honorable men” insisted. Sigaw & Company insist only their incomplete charter would save this country. As in the mid-90s, idealism remains the noble toga that drapes over lust for power.
It’s a “grand deception”, the Supreme Court said in uncharacteristically harsh language. “There is not a single word, phrase or sentence of the ( Sigaw ) group’s proposed changes in the signature sheet....This omission is fatal.”
Palace partisans haven’t questioned the truth of the Court’s observation on the duplicity. But they take umbrage at the blunt language. The tribunal may not call a spade a spade? Hijo, a grandes males, grandes remedios, my grandmother used to say. “Son, great evils call for great remedies”. In any case, the Master called hypocrites hypocrites.
But “it ain’t over until the fat lady rises and starts to sing”, street jocks say. So, the administration will roll out Plans B to D. They have until November 9 to ask the Court to rethink. Then, there’s the bizarre scheme, now under way in the Lower House, to adopt charter changes by it’s lonesome.
No need for an ornery Senate, outnumbered by the House, to vote separately on constitutional changes, Speaker Jose de Venecia and soulmates insist. So, how come changing the name of a town or hospital will require a separate vote by Senate and House? No answer. Now, you know why Senator Joker Arroyo had his black robe, needed for Supreme Court appearances, dry-cleaned and pressed.
Today’s raw political ambitions make charter change chancy. The Catholic Bishops Conference, among others, have said they’d prefer delegates, elected to a constitutional convention, to do the job.
The “Runyon Law”, meanwhile, may kick in. New York journalist Damon Runyon wrote his “law” by dusting off Ecclesiastes: “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong”. He then added : “But that’s the way to bet.” Not with blank checks.
(E-mail: juan_mercado@paci-fic.net.ph)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political turnaround in the Philippines
|
|
|
|
|
THE historic Supreme Court decision last Wednesday, October 25 which dealt a death blow to the Charter Change via the People’s Initiative was one of the closest calls we have made in predicting the political fortunes of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
We wrote the piece at dawn that day and emailed it to the Filipino Express around noontime. On that fateful same day, the Supreme Court took a vote and with a hairline tally of 7-8, derailed the expensively organized PI. It is still producing political aftershocks around the country.
In earlier columns, we detected shifting political winds and wrote about the apparent conscientisization taking place in the highly politicized bureucracies, including in the Supreme Court. Historically, such shifts in the political hues become apparent when changes in the political balance turn perceptible.
It is preceded by unprecedented abuses in governance which become heedless of public opinion. In the case of the Philippines, it is significant that even officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs are confessing that it has become more and more difficult to defend such abuses in the countries where they are stationed. The last wave comes when the opportunistic rats commence abandoning the ship.
We would call the process the “awakening”. The destabilizing conditions grew more and more palpable. We predicted the coming situation the ultimate test of conscience. And the voting really turned that way. Conscience prevailed over “utang na loob”. GMA’s allies were aghast at the way SC justices who owed their appointments to her ignored the political favor in favor of loyalty to the Constitution.
The words used in writing the decision were described as vicious.
The close count of the votes were immaterial. We predict the event will be a watershed in the ongoing political contest over the political survival of GMA.
Judging from the public reactions, one thing becomes clear at this point in time. The House of Representatives can forget about term extension. It looks as if the elections next year are on.
And the House members have to think about buying a new suit, as in becoming a turncoat. Unless they switch party loyalties, they face a massacre in the next elections. Their decision to execute plan B, Charter Change via Con Ass, will depend on their retaining the majority in the next Congress.
Save for a miracle, hope for GMA’s political survival looks dim. We would not count on an election being conducted cleanly and democratically next year. The Comelec has been totally discredited. An election being conducted by the same Comelec will be too costly politically. It is difficult to imagine the people suffering another Garci. Even the military and the police should look at such a possibility as political suicide.
That is, unless. Unless, the not-so secret weapon which has been readied in the last few months, that is, the military and the national police. From time to time, the words martial law have been uttered in whispers. But then again, the magic word which has produced wonders in the last few weeks might work again. Conscience.
Another sign of the times
There have been fake thousand peso bills. Fake five hundred peso bills. Even fake one hundred peso bills.
Now, we’ve heard of everything. They’re now faking one peso coin. What’s the intention? To victimize the poor like the market vendors and the jeepney drivers?
Is this some kind of a joke? A Garci joke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avoiding problems with your case
|
|
|
|
Part 1
THERE are some situations which could raise the US Embassy or USCIS’s suspicions about a person’s case (or eligibility for a visa or green card), triggering lengthy investigations and possible denials. This article discusses some suspicious situations.
1. Is the Petitioner Still Alive?
Under immigration law, when a petitioner dies, so does the petition. After the petitioner dies, the beneficiary may still get notices from the NVC (who does not know the petitioner has died), fill out and submit forms, and pay visa fees. The beneficiary may want to go to the Embassy for their visa interview, and claim that their parent is still alive.
This could constitute fraud. A person should not go for an interview and claim their dead petitioner is still alive. (Note: the law does allow the case to proceed even if the petitioner dies if: (1) a substitute sponsor submits an affidavit of support; and (2) humanitarian revalidation is granted by USCIS.)
2. Did The Parent Become A U.S. Citizen?
For Filipinos, it takes longer for a U.S. citizen to petition a single adult child (over 21 years of age) than it does for a Filipino green card holder parent. Many Filipino parents did not realize this, and mistakenly took the oath of citizenship, thinking that naturalization would make it faster for their adult single child to get an immigrant visa. Unfortunately, just the opposite is true: becoming a U.S. citizen sets the waiting time back many, many years. (Note: the law now allows the immigrant parent to become a U.S. citizen, and the single child under petition can remain in the faster category for children of immigrants (F-2B).)
3. Does The Person Really Possess The Education Or Skills For A Job?
In order for a person to be petitioned for a temporary working visa (H-1B) or a green card through Labor Certification, it is necessary that the person have a college degree (in the case of H-1B) or be a college graduate or skilled/unskilled worker (in the case of Labor Certification) requiring some previous work experience. Some people do not possess the necessary education, experience, or skills. They sometimes go to Recto Street and buy diplomas or letters of experience. The Embassy knows about the Recto diploma mill, and will authenticate diplomas and/or letters of experience.
Conclusion
If you are not entitled to an immigration benefit and hope to “get away with it”, you should be aware that the Embassy and USCIS are now very wise to the above circumstances, and many more. Please be aware that you would not be the first person to be involved in any of the above situations.
These situations have become so common in the Philippines, that they are now routinely investigated. In future articles, I will discuss more situations that could cause problems with your case.
However, if you are legitimately entitled to immigration benefits, but your case looks suspicious, you should consider the assistance of an attorney who can analyze your case, gather the necessary documents, and make a proper presentation on your behalf to the Embassy or USCIS, so that any questions, concerns, or suspicion will be properly explained. This way, you may be able to avoid delays, investigations, or possible denials of your visa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
