To begin with, the Presidency of the Senate cannot be auctioned off like a fish catch just brought in from the sea. But most pertinently, how could there be a gentleman’s agreement if one of the parties to the deal doesn’t turn out to be a gentleman? However, the "deal" was made. After its announcement, I reminded Manny Villar of what had happened to the late Senator Rene Cayetano (father of Pia). Rene died in disappointment, without the promised Senate Presidency having been turned over to him.
On Villar’s part, he thought – as per the "agreement" with Franklin – that the Senate Presidency would be his this June. It has not come to pass. When he politely inquired of Senator Drilon whether it wasn’t time he inherited the Senate gavel at least in time for the next State of the Nation address, Drilon reportedly didn’t even blink but blandly replied, it was alleged: "If you can get enough votes, Manny, I’ll turn the Senate Presidency over to you."
Gee whiz. What an answer.
Don’t you think, if there was an agreement among Gents, that Frank ought to have said: "You bet, partner! I’ll cast my vote for you, and help you get elected"?
Villar has realized, belatedly, that he must fight to win that goal – with his former deal "partner" resisting him all the way. Oh well. I may be wrong, but I hear he’s one vote shy of winning. No thanks to you-know-who.
If capital punishment were cancelled, how do you think criminals and gutter rats would be scared off from committing heinous crime? This is not, alas, a "civilized" country – not by a long shot. The Catholic Bishops may bleat that to kill anyone, including killers, is against the Ten Commandments. However, if they, as holy men, are so eager to embrace martyrdom, when murderers or violent robbers stalk them, I wish they would not drag us along with them to the grave despite of course, its anticipated next step into Everlasting Life. I’m one of those people, though long in the tooth by now, who would like to live the present life just a bit longer.
Don’t we see the results of our over-tender attitude towards death convicts and their ilk? The murder rate is soaring – with journalists, leftist militants, activists, as well as innocent folks leading the hit parade. Kidnapping is again a growth industry. Drugmakers and drug pushers are having a ball. Why not? They’ll get off the hook somehow – and never again be in fear of the lethal injection chamber. Why, a "compassionate" GMA will commute their sentences, too.
As for the European Union continuing to put pressure on us to eradicate the death penalty, I’ve a suspicion, with their riots, troubles, and shocking incidents of violence, even the escalation of "racism," some European states may be fervently lamenting their compassionate decision to abandon capital punishment. (But are afraid or ashamed to tell the others).
Human nature is the same everywhere, regardless of race, color, or creed. The eternal verities include the fact that punishment must be meted out for crime. Justice must be done. The pious may incant: "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." But sometimes the Lord needs a little help from mortals in implementing His wrath in this vale of danger and tears.
Being a sinner, I cannot claim to know, I hasten to say, what the Lord wills. But I believe that our Lord Jesus expiring on the Cross may have cried out, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do!" On the other hand, we have many criminals who knew full well what they did. They are not, I’m convinced, deserving of Christ’s forgiveness.
Although the matters treated in the book are now history like the Marcos-subverted 1971 Constitutional Convention, the 1972 Martial Law Declaration, the "fixed" 1980 local elections and the fraudulent 1981 presidential poll, the August 21, 1983 Ninoy Aquino assassination, the 1984 Batasan and the February 1986 snap presidential polls, the book reveals the role played by a number of people during the 20-year Marcos rule which are not generally known by those who lived through that period and, of course, never noticed by those born in the 1980s and 90s.
For instance, with the current controversy over determined efforts thru the so-called Malacañang-sponsored "People’s Initiative" and the drive to somehow convert Congress into a Constituent Assembly to revise the Constitution. Pimentel’s intimate revelation on how the Marcos Boys worked in the 1971 Constitutional Convention to engineer the election of former President Carlos P. Garcia as Con-Con president, the covert roles played by the Marcos henchmen in the convention, namely Arturo Pacificador, Venancio Yaneza, Domingo Veloso and Gilberto Duavit and who were the members of the "Marcos Politburo" in the convention as Nene calls them – could be instructive since they are comparable with similar roles now being played by their present counterparts in the drive to revise our Constitution and shift from the present Presidential form of government to a parliamentary system.
History could be repeating itself if and when the so-called "People’s Initiative" takes off and the present discredited Commission on Elections decides to assume jurisdiction over the signatures collected by the Sigaw ng Bayan group’s "operators". Or if the House of Representatives tries to push through with its own version of a constituent assembly – with both Houses voting jointly.
However, there’s a caveat. The scenario of 35 years ago is quite different from the present situation because during the Marcos heyday the Supreme Court was an "accommodating" and pliant Court, quickly bowing to anything Marcos wanted.
The present Supreme Court, fortunately, does not appear to have been cast in the same slavish mould. It has already defied the Palace in three landmark decisions.
Evalyn Ursua, the aggrieved woman’s lawyer and Jose Justiniano, counsel for accused US Marine Silkwood have been arguing against each other before TV cameras as if their respective clients’ cases could be promoted and won by media blitz. Are lawyers for the parties in a case being tried in court no longer covered and restricted by the "sub-judice" rule?
Of course when lawyers argue their cases before TV cameras and before newspaper reporters, they get personal publicity.
Perhaps their aim is not to "save their clients but "project" themselves as clever trial lawyers. Do you think the ends of Justice are properly served by these showbiz tactics?