To Hell with GSIS

Warning: This post contains language not suitable for children.

!#^&%%$*)()_())&+(+_()_&&^&*$%%^!!@#&&(*&^$#$%^#!@!!!!!!

That’s my kilometric, unedited, gibberish rant, as I am now angry and frustrated.

All because of the god-damned office called the GSIS.

I just got out of their hell-hole of a headquarters, without accomplishing anything despite being there for three hours.

Some of you must be aware that the stupid management of this useless government agency earlier came up with the bright idea of automating their delivery of services (read: commissions from suppliers). Docile and submissive as we have always been, we went thru the taxing process and got what they call the e-Card.

But since there are so many bright minds in the agency, only after about a year, these abusive dimwits (or is it clever?) decided to add a “Plus” to the e-card, but altogether dumping the first card! If you were in our shoes, wouldn’t you just wish that these stooges get hit by three successive lightnings for even conceiving the idea of requiring all of us, present and retired government employees, to go thru the same tedious exercise?

It’s been a while since the issuance of a new card but it’s only now that I decided to go with the flow. To my deepest regret.

I went there, sat by the zigzagging musical chair queue and spent two hours ranting at the inefficiency of the system (there were only two persons handling the encoding and finger printing). When it was almost my turn, one operator informed everyone that she will be having her lunch break. Only one frowning colleague was left attending to their poor customers..

When I finally got to sit by the computer, the best news was spilled: my record has problems in the posting of payments. I have to go somewhere to update it but since it was lunch break, no one can attend to me.

Grrrrrr!.

I also brought with me letters from my mother inquiring about her retirement. With no time to spare, I decided to just have them received.

But those manning the customer relations desk would not accept the letters. Their job, they claim, is just to refer persons to the proper office. But since I did not want further discussions on the matter (kaya nga sumulat e), I insisted on looking for the office where I could leave them. They referred me to the Office of the General Manager. As I was handing the letters to guard, she said: “ Ay sir, di pa po pwede. Lunch break pa po.”

They should be thankful I didn’t have superpowers. They should have been turned to warty frogs by now!

Loose Bombs

Media reported today that actor Jay Manalo was arrested and will be prosecuted for violating PD 1727, which many now refer to as the “bomb joke law”. A few months back, John Estrada was in a similar situation, but he got out with a slap on the wrist.

I have to admit I felt a weird sense of happiness when I saw these airheads confess to their ignorance in public. But my self-satisfaction aside, I must say that I am quite concerned with the way the law is being implemented.

PD 1727 was promulgated during the Martial Law years “in the wake of recent bombings, arsons, and other terroristic acts committed by radicals and other lawless elements in the country” where “such radical and lawless elements, and "pranksters"” would convey, propagate or otherwise disseminate false information or willfully make threats regarding the alleged presence of bombs, explosives, incendiary devices, or any similar device or means of destruction” “for the purpose of causing or creating public confusion and disorder”.

However, section 1 of the said law which actually defined the punishable act says “any person who, by word of mouth xxx … willfully makes any threat or maliciously conveys, communicates, transmits, imparts, passes on, or otherwise disseminates false information, knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property, by means of explosives, incendiary devices, and other destructive forces of similar nature or characteristics."

This means that for the act to be punishable, the person must:
1. willfully make a threat or
2. maliciously convey a known false information
3. the information must be concerning an attempt or alleged attempt to kill, injure or intimidate an individual or damage property by means of explosives.

Now let’s do the requisite legal exercise kuno:

When Jay Manalo said “O, may bomba yan ha” while handing his bag to the stewardess:
1. What act violative of the law did he do? Answer: Conveying false information, because he did not really have a bomb.
2. What was the information about? Answer: The existence of a bomb.
3. Is it the type of information covered by the law? Hmm. Let us see. Was it about any attempt to kill, injure or intimidate with the use of the bomb?

You decide. From my side of the fence, all I could sense is Jay hitting on the stewardess.

I have no beef with our security forces strictly enforcing laws to ensure that no life, limb or property is injured while we travel, but I have some reservation when the law is applied without any consideration for cultural nuances. We are a country of jokers and we always find something hilarious with all kinds of situations. While we submit ourselves to rigorous security procedures, there is always that urge to act funny so as to lighten the atmosphere.

I’m not saying we should not punish jokers – all I’m saying is that the law does not seem to cover the context with which many arrests have so far been made. If the intention is to be truly rigid, considering the times, then an amendment must be in order. Otherwise, loosen up guys! :-)

Goma for Senator? Really now..

I had a hard time listening to Richard Gomez last night during the “Isang Tanong” episode aired by Channel 7. The exchange was painful, as it went this way:

Asking about his stand on political turn-coatism, Mel Tiangco laid the predicate by noting how he shopped for a senatorial slot in both the Genuine Opposition and Team Unity tickets.

Gomez quickly answered by retelling the saga of his senatorial dream – something already known to every Juan and Pedro. Reminded that he only had 2 minutes to reply, he signaled that he was aware of it and went on. His time lapsed without him saying anything about the real question.

He was then asked who among the many actors and media personalities previously elected to the Senate have by far distinguished themselves in the service. His answer? A very general remark implying that there were those who did well and those who faltered. He ended with the standard “we just wanted to serve” line.

Then the final query, solicited from a fellow candidate. He was asked his take on the parliamentary system of government. Any college student who has gone through PolSci 11 would have had his brilliant stand. Gomez’s? He was all for constitutional change as long as it will not benefit the incumbents, thus, changes must wait until 2010. What happened to his stand on the parliamentary form of government. Nothing.

Richard Gomez for Senator? Spare me.

Just wondering, what process does one go through to be able to convince himself that he could be more than how much his brain could support him? Has self-assessment become such a strange concept?

DREAMER

Everyone has his bagful of disappointments and frustrations with this country - with the way it chooses it leaders, the way its government is run and the total apathy of the citizenry to the unconscionable rape of the nation, etc, etc…

And if one were a true-blue patriot, with a deep concern for the well-being of this strife-torn land, it will not be difficult to understand why that person would end up making a loud statement, if only to arouse people from their shameless stupor.

But that is not the norm. It is one thing to be disillusioned, another to violently act on it. It’s one thing to love this country, another to threaten life and limb to inform the world about it.

Honestly, I don’t know which is worse: being a dreamer gone berserk or a totally apathetic jerk. The first doesn’t lack for passion for what is good for this country, only his means (normally taken when he reaches the end of his rope) is not acceptable to civilization. The second lacks basic civic consciousness, someone yet to get his share of civilization.

Jun Ducat versus the Pinoy man-on-the-street…. that’s the question.

I guess I’d have to grudgingly hand it down to Ducat, the dreamer gone crazy. At least, he had the guts to do something about his complaints. In my list, he toes the same line as Antonio Trillanes, who to me is good for the Senate.

I admit, I’m a coward and I truly wish I have their patriotism and conviction. Just let me think harder about the means they embraced.

Who Paid for All These?

My otherwise peaceful morning drive to the office is always disturbed every time I reach the sidestreets of Manila. They may not directly affect me (I live in Quezon City), but I just can't help but get enraged over the assaulting presence of the preposterous posters of the father and son tandem of Lito and Ali Atienza.

I would have tolerated this insensitivity if these were just mere privately funded pre-election hoopla. But what's utterly revolting is the fact that it is being passed off as a government initiative.

The posters say:

1. "This is an inner city development project". You ask, what the hell is the project here, specifically ? The lamp posts to which these posters were nailed to? The walls of the buildings where they were unceremoniously posted? The electric cables where they hang?

2. "Project: Barangay Alley". This is what the logo in the middle says. Must be the name of the mythical project. But it was so written that the second letter "l" of the word Alley, is shorter than the first and the "ey" is blurred, thus reading "Ali" . Creative huh?

3. "Buhayin ang MayniLA". Yeah right. Manila is so alive with these expensive "banderitas" blocking our every view. And I will not be surprised if one of these days, more posters will invade Manila with a new handle: BuhAyin ang MaynilA - for the successor Ali. I hope just hope Manileños will not buy this stupidity.

4. "This is where your taxes go." At least these thick-faced politicians are honest. But despite this admission, why are they not facing charges for wasting government funds and using people's money for personal interests? If some public officials can be prosecuted for violations of the Anti-Graft Law for amounts as low as P 20,000.00 (remember Gov. Neil Tupas?), why are the Atienzas exempted when the evidence is all over the place? These posters and billboards, given their omnipresence in Manila, surely cost by the hundreds of thousands. Would I be wrong to assume that in this country, laws are imposed only to those who oppose the implementors?

I know I shouldn't have asked.

Understanding Joker Arroyo

It was painful watching the honorable and venerated Joker Arroyo making a lame pitch for his senatorial candidacy.

I refer to the proclamation rally in Cebu (that it was aired in full by Channel 9 clearly shows how government resources are being used to further the interests of Team Unity bets), where he delivered quite a short and crisp speech. From my standpoint, it was pretty obvious that he was not thankful for being there. He knew there was something wrong with his being there with the characters on stage.

Before he spoke (as with everyone else, I learned later), his television ad was flashed:

“Ipinagtanggol niya ang Konstitusyon; Ipinagtanggol niya ang Senado; Ipinagtanggol niya ang mga Karapantang Pantao ... Pag Bad ka, Lagot ka! – Joker Arroyo, for Senator!”

I admit, there were no misrepresentations in his ad. He did everything that he proclaimed.

But I guess we can’t stop people from pursuing this pitch with the question: “against whom?”

Who was trying to surreptitiously alter the country’s principal law that Joker had to stand tall defending it? Who was it who besmirched the reputation of the Senate as an institution so that it may no longer exist to block their shameless ambitions? Who was it who tried to stifle dissent, who tried to suppress basic rights of assembly and dissent so that the citizens may no longer have a forum for the discussion of their shenanigans? Pray tell me, against whose claws did Joker save us and our constitution from?

Answer: GMA and her cohorts.

So why is he holding hands with these b*st**ds now?

Funny, but I did see a twitch in GMA’s lips when the ad was being played. She is not stupid not to know she was the enemy being referred to.

In that specific rally, Joker spoke little. Maybe because he really did not have much praises for his allies.

He only highlighted the major reason for joining Team Unity – the failure of the Genuine Opposition to denounce violent means of overthrowing the present dispensation.

Ahem. Was he not the same Joker Arroyo who enjoyed the fruits of EDSA I, which was, for all intents and purposes a coup d'etat, gone successful? He did not say then that coups are a disgrace to nationhood.

Was he not the same Joker Arroyo who stood by GMA’s side when Erap was ousted (please spare me the headache of discussing the mythical difference between the succession issues of EDSA I and II)? EDSA 2 was also supported by dissident military and police officials and such would have been capped by violence had Erap not decided to leave in peace.

I am not saying I support coup d'etats, because, aside from the fact that it is a criminal offense, it really depends on the causes being advanced.

All I’m saying is that getting the Opposition to denounce the means will be useless, inasmuch the rebels are always heralded as heroes when the plot succeeds. If it fails, they very well know the consequences.

On the other hand, history tells us that the turn-over of governments became peaceful only because the subject leader had the grace to succumb to the people’s will.

My point? If there is anyone who should not embrace violence – as a means for perpetuating her stay in power, it is GMA and her minions. It is she who should swear to respect the constitutional processes and embrace her accountabilities to the Filipino people without resorting to the violence of numbers. It is she who should refrain from sowing terror to avoid meeting public scrutiny.

But with GMA foretelling that the world will not tolerate another EDSA, it is crystal clear that when the time comes for the swelling of another mass uprising, she will not have the magnanimity to concede defeat. That to me is more potent threat than the coup plots whispered in the darkness. With the former, violence is sure to happen while with the latter, violence is a matter of last recourse.

As to Joker, I still believe that he is needed in the Senate. No aspirant one is more qualified for the job. This hand-holding with the enemy is but a survival tactic. I’m confident that when he returns to his seat, the clasp will loosen and he again will be a pain in the administration’s fat asses.

Does GMA expect loyalty from her converts? I’m sure she does. But can she really rein the maverick? I guess not. He is not like Brenda who once frothed in the mouth denouncing GMA but later salivated in the latter’s Lilliputian lap. I still have to hear him glorify Gloria.

What is simply upsetting is to watch “the” Joker Arroyo kissing ass in order to be where he rightfully should be.

Either there’s something wrong with him ….. or with us, Filipino voters.

Palusot

You were accused of stashing a handsome amount of public funds. These are allegedly kept in the vaults of the Philippine Republic Bank. Ano ang gagawin mo?

Two scenarios:

If you are innocent:

Defend your honor. Sue your accuser and do everything in your power to disprove him. I mean, everything! Give him whatever he asks of you. This includes the waiver that would allow the Anti-Money Laundering Council to request the concerned financial institution to check the veracity of the claim. Sign the waiver and shove it into your persecutor’s ass .. er … face.

Since there really is no account – whether dormant, active, closed or transferred, how will a waiver hurt you? It will simply end up a useless document. Pahiya siya ngayon. Then you’ll be vindicated.

If you are guilty:

Never give any information or document that will lead the investigators to the loot. Ano sila, sinuswerte? You are always presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Those who allege must produce the evidence.

Confuse the enemy. Engage them in legal reasoning like “why should I sign the waiver when there is nothing to waive in the first place? That’s sheer stupidity! I don’t have an account in PRB Tacloban Branch, period! (Wag magkakamali. Always limit your pronouncements to PRB Tacloban Branch. Nailipat na kasi sa PRB Head Office ang pera at handa na ring ilipat sa ibang bangko, he he).

Challenge your accuser to go to Tacloban and check with the Manager himself. Surely, the latter will swear to his grave that you do not maintain an account with his branch.

Ensure that the investigation is limited to PRB Tacloban. Should they ask about PRB Head Office or any other branch, sigaw agad: “Irrelevant, Your Honor!” Object ‘til your throat explodes. And of course, insult the prosecutor so as to divert his focus.

And most importantly, never forget to bring your friends to the investigation to serve as jury. You will go through the process, but you all know how it will end. (wink wink)

The Promise of Annulment

“Ganun ba talaga yun? Inabandona ka na nga. Ni hindi mo alam kung nasaan sya ngayon. Tapos patuloy ka pa ring itinatali ng batas sa inyong pag-aasawa?”

Or words to that effect.

This was Boy Abunda’s and Cristy Fermin’s lament while interviewing Amy Perez in their talk show’s segment where Perez and her new-found boyfriend publicly announced their undying devotion to each other and her subsequent “planned” pregnancy. It was a show of love defying all odds, a call for sympathy for a woman unjustly denied of her right to a more meaningful and blissful future.

And who among the viewers would dare disagree with such cry for fairness and justice? In a world where multitudes of marriages have already been officially declared null, why not this one? Isn’t such sweet Princess entitled to find her Prince Charming somewhere, albeit belatedly and after a failed first shot?

Yes, bleeding hearts we could all be, suckers as we are to the melodramatic. But one thing is always left out during discussions of this issue – that the law did not discriminate Perez.

Let’s set the basic parameter in the discussion of the Brix-Amy drama: they both knew what they were getting into when they made their vows and signed that document now condescendingly tagged as a mere “piece of paper”. They knew the law (there is a seminar for all would-be couples) and its effects.

As the Court put it, “to be sure, the couple’s relationship before the marriage and even during their brief union (for well about a year or so) was not all bad. During that relatively short period of time, petitioner was happy and contented with her life in the company of respondent. In fact, by petitioner’s own reckoning, respondent was a responsible and loving husband.”

So what went wrong?

In her petition with the Court, Amy claimed “psychological incapacity” on the part of Brix, citing an alleged mixed personality disorder, a “leaving-the-house” attitude whenever they quarreled, violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, sexual infidelity, abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his band mates than his family.

All sounded valid, right? But then again, what the law requires are manifestations of psychological incapacity, and such is not akin to “irreconcilable differences” which is usually the catch-all reason for US divorces.

The Supreme Court in many previous instances, has realized that this window provided by the law has been abused by lawyers and couples alike that a strict definition has been set.

In Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris Vs. Brix Ferraris, (G.R. No. 162368), the Supreme Court reiterated that:

The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.” (emphasis mine)

“Indeed, the evidence on record did not convincingly establish that respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were already present at the inception of the marriage, or that those are incurable.”

“Quite apart from being plainly self-serving, petitioner’s evidence showed that respondent’s alleged failure to perform his so-called marital obligations was not at all a manifestation of some deep-seated, grave, permanent and incurable psychological malady.”

From my humble point of view, the decision is in all fours with the law and those who object to it should at least read it first.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that there are couples who have to endure the ties of a marriage gone sour. But is it not true that our old folks have always warned us that marriage is “hindi parang kaning isusubo na iluluwa pag napaso”? This has always been the case, so why are couples hoping that the contrary can easily occur, just in case?

Blame it on showbiz, as it has shown Filipinos how easy it is to dissolve marriages. Actors and actresses have become everyone’s envy as they get into marital rigodons like they were simply playing musical chairs. It is just but proper for the Court to put its foot down and put things into their proper perspective.

Lessons? Don’t jump into marriage with very little expectation of the worst. If you get burned, live with it. Or better yet, if you’re afraid to get burned, for gods’ sakes, don’t join the bandwagon.

Further suggestion to our lawmakers: parties declared psychologically incapacitated should not be allowed to re-marry. Not being cognizant of the true nature of a previous marriage makes him similarly incapacitated to contract another. Or, let’s require a psychological clearance before any subsequent marriage for these persons, such that if the latter fails, no dissolution of the marital union shall be allowed.

One final note: Amy, for all intents and purposes, is still very much married to Brix. With her public admission of her new relationship now “blessed” with a child in her womb, doesn’t that make her a self-confessed adulteress?

Paging Brix.. He he.

Versus

The debate, so far, has gone this way:

Sec. Gonzales, et.al:

"Although it can be conceded that US authorities retain custody of the concerned US personnel by virtue of Article 5, paragraph 6 of the VFA, criminal jurisdiction over Smith is retained by the Philippine courts, owing the criminal jurisdiction being exercised by our courts.”

”Whatever action was taken by the Philippine government it was done in the interest of maintaining the strategic relationship between our two countries.”

“The “noted” remark of the Court of Appeals gave the DILG the opportunity to act on its own, following the argument of Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Benjamin Pozon that Smith could be returned to US custody if there is already an agreement between the two countries. Noted is either granted or denied. The CA should have decided and not just say ‘noted.’ That leaves the DILG an opening, an opportunity to act on it. They (CA) should have acted immediately because the petition asked for an urgent reply.”

Ahh. The curse of lawyers. They always end up devising justifications that sound legally feasible in order to exculpate their clients from their misdeeds. In the end, the law gets mangled.

This is what the other side had to say:

Ursua, et.al:


“The five respondents (Gonzales, et.al) violated Section 3, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, which lists "misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance of his duties or in his official transactions; any unlawful interference with the proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under Section 1 of this rule; and the rescue of a person in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him" as acts constituting indirect contempt. ”

"The act of transferring the custody of the felon Smith was precisely the issue pending with the court. The prayer of the Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs, was precisely to transfer the custody of Smith to US authorities." "Failing in their prayer to ask the (CA) to issue a TRO, they unilaterally and in utter disregard and disrespect for the (CA), took the law into their own hands and forcibly transferred custody over Smith to the Americans. This is misbehavior on the part of officers of the court. Apostol and Gonzalez are both members of the Bar and are thus officers of the court. Their declarations "belittle the powers of the court, and urge others to show disdain and disrespect for our courts."

My little understanding of the law naturally brings me to the side of Atty. Ursua. But if I were to believe “His Wetness” Sergio Apostol, upholding this reasoning makes me just another ignoramus on the law.

He could be right. But I’m just too glad Gonzales, Apostol and the rest of this administration’s legal geniuses weren’t my teachers. I should have been cowering in shame already.

Heroes?

Time Magazine recently chose Efren “Bata” Reyes as among the 60 Asian heroes of our generation. In celebration of this remarkable achievement, one of his regular competition sponsors published a congratulatory message on nationwide broadsheets, with a picture of him (sheepish grin and all) lifting a bottle of gin. Hero, huh?

With mixed signals of this nature, I wonder how the concept of heroism is being taught to school kids these days.

I consulted the ever-dependable Mr. Webster, and he validated the definition I have known for most of my life - a hero is "one of distinguished courage or ability admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities; one who has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal".

As kids, there were only a few persons we call heroes, and almost all of them have sacrificed their lives so that this generation will enjoy breathing the air of freedom they so longed to have. Rizal, Bonifacio, Mabini … all of them disregarded the call to complacency and the temptation to pursue personal vainglory and instead decided to take the cause of freedom for the greater number.

And what did we do, a generation hence, in return? We shamelessly dilute their heroism by placing in the same pedestal people who share nothing of their values.

Pray tell me, what has Bata done to deserve being tagged a hero? Is playing billiards all your life and getting paid for it, heftily, I should add, an example of selfless virtue?

There has to be a stop in heralding every good-doer a hero. If these times really lack nobility, then by all means, leave it at that. We should not adjust our standards just because nobody meets them.

I agree, people who do good should be appreciated, praised or even rewarded. But we should use the hero tag sparingly, more so if their acts are but results of the desire to survive or worse, of the pursuit for personal dreams. Heroism cannot just be an offshoot of something else; it has to be a product of a conscious effort to abandon the self for the higher interest of others. I do not subscribe to accidental heroes.

This means therefore, that we should stop calling OFWs heroes because they definitely are not within the league. They may have made sacrifices but these are all for the benefit of their families and themselves. Of course, the government must laud them for the remittances they send back home and for the investments they make in local businesses, but such must only be within the context of their saving the government from further embarrassment for its ineptness in handling the economy. All else outside this framework is pure "bola".

This means too, that self-confessed crooks should not be treated and allowed to swagger like royalty just because his squealing caused the downfall of another administration (of course, he was a partner in the robbery of the public treasury at the time, but look at him pontificating like the Pope on the evils of corruption). People like him should be in jail.

Nor should that boxer who is already a multi-millionaire be barraged with hosannas as the sole bearer of good tidings to this forlorn country. Suckers that we are for fame, we take the line that he does his boxing in the name of country. Rubbish! He is into what he does for the money and the fame that goes with it. He is hero only to the leeches who use him for photo-ops and all means fair and foul to score political mileage. And the poor guy doesn’t even realize he’s being used. Or may be not. I guess he knows he could make a fool of millions of Filipinos; for how else could he have the gall to launch a singing career and thus pollute our airwaves, if he doesn't think of us as stupid enough to let him get away with it? Hero, my ***!!