YPS

Something Scary at the Senate ( with additional POST SCRIPT)

I haven't been sleeping very well these days.

I also haven't been writing much these days.I think the reason for each is pretty much the same.T

he senate investigations are creeping me out.Not that this should be a surprise. Its always creepy to see a bunch like this sitting together, asking the same questions over and over again. Its like watching groundhog day.

Usually as funny and to a certain point equally depressing.

Today, February 18, 2008 I found myself at home when I should have been at work, watching the Senate. Apparently the Senators are looking to petition ( probably the Supreme Court) that the Senate and the Congress be allowed to create a witness protection program of their own.

"So what!?!" you say?Well it shouldn't really matter much...unless of course you consider that the responsibility of providing witness protection is the responsibility of the Justice Department.

To quote from Wikipedia;The Department of Justice (Filipino: Kagawaran ng Katarungan), abbreviated as DOJ, is the executive department of the Philippine government responsible for upholding the rule of law in the Philippines. It is currently under the leadership of the Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzalez.

The fact that both houses now think its their responsibility to protect its witnesses by assuming the ability to HIDE THEM FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH is a clear statement on the Senate's and Congress' opinion on the integrity of the that branch. If this is the case, then rather than ask for these special powers, I think the Senate should just as well declare a vote for non-confidence in the Office of the President ( head of the Executive branch).

Why?

Because its probably the safer option. Safer for democracy at least.

By duplicating the powers of the Justice Department I get a sense that the Senate is eroding certain basic principles in a functional democracy. This in turn opens them up to the accusation that, as the President is reportedly eroding democracy by institutionalizing corruption, the senate is now eroding democracy by assuming roles not designed for its branch ( remember the three legs of a democracy...check and balance and all that crap).

But you cant call the Senators stupid and the Philippine situation does inspire certain creativities in our politicians so there must be a methodical interest in this madness.

Here's one scenario.I

f the Senate petitions the Supreme Court for this power and the SC refuses (citing that a separation of powers is essential in preserving a democratic government) in the context of Jun Lozada and his current situation, the Senate might imply that the SC is protecting the interests of the Executive. This in turn might pressure the SC to allow Neri to testify ( as a sign of Judicial impartiality and wisdom). This will clear the SC of that burden and preserve Justice Puno's good name. It will also allow Neri to hang himself and whoever he decides to take with him. If Neri decides to tell all ( which he promised he would if the SC allows him and I believe him) and he implicates the President then this accelerates Presidential ambitions of any number of people.

The scenario permutations are many but any which way you want to look at it this call for special powers is a no lose play... for the Senators at least.

But for the rest of us watching this car wreck unfold, it wears our patience thin to the point of inaction or over reaction.In any case, I guess I wont be getting any good sleep tonight...again...and not for a while I think.

POST SCRIPT:

As I have been getting a lot of interesting mail from this article let me emphasize some points after the fact:

· ON THE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN A DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT:

While more relevant in a Parliamentary form of government there is recorded use of the VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE in a functioning democracy. In presidential systems, the legislature may occasionally pass motions of no confidence, as was done against United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the 1950s and was recently contemplated against Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, but these motions are of symbolic effect only. Presidential systems also usually have the procedure of impeachment by which an executive or judicial officer can be removed, but these procedures generally require a super-majority and the standard for impeachment generally requires some crime to have been committed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence)· ON THE WRIT OF AMAPRO and the ability of the courts to appoint custodians for those seeking protection:

Someone brought this up so I did some research. Casual reading of material on this WRIT shows that the Supreme Court can ASSIGN an individual or group to afford protection to someone seeking some type of safe haven. That is to say that the ability to give safe haven does not exclusively fall under the jurisdiction of the DOJ. That said, and in the context of what I originally wrote, the SENATE had already given JUN LOZADA asylum in the Senate. There was no other group contesting or protesting this, not even the DOJ. So, for the Senate to SPECIFICALLY ask for this type of power was a moot point ( at that point in time) and in my opinion a form of gamesmanship. Also what would be more disturbing for me is if the Senate is asking for the absolute ability to "protect" witnesses without any form of check or balance in the form of notification to, or if need be authority from, the Judiciary and/or Legistlative. Abolute power corrupts absolutely.

An interesting and very easy read on this writ can be found at www.JLP-law.com. A direct link to the AMPARO pages (http://jlp-law.com/blog/writ-of-amparo-questions-and-answers/)