|
Former President Joseph Estrada is causing headache
for the Arroyo administration. A recipient of executive clemency,
Erap is now using his time in freedom to attack the President in
media and in his trips. Although he has not called for GMA’s
resignation, he has hinted at some irregularities in the 2010 polls
which some President’s aides find unacceptable.
Strangely, the Palace has no
official response to Erap’s perceived misbehaviour. A week ago, I
caught on television Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita saying
“pabayaan lang muna natin ‘yan” (Let us ignore that for the
meantime). He explained that if the government shows kindness, the
former President might be kinder and behave thereafter.
I am not sure if Ermita is
ignoring the problem, or the Palace has no idea on how to control
Erap. Perhaps, the Palace lawyers may still be studying whether or
not a former President—convicted of plunder, released by executive
clemency—could be rearrested. But the bigger problem is really
political. Will the government risk the aftermath of an Erap arrest?
The recent tact of Erap has
generated a debate within the Palace, according to my source.
Critics of the release now say Erap should not have been freed
immediately after conviction. A lot of political allies of the
President only accepted the decision to release Erap because it
might help the President.
I will not be surprised if the
President instructs DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno to talk to Erap and
find out what’s happening in Polk Street. After all, it was Puno
who tried to convince the President to release Erap. It should now
be asked whether this political activism of Erap was part of the
deal? Or was the Palace swindled?
Business-as-usual in DENR
After his appearance at the
Senate, DENR Secretary Lito Atienza is now back to work in the
Elliptical Circle. For a while, he was busy refuting the charge of
the opposition that he tried to abduct Mr. Jun Lozada on the way
back from Hong Kong a month ago.
The advantage of Lito is that he
is a known entity among Filipinos—that is why the charge of Mr.
Lozada did not stick. After all, the former mayor has never been
identified with violation of human rights. He has been mayor of
Manila for three terms, a congressman and a stalwart of the Liberal
Party. He takes pride in fighting his battles on political grounds.
A religious man, he popularized the slogan after EDSA that the world
should emulate the historic event of 1986.
During his appearance at the
Senate, Atienza was really waiting for Sen. Noynoy Aquino Jr. to say
that Lozada was a hero just like Ninoy. Had Noynoy done that, Lito
would have lectured the senator on the differences between Ninoy and
Lozada. As a real admirer of Ninoy, Lito has the right to talk about
the heroism of the former senator.
Lito is back to work. In a recent
interview, he said that he is continuing reforms in his agency in
the field of anti-corruption in line with the exhortation by the
World Bank. The WB has recently cited the DENR as the “most
transparent and accountable agency” in the field of procurement.
The other project is
tree-planting in conjunction with local government officials. Under
Lito, the Natural Resources Development Agency will be
rehabilitating 50,000 hectares of forest in four provinces in the
Visayas and Mindanao.
Compromise deal
The Supreme Court has proposed a
compromise on the conflict over executive privilege between the
Senate and the Palace. The idea is for Neri to attend the hearings,
but he could refuse to answer questions related to his conversations
with the President over the ZTE deal.
I am not sure if this idea would
be acceptable to the senators. I understand that the senators would
meet to decide on the proposal by Chief Justice Reynato Puno. What I
like about this whole thing is that the Chief Justice is trying to
solve this impasse outside the formalities of court proceedings.
The problem with our country is
that our leaders can no longer discuss things in the conference
table. For instance, the LEDAC office which used to discuss proposed
measures has become ineffective. It is taking the neutral Supreme
Court to tell us that we should talk things over rather than fight
in the streets and on television. I think that we will need the
Supreme Court for some time to solve conflicts between the executive
and the Senate.
|
