Impeachment trial politicians exposing one another and doing the job that media's so far failed to do

The collective stupidity of Filipino politicians seems to be nearing a point where they may all inadvertently kill the very goose that has been laying their golden eggs for the last half century. One thing that the trial of the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona might actually achieve is to whip all these bozos into a skirt-lifting frenzy that will ultimately result in every one of them revealing the wide array of colours of undergarments they wear to the public.

This impeachment trial and the tactics of the prosecution can potentially disrupt a kind of détente amongst Filipino politicians; one that was underpinned by a tacit acknowledgement that any attempt to dig up dirt on the other will simply raise the spectre of a "hidden wealth armageddon" wherein the ensuing tit-for-tat unearthing of one another's treasure chests and skeletons-in-closets will assure the destruction of the veil that cloaks their collective parasitical hold on Philippine society.

From a comment on Get Real Post...

“[It] would be a ‘disservice’ to the country if they do not show the specimen and other bank account details.”–Rep. Romero Quimbo, prosecution spokesman

This is one great statement from the prosecution spokesman that we should all welcome, the defense in particular, for it would indeed be a “disservice” to the Republic if “the specimen and other bank details” of only ONE Member of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, are disclosed selectively to the public to verify “a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and net worth.”

And this is precisely the intent the Framers conveyed in Sec 17, Art. XI:

“A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”

Hence, in line with his laudable advocacy, Rep. Quimbo–a “public officer, a Member of Congress, at that–should now urge his fellow accusers (Rep. Tupas. in particular) to come with clean hands and voluntarily present to the public they are sworn to serve original copies (if need be) of their bank documents and other financial statements supporting their SALN declarations.

Otherwise, and to quote Rep. Quimbo again,“it would be a disservice to the country”–a “disservice” if only ONE among ALL “public officers” is subjected to the glare of such public scrutiny.

For every allegation of "hidden wealth" thrown by one side against the other will only bring upon itself a similar level of scrutinty around how black the proverbial kettle is.

Interesting times ahead. Perhaps this circus isn't such a bad thing after all.

Media practitioners should focus more on making their craft consistent than on coming up with new buzzwords @momblogger

In recent weeks we've seen jargon like "social news network", "online journalist", "citizen journalists", and "crowdsourcing" coming into the quaint lingo of some "media practitioners" (hey, there's another one!). None of these are clearly defined in the context of the practice of journalism and, more importantly, none of these have added any significant clarity to the "debate" around the role of these media people in our overall journey towards becoming a more just society.

For me it is quite simple. There are only three operational classes that describe how an information channel can operate:

(1) Provide information

(2) Seek to influence

(3) Peddle influence

News reporters do Item 1, columnists do Item 2, and publicists do Item 3.

A "media practitioner" or channel can be one or a combination of the above three.

How much more complicated can it be?

The thing I find quite amusing about people like Maria Ressa and Chay Hofileña (and all these "media consultants") is the way they muddle what is really a simple landscape with their quaint buzzwords but balk at providing insight into what they say when asked. Ressa, for example, once responded to commentary by screaming "Libel!". When asked who is funding Rappler, the silence was deafening. You gotta wonder.

Impeachment may be political but media role is not to 'enrage' public

Impeachment being denominated "political" does not mean that the role of media during such trials is–to Hofilena–to "enrage them or inspire them" for partisan ends.

Impeachment is "political," because the accusers come from a body of politicians–elective representatives of the qualified electors in their respective districts–and the accused is a public officer charged with having abused or violated the public trust; hence, the penalty for the convicted officer handed down by another assembly of politicians, the Senate, is removal from an office of public trust and perpetual disqualification from holding public office thereafter.

But even though the accusers and the judges are politicians and the trial itself is dubbed as "political"; the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachments (2011) clearly provide otherwise, since Senators–in their role as judges–are required to solemnly swear to or affirm that each one of them "will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws of the Philippines: (So help me God)."
The words inscribed in this Oath are echoed in a provision in the same Senate rule which emphasizes that:

"Senators shall observe political neutrality during the course of the impeachment trial. 'Political neutrality' shall be defined as exercise of public official's duty without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference."

This rule is consistent with Alexander Hamilton's exhortation (The Federalist No. 65) that Senators must strive "to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality" befitting their role as judges during such trials.

Hamilton, nonetheless, is cognizant of the political reality that–

"The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

Hence, owing to the "political" credentials of the accusers and the judges, Hamilton concludes:

"The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny."

Not only that–and owing to the relentless barrage of open political propaganda as well–what the public is now made to endure is that, by peddling "rumors for ratings," corporate media and social networking (as defined) have since lowered "traditional standards on checking sources and facts" to the point of distortion and misinformation.

Still, I'm confident the Filipino is not as naive and as easily manipulated as portrayed to be.

(In fact, "the most unqualified" may have been declared the winner in 2010, but PNoy was able to garner only 42.6% of valid votes cast for president–not the "overwhelming majority" media trumpeted.)

-------------
Comment on Get Real Post at
http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2012/01/medias-role-in-philippine-society-undermines-rather-than-strengthens-the-process-of-seeking-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-21289

Strike 3 - Filipino journalism and its tradition of idiocy

Philippine "journalists" will never be taken seriously by people who actually think. 3 strikes already proved it:

1. Manila Peninsula "Media Kami!" fiasco ("journalists" openly siding with criminals).

2. Quirino Tour Bus foul-up ("journalists" ensuring that they had right-of-way, not the police).

3. This whole piss-wad impeachment "trial". It's more of a pillory now with the way the "journalists" cover it.

"Journalists" are no different from pimps: they're more than willing to whore out the innocent facts to people willing to be taken for a ride, at the right price. ABS-CBN, the Inquirer, Philstar, and GMA already proved that – profit above all, no questions asked.

------------
Comment on Get Real Post at
http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2012/01/medias-role-in-philippine-society-undermines-rather-than-strengthens-the-process-of-seeking-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-21298