THERE is nothing wrong about the Con-Com’s existence if its main purpose is to help make Congress aware of possible major constitutional issues that the lawmakers may overlook and suggest needed amendments. Harking back to when the Con-Com was to be created as announced by the Palace, I did not take it to mean that the body will usurp the functions and constitutional mandate of Congress as apprehended by the opposition. But what is really objectionable is that, since it was created by an Executive Order (453) and granted the President authority to appoint its members with allocation of funds from a budget needing approval of Congress, then this is a body for constitutional amendment not provided for by our Constitution.
* * *
What is important for our Department of Justice to probe into is not much about the links between our opposition leaders and FBI analyst Leandro Aragoncillo who stole confidential information from the White House, but what the information is all about. President Arroyo and other officials may rightly believe that it was being used by the opposition to force her out from office. But what is more important for us to know is who gathered and prepared the information for the White House. Not all FBI agents and American spies are loyal to America or to the present Bush administration. It would be more productive if we should look into the motive behind the American officials for drafting such information to downgrade our President.
* * *
The consultative meeting of representatives of concerned government agencies this week called for by Commission on Human Rights chair Purificacion Quisumbing to clarify how the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy against protest rallies should be implemented would clear up the confusion Interior Sec. Angelo Reyes said caused to both the PNP and the rallying public and that such policy be dropped. Actually, the armed forces may be confused, too. In the first place, how is the calibration for the preemptive response gauged by the PNP and AFP for its equal application. Perhaps, Quisumbing’s proposition that applied rally permit, not acted by the authorities be deemed granted may also be a factor to equalize the calibration.
* * *
Why must high military officers announce about strictly applying the rules of engagement in dealing with destabilizers from the ranks of the military? Also, AFP chief of staff Gen. Generoso Senga did not have to deny that he would implement a "shoot to kill order" against coup plotters, in reaction to the news reports that two generals said that they would implement a "shoot to kill order" against government destabilizers. This would only taunt the militant elements in our midst to pit their perceived forces against the military. Of course, the rule of engagement means to shoot back only if fired upon by an aggressor. Anyway, the two generals alluded above had been misquoted.. Waving power before being called for, is a comical thing to do.
