The public perceives a hazy picture of several issues brought into the open. That is why it is difficult to form an opinion on a given issue laid before the people.

Take for example President Arroyo’s mass commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment announced by her over the weekend. She has always made known her stand — a death sentence on a convicted prisoner is not a part of her governance.

Many countries have already abolished the death penalty in their penal system. She wants to make known that the Philippines is a civilized nation.

On this particular issue, public perception has become muddled Why? Critics of the administration are saying the President wanted to please the Catholic clergy which has been campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty. The Church has made it known, through the CBCP, that it is against the manner the people are made to express their preference for a change in the country’s Constitution. A collision of programs between her and the Church comes to fore.

On the other hand, the Council of Evangelical Churches, through one of its officials, Bishop Tendro, has supported the People’s Initiative, widely perceived as the handiwork of Malacañang, in endorsing for a Constitutional revision.

But this religious conglomerate is publicly telling one and all that the government must continue executing convicted felons, especially those involved in heinous crimes.

Another simmering issue is the forthcoming showing in local theaters of the controversial movie, The Da Vinci Code. The book of the same title, written by Dan Brown, where the film is based is generating more frenzied international debate. Many well-meaning sectors, not only the Church, want the picture banned from commercial exhibition.

Although, the author himself admits the book is fiction, opponents are saying the false allegations may corrupt young minds. In one live TV talk show, three priests in the panel were against banning the movie. Again, the public is left with no intelligent choice of opinion. Or, to form its own wise judgment.

Expect more controversies on diverse issues in the days to come.

SEC TELLS PHC TO CALL MEETING. At last, the Securities and Exchange Commission has asserted its supervisory mandate over corporations one of which is to order to call annual stockholders meetings. For quite a time, it had ignored persistent clamor to instruct the Philcomsat Holdings Corp. to hold the yearly gathering as called for in its by-laws.

The government owns a substantial shareholding in PHC. Last year, it did not call an annual meeting in May as defined in its company by-laws, it was alleged. Many stockholders, especially the small investors, have made known their frustration of the company’s failure to do so, in media and in letters to government agencies concerned.

The SEC has set May 4 as the date for the PHC annual stockholders meeting. The regulatory agency says this will give considerable time for the listed company to fan out notices to its stockholders.

"At the same time, the commission rejected Nieto’s proposal to hold a special stockholders’ meeting on Feb. 18, a day after the original deadline set by the SEC, and his proposal to limit the agenda to amending the company’s articles of incorporation," says a statement e-mailed to media men.

SEC general counsel Vernette Umali-Paco says, "We need not stress the fact that the commission’s authority must always be honored and respected by the entities which it regulates, regardless of their stature in the business environment, big or small alike."

She said the cases pending in courts involving Nieto’s group and the group led by Victor Africa, president of the Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. are "independent and separate of the aforementioned cases with the courts."

"The Supreme Court decision upholding the compromise agreement entered into by the government and Potenciano Ilusorio has settled the issue of POTC and Philcomsat representation in PHC," the SEC official noted.

Indeed, here is one public issue where many questions will be asked not only by those familiar with the case, but more importantly be small stockholders in PHC.