Day: December 12, 2011

By Gil C. Cabacungan Jr., Maila Ager
Philippine Daily Inquirer

The House majority on Monday virtually impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona after gathering signatures of more than one-third of the 287 members of Congress favoring his ouster.

Click on the link below for the Summary of the Impeachment complaint vs CJ Corona:

Summary of the Corona impeachment complaint

Oriental Mindoro Representative Reynaldo Umali said Corona was virtually impeached with at least 140 members, or almost half of the membership of the House of Representatives, signing the resolution.

Ako Bicol Representative Rodel Batocabe said that the impeachment case was laid down in such a way that it would be geared toward a person and not the institution.

There were three grounds cited and eight articles of impeachment cited in the impeachment of Corona.

Corona will be the third to be impeached by Congress but the second under the railroaded method after then President Joseph Estrada in 2000. Last March, former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was impeached through voting on the floor after going through the committee process.

The move to oust Corona, a midnight appointee of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was reached during a hastily called caucus presided by House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. and attended by top leaders of allied parties such as the National Unity Party, Nationalist People’s Coalition and party-list groups.

Deputy Speaker and Cavite Representative Crispin Remulla said that more than 100 members lined up to sign the resolution, which was prepared by the House committee on justice headed by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. He said only 95 signatures were needed to impeach Corona.

Remulla said they would transmit the case to the Senate either Monday or Tuesday.

Bayan Muna Representative Teodoro Casiño said Corona’s impeachment was a “foregone conclusion.”

The eight grounds of the impeachment case versus Corona are:

1.) Betrayal of public trust due to subservience to Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo during her presidency, from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court justice to his midnight appointment as Chief Justice. Examples are his partiality in the Megapacific contract decision, Fernando Poe Jr. case, the Lambino versus Comelec case (people’s initiative), David v Arroyo and Neri v Senate (executive privilege.

2.) Culpable violation of the Constitution for non-disclosure of the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

3.) Undue closeness to Macapagal-Arroyo as shown by the appointment of the Chief Justice’s wife to a seat in the Bases Conversion and Development Authority.

4.) Betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution when he issued a status quo order ante that had suspended the hearings of the House justice committee on the impeachment case against previous Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

5.) Voting on the cityhood cases and the creation of the province of Dinagat.

6.) Creation of the ethics committee to look into the plagiarism case against SC Justice Mariano del Castillo, which resulted in clearing Del Castillo of any liability.

7.) Temporary restraining order on the travel ban on Mrs. Arroyo.

8.) Refusal to account for judicial development funds, special allowances and other court collections.

House Majority Leader Neptali “Boyet” Gonzales said he was confident that the impeachment complaint would be transmitted to the Senate by Tuesday.

Once they get the required number, Gonzales said they would transmit the complaint directly to the Senate without going through the House plenary for either rejection or adoption.

House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman agreed that under the rules, a complaint may be transmitted directly to the Senate once the required number or signature was reached.

Casiño said that they were caught by surprise with the suddenness of the complaint. “Usap-usapan lang yan, tapos may actual complaint na (There were only mere talks about the impeachment and all of a sudden there was already an actual complaint),” said Casiño, who also signed the complaint.

Asked if there was an urgency to rush the impeachment case against Corona, Casiño said, “I dont know. Maybe because we are going on a break this Wednesday.”—With Isa Avendaño

Summary of the Corona impeachment complaint

Last week, a federal judge in Oregon ruled that a Montana blogger is not eligible for the legal protections afforded to journalists ordering her to pay the lawyer who sued her for defamation $2.5 million.

An Associated Press report said “Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., was sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick when she posted online that he was a thug and a thief during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC.

“U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.”

Although, the ruling is not expected to really tame the free-wheeling environment of digital media which includes blogs (short for “web log”, online sites usually set up by individuals containing their articles which could cover any topic and form), it would be a useful distinction for new media users.

According to news reports, Cox styles herself as an “investigative blogger.” She has created numerous websites with names like “obsidianfinancesucks.com,” “bankruptcytrusteefraud.com,” and “oregonshyster.com,” in which she accused Padrick and Obsidian of misconduct in their handling of a bankruptcy case.

During the trial, she was asked to name her sources and she sought protection in the Oregon’s shield law not compelling media to produce sources.

Hernandez, the judge, said Cox cannot claim that protection because she is not a journalist. He enumerated his understanding of the attributes of a journalist which Cox did not possess: (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story.”

In a statement quoted by media, Cox did not exactly deny that her writings did not meet basic journalistic standards. She said,””My intensions are the highest and best. I know I am sometimes over the top or a little bit vulgar. But I encourage people not to listen to me or him but to look at the documents and make their own decision based on that.”

In the Philippines, there are over half a million blogs.

The growth of blogs has somewhat reached a plateau with the coming of Facebook and Twitter. But it is no less vibrant. There have been legal cases involving blogs, the most notorious of which was the one by Brian Gorrel, an Australian gay who blogged about the sordid happenings in Manila’s high society circle after his Filipino boyfriend absconded with a large sum of his money.

In new media fora I’ve attended, bloggers are very sensitive about what they claim are “discrimination” by mainstream journalists claiming that many times, they have scooped media in a number of happenings.

Except for the number one attribute that Judge Hernandez enumerated, I agree with him in the requirements of journalism.

Journalists adhere to four basic things in disseminating information: truthfulness or accuracy; independence; fairness; humaneness (minimizing harm); accountability.

Stories that come out in the mainstream media undergo a process of verification, which sometimes is not easy.

Journalists in the Philippines also cannot be compelled to reveal their sources. Republic Act No. 53 known as the Sotto Law provides that “The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the State.”

I’m a journalist who blogs. I’d like to share these words by American journalists Marvin Kalb and Ted Koppel from their book, “In the National Interest”:

“Being a reporter is a little like being a missionary and being a missionary is a lot like being a teacher. A reporter carries the words. It isn’t sacred. There is no book of truth. He is fallible. But he doesn’t write a story because some group wants him to or even because his country says he should.
“He writes because he thinks he has discovered something new and interesting and the information is liberating. Liberating in the sense that the information illuminates the world and greases the wheels of democracy. That’s why the freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment.”

The First Amendment states that no law should be passed abridging the freedom of the press which is also in the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution.