"This means good things for the Duterte administrationís legislative agenda."
"This means good things for the Duterte administrationís legislative agenda."
Same same, but different.
That’s the likely scenario when the smoke clears after the May midterm elections.
We’re referring to the possible results of the polls after two popularity surveys showed that most of the pro-administration senatorial bets are likely to win in May, thus assuring the passage of the Duterte administration’s key legislative proposals.
According to the latest Pulse Asia survey conducted from December 14 to 21, 2018, incumbent Senator Grace Poe will top the Senate race once again with a 75.6 percent rating. The survey also showed reelectionists Cynthia Villar and Sonny Angara ranking second and third with 66.6 percent and 58.5 percent rating, respectively. The rest of the winners’ circle or the top 12 are: Taguig Rep. Pia Cayetano (55.4 percent), former senator and actor Lito Lapid (49.8 percent), Senator Nancy Binay (46.7 percent), Sen. Koko Pimentel (45.5 percent), former senator Serge Osmeña (38.8 percent), former senator Bong Revilla (37.6 percent), Ilocos Governor Imee Marcos (36.7 percent), former senator Jinggoy Estrada (36.3 percent), and former police chief Ronald dela Rosa (35.7 percent).
Within striking distance of winning are former Sen. Mar Roxas II (35 percent), as well as reelectionist Senators JV Ejercito (33.6 percent) and Bam Aquino (32.6 percent).
The rest of the political opposition are languishing far behind, and unless they are able to perform some kind of miracle in the months ahead, they are likely to lose miserably when May 13 comes along.
Offhand, what this particular survey tells us is that the Senate will continue to be dominated by pro-administration members if the numbers hold until voting day. This means, furthermore, that the Duterte administration’s legislative priorities, including the draft federal Constitution prepared by the House and already approved by the majority, could breeze through the Senate when the third session of the 17th Congress opens in the second half of this year.
Should the draft federal charter be likewise approved by the Senate before the May polls, then a no-election scenario is possible, which most if not all reelectionists would welcome, but aspiring lawmakers and local executives would uniformly oppose.
Apps
Judge Elmo Alameda of Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 recently upheld his earlier ruling that President Duterte’s Proclamation 572, which declared Senator Antonio Trillanes’ amnesty as void from the beginning, had factual basis. This ruling paves the way for the revival of the case against Trillanes for rebellion over his involvement in the 2007 Manila Peninsula incident.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has described this as double jeopardy, but apparently the Palace is undeterred by any legal impediment as it sees Trillanes as an arch-enemy who must be disposed of by any means fair or foul.
Amid this brouhaha, we ask a practical question: Is there any agency or office, government or private, that requires any applicant of any document, such as a permit, license, certification, identification, or whatever, to keep a copy of such application?
I don’t think so.
Most offices require only one copy of such an application, duly signed by the applicant. Others might require two or three copies of an application, but that’s for their own records, not one is returned or given to the applicant himself for his own records.
If an applicant wants a copy of his application, he can do so, but even if he signs it, it serves no useful purpose except for filing purposes if it is not approved by the pertinent authority.
What the agency or office normally does with an application or copies of an application is to either approve it or disapprove it, in which case it goes to their archives, for safekeeping for a certain period of time.
In other words, the approving authority has the duty and the responsibility to keep all its records intact so that questions regarding such records can be settled in the future.
If the records cannot be found by the approving authority, it’s their fault, because they have been negligent or remiss in record safekeeping.
I raise this point, even if belatedly, in light of the recent controversy regarding the presidential proclamation voiding the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes because it says his amnesty application could not be found and therefore there’s no record that he admitted guilt which is for a condition for such amnesty to be granted.
Going by the logic or reasoning of the presidential proclamation, if you cannot produce the original copy of your application, whether for a license, or a permit, or a certificate, then the license, or permit, or certificate that you now hold is void and therefore illegal, and you would have to answer for that in a court of law.
By way of example, take the case of the recent filing of Certificates of Candidacy (COCs) by aspirants for senatorial and local positions in May next year.
Did any one of the aspirants get to keep an original or even a certified copy of their original COC even if unsigned by the Comelec?
I really doubt it.
If so, does that make their candidacies void?
Apparently not.
Our conclusion: the case against Trillanes for his inability to show an original copy of his application for amnesty is pure and simple political harassment, no more and no less.
With the conflicting rulings by two courts on the case, it is now up the Supreme Court to settle the matter.