The exchange of barbs between Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Miriam Santiago on the Senate floor is pathetic. Kulang na lang magsabunutan! Both of them deserve to be pilloried for such unparliamentary conduct.
By Conrado de Quiros
I had thought of writing about it earlier, but it got waylaid by far more important things. “It” is the minor version of Pacquiao vs. Rios, which is the match between Juan Ponce Enrile and Miriam Defensor-Santiago. What waylaid it was the passing of Nelson Mandela, which put everything on hold, as it should. It’s not just that some things are more important than others, it’s that this was a case of choosing between the sublime and the paralytic. I chose the sublime.
Sweat the small stuff seems to be the mantra of certain senators in the wake of the prime-time spitting match between their colleagues Juan Ponce Enrile and Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Short of burying their heads in the sand, these senators could only purse their lips primly and appear unperturbed for the cameras as the two threw parliamentary behavior out the window and engaged each other in language that would make even the proverbial sailor blush.
By Amando Doronila
President Benigno Aquino III rebuked the media on Wednesday for attacking the Disbursement Acceleration Program, insinuating that a “conspiracy” was behind the attacks. He did not say with whom the media were conspiring to malign him.
Is the Disbursement Acceleration Program constitutional? Legal hotshots such as former senator Joker Arroyo, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, and former Constitutional Commission member Joaquin Bernas, SJ, have all thundered forth against it. In their view, by pooling supposed savings from government agencies and realigning these to other projects and programs, Malacañang through its budget secretary is, in effect, bypassing the General Appropriations Act. Since the power of the purse is vested solely in Congress, juggling funds from one GAA-approved agency or project to something else that may not have the same budget authorization undermines that power, and allows Malacañang to usurp a function not granted it by the Constitution.
By Randy David
Fate could not have written it better if this was a movie script. The convergence of recent events in our society is filled with many ironies and is deeply disturbing. It invites thoughtful reflection.
It was bound to happen. When Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile allowed his purported counsel Enrique de la Cruz to preview his line of defense in the pork barrel scam—that the former Senate president did not authorize any diversion of his funds from local government units to nongovernment organizations…
Freudian slip? Asked for his reaction to the National Bureau of Investigation’s filing of charges against him and 37 other people last Monday in connection with the pork barrel scam, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada defended himself thus: “They are conditioning the mind of the public that we are the worst thieves, and that I cannot accept.”
By Conrado de Quiros
Last Monday Bong Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada, and Juan Ponce Enrile were officially added to Janet Lim-Napoles as persons of interest to the Ombudsman. Leila de Lima says that’s just the first batch in a continuing investigation of congressional complicity in the Napoles pork scam.
By Amando Doronila
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has come under pressure from a lawyer representing the whistle-blowers in the P10-billion pork barrel scandal to file plunder charges against public officials linked to the diversion of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to a group of dummy nongovernment organizations (NGOs) controlled by businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles.
By Edilberto C. de Jesus
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (JPE) achieved a moment of historical redemption for his role in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. A short one. He overreached by trying to rewrite history in his autobiography, which only underlined his complicity in the martial law regime.
By Oscar Franklin Tan
Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza preempted justices’ recurring questions, going on the offense on Day 3 (Aug. 6) of the Reproductive Health Act oral arguments in the Supreme Court.