With Trina By My Side...

When I told my father that I was going to run for Congress, his first reaction was, “Why don’t you run for councilor first?”. I told him that with my experience working in the Senate as his Chief of Staff for six years and as Senator Serge Osmeña’s Chief Legislative Officer for two years, I felt that I would be more effective in the House of Representatives rather than the city council since my orientation had already been directed towards national legislation.

My father then asked me if I knew who I was running against, since he knew that I would be going against an established and seasoned politician. I told him that I had done my research and carefully analyzed and calculated the factors involved and concluded that the possibility of winning was present. He then said, “Okay, at least next time, you will already be known”.

That was in 1999, a little over a year and a half before the 2001 elections. Back then, I was my father’s Chief of Staff (COS) in the Senate, managing his office, the personnel and at the same time, serving as his alter-ego in political matters. This is a position of great responsibility and influence since usually, all concerns going in and out of the senator’s office pass through the COS.

All this exposure in a national legislative office gave me the inspiration to try my hand at public service, since I had already gained enough experience in politics and government. I felt a certain sense of fulfillment whenever we were able to implement projects and help constituents. There was also a feeling of accomplished patriotism whenever my father was able to contribute to the crafting of national government policies. Providing support to him in these accomplishments, my staff and I felt a small amount of pride at having a hand in shaping the country’s future through our work.

I guess it was only a matter of time before I felt that I could do the work my father was doing, and that’s when I decided to pitch in and lend a helping hand in trying to uplift the lives of my countrymen.

Despite the seeming apprehension of my father with regard to my decision to run for congressman, my parents gave all the support that only loving parents will give to their son. Actually, not only did my parents help, but my in-laws as well. Later on, the circle of family and close friends who cared enough to help grew larger and larger.

But later on, after I had already won, they would all confess one thing---none of them thought that I would make it. They all thought that I was running with the odds all stacked against me, which, after one thinks about it, was really the case.

The only person who had faith and believed that I would make it was my wife Trina. One person believing in you may not seem enough, but for me it counted a lot. With her loving support, I weathered all the stress, the difficulties and the challenges that came our way. I have never gotten tired telling people that without her by my side during those times, I might have succumbed to the pressure of the campaign and given up.

My wife gave me encouragement and strength just by being there, and her management skills enabled me to forego worrying about how the back office of the campaign was run, and freed me to focus on strategizing and capturing the votes through campaign sorties.

But her most powerful tool was her faith in God and what He has planned for us. She firmly believed and hung on to the Word of God and would constantly remind me that above all else, prayer is my best weapon against discouragement and source of inspiration to achieve what I set out to do.

It was a difficult campaign, but with God’s grace and my wife’s unrelenting support, we successfully hurdled that first political venture, and was blessed with victory. In the end, I had a lot of people to thank, but owed everything to God.

My wife’s support did not end there, but rather extended into the time when I was already serving my first term. She conceptualized projects and made suggestions on how to enhance my constituent services with the tender loving touch that only a mother can give.

For example, when I formulated my “6K Program”, which I intended as a way of maximizing the amount of funds allocated to my district for projects, she gave suggestions on what projects I could do that would directly cater to the specific needs of my constituents. Instead of spreading the resources out too thinly by engaging in projects that cover a very wide spectrum of agendas, I selected some of the most important and urgent services that my constituents are clamoring for.

The “6K Program” consists of Kalusugan (Health), Karunungan (Education), Kaunlaran (Development), Kabuhayan (livelihood), Kapayapaan at Kaayusan (Peace & Order) and Kalikasan (Environment). The projects that I fund, and even most of my legislative proposals, are guided by these specific agendas, so that I can maintain focus and have quantifiable achievements as a legislator.

Being a congressman is not an easy job, and the stress levels vary from one extreme to the other. I can say that this was especially proven during this, the 13^th Congress, especially during the political crisis that the country faced when impeachment was the order of the day in the House of Representatives.

For me it was an emotional, mental and physical roller coaster ride, with the tug of war between right and wrong, principles and political convenience, friendships and alliances, draining the energy out of me each day I went to work during the duration of the Hello Garci Hearings and the two impeachment complaints.

Through it all, Trina was there to help me keep my sanity and keep me focused on the one thing that inspired me to be a congressman in the first place--- to serve the people. She was always ready to just listen whenever I had to unload the emotional burden that I brought home from work, and at the same time generous with advice and opinion whenever I needed it. I am thankful to God that He blessed me with an intelligent wife, one who could debate with me on anything from the latest issue in Congress to the color combination of my attire.

Being a public official has taken its toll in our lives. One of the most significant effects of being in this occupation is that Time is no longer exclusively mine. Although it is said that we can always make time for something that we really want to do, the demands of the office often calls for one to sacrifice personal time for the family.

It is not rare for me to miss having dinner with the family all together since first, our sessions are held starting at 4 o’clock in the afternoon onwards, and second, many invitations to me are for activities or events held in the evenings.

But having four young sons, aged seven months old to sixteen years old, necessitates that I should have time for my kids, no matter what. Trina’s constant gentle reminder of this personal responsibility keeps me from drifting away from my personal responsibilities as a father and a husband. This is so important especially since I am the type who has the tendency to put all my effort into a particular endeavor, with disregard for my own need.

We have been married for sixteen years now. It hasn’t been a bed roses all those years, but our marriage is definitely one that we wouldn’t give up for anything. I would even give up my political career for the sake of our family, if needed. While serving your fellow Filipinos is a noble privilege, it is pointless to be a great public servant if you cannot be a good family man.

The Bible in 1 Timothy 3:5 says, “For if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the Church of God?”. Although the passage refers to the qualities of a bishop or church overseer, it is definitely applicable to public officials since they can be considered as overseers of their constituents.

If there’s one principle that I can say serves as a foundation of my public service, it is that change in society can only happen if we start with ourselves. Holding ourselves on the same standards that we hold others is a good start. For example, if we demand a high level of integrity for our officials, then we ourselves should be able to measure up to the same level expected of them.

This principle forms the core foundation of what I call my Repormang Bayan advocacy which I espouse among my constituents: “Pagbabago…sa sarili..sa lipunan…sa pamahalaan…ito ang diwa ng tunay na pag-unlad.”

Everyone clamors for good government. But before we achieve good governance, we should all start from change within ourselves. If each one of us has personal transformations, then change in society is eventually achieved. Since government is put into place by society (mainly through the elections), then a transformed society will put into place a reformed government, leading to honest-to-goodness progress.

To be more specific, how we vote our officials into office determines the kind of government we will eventually have. If we vote into office those who do not respect voters by engaging in vote buying, or those who do not present platforms or performance but simply engage in dole outs such as rice or bread, we can be assured that government will treat the people in the same manner---with low regard.

As I face reelection for my third and final term as congressman of Muntinlupa City, I am once again faced with a great challenge. But I take inspiration in the young shepherd named David who went against the champion of a powerful army. David took on the challenge of going against the might and power of Goliath, but through faith and strength of character, he prevailed.

Through this challenge, I will once again have my wife Trina by my side to encourage and support me. Whatever the outcome, I feel blessed by the fact that we are drawn closer to each other by the challenges that we face in life. With the passages of Proverbs 31:10-31 in my mind, I can only say “Thank You” to God daily for the wife He has given me:

Proverbs 31:10-31

<>

A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.

Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.

She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.

She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.

She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.

She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls.

She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.

She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.

In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers.

She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.

When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.

She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.

She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.

She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.

Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:

"Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all."

Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.

Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

Subic Rape Case: Round 1 Victory

Justice has been served for Nicole and the rest of the accused with the verdict of Makati City Regional Trial Court judge Benjamin Pozon. With the “guilty” verdict slapped against Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, it is proven that our justice system works, and that anyone who violates the law will be meted out the appropriate punishment.

But this can also be seen as a “first-round” victory, with the issue of where Lance Corporal Smith will serve his penal term the next round to be fought. Under Article V, Section 10 of the Visiting Forces Agreement, which says, “The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance”.

It can be said that the Guilty verdict served justice to Nicole personally. But justice to the Filipino people will be attained if the guilty party is imprisoned in the same facility as any ordinary Filipino would be detained if he is convicted of the same crime. If Juan Dela Cruz will be incarcerated in the Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa if he is convicted of rape, then Daniel Smith should serve time in the Bilibid for his crime of rape.

In the aftermath of the conclusion of this trial, it is appropriate for the Legislative Oversight Committee on the Visiting Forces Agreement (LOVFA) to meet once again and discuss a possible review of the VFA in order to come up with proposals to the Executive Department on how to refine the agreement to address the concerns brought about by the Subic Rape Case.

One issue is the matter of custody of the accused while undergoing trial. The Philippines should have a stronger position in acquiring custody of the accused. Under the present provisions of the VFA custody of US personnel who have violated Philippine laws immediately reside with the United States. Immediate custody should be with the Philippines with the United States having the option to request for custody to be transferred to them.

Another is the issue of detention particularly after conviction. Those who have committed violations of Philippine laws should have equal treatment. If a Filipino convict goes to the National Penitentiary, then so should any foreigner who violates our laws. What we only need to guarantee to the Americans is the safeguarding of their citizens’ human rights.

Creeping Politicization of the Military

My Privilege SPeech on the Creeping Politicization of the Military:


Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues,
Section 5, paragraph 3 of Article XVI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution says:
“Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics.
No member of the military shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any partisan political activity, except to vote. “
So many times by so many persons, this provision of our nation’s charter have been invoked as the chastity belt of the military to protect the institution from being seduced by partisan political groups who would want nothing more than having the Armed Forces by their side and embrace their ideology.
The appeal of having the military sympathetic to a particular political ideology or organization stems from the fact that with the might of guns, such ideology or organization is guaranteed dominance in the landscape of Philippine politics.
In order to avoid that situation, the framers of the Constitution included the above-quoted provision in order to set into stone a policy that sought to protect not just the military from political opportunists but more so to protect the people from a politicized military which may veer away from its given mandate and align itself partisan interests.
Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution provides for the primary role of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in very clear terms:
“Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.”
The Constitution does not provide any other role for the Armed Forces except to secure the sovereignty of the State and integrity of the national territory. It does not have a role in policy formulation or societal change. Such roles are dangerous if combined with the force of arms in an organization where its direction is heavily dependent on the leadership of one or a few members.
A practical example is the method by which President Arroyo came into power in 2001. With the decision of then AFP Chief of Staff Angelo Reyes together with his four service commanders, the entire AFP was committed behind the assumption into the Presidency of then Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Another instance is the events of February 2006 where it is rumored that the crucial decision of AFP Chief of Staff Generoso Senga to stay within the Chain of Command was the key to the failure of the movement to withdraw support.
Of course, the classic example, the one that paved the way for the military’s intervention in politics and governance, is the February 1986 withdrawal of support by then Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile and then AFP Vice Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos.
The danger of a politicized military is evident not only in the aforementioned extraordinary changes in the country’s political leadership, but even in the course of elections. The controversies of the 2004 elections exemplify the hazards of a politicized military taking part in a process in a manner above and beyond what the Constitution allows them to.
While some would contend that there was no military intervention in the 2004 elections, the fact remains that the prospect of the AFP taking part in elections beyond voting is enough to cause concern that former Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz time and again professed the desire to insulate the military from politics. Eventually, his rhetoric became policy with the agreement between the Comelec and the Defense Department signed on October 12, 2006.
Former AFP Chief of Staff Generoso Senga, who may be said to have bore the brunt of the intensity of the political controversies from the time the Garci Tapes issue surfaced, started and ended his term as Chief of Staff with a call to the military, the politicians and the public to keep the Armed Forces away from politics.
When General Senga assumed command, the President even reminded him, “General Senga, I expect you to keep the Armed Forces of the Philippines within the Constitution and not to allow any partisan quarters to undermine the Chain of Command.”
To this, he replied, “Our entire organization must be insulated from politics.”
A few months before his retirement, General Senga even issued his Five-Point Guidelines to the AFP entitled, “The Role of the AFP in These Trying Times”. The guidelines stated:
“1) Strict adherence to the supremacy of civilian authority over the military.
2) That the AFP’s constitutional mandate as protector of the people and the State is not a license to risk leadership of the government from public officials on the basis of perceived imperfections of governance.
3) As professional soldiers, we do not enjoy an unrestrained license to engage in partisan politics or publicly speak our minds against the government without having to face the serious accountability for our unauthorized actions.
4) The Supreme Court had set the distinct parameters when it ruled that certain liberties of persons in the military service - including the freedom of speech - maybe circumscribed by the rules of military discipline.
5). The military personnel are not regarded as a potent political force to be used by the politicians in the furtherance of their vested interest.”
In support of this, then Army Chief, now AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon said, “As mandated, we must remain apolitical.”
It appears that there should be no debate that the military must be insulated from politics as prescribed in the Constitution. In other words, the AFP is expected to be apolitical.
What drove me to stand up for this discourse is a statement to the contrary which was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and attributed to Fr. Jose Romeo Intengan, SJ.
The article quoted Fr. Intengan as saying, “The problem of the AFP is lack of political knowledge. The military must be political, but it must not take political sides.”
In the spirit of the free market of ideas under which we live, this may be passed off as just another idea being offered to the public. Indeed we are free to express our own beliefs in any forum, even in media, as long as it is not in furtherance of crime or rebellion.
Many have expressed their ideas, some with value, some hare-brained, but most just fall into the category of personal opinion.
What is alarming with what Fr. Intengan stated is that it is being offered as a lecture / seminar to our soldiers in military camps. Under the guise of a national security seminar, the officers and men of the AFP are undergoing indoctrination into the ideology of the political party to which Fr. Intengan belongs to.
Lifting a quote from the Inquirer interview with Fr. Intengan, he said, “The military is prey to political patronage because of the whole climate of a dysfunctional liberal democracy. Our purpose is to see the military out of that system.”
He goes on to say that, “A decisive movement away from liberal democracy to social democracy” is needed.
These seminars, which have been conducted and are being conducted among members of the AFP even within the military camps are being presented as seminars on national security awareness and is endorsed by the National Security Adviser.
What is unclear is by what authority these seminars are being conducted among the members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. A reading of the materials being distributed undeniably proves that these seminars are political in nature. In fact, the quote of Fr. Intengan is crystal clear---they aim to politicize the AFP, with the objective of convincing them that social democracy is the way to go.
The National Security Adviser is not a part of the Chain of Command, therefore it cannot simply come in and conduct seminars for the Armed Forces. Authority and permission from the Secretary of National Defense and the AFP Chief of Staff is required before anyone can present to the members of the military, much more if political ideologies and concepts are involved.
One need only to go back during the time when the political opposition wanted to conduct dialogues with the men in uniform, in furtherance of their Constitutional mandate as elected representatives of the people and policy makers. Even they had to seek permission of the Defense Department and comply with rules and procedures governing such activities.
Back then, Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor said, “We are for that dialogue, but the Terms of Reference must be drafted first. The dialogue should not be used to promote their propaganda.”
Presidential spokesperson Sec. Ignacio Bunye even cited Gen. Senga’s Five-Point Guideline when he said, “This clearly delineates the role of the military as professional soldiers committed to the chain of command and the Constitution. This is a fitting reminder also to politicians and civil society who wish to entice our soldiers to engage in partisan politics.”
Obviously, the seminars being conducted are aimed at enticing the military to engage in partisan politics and a certain political ideology.
If members of Congress, who wished to conduct dialogues with the military, were required to comply with Terms of Reference to be imposed prior to meeting with the soldiers, what more Fr. Intengan of the Center for Strategic Studies?
About this we ask, does he have the express approval of the concerned authorities to conduct seminars and distribute reference materials of a clearly partisan political nature to the members of the Armed Forces? If so, what are the terms of reference? Is this a special treatment given to his particular political affiliation or can all parties now conduct their own seminars, in the interest of balance?
Because of only one ideology is peddled to our soldiers, it is no longer an awareness or educational campaign. It is purely indoctrination.
One of the booklets being distributed is entitled, “Armed Forces of the Philippines: Defender of the Nation, Guardian of Democracy, and Servant of the People”. I don’t think anyone here will disagree with the title. Indeed, the AFP has that role. But what is written inside the booklet?
For one, it demonizes politicians through sweeping general statements. Without citing specifics or references, the booklet presents politicians as conniving with forces out to bring down the state.
Allow me to read:
“The appalling situation of the Philippine political system is worsened by collusion of intimidated or opportunistic politicians, with anti-democratic forces of the extreme right but especially with the Marxist-Leninist extreme left. This collusion involves politicians in power or vying for power, from the level of barangay to that of national-level elected office. This collusion with the Marxist-Leninist extreme left is particularly widespread in the Reaffirmist groups such as the CPP, the NPA and the NDF. In the course of this collusion these politicians provide the CPP-NPA-NDF forces with votes for the latter’s candidates for national office (including party list candidacies) and local office, legal cover for their personnel, organizations and activities, and financial and logistical support such as firearms and ammunition, motor vehicles, rice and other foodstuff, medicine, communication equipment, audiovisual and printed campaign material, computers, office rental and the like.”
With sweeping statements such as these presented to the political virgins in the military, the image of politicians as in collusion with enemies of the state will easily come to their minds. Never mind if specific examples of such collusions backed up with hard evidence is presented. The propaganda will most likely seep into the psyche of the men in uniform, their innate bias against enemies of the state borne out of training being exploited to turn them against politicians in general.
Even the Lakas-NUCD, the party in power, has not been spared. The party started by former President Ramos is blamed by Fr. Intengan for the resurgence of the CPP-NPA-NDF:
“At the inception of the Ramos administration there were already effective and growing social democratic mass organizations that were competing with increasing success with Marxist-Leninist organizations for control or influence among various sectors of the population, especially among the basic masses (peasants and fisherfolk, urban and rural workers). The Ramos administration tried to put up its own network of Christian and Muslim Democrat mass organizations, and marginalized the social democratic mass organizations, instead of assisting them together with the Christian and Muslim Democrats, and encouraging them to cooperate. When the administration effort to build the Christian and Muslim Democrat mass organizations reaped scant success because of lack of sustained attention, effort, and funding, the resultant was a relative weakening of the broad democratic mass movement, leaving a vacuum that the CPP-NPA-NDF could fill once they recovered from their setbacks.”
Institutions of our democracy are not spared from being tainted by the paper being distributed to the military. Congress and the Comelec has likewise been dragged into the supposed strengthening of the CPP-NPA-NDF:
“..perhaps because of flaws in the formulation of the law, but certainly because of faulty implementation by the Commission on Elections, RA 7941, known for short as the Party List Law, became the entry point for membership in the House of Representatives of persons who militantly support the CPP-NPA-NDF.
This has come about in part because the COMELEC did not bother to consult and take seriously the findings of government intelligence agencies concerning suspicious groups among those applying for Comelec recognition as groups entitled to present candidacies in the party list elections.
From this failure of Comelec has resulted the strange but deadly phenomenon of CPP-NPA-NDF partisans or allies getting elected to public office using the threat of the actual use of physical violence by the NPA, and once elected, using government funds in the tens and millions of pesos each year to support the politico-military effort of the CPP-NPA-NDF.”
These statements erode the confidence of AFP in our democratic and Constitutional institutions, especially since it is made to appear that the problem that the AFP has to deal with is brought about by these institutions, in this particular case the Comelec.
This gets a bit more ticklish in that the Comelec is the institution tasked to manage the process of leadership and political change in the country. With the military having the force of arms, and the Messianic complex already permeating the ranks of the soldiers, losing faith in the Comelec and the electoral process is a dangerous prospect.
The paper practically tarnishes the images of other political parties and ideologies, and even those of the democratic institutions. Then it presents its own ideology as the savior of the country.
A direct quote from the paper reads:
“It is the firm conviction of the author of this paper that a decisive movement away from liberal democracy and toward social democracy is essential for the social revolution that Philippine society needs.”
Another quote:
“It is evident to the author of this paper that for satisfying the people’s hunger and slaking their thirst for justice and the common good, for peaceful, productive and meaningful lives in conditions of frugal comfort, the Philippines has to move toward social democracy.”
It is undeniable that these materials being presented to our soldiers in seminars conducted in the military camps are partisan and political in nature. The furtherance of a single ideology while vilifying others is plain indoctrination. These are acts violative of the Constitution which provides for an apolitical armed forces.
While discussions of these ideologies may have a place in a democracy, having a focused discussion among members of the military is courting our soldiers to cross the line from being neutral and non-partisan to taking political sides. It is absurd to think that our soldiers can be taught to be political yet not take sides.
The manner in which the seminar materials are written betrays its real intention, which is to recruit our soldiers to a particular political ideology.
These seminars, allegedly endorsed by the National Security Adviser, runs counter to what many government officials, from all sides of the political fence, the military, the academe, civil society, political analysts, media and ordinary citizen have accepted and believe in—that the AFP must be apolitical.
It is for this reason that I, as Vice-Chairman of the Committee on National Defense, call on the House of Representatives, through the Committee on national Defense, to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, into the conduct of these “national security awareness seminars” being conducted among our soldiers, to determine if these activities have the appropriate authority to be conducted, and find out if the contents of these seminars are in conjunction with established policies and direction of the national government, the defense department and the AFP.
It is hope that the House leadership takes cognizance of this concern and give it a priority since it appears that as are all naively telling each other that the AFP must be apolitical, a group is silently creeping and stealing the minds of the Defenders of the Nation, Guardians of Democracy and Servants of the People.
Thank you very much.

Secretary Avelino Cruz Sacrificed at the Altar of Politics

The untimely resignation of Secretary Avelino Cruz from the Department of National Defense portfolio will put into uncertainty the reform program which he effectively implemented in the DND-AFP, setting back the drive towards enhancing professionalism in the Armed Forces. It is one resignation that the administration will definitely hurt from, with the loss of a reliable adviser to the President and an effective head of an agency that is often at the forefront of controversy and difficult challenges.

Although at this point, people can only speculate the reasons behind the resignation, the recent statements of senior administration officials indicate that Secretary Cruz’s position regarding Charter Change appear to have earned the castigation by fellow cabinet officials, putting pressure on him to resign.

It is sad that in spite of having performed exceptionally as a Defense Department chief, Secretary Cruz is sacrificed at the altar of politics by his own colleagues in the administration.

This now puts into question if Secretary Cruz’s plans and efforts to insulate the military from politics will come into fruition. Will his departure from the department due to politics pave the way for politics to permeate the military come the 2007 elections?

Will it also pave the way for politicians who are lusting for the post of Secretary of National Defense to start jockeying for the position? What about the reforms that Secretary Cruz initiated? Will it be carried on by his successor?

These questions are being asked not just by the usual political observers and analysts. Most especially, it is being asked by the soldiers, who have been through a lot of intrigues and tugs of war in the intense political bickering that this country faced in the past year.

It is imperative that when President Arroyo chooses a replacement for Secretary Cruz, she will pick someone who has not been tainted by politics, one who does not have a political agenda and political baggage, and someone who has unquestionable credibility in the soldiers’ eyes and untarnished integrity.

An All-Nighter

Its exactly 11:52 PM on the Session Hall Clock. We are doing a marathon session in order to pass the budget of the National Government, starting from 10:00 AM this morning up to God knows what time.

SOme agencies have it easy, some don't. Others spend only less than two minutes on deck, others take hours. The questions range from the foolish to the extremely important. Some of the Congressmen are still wide awake, while some are dozing off in their seats. Some are in the lounge having coffee or snacks, while others are already at home snug in their beds.

It seeems that it will become another all-nighter, a session that goes from one day in the calendar to the next. This usually happens during the plenary debates for the budget, although the two recent impeachment proceedings beat the record for the longest sessions held. When I was a neophyte during my first term, I usually brought a stash of snacks during sessions like these, which I wholeheartedly shared with my seatmates.

Right now, the budget of the Ombudsman is being taken up, with the Minority Leader asking the sponsor to name the top five agencies with the most number of cases filed against them combined with public perception. According to the Ombudsman, the top agency is the Bureau of Customs, followed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, then (not in order) by the Department of Public Works and Highways, Bureau of Immigration and one other agency I failed to get (I'm typing this live as the debates are ongoing).

As we debate on what the government should spend on and how much it will spend, most people are now in a state of bliss in dreamland, not knowing that major decisions affecting their lives and even their futures are being made by tired, half-awake and (at least for a day) overworked men and women. One might wonder if the wisdom of the decisions are not sacrificed under these conditions which are not exactly ideal.

Some people say that they "sleep on a decision", meaning they make the decisions in the morning after, when they have taken a restful shut-eye, to make sure that their decisions are not rushed or flawed.

But in this case, we do have to make this decision in the middle of the night, for we go on recess tomorrow, and will not be back after two weeks. The National Budget has already been reenacted twice due to delays, and failure to act on this one again might cause another reenactment for 2007.

So, just as other important decisions that OCngress has made, most likely we will do it again like a thief in the night, under the coverness of darkness, while everyone is fast asleep.