What I like about this government is that Filipino intelligence officers are the worst blabbermouths within the State’s security agencies. While intelligence officers in other countries behave discretely with full cloak and dagger secrecy, Filipino intelligence officers go to the media, hold a full press conference, and announce to the whole world unverified raw intelligence information about alleged assassination attempts against Mrs. Arroyo.

What really makes this “intelligence” report incredible is that a security guard saw the incriminating document just lying around somewhere. He picked it up, then turned over to the police.

I’m indignant! How careless can those assassination plotters get? With all the clandestine trainings and technology in their hands, how can Al-Qaeda/Jemaah Islamiyah be so careless as to leave such an incriminating note where ordinary people can stumble upon them? Why can’t they follow their other units who blew up the twin towers? Yes, I’m talking of that Al-Qaeda unit who successfully blew up the World Trade Center during 9/11, which the US government, with its most sophisticated intelligence gathering techniques, was unable to stop.

Maybe our intelligence community is made up of stuff these US intelligence agents lack – a more hyperactive imagination. It is as if our Presidential Security Group, by the grace of Bert Gonzalez or whoever is the official security spinner, stumbled upon an incriminating document as if it fell from heaven (or from an “intelligence” agent’s hyperactive mind). Simply fantastic!

To our intelligence officers in the Armed Forces, Presidential Security Group, Philippine National Police, and the National Security Agency, please don’t insult our intelligence. We can see through the lies, you know. If you can concoct a better scenario to divert our attention from the scandals of billion-dollar corruption involving the President and her family, please do so. Hire people with better imagination, please!

Perhaps one of the more difficult tasks at hand is the part where people sit together, find solutions, and think of the next steps to address the problem. This is the challenge foisted upon us, now that cases of grand corruption in the highest levels of governments have been exposed for the whole public to see, thanks to Jun Lozada.

Having said that, let’s imagine for a while what kind of country we want for our children. A government free of corruption? A country ruled by law and not by men? A society of equal opportunities for all regardless of political creed and economic background? A citizenry empowered to take part in their government’s decision-making processes? A government that is afraid of the wrath of its people, and therefore accountable to its principals?

Filipinos once had a dream: the dream of a better country for Filipinos by Filipinos. The youngsters who organized the Katipunan in 1892 dreamt of a country free from the clutches of colonial powers. The students who led the First Quarter Storm in 1970 dreamt of a country free from the tyranny of authoritarian rule. The young people who flocked to EDSA in 2001 dreamt of a country free from the excesses of their President.

Spanning more than a hundred years, we are still in the rut where we found ourselves at the beginning of our nationhood.

The dreams of the nation must be put into fruition. The unfinished work of the Katipunan, the FQS, and the EDSA babies must finally come into reality.

What’s more, the dream of a better Philippines should not be left in the hands of a few people. It should come from all of us. It is not for a former President, senators, congressmen, governors, mayors, and other Palace lackeys to tell the Filipino people that change should not happen because there is no better alternative than the one we have right now.

Let’s imagine a better Philippines.

Senator Bong Revilla gave his astute remarks on the ongoing Senate inquiries on the ZTE-NBN contract. He was quoted in the Philippine Daily Inquirer as saying –

“Alam naman natin kung sino ang nagsasabi ng totoo…Wala namang pakinabang ang maliliit na mamamayan dito [We now know who is speaking the truth and not…Ordinary citizens have no use of this inquiry].”

I give up then. Pray tell, Mr. Senator, who’s speaking the truth among them?

I can even forgive Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago and Senator Joker Arroyo for their shameless but knowledgeable defense of their patron in the Palace. But for a person who spends more time in movie tapings rather than on the floor, the suggestion is a shameless display of ignorance on the powers of the Senate and its objective in conducting this particular inquiry.

Mr. Senator, just so you know, the Senate inquiry is a tool used by a co-equal branch of government to check and balance the perceive abuse and misuse of power by the other branches of government. The inquiry, in aid of legislation, is a tool of Congress’s oversight function on the implementation of laws.

If you can’t talk common sense, it’s better to shut up than get caught talking nonsense.

What’s problematic in our government is the imbalance in the distribution of real powers among the supposedly three independent branches of one government.

In this country, we have a powerful Executive represented by one elected official – the President. Then we have a toady Congress supposedly directly representing the people – 24 directly elected Senators, and some 200 directly elected members of the House of Representatives.

The tilt of balance is unfairly titled in favor of the President, making the whole government system, including Congress and the Supreme Court, her own fiefdoms. No wonder she can easily ignore summons from purported co-equal branches and dismiss legislative inquiries in such a cavalier fashion.

What is the role of Congress in a democracy?

Democracy can be both direct and representative. On the one hand, direct democracy happens when the people have complete control of their government, and can directly take part in decision-making processes. This includes elections, direct petitions, initiatives, and other forms.

On the other hand, the framework of a representative democracy is the establishment of a Congress that is directly accountable to the people.

What this country has is both direct and representative democracy. But let us focus our attention now on representative democracy, with Congress as the expression of that ideal. In theory, Congress, as an agent of the people, must have the necessary powers to carry out the task of protecting the people’s interest. And this power includes the power of Congress, acting in the name of the people they represent, to scrutinize policies of the Executive through legislative inquiries.

Congress, as agents of the Sovereign, may require any technocrat or executive official serving under the pleasure of the President – the sole elected official in the Executive Branch – to attend congressional inquiries as part of its oversight functions.

Congress, by virtue of its power of the purse, has the power of oversight in the implementation of laws because theoretically, implementation of laws and policies by both the Executive and the Judiciary requires the expenditure of public funds which is within the purview of Congressional oversight over expenditure of public monies.

This is my take on congressional inquiries in aid of legislation: such inquiries do not necessarily result in new laws. We can view these legislative inquests as part of the continuing power of Congress over existing legislation – a particular legislation is already existing, and as a component of that legislation, Congress can conduct inquiries as part of its oversight functions in the implementation of the law.

The power of Congressional oversight is also a direct result of the constitutional precept of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Congress, as agent of the Sovereign, serves as the counter-balance against a potentially powerful and often abusive President.

But what if Congress is subservient to the President, as what we have right now, acting more like a presidential lapdog rather than a guard dog. How then can it protect the people’s interest and perform its role as a fiscalizer?

When his allies turned their backs on him at the moment of need, I could imagine Pangasinan Representative Jose de Venecia saying, “Et tu [And you too]?”

What did the Joe’s fall from grace say about Philippine politics?

It just proved once more, that platforms and programs matter little in political parties. What matters most is the color of money, the wads of bills inside your pockets, and the person who can dispense the most money. Where the money is, that’s where their hearts are.

It just proved once more, that there is no honor among thieves. These barong-clad thugs masquerading as the “people’s representatives” will stop at nothing to remove anything and anyone blocking their paths to the pork.

It just proved once more, that in Philippine politics, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies; only permanent interests. Unfortunately, it is these thugs’ narrow interests that matter, not the national interest.

It just proved once more, that words are cheap, and anyone can dispense them almost freely. Tatlo singko (three pieces at five cents – a bargain!) as how Filipinos quip. People will say everything, even quote the Bible and swear on their dead mothers’ graves, to justify a point even to a fault. They will use high-sounding words like “reform”, “change”, “moral revolution”, and “transparency” as smokescreen for their lies and malicious intentions.

It just proved once more, the constitutional myth of one government with three independent branches is just that, a myth. There is only one branch – the President – with the Legislature and the Judiciary as her fiefdoms. Fortunately, the Supreme Court is starting to flex its muscles and prove its independence from the two branches. Unfortunately, Congress remains to be a footstool, if not a toady, of Malacañang. The moment Congress surrendered its power of the purse to the President is the moment it became Mrs. Arroyo’s rubberstamp.

Brutus justified killing Julius Caesar by saying, “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” In the case of Joe’s political assassination, the “representatives” justified their acts by implying, “Not that I loved my benefactor less, but that I loved myself and my pork more.”