Alleba Politics

Today, April 22, is World Earth Day. Hopefully, even just for a day, we look at the world in which we live in, belong and depend on… and see that there is so much work to be done.

Environmental work goes beyond merely planting trees and picking up litter. Taking care of our planet Earth entails the conscious effort of being environment-friendly every day, every hour, minute, every second. Every decision or choice we make should be guided by our concern for our environment.

Small, basic, seemingly unimportant choices and actions can make a world of difference in the health of our environment. Cutting up six pack plastics can help save a dolphin or seal’s life. Not picking up that pretty coral in the beach can save hundreds of fish and other aquatic animals. Using recycled paper can save millions of trees. Turning off lights when not in use can save not only money but also energy sources.

Yes, there are a million different things each of us can change and do that can exponentially affect our planet. Hopefully, Earth Day this 2006 will come and go leaving a significant mark in every man’s mind, heart and hands. After all, we are all mere parts of this living planet. And if it dies and decays, so do we.

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that Executive Order 464 is essentially constitutional. The SC agrees with the EO is consistent with the separation of powers of the Executive and Legislative branches of the Philippine government as stipulated in the 1986 Constitution. Both the EO and the SC cite Article VI of the Constitution as the basis of the constitutionality of EO 464.

Sections 21 and 22 of Article VI are presented in the rationale of EO 464:

Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.

Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

According to the SC ruling, although EO 464 is in accordance with the above-stated articles, one of its provisions, is contrary to the constitution. Section 2b of EO 464 lists the executive officials covered by EO 464:

(b) Who are covered. – The following are covered by this executive order:

1. Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
2. Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege;
3. Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive privilege;
4. Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and
5. Such other officers as may be determined by the President.

According to the SC, this provision is unconstitutional as Article VI Section 22 of the Constitution only covers department heads. Thus, parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of EO 464 Section 2b are unconstitutional and therefore, invalid.

It is now up to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Although lesser officials are under the provisions of EO 464, the order is still potent enough to stall or railroad legislative work, specifically Senate hearings and more importantly, budget hearings. Yes, EO 464 is mostly constitutional and legitimate. But it doesn’t mean that its implementation is entirely ethical and good for the country.

Now that oil prices are going up, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has done the laudable move of pushing for alternative energy resources. Currently, the Philippines, as is most of the world, is highly dependent on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, fossil fuels are exhaustible, expensive and cause much pollution.

Fossil fuels are so popular simply because it is easiest to use and most are accustomed to it. Alternative energy sources have been suffering from bad publicity. Solar, wave and wind energy sources are perceived to be expensive and insuficient. Nuclear energy sources are feared to be dangerous. Biomass is yet untapped and underdeveloped for mass usage.

Personally, I do not push for the use of nuclear energy. However, I am for clean, renewable alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, wave and biomass. Our environment gives us virtually unlimited energy sources which are cheap and and very much accessible. If only we are not too lazy to explore these sources.

These alternative resources, if fully developed and PROPERLY utilized, can solve more than just the problem with rising oil prices. The use of these energy sources will certainly boost our economy, clean up our air and water, and lessen our dependence on the world economy.

We might be a bit late in realizing that we do need these energy sources. But I believe, that we are not too late YET. Now is the best time to fully explore the possibilities of these sources. Hopefully, current efforts will be sustained long enough for it to yield the very much needed results.

Last Easter Sunday, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo commuted the death sentence of more than 1,200 inmates. Their victims and the families of the victims were outraged. The inmates rejoiced.

I am outraged. It was an unfair and irrational decision.

On the one hand, I am against the death penalty. I believe that the penal system should be based on reform rather than punishment. Even criminals deserve a second chance.

However, the Philippine legislature has deemed it necessary to impose the death penalty for heinous crimes. And the legislation still seems to believe so. And I believe that it is the legislature’s job alone to abolish the death penalty.

Although Arroyo did not legally and technically abolish the death penalty, she effectively did. And it is unfair. It is unfair for the victims and their families who pinned their hopes on the death penalty. It is unfair to those yet seeking justice.

And yes, I do think that she did commute the death sentences to earn brownie points from the Catholic Church and other sectors.

If Arroyo does believe that the death penalty has no place in our society then she should have pursued a legislative agenda to abolish it.