Hold your horses

Last Saturday, I received an email from Juliet Javellana, Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) associate publisher, informing me that my column, “Get Real” would be discontinued, citing that I am a board member of Rappler, “another news organization and therefore a direct competitor of the Inquirer,” and that I have encouraged my readers to read Rappler. I quote: “In light of the clear conflict of interest between your position as columnist of the Inquirer and your advocacy for Rappler and membership in its Board, we are serving notice that we shall discontinue your column, ‘Get Real’ effective July 1, 2022.”

This reasoning intrigues me. For when I was invited to join the Inquirer more than 20 years ago by Mrs. Marixi R. Prieto (then its publisher), I was a columnist for the Business World (BW), writing a twice-weekly column. That did not stop Mrs. Prieto, however, nor obviously Letty Magsanoc, its late editor in chief. They published my “Get Real” column on Saturdays, while my BW columns came out on Tuesdays and Thursdays. This arrangement lasted more than 10 years, until late 2010 or early 2011, when, for health reasons, I had to give up writing for BW.

Then, in 2018, when I accepted an invitation to join the board of Rappler, this was public knowledge. I consider it an honor, especially since it has been under siege by the Duterte administration—just as PDI was under siege by both the Duterte and Estrada administrations. The PDI case also merited my support and unstinting loyalty, as well as the support and loyalty of all who believe in the freedom and independence of the press. Thus, I saw Rappler as a comrade in arms to PDI and not a competitor. I assumed PDI management felt the same, since at no time from 2018 to the present did PDI management take issue with my involvement with, or advocacy of, Rappler’s cause.

By the way, I never wrote a column for Rappler and do not have any financial interest in it, other than one share of stock to qualify for a board membership.

So Reader, we may ask: Why the sudden volte-face by PDI? And why, after more than 20 years of working together, does PDI not think that I rate a face-to-face discussion or a Zoom chat or a telephone chat, instead of an impersonal email? This is how we handled difficulties before. To be sure, Yam, from the Opinion Desk, called to try to explain, but it was cold comfort.

Thank you for your faithful readership. Now, on to a more pressing issue: Everyone seems to assume that Ferdinand Marcos Jr. will be the next president. Hold your horses! It may be temporary. The Supreme Court still has to decide two cases against him: one, that he is not qualified to be a candidate, and another, that he is disqualified. A third case, still undecided by the Commission on Elections en banc (disclosure: my husband is a legal counsel for petitioners), also for disqualification, will end up with the high court as well. The Comelec division should have decided on this case within 45 days (by its own rules). It took more than 90 days. The en banc, in the same manner, should have given its decision by May 10. It is now June 18.

Don’t for a moment think, Reader, that the Supreme Court will just wash its hands off the cases, with a “vox populi, vox dei.” Why? Because in 2016, the high court reversed its previous rulings, and I quote, “Suffice it to state that NO SUCH PRESUMPTION EXISTS IN ANY STATUTE OR PROCEDURAL RULE. Besides, it is contrary to human experience that the electorate would have full knowledge of a public official’s misdeeds...”

What are the case arguments? Simply put, Marcos Jr. is not qualified to be president because he isn’t even a qualified voter (he was convicted), and he lied in his certificate of candidacy.

Marcos Jr. is disqualified because (1) he has committed a crime of moral turpitude by not filing his income tax returns for four years in a row, (2) he has been convicted of a crime for not filing nor paying his income taxes—his defense that, as a government official, the government already withholds his taxes only holds water when that is his only source of income. But, at 24, he was also chair of the Philcomsat board, with substantial honoraria/compensation.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the rule of law?