Presidency = Money, Machinery, Manpower, Message, Messenger, Management

I will be voting in two presidential elections in 2016 – one for President of the United States of America, and the other for President of the Philippines. This is resulting from my being a dual citizen.

I was also lucky to have had the opportunity to participate in several presidential and senatorial election campaigns in both countries.

It should be safe to say that I was also a keen observer of how national candidates could win in elections in either country.
 As I have explained in my previous columns, to be competitive in presidential elections, one must have what I call the M’s – Money (material resources); Machinery (organization up to the precinct level); Manpower (volunteers and paid employees); Message (Theme, PR, Ads, promotions); Management (Planning, Leading, Organizing and Controlling); and Messenger (credentialed candidate carrying the 4 Hs – Honesty, Hope, Honor, Humility).

In the United States, there are now 33 Republican (17 serious) declared presidential candidates. Four more are expected to announce their candidacies very soon. In the Democratic Party, there are 17 (4 serious) declared and exploratory candidates.

Which one survives in their respective primaries is very dependent upon how he or she can efficiently and effectively acquire, manage, and utilize the above-mentioned M’s to deliver the message and to obtain and deliver the votes.

In a capitalist democracy like the United States, there has been a lot of emphasis on the raising and spending of Money. This is especially after the SCOTUS ruling that

“Political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it was done independently of a party or candidate.”

This is one big reason that, of all the Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is predicted to be the party’s nominee. Just look at this report: “Among Democrats, Clinton’s lead is colossal. She had 72 percent of Democratic millionaires, and a sizable 23 percent of independent millionaires and 5 percent of Republican millionaires.”


In fact, Clinton is the top pick among 31 percent of millionaires followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with 18 percent.

That’s just counting the millionaires. How about Clinton’s support among the billionaires?

In an interview, Warren Buffet, the third richest man in the world said, “I would bet even money that Clinton would win the presidency in 2016.”

Let me mention a few of the billionaires supporting Clinton: Alice Walton of Wal-Mart, George (father) and Jonathan (son) Soros, Laura Ricketts (owner of Chicago Cubs), Tom Steyer (The Green Billionaire), Steve Mostyn and Amber Anderson Mostyn, Tim Gill, Sean Parker (Tech investor), Alida Messinger (youngest daughter of John D. Rockefeller, Haim Saban (Entertainment Executive), Pat Stryker (Philanthropist), Nick Hanauer (Venture capitalist), S. Donald Sussman (newspaper owner), Jeffrey Katzenberg (CEO, Dream Works Animation).

The Republican candidates also have their group of millionaire and billionaire supporters led by the Koch brothers.

In the Philippines, the same type of financial supporters are expected but on a lesser degree.

In the 2010 presidential elections, it was to have been a battle of monetary resources. NP candidate Senator Manny Villar, a self-made billionaire, poured the required resources. LP candidate Noynoy Aquino had Cojuangco family support led by billionaire Tony Boy Cojuangco, the business community led by Cesar Purisima and of course, the Yellow group matched Villar’s resources. Erap Estrada still had his loyal financiers. Lakas-CMD candidate Gilbert Teodoro was banking on the substantial support from then President GMA. It never came.

Of course, the other M’s also played major roles in the eventual victory of Noynoy.

For the 2016 Presidential elections, the only declared candidate so far is VP Jojo Binay. The assumption is that he has been preparing for it and has amassed an amount sufficient to mount an effective campaign. The freezing of his and his alleged dummies’ bank accounts could reduce his campaign pot substantially. My barber suspects that “dirty” money from the “Lords” might find their way Into the campaign.

Of all the other potential candidates, Mar Roxas is the only person I know who can launch a very effective and efficient campaign because he has personal and family (Roxas-Araneta) resources, funding from friends, and business colleagues. The LP resources would increase it substantially. A PNoy endorsement would raise it exponentially.

The survey that could help would be that taken a few days before the elections. The only reliable one is the actual election. Until then, the battle is about delivering the Message by the right Messenger, and moving the Machinery and the Manpower to deliver and protect the votes by efficient and effective Management.

Unfortunately, it takes MONEY.

Residential POElitics

 In one of my previous blogs, “POElitics of Statelessness” I wrote dismissively,

“I do not think that she (Poe) would have a real problem defending her 10-year residency. The doctrine of “Animus revertendi” and jurisprudence provide sufficient evidence to support the Philippines as her “domicile” or legal residence for at least 10 years. Furthermore, there are sufficient factual circumstances showing that she actually resided – not just intended to return for a longer period.”

This was after studying the relevant law and jurisprudence involving residency requirements for Philippine national officials. Many legal luminaries like former Supreme Court Chief Justice Art Panganiban, former COMELEC Chairman Sixto Brillantes, Ateneo School of Government Dean Antonio la Vina, noted election law practitioner Romulo Makalintal and legal writer Mel Sta. Maria have very compelling and convincing similar views.

Surprisingly, a great number of law experts take the opposite view siding with UNA spokesman Toby Tiongko who first publicly claimed that Senator Poe is disqualified from being a candidate for President of the Philippines because she lacks the required 10-year residency. Among these law experts are former UP Law Dean Pacifico Agabin, former UE Law Dean Amado Valdez, IBP National President Vicente Joyas, and famous international lawyer Harry Roque.

Upon hearing my views and those of the law experts I discussed, my barber readily took my side. In fact, he wanted me to simplify it so he would be able to explain the same at the barbershop.

Section 2, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides, “No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.”

“Election” in this case is Monday, May 9, 2016.  “Immediately preceding” is May 8, 2016. “At least ten years” means it can be eleven, fifteen, twenty or any number above ten years. “Resident of the Philippines” means legally residing (not necessarily physical) or domiciled  in the Philippines.

All together it means that on May 8, 2016, Senator Grace Poe must have legally resided for a total of at least ten years in the Philippines. Contrary to the understanding of those who want her disqualified, the 10-year residency requirement DOES NOT mean “ten (10) continuous period of residence in the Philippines.” All Poe has to show is that the Philippines was her domicile for at least ten years.

If it meant a “continuous period of residence for at least ten (10) years”, it should have provided it. Like in the case of Section 2 of the Philippine Revised Naturalization Law, it provided that a foreigner applying for Philippine citizenship must meet among others the following qualifications: “He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten (10) years.”

For Filipinos who followed the path to U.S. citizenship, they must be familiar with the requirement that under U.S. Immigration Law, the applicant “Has resided continuously within the United States, as defined under Subsection 316.5, for at least 5 years after having been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”

(Revised 2/3/95; 60 FR 6647)

Has Senator Grace Poe legally resided in the Philippines for at least ten (10) years? The answer is obviously YES!

The facts cannot be denied. She was born in Jaro, Iloilo on September 3, 1968. Qualified for admission due to age, she was enrolled at St. Paul’s College and spent at least six (6) years there. Then she moved to Assumption College in San Lorenzo, Makati finishing her high school in four (4) years. For college, she spent two (2) years at the University of the Philippines before moving to Boston College in Massachusetts, USA where she completed her college degree in 1991.

After getting married later on, she and her family resided in Fairfax, Virginia which is not too far from where I currently live. Working as a teacher in a Montessori school for three (3) years (1995-1998) and at a U.S. Geological company for another 3-4 years, she went back to the Philippines in 2003 to help in the presidential campaign of her father, Fernando Poe, Jr. She returned to the United States after the elections to join her family, only to go back to the Philippines in December 2004 due to her father’s death.  



Returning to Fairfax, Virginia after FPJ’s funeral, Grace Poe and Neil Llamanzares decided to pack up, sell their house, and re-establish the Philippines as their physical residence. Once in the country, she assumed her position as Vice President/Treasurer of FPJ productions in charge of the more than 200 movies of her father in the archives. She registered as a voter and became politically active helping causes that FPJ was fighting for. She also renounced her allegiance to and citizenship of the United States and accepted the position of Chairman of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) in 2010. In the Senatorial elections of 2013, she ran under PNoy’s “Tuwid na Daan” banner and obtained the highest number of votes. Now the surveys are showing that she is the preferred successor of PNoy.

An analysis of the facts stated above and the wonders of Arithmetic show, that if Senator Poe decides to run for President or Vice President on May 9, 2016, she would more than fulfill the residency requirement of least ten (10) years.

Her critics make a big deal of what she put in her Certificate of Candidacy filed in October 2012 for the 2013 Senatorial elections. The truth is, the Supreme Court in a similar case cited by the above-mentioned legal luminaries stated:

“It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitution’s residency qualification requirement.”



Furthermore, as discussed above, what the law contemplates is not whether a candidate has continuously resided for ten (10) years but whether he or she has resided for at least ten (10) years immediately preceding the election.

SCOTUS: Liberal or Conservative?

(Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States - Roberts Court (2010-) - The Oyez Project)

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has been the center of attention most recently.  This is because of its rulings that affect the lives of a substantial number of Americans currently and certainly, in the future.

First, was the Supreme Court ruling (6-3) that subsidies are legal, thus–allowing the IRS to issue subsidies on behalf of those who bought a healthcare plan through HealthcareCare.gov after the plaintiffs in King V. Burwell lost their challenge.

Second, was the decision (5-4) on Same Sex Marriage that allowed gay couples to get married legally anywhere nationwide.

Third, was the Supreme Court ruling (5-4) that made the Fair Housing Act effective by “allowing plaintiffs to challenge government or private policies that have discriminatory effect, without having to show evidence of intentional discrimination.”

Fourth, was the Supreme Court decision (7-2) refusing to consider letting states require evidence of citizenship when people register to vote for federal elections. The ruling rejected an appeal from Arizona and Kansas.

These Supreme Court rulings are considered victories for the Obama Administration and could affect the 2016 Presidential elections. The beneficiaries of these decisions favor the natural constituencies of the Democratic Party.

Does this mean that the current composition of the Supreme Court is becoming "liberal” in their views?

Tom Goldstein, an appellate advocate and best known as one of the nation’s most experienced Supreme Court practitioners, made an analysis of the cases decided by the Supreme Court during this Term.

Like me, he believes that numbers tell better stories. He identifies four Justices as sitting to the Court’s LEFT: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. He considers four Justices as sitting to the Court’s RIGHT: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.  He treats Justice Anthony Kennedy as the Court’s “CENTER.”

Goldstein counted 26 cases this Term that were both close (5-4 or 6-3) and ideological. Of the 26, the LEFT prevailed in 19 while the RIGHT prevailed in 7.

He analyzes it further, “In the 26, a Justice on the LEFT voted with the RIGHT a total of 3 times.  In 2 cases, those votes determined the outcome and produced a more conservative result, because Justice Kennedy or one of the conservatives voted for the more liberal result.

In the 26, a Justice on the RIGHT voted with the LEFT 14 times.  In 6 cases, those votes determined the outcome and produced a more liberal result, because Justice Kennedy voted for the more conservative result.”

Of the 10 cases that Goldstein considers most significant, the LEFT prevailed in 8 while the RIGHT prevailed in 2.

“In the 10, no Justice on the LEFT voted with the RIGHT; the four Justices on the LEFT voted together in every one of those cases.  A Justice on the RIGHT voted with the LEFT 4 times.  Those votes determined the outcome in 2 cases, because Justice Kennedy voted for the more conservative result.”

Using this factual analysis of the famous Supreme Court practitioner, you would think that the highest tribunal is going “liberal”. The truth is, the close decisions where the “liberals” prevailed were decided with the help of Conservatives such as Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. The former was a Bush appointee while President Reagan appointed Kennedy.

Unlike in other jurisdictions where Supreme Court Justices are mandated to retire at a certain age, the Justices in the United States are given lifetime tenure.  While each one may have been chosen for his or her credentials either as conservative or liberal, he or she is still expected to fulfill his or her duties with fairness and justice.

The Confederate Flag: Symbol of History or Hatred?

There is no doubt that one’s national flag is a great and strong symbol for the country in both times of peace and in times of war. Patriotic citizens fight and die for it. As stated in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance: 

            “I pledge allegiance to the FLAG of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands – One Nation under God, Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for All.”

The Southerners who joined the secessionist movement in order to form the Confederate States of America pledged a similar allegiance not just to the FLAG but also to the Confederacy and its ideals – thus, precipitating the American Civil War. These ideals and causes that many of the Southerners fought and died for are reflected in the Confederate Constitution.

For this week’s column I decided to read and focus on the specific provisions of the Confederate Constitution on Slavery just to put it in historical context.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 provides, “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves.”

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states, “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 provides, “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 states, “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

These slavery provisions are self-explanatory. They did not, do not, and should never have any place in the Constitution of any civilized, free, human, and democratic republic. No wonder the Confederate Constitution was described as the fundamental document that led to the founding of the “slaveholders’ republic”.

The Confederate Flag symbolizes these slavery provisions generating the false and extreme belief of white supremacy and racism – thus, evoking unnecessary and almost uncontrollable hatred.

Many of us thought that, in this day and age, racism and violence are long gone. Apparently, we are wrong. For as long as there are Confederate Flags in poles flying up high in the State Capitols or other government buildings, the memory of Whites owning and lording over Blacks as slaves will never be put behind us. It is a sad and grim reminder of a cruel past.

In the same period of the Civil War, dedicated soldiers were fighting and dying for the Flag of the United States of America and the U.S. Constitution.  While the leaders of the Confederacy were advocating to retain their rights to own, sell, acquire, trade, and auction Negros as slaves, U.S. President Lincoln reflected the abolitionist line in his Gettysburg Address:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

In Gettysburg where Lincoln spoke, were dead Confederate soldiers who fought bravely not necessarily to retain ownership of slaves but more for “Southern Pride”. We should not take anything away from them and their descendants who honor them.

But the Confederate Flag as a racist symbol must go!

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called for its removal from the state capitol in the wake of the racially charged killings. Democratic Presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton who had called for the removal eight years ago praised the Governor and other SC officials for making the same call now.

Republican Presidential frontrunner Jeb Bush agrees with the proposed removal as he had done in Florida. He removed it from the Capitol and moved it to the museum when he was governor. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Ohio Governor John Kasich support the move of SC Governor Haley. So does Senator Rand Paul.

Other Republican presidential candidates such as Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum have no clear stand on the issue. The other Democratic presidential candidates such as Senator Bernie Sanders and former Governor Martin O’Malley are for the removal.

When I told my barber that the Confederate Constitution declared that the right of the Whites to own, sell, buy, trade, and/or auction slaves should not be impaired, he wondered what would have happened if the confederates won the Civil War?

Hearing that we would have to follow the provisions of the Confederate Constitution, he followed with these questions, “In the NBA, how much do you think would LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, Dwayne Wade, Stephen Curry and Andre Iguodala go for? Would they be worth more or less?

Take it from my barber!