Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Guimaras Oil Spill Map, Congressman Roilo Golez Blog

Congressman Roilo Golez, Author of the Creation of the P2 Billion Guimaras Oil Spill Abatement Fund

Congressman Roilo Golez, Author of the Creation of the P2 Billion Guimaras Oil Spill Abatement Fund

The House of Representatives approved last night the proposal of Congressman Roilo Golez to create a P2 Billion Guimaras Oil Spill Abatement Fund as part of the P46 Billion Supplemental Budget of the National Government. The fund will be allocated among the local government units of the affected areas, the Philippine Coast Guard and other relevant government agencies.
Cong. Roilo Golez, although from Paranaque City, is very concerned about the Guimaras Oil Spill. His father was from Dumangas, Iloilo, one of the threatened coastal towns. His grandfather was from Navalas in Guimaras. The Golezes were originally from Guimaras but transferred to Dumangas at the turn of the other century (1899-1900). Congressman Roilo Golez has many close relatives in Guimaras like Rudy Golez of Buenavista and niece Lally Golez Nava, wife of the Mayor of Jordan.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Paranaque City Congressman Roilo Golez (2d District) and Tricycle Drivers and Operators (TODA) Officials

Paranaque City Congressman Roilo Golez (2d District) and Tricycle Drivers and Operators (TODA) Officials

Congressman Roilo Golez (2d, Paranaque City) has maintained a very close relationship with tricycle drivers and operators through the various TODA officers. Golez helped in the organization of TODA Pilipinas, the national TODA umbrella association. he also meets regularly with the TODA officers of Paranaque City. He is shown in photo with TODA Federation officers of Paranaque during their latest meeting, together with City Councilor Rico Golez. Golez often recalls how, as a young graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, he would take a tricycle from the bus stop in Cavite City to his office in the Cavite Naval Station.


Paranaque City Congressman Roilo Golez (2nd District) Mobbed by Appreciative Students



Paranaque City Congressman Roilo Golez (2nd District) Mobbed by Appreciative Students

Congressman Roilo Golez (2d, Paranaque City) is shown in photo mobbed by very appreciative elementary school students aware of his record as having constructed the most number of school buildings in the history of the City. A public school graduate, Golez has given top priority to the upgrading of the city's education system.

RG photo

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Parañaque solon cited, Golez-Lagman Impeachment Debate

Parañaque solon cited, Golez-Lagman Impeachment Debate
Manila Bulletin, p. 14, 27 August 2006

The Concerned Citizens of Parañaque City (CCPC) lauded yesterday Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez for his surprising revelation when he clobbered veteran legislator Edcel Lagman in the latest impeachment bid against President Arroyo last Thursday after a marathon sleepless overnight session in the House of Representatives.
CCPC President Joey Alcantara noted that while Golez could cite from memory landmark impeachment cases like the Elpidio Quirino, Bill Clinton, and Richard Nixon cases, Lagman could only cite an obscure Supreme Court (SC) ruling on a certain "Pascual," an administrative officer in the province.
The CCPC said that Golez — who was a debater in the University of the Philippines which he represented several times in inter-collegiate debates — was able to corner Lagman with blistering questions in the President Quirino case which Lagman admitted he did not study well.
The CCPC noted that the Parañaque solon cited that in the Quirino case, all parties were allowed to present evidences, witnesses, including the appearance of Quirino’s brother, unlike in President Arroyo’s case where evidence and witnesses were suppressed.
After being cornered, Lagman refused to answer questions which is akin to throwing in the towel and a show of surrender, the CCPC concluded.

GUIMARAS OIL SPILL, HAZARDS TO HUMAN BEINGS OF AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS FROM THE OIL SPILL

GUIMARAS OIL SPILL, HAZARDS TO HUMAN BEINGS OF AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS FROM THE OIL SPILL

The government appears very slow in responding to the oil spill.
The Department of Health should have issued at the outset a public health statement on the serious health hazards to human beings of the oil spill. Exposure to the oil could result in inhalation or entering through the skin of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons especial benzene derivatives which could cause skin and lung cancer, birth defects and tumors, not just skin problems like dermatitis. This information has been released by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry, Division of Toxicology, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services based in Atlanta, U.S.A.

Roilo Golez in the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A. Class of 1970



Roilo Golez in the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.

Class of 1970

Friday, August 25, 2006

A Tale of Two Impeachments, Quirino and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

A TALE OF TWO IMPEACHMENTS, Quirino and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo:

Quirino Impeachment Proceedings (source, “The Memoirs” by Elpidio Quirino):
“The seven-man Committee created by the House to study and report on the impeachment resolution against President Elpidio Quirino was composed of Congressman Lorenzo Sumulong (L-Rizal) as Chairman, and Congressmen Marcos Calo (L-Agusan), Juan Borra (L-Iloilo), Domingo Veloso (L-Leyte), Toribio Perez (L-Albay), Cipriano Primicias (N-Pangasinan) and Felixberto Serrano (N-Batangas), as members. “
“There being no precedent to follow, Chairman Sumulong announced: ‘Without deciding on the actual merit of each case, the committee will first determine whether each charge is impeachable in character.’ Accordingly, he notified the President and his seven accusers to file their respective memoranda on April 13 and be ready to make their oral arguments on April 18.”
The 2006 Impeachment Proceedings:
No memoranda, no oral arguments.

Quirino Impeachment Proceedings:
Congressman Primicias of Pangasinan stated: “Propriety demands that no member of the House, much less the House leaders, should beg favors from the President or go into conference with him since the President is on trial and we might be called upon to prosecute him.”

The 2006 Impeachment Proceedings:
No comments.

Quirino Impeachment Proceedings:
Congressmen Agripino Escareal (L-Samar) and Juan Perez (L-Leyte), for the proponents, argued that: 1)wasting and misappropriation of public funds, 2) abuse of power, violation of laws, and immoral extravagance, 3) intervention prejudicial to the public interest in the transaction wherein his brother Antonio was in connivance with a Russian subject, 4) aiding and abetting graft and corruption, and 5) gross official misconduct and acts which deprived the government of substantial revenue, each constituted and impeachable offense.

The 2006 Impeachment Proceedings:
Did not allow Case by case, cause of action by cause of action arguments.

Quirino Impeachment Proceedings:
The committee, dominated 5-2 by the President’s party, rejected the motion of Solicitor General Felix Angelo Bautista to quash the charges.

The 2006 Impeachment Proceedings:
Efforts to quash came from majority members of the committee.

Quirino Impeachment Proceedings:
The committee, to set to stage for a general examination of the merit of each charge, decided to hold a three-day public hearing for the receipt of testimony or evidence from both parties.

The 2006 Impeachment Proceedings:
No public hearing for the receipt of testimony or evidence from both parties. Testimony or presentation of evidence suppressed.

Quirino Impeachment Proceedings:
Both parties were further advised to submit stipulations of facts on which they were agreed, leaving those charges on which they could not agree for the committee to make an appropriate appraisal of them at the proper time by calling for testimony and evidence. On this basis, the committee quickly resolved the problem of separating the facts from the allegations in order to proceed immediately into the examination of each charge.

The 2006 Impeachment Proceedings:
No stipulation of facts. No attempt to jointly separate the facts from the allegations. No examination of each charge.

Quirino Impeachment Proceedings:
The committee called to testify a number of private citizens, the National Treasurer, officials of various corporations, the President’s brother Judge Antonio Quirino, the Collector of Customs, various officials in charge of government properties, etc.

2006 Impeachment Proceeding:
Witnesses, complainants and counsels barred.

Quirino Impeachment Proceeding:
After closing the public hearings, the committee announced that it would meet to sift all the evidence presented. Both counsels for the respondents and the complainants were asked to submit memorandums on their respective evidence.

2006 Impeachment Proceeding:
Seven boxes of evidence suppressed.

Quirino Impeachment Proceeding:
The committee voted as follows: Charges 5, 4 and 3, all voted unanimously that the charges were groundless; Charge 2, six voted not impeachable, 1 voted aggravated circumstances; and Charge 1, five voted not impeachable, 2 voted for impeachment.

2006 Impeachment Proceeding:
The committee voted lump-sum, complaint insufficient in substance, 56-24.

Quirino Impeachment Proceeding:
The House disposed of the impeachment resolution in 24 days.

2006 Impeachment Proceeding:
The committee disposed of impeachment complaint in 9 days.

Golez Explanation of Impeachment Vote. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

IMPEACHMENT, Golez EXPLANATION OF VOTE . Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
ROILO GOLEZ 5:15AM 24 August 2006



Mr. Speaker:

A cloud of cheating has descended upon the nation. T’is a season of calamities.

Cheating in the 2004 elections, in the nursing board exams. Cheating the farmers in their fair share of fertilizer.

Southern Leyte calamity. Rapurapu. Mayon. Lebanon. Guimaras.

Shame, tears, anguish everywhere!

Depending on how we dispose of this committee report, we could end up cheating the public of their right to know the truth. And that, esteemed colleagues, could become the calamity of calamities.

We in the minority have shown that the practice of impeachment mandates the impeachment committee to review evidence presented by complainants, conduct fact-finding and investigate and gather evidence. Our committee on justice did not do those.

It is common practice in impeachment proceedings to discuss and argue causes of action separately, so that members can intelligently evaluate and assess each cause of action. Instead, the causes of action were lumped as one, thus muddling the discussion and suppressing vital facts and issues.

The most central issue—cheating in the 2004 elections—was surgically removed citing a vague case to justify the proposition that offenses that happened before the current term of the respondent are not impeachable.

Yes, ti's a season of calamities. A cloud of cheating is engulfing us. Malacañang is deafeningly silent about the nursing board exams scandal. Why?

Whether those forces—cheating and calamity—will be joined depends on us.

Let me quote and paraphrase someone wiser than I, from another time, another century:

“We owe it to the country to ascertain if the public trust has indeed been violated by our sitting president and at the same time we owe it to the cause of justice and the once exalted office of the presidency to exonerate the chief executive if the accusations are erroneous and invalid. Let the process of the rule of law move forward.

“Many express doubt that Congress will act appropriately. If that turns out to be the case and this episode in our nation’s history is swept under the rug then this will serve as another humble notation for history on a congress accused of lacking the political will and a nation accused as well of lacking the moral fortitude to move forward in the pursuit of truth and justice.

“Nevertheless, it must be said that going through this painful trial may be needed not only for the taming of corruption in the highest places within our government, but perhaps even more importantly, to force our government to return to the wisdom of our forebears and limitations of power enumerated in our constitution. Yes, this constitutional trial by fire may be what is needed for the utter purification of our nation, mired as it is in the political and moral decadence of our times.”

I vote no.

Thank you.