THE LATE Speaker Ramon Mitra once said he would not shave his beard so long as the Commission on Elections (Comelec) ?did not know how to count.?

Mitra was speaking during the time of the unlamented Marcos martial law regime.

If he were alive today, which hair in his body, apart from his beard, would Mitra not shave, given the mentality of the present crop of Comelec commissioners?

If the Comelec during the Marcos era didn?t know how to count, the present Comelec is worse: Most of the commissioners are simpletons.

Of course, not all of them are simpletons. The others ?
Chair Jose Melo, Commissioners Rene Sarmiento and Gregorio Larrazabal are, well, a bit bright.

* * *

Why are most of the Comelec commissioners simpletons?

Because they ruled that former presidential and wealthy scion Mikey Arroyo can represent security guards and tricycle drivers, but disqualified another rich businessman, Teodorico Haresco, from representing small entrepreneurs in the House of Representatives.

What?s the difference between Arroyo?s case and Haresco?s?

Money, tons of it, sometimes makes some people stupid.

* * *

If the Comelec ruled Arroyo, who?s worth millions of pesos and even dollars, can speak for security guards and tricycle drivers, why can?t former Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes represent the transport group 1-UTAK in the Lower House?

Haven?t these commissioners come across the saying, What?s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

Baka hindi sila marunong magbasa because they?re illiterate.

* * *

Sarmiento and Larrazabal, who dissented from the Comelec decision allowing Mikey Arroyo to become a party-list representative, said the ruling went against the ?spirit of the party-list law.?
|
Obviously, Election Commissioners Nicodemo Ferrer, Lucenito Tagle, Elias Yusoph and Armando Velasco don?t know the meaning of what their two colleagues said.

They probably equate ?spirit? used in that context with ?ghost.?

Holy ghost!

* * *

Chief Justice Renato Corona is not ordering an inquiry into accusations that some portions of materials in a decision by Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo were plagiarized.

Not just yet, anyway.

To plagiarize means to copy word for word the work of another author and present it as one?s own.

Lawyers Harry Roque and Romel Bagares said the high court?s unanimous ruling on Vinuya v Executive Secretary were lifted without attribution from the Yale Journal of International Law, the Western Reserve Journal of International Law and a portion of the book by the Cambridge University Press.

In fairness to Justice Del Castillo, he probably didn?t write the ruling but his ?ghost? writer.

Justices employ researchers and writers who do the work for them.

Del Castillo?s case is very similar to billionaire tycoon Manny Pangilinan who delivered a speech at the Ateneo de Manila University which, his critics said, was copied from the speech of another person.

Pangilinan resigned from an honorary position at the Ateneo in shame even if it was the fault of his speechwriter, not his.

Del Castillo should do a Pangilinan.

* * *

Lawyers Roque and Bagares are admirable because they dare to question the gods at Mt. Olympus.

They?ve probably prepared for the consequences of their action.