Nothing happens – as in the case of President Noynoy Aquino and his spokesperson talking about the storm kicked up by the blasphemous caricatures passed off as art by the Cultural Center of the Philippines.

The female talking head in Malacañang said the President was keeping his distance from the controversy as he had nothing to do with it, that the Cultural Center was an independent entity, and that artists enjoyed freedom of expression.

Obviously, she had opened her mouth without first reading correctly the mind of her boss about the CCP exhibit of arty items that many Christians had found offensive, even “blasphemous” to some.

Her words were still ringing in our ears when the President said and did the opposite.

* * *

NOY REACTS: As the debate tinged with religion raged, the President told the CPP board, when he summoned them last Monday, to remove the offensive items from public view. He was quoted in the news saying:

“There’s no freedom that is absolute. There are limits to what you’re allowed to do. I made my position very clear to them, and I did stress the idea that you have rights, but if you trample upon the rights of others, I think there is something wrong there.”

On Tuesday, he also told reporters during his visit to the Malampaya Deep Water Gas-to-Power Project Onshore Gas Plant in Batangas that he reminded CCP officials that the Philippines is 85 percent Christian.

He added: “There was a depiction of Christ which is not acceptable to anyone and the CCP is funded by public money. It should be of service to the people, but when you insult the beliefs of most of the people, I don’t see where that is of service.

“Art is supposed to be ennobling and when you stoke conflict, that is not an ennobling activity.”

* * *

SEC DUMPS SOLGEN: What can a government agency like the Securities and Exchange Commission do when its default attorney, the Office of the Solicitor General, ignores its client’s position and files for it a contrary motion?

Well, the SEC was so shocked that it fired in effect the SolGen and fielded its own lawyers in the case before the Supreme Court on how to interpret “capital” in counting the shares held by foreigners in the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.

Using the long-held liberal interpretation that the term “capital” referred to both voting common and non-voting preferred shares, the SEC has recognized the foreign shares in PLDT as constituting no more than the 40-percent limit set by the Constitution.

* * *

CONTRARY STAND: The SEC was “shocked” by a manifestation filed on its behalf by the OSG admitting that its client, the country’s chief corporate regulator, has erred in its treatment and classification of foreign investments in the PLDT.

The SEC had not asked the OSG to make such an admission. But the OSG said its job was to protect the interests of the government as a whole, and that it could thus take a position different from that of a specific state agency.

Lawyers can argue that point from either direction. But from a layman’s standpoint, a lawyer is expected to take up the cudgels for his client. If he cannot, he should withdraw.

If a legal counsel compromises the interests of his client, it can reasonably be asked: For whom is he lawyering?

* * *

SOLGEN CLAIM BELIED: In a nine-page motion with the SC, the SEC said it has decided to use its own lawyers to represent it if only to erase confusion caused by the contrary view held by the OSG

The SC had ruled that the SEC neglected its duty to ensure that the ceiling for foreign “capital” in such companies as the PLDT be enforced.

When the SC directed the SEC to apply the definition of “capital” in its ruling on the case filed by Wilson Gamboa against Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, the Philippine Stock Exchange and PLDT chair Manuel Pangilinan, the SEC consulted OSG lawyers to thresh out its position.

Lawyers of the SEC sent briefs to the OSG and a draft manifestation and motion. The SEC was shocked, however, when it saw that the OSG submission to the SC deviated from its position.

The OSG told the SC that its client the SEC agreed with the definition of the term “capital” as laid down by the Court in the Gamboa case. The SC belied this.

* * *

UNILATERAL: When asked by the SEC for an explanation, Solicitor General Anselmo Cadiz said the statement as to the meaning of “capital” is entirely that of the OSG and not the SEC. He stood pat on his Office’s decision to follow the SC definition.

With that, the SEC en banc decided to represent itself and enter its special appearance apart from the OSG.

The SEC said it cannot be “bound by the OSG’s unilateral and unendorsed submission of the interpretation… insofar as it relates to the provisions of the Corporation Code, the Securities Regulation Code and other laws that the Commission is tasked to implement.”

It added: “Since the Commission is the administrative agency tasked with implementing the Corporation Code and the SRC, the OSG cannot represent a position on a very important issue, such as the meaning of the term ‘capital,’ as that of the Commission, without its prior approval.”

It noted that the SC has held that “a government adversely affected by the position taken by the Solicitor General, if it believes in the merit of its case, may appear in its own behalf through its legal personnel or representative.”