If there's one thing about this whole mess called Gloriagate has done for me, its allowed me to view my world in an entirely different light.
I've always mantained that what made People Power II different from the May 1 Mayhem was intent, and the people behind it. At that time, who could fault the intentions and probity of the leaders of the so-called "Middle Forces," the men and women we young guns looked up to?
When the Garci tapes took an... unusual twist on 8 July 2005, I think what happened put me into a certain type of crisis. Mostly, this was caused by the sudden shift by people I considered my paragons.
Another very important reason - especially to a Mentat - was the process involved. As a "moderate," I was brought up and trained to believe that the ends can never justify the means. Isn't that one of our major complaints against the Left and Right? All for the Revolution. All for the State (or for Persons in Authority).
Moderates - indeed, Liberals, the ones who hold the Center - pride themselves in an almost-fanatic adherence to processes, because these allow for the best expression of democratic decision-making. Processes have to exist and have to be equitable so that justice can be served and tyranny - whether of the majority or the minority - can be avoided.
The best example for me was the way the LP came up with the decision to support GMA's 2004 candidacy. All five major candidates were given a chance to convince the LP (and, haha, I think it was Ping Lacson who came in second; I have to look into that). I'm sure not everyone was happy with the result, but how can you challenge something that went through a process that not only had protocols approved by everybody but also allowed everybody to speak their mind? In the end, despite the stigma attached (even then) to the Gloria name, the LP had no difficulty defending its decision, and even came out on top of the other political forces.
This... conundrum faced by the Party has, essentially, ripped away much of the veil that idealism had on me with regard to those I considered our seniors in the Moderates. No matter their credentials, no matter how much respect I had for them, it still pales to the fact that they lied in order to get a result they wanted.
Perhaps if they had sat down with us and explained why not only was the Truth bent for their purposes but also why dissent and an honest attempt to come to the truth of the matter were suppressed. Perhaps I could understand. For no matter what their pronouncements were from July 8, it could not remove from my mind and heart the shadow of great doubt stemming from personal knowledge that, at least on the LP side of the incident, July 8 had been rigged. And that rather than face the consequences of their action, or at least provide an expalanation to the rest of their compatriots in the Party, we who stood against the few that obviously hijacked the Party on July 8 were run around in circles or otherwise suppressed.
But what struck me most is the... posturing. The insistence in something that is essentially an opinion - if not an outright lie, in the case of the LP - as truth. The truth. The part of me that was Trained by Moderates could not stomach, much less reconcile, the fact that these people defending the Drilon act of July 8 knew the truth yet not only refused to set things right but suppressed all attempts at correcting a misperception.
It was as if, suddenly, just because one thinks the cause is right - i.e. the ouster of Gloria based on tapes whose veracity has not been fully certified - all actions done for that cause is right.
If the person doing the act was a Leftist or a Rightist, I probably would not have a problem. But since these people claim to be "moderates," liberals and democrats even, then I think there is a problem there somewhere.
It was as if, like many of those holier-than-thou pastoral councils and religious groups. being righteous was an excuse to do away with things that do not subscribe to one's point of view.
I was told about what occured during the recent CALD conference in Cambodia. Jan Tolentino, KALIPI secgen and YLDA chair for membership, was asked by the latter org to attend for it, as YLDA was petitioning for membership in CALD and none of the other execom were available. Incidentally, LP DG Eli Quinto asked if Jan could bring SolGen Ed Nachura's letter to CALD's member-parties, asking that, if the alliance would not recognize the leadership elected by the Party's majority last March 2, CALD could at least temporarily give the chairmanship to another member-Party (the LP is this year's chair for CALD) pending the resolution of the petition filed by Drilon at the COMELEC. Jan gave the letters to the hotel's concierge for delivery to the addresse's rooms and never talked about it in the conference's sessions.
The next day, the five Drilon-affiliated LP congressmen gave him a thorough dressing-down. Jan claims that the more he explained, the more the congressmen raised their voices so he decided to shut up and take it all in stride.
Later on, CALD Exec. Dir. John Coronel and the representative for the host Sam Rainsy Party, told Jan that he should "voluntarily" withdraw from the conference or YLDA will be sanctioned. Jan left without a second thought.
There is a fact sheet circulating claiming that the actions against Jan were done because he had embarassed the LP delegation and was spreading black propaganda during the conference. I find these claims absurd because (1) the issue was not discussed by Jan in the conference itself, and (2) the letters given to the member-parties were not combative in nature but informative, even supplicatory. I should know that they didn't contain any black propa because I drafted those letters and saw them signed by SolGen Nachura.
Even more incredible was the action of CALD prior to Jan's dressing down. During its execom, CALD passed a resolution supporting the Drilon faction of the LP, without even hearing the other side. In fact, Neric Acosta was said to have commented that, althought the Drilon faction did not have the majority in the LP, it was the "soul" of the Party and therefore represented liberalism best in the Philippines. One member-party rep even was reported to have said, even if Neric, Drilon and co. were to leave the LP and/or form their own party, they were still welcome in CALD.
The last statement I can understand; I told EPQ that I had misgivings about the letters, since Neric was a close friend to many of the regular CALD delegates and participants, add to the fact that John Coronel is a known Drilon supporter and a close friend of Neric and Chito. EPQ said that I shouldn't worry soo much because I knew - as writer of the letters - that nothing bad was in the communiques, and that if CALD was true to its ideals then the very least it could do was listen to the other side of the story.
Yet... if an organization and political parties and leaders who claim to fight for democratic processes, human rights and free speech could (1) make a stand without hearing all sides, and (2) take sides and action without giving the accused a fair hearing...
This is a horrible experience for me. I remember Sam Rainsy being here and asking that proper democratic processes be followed with regard to his case in Cambodia. I know for a fact that free speech and the right to dissent is a cornerstone advocacy of nearly all CALD member parties. God's Most Sacred Light, but isn't it practically a mantra of the Drilon faction that they want Gloria out because not only did she lie and cheat, but she was suppressing the truth and free speech, and clamping down on dissent?
This is horrible.
Are today's liberal leaders merely communists or rightists in liberal clothing?
If liberalism and democracy makes its stands and positions based on factors other than established processes that guarantee fair treatment for all parties concerned, then what makes us different from communism and facism?
If the truth can be so conveniently disregarded, or a groups's opinions - and there is even the admittance that they are not the majority! - enforced so harshly and totally, what right do these people have to demand democracy, liberalism and human rights from those they contend with? How are they different, then?
This is horrible. Truly, truly horrible.
Is this the world even our own leaders in the liberal democratic movement - the so called "soul" of Philippine liberalism - wish to bequeath to us? A world either of corruption and deciet or heavy-handed, truth-suppressing, dissent-quashing self-righteousness?
Horrible. Truly, truly horrible.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Pet Peeves: the Anti-Smoking campaign
Okay, level off: I am not a smoker. Never tried, never will. I personally believe it's a bad habit. I have nothing against my friends smoking, but I always try to remind them of the cost it has to their health. If after this they continue smoking, that's their call. They're old enough to know, and I'm cool with them exercising their freedom this way.
Now for the rant.
My point with the anti-smoking campaign comes from that age-old debate on education vs. regulation. Some - most - people would say that laws need to be enforced to control certain behavior in order to maintain a certain level of decency or responsiblity in society.
Take smoking for one. I am well aware of the issues surrounding this. The health reasons alone should give people pause, but part of the issue concerns smoker habits. There's second-hand smoke, which is more dangerous than buffing a cig as there's nothing filtering the smoke to the one unlucky enough to be in the path of a smoker's exhaust. Then there's the litter. During my time in the Ateneo, this was a very real problem: somehow, smokers, especially in the legendary coño bench near the College Caf, can't seem to make the extra effort to throw their cig butts to the nearest trash can, which in the Ateneo is nearly in every corner. Trash, especially smoking-related trash, became so much that we had to "quarantine" the coño bench as an example, deploying a canary-yellow police tape with "biohazard" written over it.
Yet, for me, it is far more effective to educate your people rather than regulating behavior through the enforcement of certain rules. A law was passed sometime ago limiting smoking in certain areas, especially in enclosed spaces. Smoking was also being banned in campuses, ostensibly to limit its access to students.
My contention with this is in its efficacy. What good is a law that penalizes smoking in restricted zones and the sale of cigarettes to minors if it is not properly enforced?
I always use this example to illustrate my point: one time as I was hanging out at Starbucks Kat, I saw a group of high school students lounging outside. I was surprised - and not a little peeved - to see them whip out cigarettes and start smoking them. My first thought was, isn't there a law against this?
The other day, I passed by a sari-sari store in my neighborhood. Two boys, perhaps late grade school or early high school, were buying some snacks. Between two fingers of one boy was a lighted cigarette.
What's the point in the law, then, if it fails in its intended task?
But what was its intent, in the first place? Like laws that ban prostitution, that make jaywalking a criminal offense, or prevent the sale of liquor to minors, the law on smoking was meant to regulate the behavior. These laws were crafted to enforce the thinking that society frowns on certain acts, as aids in ensuring "proper" behavior among the members of society and expose the young in the "right" attitudes and values.
But regulation for me fails to achieve this due to its main "educational" tool: fear and punishment. You avoid a particular behavior because it will be punished. Negative reinforcement may be fine with dogs (as Dr. Pavlov's experiments show), but humans are different. Isn't it an adage in this country that somethig is illegal only if you get caught? And how the hell do you regulate sales of "regulated" products like cigarettes among informal retailers? Will the cigarette boy or corner newspaper stand ask for ID? Heck, even some 7-11 outlets don't ask ID for liquor and cigarette sales, eventhough it's obvious that the one purchasing is a minor.
People don't get the reason for the prohibition if all society's leaders do is regulate. The minds of most people have spent a lifetime doing "correct" behavior because they fear punishment, not because a particular type of behavior is what it is, correct. How many persons avoid brothels because they refuse to degrade the dignity of their fellowman? How many young people avoid drinking liquor because they know their physiology may not be developed enough to handle it? How many people don't smoke because they know it can lead to seven cancers, and progressively weakens the body? How many people cross the street on pedestrian lanes and walkways because they know it is not only risky to themselves but hampers the easy flow of traffic as well?
True, people can and do continue with "undesirable" behavior despite education. A lot of educated people do a lot of things that would horrify the general public, in the same way that many "uneducated" people live upright, responsible and decent lives. But education entails being informed, especially in the truths and consequences of a particular action or behavior. So long as this holds, then we can trust people to make informed decisions.
And if they continue doing behavior contrary to the information, then that's democracy for you. At least they'll know why when you make them pay the cost for continuing with their "undesirable" behavior.
Now for the rant.
My point with the anti-smoking campaign comes from that age-old debate on education vs. regulation. Some - most - people would say that laws need to be enforced to control certain behavior in order to maintain a certain level of decency or responsiblity in society.
Take smoking for one. I am well aware of the issues surrounding this. The health reasons alone should give people pause, but part of the issue concerns smoker habits. There's second-hand smoke, which is more dangerous than buffing a cig as there's nothing filtering the smoke to the one unlucky enough to be in the path of a smoker's exhaust. Then there's the litter. During my time in the Ateneo, this was a very real problem: somehow, smokers, especially in the legendary coño bench near the College Caf, can't seem to make the extra effort to throw their cig butts to the nearest trash can, which in the Ateneo is nearly in every corner. Trash, especially smoking-related trash, became so much that we had to "quarantine" the coño bench as an example, deploying a canary-yellow police tape with "biohazard" written over it.
Yet, for me, it is far more effective to educate your people rather than regulating behavior through the enforcement of certain rules. A law was passed sometime ago limiting smoking in certain areas, especially in enclosed spaces. Smoking was also being banned in campuses, ostensibly to limit its access to students.
My contention with this is in its efficacy. What good is a law that penalizes smoking in restricted zones and the sale of cigarettes to minors if it is not properly enforced?
I always use this example to illustrate my point: one time as I was hanging out at Starbucks Kat, I saw a group of high school students lounging outside. I was surprised - and not a little peeved - to see them whip out cigarettes and start smoking them. My first thought was, isn't there a law against this?
The other day, I passed by a sari-sari store in my neighborhood. Two boys, perhaps late grade school or early high school, were buying some snacks. Between two fingers of one boy was a lighted cigarette.
What's the point in the law, then, if it fails in its intended task?
But what was its intent, in the first place? Like laws that ban prostitution, that make jaywalking a criminal offense, or prevent the sale of liquor to minors, the law on smoking was meant to regulate the behavior. These laws were crafted to enforce the thinking that society frowns on certain acts, as aids in ensuring "proper" behavior among the members of society and expose the young in the "right" attitudes and values.
But regulation for me fails to achieve this due to its main "educational" tool: fear and punishment. You avoid a particular behavior because it will be punished. Negative reinforcement may be fine with dogs (as Dr. Pavlov's experiments show), but humans are different. Isn't it an adage in this country that somethig is illegal only if you get caught? And how the hell do you regulate sales of "regulated" products like cigarettes among informal retailers? Will the cigarette boy or corner newspaper stand ask for ID? Heck, even some 7-11 outlets don't ask ID for liquor and cigarette sales, eventhough it's obvious that the one purchasing is a minor.
People don't get the reason for the prohibition if all society's leaders do is regulate. The minds of most people have spent a lifetime doing "correct" behavior because they fear punishment, not because a particular type of behavior is what it is, correct. How many persons avoid brothels because they refuse to degrade the dignity of their fellowman? How many young people avoid drinking liquor because they know their physiology may not be developed enough to handle it? How many people don't smoke because they know it can lead to seven cancers, and progressively weakens the body? How many people cross the street on pedestrian lanes and walkways because they know it is not only risky to themselves but hampers the easy flow of traffic as well?
True, people can and do continue with "undesirable" behavior despite education. A lot of educated people do a lot of things that would horrify the general public, in the same way that many "uneducated" people live upright, responsible and decent lives. But education entails being informed, especially in the truths and consequences of a particular action or behavior. So long as this holds, then we can trust people to make informed decisions.
And if they continue doing behavior contrary to the information, then that's democracy for you. At least they'll know why when you make them pay the cost for continuing with their "undesirable" behavior.
Monday, March 20, 2006
The Real World
I'm supposed to be writing four concept papers. But after seeing Billy Esposo's March 20 commentary on Inq7's Viewpoints area, I realized I cannot continue with the aformentioned papers without getting this off my chest.
I remember an argument I had with a barkada, just sometime late last year. I was complaining about the horrid state politics in general, and politics in the LP in particular, has become following July 8. My friend took a jab at me by saying, in so many words, that what the hell was I complaining about when I, of all people, should have expected politics to be made up of nothing but dirt and shit. I argued, rather heatedly as the conversation turned into a full blown debate between us, that, yes, some compromises have to made with one's idealism (and even ethics!) to operate in the political sphere, but there are just some things you don't do. There's a line you draw in the concrete, I said, and you don't cross that.
Besides, I argued, not all politicos are horrid monsters. I passionately defended "reformists" in the political sphere, people who I thought stood for higher standards. I think this was where we started really arguing, because I insisted that, despite the murk of politics, there are people who you can still trust to fight the good fight and stay true to the ideals and principles they taught and made one believe in.
At the time of that debate with my barkada, I guess I thought I'd seen it all.
That was until 2 March 2006, when LA and a whole lot, if not an outright majority, of Party leaders decided to take matters into their own hands and take down Drilon and company from the leadership of the LP.
I wouldn't be much of an analyst if I didn't expect a countermove; duh. Of course there would be. Given the stakes of the game, I knew Drilon and his people would hit back. Their still had "weapons" in their arsenal, after all, resources at their command. Even worse (at least, for LA's group, from my perspective), some of the most well-known and those regarded as "progressive" in the LP were in Drilon's group. This, I thought, would make this whole contest really, really, interesting. But, I thought, truth will out. People, once told of what really happened last 8 July 2005, and why March 2 had to happen the way it did, will realize that, at the very least, the whole situation is more complex than simple a... corollary to the whole GMA-Garci thing.
I, too, have been guilty, many times, of overestimation.
Actually, Billy Esposo's article is not surprising; he's anti-Gloria, so given that context it's not really surprising he'd take the Drilon line, insisting that even what happened to the LP is intimately connected to GMA. Okay, maybe it is: if Drilon had not been tempted by suddenly becoming President - however acting - before 2010, maybe the LP wouldn't be in this mess.
It's in the... other sources of information, they way they treated this fiasco, that has shown me just how really ugly, dirty and thoroughly lacking in morals and ethics this world can be.
In a post made last March 9, PCIJ's blog showcased comments from Rep. Neric Acosta. In the post, titled "Filipinos Dying by a Thousand Cuts," Neric gave us a preview of the Drilon's group true mentality regarding the Atienza group, which I thought showed that any attempt to unite the Party, even if Ka Jovy Salonga was the one to mediate it, would not even get to first base. Again, this was not surprising. Neric is a person I respect and admire a lot, but he's like Chito in the way the adamantly stick to the positions they espouse on an issue, regardless of the context of other mitigating factors surrounding the issue.
What hit me was the way PCIJ - a well-respected institution, indeed regarded as the last bastion of objective, professional, investigative journalism - treated the LP issue. If you check the post and proceed to the comments section, you'd notice a post made by Phoenix Blue, asking why PCIJ has only showcased the comments from Drilon group people (Chito had already been featured a few days before).
I am Phoenix Blue.
Neric's comments are something that didn't surprise me, but PCIJ's treatment did. I have the greatest respect for PCIJ. I tell people that it was reliable, objective and professional, that it was one of the best sources for objective-yet-hard-hitting information this side of the Pacific. So it came as a surprise to me that PCIJ was suddenly seemingly taking sides. Like I said as Phoenix Blue, there had already been two posts made by Drilon people on the LP issues, but none from the other side. I said this somehow did not fit in my defnition of fair journalism, that giving airtime or print space to only one side can badly skew the perceptions of readers, even more so that PCIJ is regarded not just as a Gatekeeper of Information, but a Strategic Constituent as well.
Until now, there have been no "rebuttal" posts in PCIJ's blog.
Perhaps that's what's rankling. Anti-Gloria people claim to be so on the basis of morality: the little girl cheated (the constitutionally-guaranteed right of innocence-until-proven-otherwise aside), therefore she should go. For National Demcorats and Rightists to do what they do is something that will not bother me; I know them, I have been trained to stand against them, so I am not surprised about anything they do. Ditto for Erap people, because they really are just a... variant of the communist "everything for the revolution" (replace "revolution" with "erap") credo.
It is the way "our" people - the so-called Moderates, the ones in the center, the ones who call themselves liberal yet are as illiberal and unethical in their comport in this issue as the person they hope to supplant - have acted that hurts me so much. Since when did the morals and ideals that the Center stood for gave way to justifying any and all acts to achieve our objectives?
Look at Chito: he is portrayed as the paragon of all that is good and true in today's young leaders. But he suppresses dissent and different opinions. If you do not side with him, you are the enemy. He subjects you to the worst public humiliation you can ever have and you can't do anything because he is Chito Gascon. And if you won't bow down to him and his humiliation of you, he will try to erase you from the equation, like what he's tried to do to KALIPI, like what he's tried to do to me.
It is painful to see so many of those I admire and hoped to emulate on the other side of this battle. More so because I do not consider myself fully on any side: I said I will stand up against Gloria when she transgresses human rights and the freedoms we enjoy, rights and freedoms she swore to defend, but I do not automatically believe the Garci tapes are for real. I know too much. I know that the technology and skill to manipulate information is there. And it is absurdly amusing to see people who help put Gloria where she is right now - who ran her campaign, for God's sake - saying she cheated and therefore must be removed.
It is painful to see them there. And to hear them justify their acts be a hundred different reasons. It is painful because you know the truth. I was there in 8 July 2005, when a dolorous blow was dealt the Liberal Party by its very own President, by its own leaders, by the people the Party regarded as its paragons and bannermen.
Because if the people who supposedly represent all that is true, noble and good in the LP cloak their actions in shadow and deceit, in slander and propaganda... what and who else can you believe in?
I was there last July 8, and two days before that where Drilon and his factotums (to use a new term being bandied between LP camps) declared July 8 as "katulad ng ginawa natin ngayon," or similar to what we did today, "today" referring to July 6, which was a simple consultation. I was there. I know the truth. And I believe they know it, too. Yet they can appear in public and still claim the truth is otherwise. Unless they have started to believe their own propaganda.
Was my friend right? Was my Atenean idealism making me believe in an illusion?
Is this, then, the real world?
I remember an argument I had with a barkada, just sometime late last year. I was complaining about the horrid state politics in general, and politics in the LP in particular, has become following July 8. My friend took a jab at me by saying, in so many words, that what the hell was I complaining about when I, of all people, should have expected politics to be made up of nothing but dirt and shit. I argued, rather heatedly as the conversation turned into a full blown debate between us, that, yes, some compromises have to made with one's idealism (and even ethics!) to operate in the political sphere, but there are just some things you don't do. There's a line you draw in the concrete, I said, and you don't cross that.
Besides, I argued, not all politicos are horrid monsters. I passionately defended "reformists" in the political sphere, people who I thought stood for higher standards. I think this was where we started really arguing, because I insisted that, despite the murk of politics, there are people who you can still trust to fight the good fight and stay true to the ideals and principles they taught and made one believe in.
At the time of that debate with my barkada, I guess I thought I'd seen it all.
That was until 2 March 2006, when LA and a whole lot, if not an outright majority, of Party leaders decided to take matters into their own hands and take down Drilon and company from the leadership of the LP.
I wouldn't be much of an analyst if I didn't expect a countermove; duh. Of course there would be. Given the stakes of the game, I knew Drilon and his people would hit back. Their still had "weapons" in their arsenal, after all, resources at their command. Even worse (at least, for LA's group, from my perspective), some of the most well-known and those regarded as "progressive" in the LP were in Drilon's group. This, I thought, would make this whole contest really, really, interesting. But, I thought, truth will out. People, once told of what really happened last 8 July 2005, and why March 2 had to happen the way it did, will realize that, at the very least, the whole situation is more complex than simple a... corollary to the whole GMA-Garci thing.
I, too, have been guilty, many times, of overestimation.
Actually, Billy Esposo's article is not surprising; he's anti-Gloria, so given that context it's not really surprising he'd take the Drilon line, insisting that even what happened to the LP is intimately connected to GMA. Okay, maybe it is: if Drilon had not been tempted by suddenly becoming President - however acting - before 2010, maybe the LP wouldn't be in this mess.
It's in the... other sources of information, they way they treated this fiasco, that has shown me just how really ugly, dirty and thoroughly lacking in morals and ethics this world can be.
In a post made last March 9, PCIJ's blog showcased comments from Rep. Neric Acosta. In the post, titled "Filipinos Dying by a Thousand Cuts," Neric gave us a preview of the Drilon's group true mentality regarding the Atienza group, which I thought showed that any attempt to unite the Party, even if Ka Jovy Salonga was the one to mediate it, would not even get to first base. Again, this was not surprising. Neric is a person I respect and admire a lot, but he's like Chito in the way the adamantly stick to the positions they espouse on an issue, regardless of the context of other mitigating factors surrounding the issue.
What hit me was the way PCIJ - a well-respected institution, indeed regarded as the last bastion of objective, professional, investigative journalism - treated the LP issue. If you check the post and proceed to the comments section, you'd notice a post made by Phoenix Blue, asking why PCIJ has only showcased the comments from Drilon group people (Chito had already been featured a few days before).
I am Phoenix Blue.
Neric's comments are something that didn't surprise me, but PCIJ's treatment did. I have the greatest respect for PCIJ. I tell people that it was reliable, objective and professional, that it was one of the best sources for objective-yet-hard-hitting information this side of the Pacific. So it came as a surprise to me that PCIJ was suddenly seemingly taking sides. Like I said as Phoenix Blue, there had already been two posts made by Drilon people on the LP issues, but none from the other side. I said this somehow did not fit in my defnition of fair journalism, that giving airtime or print space to only one side can badly skew the perceptions of readers, even more so that PCIJ is regarded not just as a Gatekeeper of Information, but a Strategic Constituent as well.
Until now, there have been no "rebuttal" posts in PCIJ's blog.
Perhaps that's what's rankling. Anti-Gloria people claim to be so on the basis of morality: the little girl cheated (the constitutionally-guaranteed right of innocence-until-proven-otherwise aside), therefore she should go. For National Demcorats and Rightists to do what they do is something that will not bother me; I know them, I have been trained to stand against them, so I am not surprised about anything they do. Ditto for Erap people, because they really are just a... variant of the communist "everything for the revolution" (replace "revolution" with "erap") credo.
It is the way "our" people - the so-called Moderates, the ones in the center, the ones who call themselves liberal yet are as illiberal and unethical in their comport in this issue as the person they hope to supplant - have acted that hurts me so much. Since when did the morals and ideals that the Center stood for gave way to justifying any and all acts to achieve our objectives?
Look at Chito: he is portrayed as the paragon of all that is good and true in today's young leaders. But he suppresses dissent and different opinions. If you do not side with him, you are the enemy. He subjects you to the worst public humiliation you can ever have and you can't do anything because he is Chito Gascon. And if you won't bow down to him and his humiliation of you, he will try to erase you from the equation, like what he's tried to do to KALIPI, like what he's tried to do to me.
It is painful to see so many of those I admire and hoped to emulate on the other side of this battle. More so because I do not consider myself fully on any side: I said I will stand up against Gloria when she transgresses human rights and the freedoms we enjoy, rights and freedoms she swore to defend, but I do not automatically believe the Garci tapes are for real. I know too much. I know that the technology and skill to manipulate information is there. And it is absurdly amusing to see people who help put Gloria where she is right now - who ran her campaign, for God's sake - saying she cheated and therefore must be removed.
It is painful to see them there. And to hear them justify their acts be a hundred different reasons. It is painful because you know the truth. I was there in 8 July 2005, when a dolorous blow was dealt the Liberal Party by its very own President, by its own leaders, by the people the Party regarded as its paragons and bannermen.
Because if the people who supposedly represent all that is true, noble and good in the LP cloak their actions in shadow and deceit, in slander and propaganda... what and who else can you believe in?
I was there last July 8, and two days before that where Drilon and his factotums (to use a new term being bandied between LP camps) declared July 8 as "katulad ng ginawa natin ngayon," or similar to what we did today, "today" referring to July 6, which was a simple consultation. I was there. I know the truth. And I believe they know it, too. Yet they can appear in public and still claim the truth is otherwise. Unless they have started to believe their own propaganda.
Was my friend right? Was my Atenean idealism making me believe in an illusion?
Is this, then, the real world?
Friday, March 10, 2006
When a Party is Over: the long, drawn-out death of the Liberal Party
To say this is painful for me is an understatement.
I entered the Liberal Party as one who was cynical about politicians; as the head of the UCSC's intelligence directorate, being paranoid and cynical were part of the job description. Until that time in 2000, only one politician merited my respect (hah, and even he has lost that now). But you learned to love the LP, and being a liberal in beliefs if not in creed, it was but the logical conclusion to align one's self to the most visible and powerful symbol of liberalism in the Philippines. I was proud to be a Liberal, proud to be in the LP.
It is a testament to the extent of the... mess that the Party is in right now that one's pain is mixed so thoroughly in - and caused from - the confusion and disappointment that stems from 8 July 2005. Someone once said that what befell the LP was a mirror of what was happening to the country. Perhaps it is true: although one can see the battle lines clearly drawn, who are the protagonists? Who are the antagonists? Are the heroes totally pure in their motives, as heroes should be? Are the villains totally without basis for their percieved villainy, or are their actions justified by the acts of those they contend with?
For following the events of 2 March 2006 the manner of the escalation of this 8-month long debacle may have hopelessly shattered our once great Party. Yet this is no division where you can distinguish one part from another, and an attempt can be made to make it whole. No: the LP is shattered into a hundred million pieces, each minute shard being tossed in the winds of the dark fate released from July 8.
Isn't that where it truly begins? I still maintain that, despite Chito's points last March 2, he would have been answered in full if on that day itself, during that assembly and in the presence of the cameras of all the TV networks and notepads of reporters that March 2 happened becuase Drilon refused to heed the call of Party leaders and members to immediately convene the National Executive Council (NECO).
KALIPI asked for it not one week after July 8; I should know, I drafted that position paper, circulated to the members of KALIPI's National Board and to the major chapter leaders before we sent it to Drilon (this is contrary to what some people would claim; they said that we lack democracy in the youth wing since no consultation happens. How very far from the truth).
And when the Party's sectoral groups - KALIPI, the Liberal Caucus of Congressional Staff (LCCS) and the Liberal League of Local Legislators (L4) - met to discuss what was happening to the Party and what can we do about it, along comes Chito to tell us, in so many words that, yes, we were free to discuss, but we shouldn't, do anything that would, ah, affect the moves being done among "higher management." to resolve the issue. To my mind, this sounded so much like the Party's sectors were being told by the Drilon group to "keep off!" All we wanted to do was to discuss the problem, and call on the Party President to convene the NECO at the soonest possible time to resolve the issue. Drilon was right: the NECO is, short of the National Directorate, the highest policy-making body of the LP. During Butch Abad's time, no important decision was reached without at least consulting the NECO. The NECO's decisions would have been final.
Yet Frank Drilon, since 8 July 2005, refused to convene the NECO. Month after month after month. Until March 2 happened.
And they had the gall to refer to the LP constitution? So why didn't Chito mention anywhere that Drilon, too, had breached the LP constitution? It was clear there that the NECO should be convened at least once a year. The last time the NECO was convened was Nov. 2004, when Abad finally turned over the party presidency to Drilon. November and December 2005 came and went and still no NECO. Still no resolution to the conflict.
And there's that infernal "stand."
Let me level off here: I do not like Gloria. I think my previous post proves that. I am not entirely convinced of the Garci tapes - my training, both as an intelligence officer and as a communications major, prevents me from jumping too quickly to conclusions when a shadow of a doubt exists - but neither do I agree with the little girl who sits at the Palace. I think she should have let the impeachment through and fought it out in the Senate, hostile as it was after July 8; didn't the Filipino people show in 2001 that they cannot be hoodwinked? She shouldn't have done 1017, for that matter.
But the event involving the LP in 8 July 2005 showed the other reason of why I haven't gone so much against her: I cannot fully trust those wanting to bring her down, at least in terms of motives.
Wednesday, 6 July 2005: Party leaders met at Club Filipino for the first in a series of consultations. It ends at about lunchtime, with Drilon telling everyone in the table that, another one would be held two days hence and if they want to join that one, too, they were welcome to.
Friday, 8 July 2005: Party HQ personnel meet early at the HQ to get the equipment needed for that day's consultation. It was decided by the senior personnel present - me - that we would bring only the laptop (since Mario Taguiwalo, NIPS president, had a presentation) and some tarps since, as we were told, it was only going to be a consultation. I didn't even make a press release; what for? It was just a consultation, right?
Even when a whole phalanx of media people were camping in front of Kalayaan Hall, it still didn't feel as if something extraordinary would happen on our side of the planet. Yes, we were aware by that time of the Hyatt 10 and other people removing their support from GMA, but this is just a consultation, right? I mean, how can a stand be made when we in the HQ weren't ordered by the Party President to call the members of the NECO, at least for that purpose?
A vote was done inside the hall. A quick look showed some members of Congress. A few who were there were from the NECO, but no quorum. The vote to ask for Gloria's resignation I think reached 19, with impeachment being close behind it. So, at best, if say the NECO was there, the total votes wouldn't even breach 50. The LP constitution recognizes quorum for the NECO at 50%+1. At that time, the NECO was about 102. Do the math.
Media barged in for the 1:00 p.m. presscon. Still no alarm bells in my head. I heard someone ask Drilon after the vote what was the nature of the vote, and the people at the head of the table answer it was just an advisory vote. So, no worry, right?
At past 1:00 p.m., LP President Franklin Drilon was giving a statement that the Party was withdrawing its support from the President and calling for her resignation. If she won't resign, the LP will support moves to impeach her.
That was what happened that day.
Someone will contend my stiory? Fine, then: if even the Congressional Caucus of the LP agreed with this "stand," then how come 22 out of 33 Liberal congressmen voted to uphold the report of the Justice Committee, that there were no grounds for impeaching GMA? If the local leaders of the LP agreed with the July 8 "stand," then how come nearly all our governors, and city and municipal mayors were all expressing their support for GMA?
Go to www.liberalparty.ph and look up the roster of NECO members. 102 members. Let's say 3 senators support her resignation. Add to that the 11 congressmen who agreed to her impeachment in the House. Add Govs. Maliksi, Tupas and Padaca. Perhaps add Mayor Jesse Robredo. Add Chito, Mayor Soccoro Acosta, Chit Asis, Butch Abad, Rene Villa and Bobby Tañada. That's just 24. If we simply add the 22 congressmen who supported the Committee report to the remaining Governors and City Mayors who supported GMA, where would the math lead you? How about the none-elected members of the NECO?
Let us put aside the discussions of who was right or not last July 8. Given the Drilon's camp insistence on the NECO and the LP constitution since March 2, why didn't he just convene the NECO and get it over with? If what the anti-Gloria LP were right, then why were they afraid to convene the NECO? Didn't they want to put Atienza and his group in their place? What better way to do it than through the legal process of convening the LP's highest policy-making body and giving a final answer to the issue of where the LP was regarding Gloria?
Eight months. In all their pronouncements the Drilon group never once answered the question on why the NECO was not convened these last eight months to resolve the issue. The members of the NECO have put down everything for issues much less in impact to the LP; would they have shirked now that the existence, viability and reputation of the Party is at stake?
Even worse to not convening the NECO, Drilon and his cabal continued to foist the lie - and it is a lie, please make no mistake about it - that the LP had a stand and it was anti-Gloria. Stand? What stand? How can there be a stand when the NECO was never convened to ratify anything?
Oh, and there was something much worse: the muzzling of the sectoral groups and leaders of the LP. I mentioned the gathering of the LP sectors earlier, yes? The Drilon group attempted to muzzle that, prevent it from happening. When they couldn't, they sent Chito to put a spanner in the works and ensure that at the very least no concerete action would be taken by the LP sectors with regard to the issue.
KALIPI had a Mindanao Congress sometime after July 8. This was one of the decisions by KALIPI's National Assembly during its 5th Congress in Nov. 2004: owing to the fact that there was just one delegate from Mindanao, we would pursue an aggressive rebuilding in Mindanao by holding a congress for that Area. Yet we had to postpone it because calls went out to the our partner organizations and contacts among the local LP leaders that it was already cancelled. How can it be cancelled when the National Board had not even decided on the issue when some of Drilon's people called our Sec Gen to ask KALIPI to postpone it, in view of July 8? We heard that, following our strong position on the issue of July 8, there were fears that we would say some things on July 8 that some people won't like to be said.
I can go on and on here, but Drilon's people would only spout their line. No: let's deal with facts here, instead:
So much as I wish there were other options - Eddie Villanueva had not convinced me that he was the right man for the job; I have no doubt he is a good and religious man, but the presidency demands... something else than those - I wrote, "Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo" on the president's slot of the ballot because I had no excuse to my Party for going against its decision.
Process. That's what's important for Liberals. It is what separates us from other ideologies, our adherence to protocols that ensure all our decisions are reached in a rational and democratic manner.
The pain I feel over what befell the Party is magnified whenever I look at the roster of those in the Drilon camp: Butch and Dina Abad; Sen. Rodolfo Biazon and Rep. Ruffy Biazon; Neric Acosta; Bobby Tañada; Gov. Grace Padaca.
These and more are people I respect and look up to in the Liberal Party. Especially the Abads, Cong Ruffy, Ka Bobby, and Gov. Grace, they have added to that pride one feels in wearing the L-in-a-shield of the LP.
Yet... I cannot go over the fact that July 8 was wrong. I should know. I was a staff of the HQ then. We were the ones who processed these things for them, who organized activities for them. We knew what July 8 was supposed to be about and were shocked at what really happened. We were appalled by the actions that followed after that, and outraged when the Drilon people started picking us HQ staff off in clusters. Jan and Cali were the firs to go. Me, Mante and Donna were recently removed, just this February. Hah, Mante and I were told it was because our contracts expired. See, they made us sign something sometime in Feb of last year, but it was never signed by Drilon. And, oh: I've been working for the Party since 2000, Mante since 2003, if not 2002.
I am outraged by the callousness in which the Drilon camp touts their moral ascendency. Because I know, as someone once intimately involved in the workings of the Party, that their actions since July 8 bankrupted any claim they had to being right with regard to this issue. At the very least, they should have called for the NECO. But they didn't, while continuing to claim that they spoke for Liberals all over the country.
I cannot join my old comrades in the anti-Gloria camp because of this. Because they are there. Because if people who can bend even a political party's rules and laws for their own benefit are the ones I will replace with someone like Gloria... how different is that? I'd rather have Gloria. At least she had no pretensions. Or at least, if she made one, you knew it was just propaganda.
So do I say that March 2 was right? Not exactly. But I can understand what led Atienza and more than 300 local leaders of the Party to do what they did, given the context of July 8.
It's actually funny when you look at it: the anti-Gloria LP claim that their call for GMA's ouster, even through people power or whatever means, is because the constitutional processes to address the griveances brought about by the Garci tapes have either been co-opted or rendered ineffective. Resign, Impeach, Oust, yes? (God, that used to mean something good back in 2000...)
Yet when leaders and members of the Party did so, because they who hold the levers of power in the LP refused to go through constitutional channels to resolve the issue of July 8, they refused to recognize this, to even acknowledge the grievances that led to March 2.
And like some of Gloria's people, they even lambasted their opponents. I can never forget the... venom in which they looked down on the barangay captains and municipal mayors who were present last March 2. Aren't those Liberals, too? What makes a "lowly" barangay captain any less Liberal than the Senate President? What makes the voice of our Municipal Mayors any less than those in Congress?
Why am I surprised? Didn't they muzzle us, the youth wing and the other sectoral groups? Wasn't there a plan by Chito to raise a "new" liberal youth oraganiztion since KALIPI wouldn't side with them?
This is the most painful part. We are the Liberal Party. We were supposed to be the ones who will reform the political sphere. We were the good guys, for God's sake.
But if the good guys are so ready to set aside what is right in order to get what they want... where does that leave you, then?
Who do you believe in?
Who do you trust?
I thought I had seen enough, acheived a level of equilibrium between my Atenean-inspired idealism and the pragmatism needed to engage in politics. I thought I had found a group that resonated with my most cherished values and ideals.
Now, I'm not so sure anymore...
Maybe that's why mourn. Because something I loved so much is dead. Because no matter how this is resolved, the LP might never recover, at least in my lifetime. The wounds are too deep, too much blood has been spilled, and the warfare between the camps so total that the landscape is a devastated and desolate mess.
So... there.
Maybe Bam was right: we should give up on our elders. There are no paladins there anymore. Just a bunch of thugs in armor bashing at each other to prove who has the bigger sword, while the countryside burns and withers in the face of plague, poverty and pillage.
I entered the Liberal Party as one who was cynical about politicians; as the head of the UCSC's intelligence directorate, being paranoid and cynical were part of the job description. Until that time in 2000, only one politician merited my respect (hah, and even he has lost that now). But you learned to love the LP, and being a liberal in beliefs if not in creed, it was but the logical conclusion to align one's self to the most visible and powerful symbol of liberalism in the Philippines. I was proud to be a Liberal, proud to be in the LP.
It is a testament to the extent of the... mess that the Party is in right now that one's pain is mixed so thoroughly in - and caused from - the confusion and disappointment that stems from 8 July 2005. Someone once said that what befell the LP was a mirror of what was happening to the country. Perhaps it is true: although one can see the battle lines clearly drawn, who are the protagonists? Who are the antagonists? Are the heroes totally pure in their motives, as heroes should be? Are the villains totally without basis for their percieved villainy, or are their actions justified by the acts of those they contend with?
For following the events of 2 March 2006 the manner of the escalation of this 8-month long debacle may have hopelessly shattered our once great Party. Yet this is no division where you can distinguish one part from another, and an attempt can be made to make it whole. No: the LP is shattered into a hundred million pieces, each minute shard being tossed in the winds of the dark fate released from July 8.
Isn't that where it truly begins? I still maintain that, despite Chito's points last March 2, he would have been answered in full if on that day itself, during that assembly and in the presence of the cameras of all the TV networks and notepads of reporters that March 2 happened becuase Drilon refused to heed the call of Party leaders and members to immediately convene the National Executive Council (NECO).
KALIPI asked for it not one week after July 8; I should know, I drafted that position paper, circulated to the members of KALIPI's National Board and to the major chapter leaders before we sent it to Drilon (this is contrary to what some people would claim; they said that we lack democracy in the youth wing since no consultation happens. How very far from the truth).
And when the Party's sectoral groups - KALIPI, the Liberal Caucus of Congressional Staff (LCCS) and the Liberal League of Local Legislators (L4) - met to discuss what was happening to the Party and what can we do about it, along comes Chito to tell us, in so many words that, yes, we were free to discuss, but we shouldn't, do anything that would, ah, affect the moves being done among "higher management." to resolve the issue. To my mind, this sounded so much like the Party's sectors were being told by the Drilon group to "keep off!" All we wanted to do was to discuss the problem, and call on the Party President to convene the NECO at the soonest possible time to resolve the issue. Drilon was right: the NECO is, short of the National Directorate, the highest policy-making body of the LP. During Butch Abad's time, no important decision was reached without at least consulting the NECO. The NECO's decisions would have been final.
Yet Frank Drilon, since 8 July 2005, refused to convene the NECO. Month after month after month. Until March 2 happened.
And they had the gall to refer to the LP constitution? So why didn't Chito mention anywhere that Drilon, too, had breached the LP constitution? It was clear there that the NECO should be convened at least once a year. The last time the NECO was convened was Nov. 2004, when Abad finally turned over the party presidency to Drilon. November and December 2005 came and went and still no NECO. Still no resolution to the conflict.
And there's that infernal "stand."
Let me level off here: I do not like Gloria. I think my previous post proves that. I am not entirely convinced of the Garci tapes - my training, both as an intelligence officer and as a communications major, prevents me from jumping too quickly to conclusions when a shadow of a doubt exists - but neither do I agree with the little girl who sits at the Palace. I think she should have let the impeachment through and fought it out in the Senate, hostile as it was after July 8; didn't the Filipino people show in 2001 that they cannot be hoodwinked? She shouldn't have done 1017, for that matter.
But the event involving the LP in 8 July 2005 showed the other reason of why I haven't gone so much against her: I cannot fully trust those wanting to bring her down, at least in terms of motives.
Wednesday, 6 July 2005: Party leaders met at Club Filipino for the first in a series of consultations. It ends at about lunchtime, with Drilon telling everyone in the table that, another one would be held two days hence and if they want to join that one, too, they were welcome to.
Friday, 8 July 2005: Party HQ personnel meet early at the HQ to get the equipment needed for that day's consultation. It was decided by the senior personnel present - me - that we would bring only the laptop (since Mario Taguiwalo, NIPS president, had a presentation) and some tarps since, as we were told, it was only going to be a consultation. I didn't even make a press release; what for? It was just a consultation, right?
Even when a whole phalanx of media people were camping in front of Kalayaan Hall, it still didn't feel as if something extraordinary would happen on our side of the planet. Yes, we were aware by that time of the Hyatt 10 and other people removing their support from GMA, but this is just a consultation, right? I mean, how can a stand be made when we in the HQ weren't ordered by the Party President to call the members of the NECO, at least for that purpose?
A vote was done inside the hall. A quick look showed some members of Congress. A few who were there were from the NECO, but no quorum. The vote to ask for Gloria's resignation I think reached 19, with impeachment being close behind it. So, at best, if say the NECO was there, the total votes wouldn't even breach 50. The LP constitution recognizes quorum for the NECO at 50%+1. At that time, the NECO was about 102. Do the math.
Media barged in for the 1:00 p.m. presscon. Still no alarm bells in my head. I heard someone ask Drilon after the vote what was the nature of the vote, and the people at the head of the table answer it was just an advisory vote. So, no worry, right?
At past 1:00 p.m., LP President Franklin Drilon was giving a statement that the Party was withdrawing its support from the President and calling for her resignation. If she won't resign, the LP will support moves to impeach her.
That was what happened that day.
Someone will contend my stiory? Fine, then: if even the Congressional Caucus of the LP agreed with this "stand," then how come 22 out of 33 Liberal congressmen voted to uphold the report of the Justice Committee, that there were no grounds for impeaching GMA? If the local leaders of the LP agreed with the July 8 "stand," then how come nearly all our governors, and city and municipal mayors were all expressing their support for GMA?
Go to www.liberalparty.ph and look up the roster of NECO members. 102 members. Let's say 3 senators support her resignation. Add to that the 11 congressmen who agreed to her impeachment in the House. Add Govs. Maliksi, Tupas and Padaca. Perhaps add Mayor Jesse Robredo. Add Chito, Mayor Soccoro Acosta, Chit Asis, Butch Abad, Rene Villa and Bobby Tañada. That's just 24. If we simply add the 22 congressmen who supported the Committee report to the remaining Governors and City Mayors who supported GMA, where would the math lead you? How about the none-elected members of the NECO?
Let us put aside the discussions of who was right or not last July 8. Given the Drilon's camp insistence on the NECO and the LP constitution since March 2, why didn't he just convene the NECO and get it over with? If what the anti-Gloria LP were right, then why were they afraid to convene the NECO? Didn't they want to put Atienza and his group in their place? What better way to do it than through the legal process of convening the LP's highest policy-making body and giving a final answer to the issue of where the LP was regarding Gloria?
Eight months. In all their pronouncements the Drilon group never once answered the question on why the NECO was not convened these last eight months to resolve the issue. The members of the NECO have put down everything for issues much less in impact to the LP; would they have shirked now that the existence, viability and reputation of the Party is at stake?
Even worse to not convening the NECO, Drilon and his cabal continued to foist the lie - and it is a lie, please make no mistake about it - that the LP had a stand and it was anti-Gloria. Stand? What stand? How can there be a stand when the NECO was never convened to ratify anything?
Oh, and there was something much worse: the muzzling of the sectoral groups and leaders of the LP. I mentioned the gathering of the LP sectors earlier, yes? The Drilon group attempted to muzzle that, prevent it from happening. When they couldn't, they sent Chito to put a spanner in the works and ensure that at the very least no concerete action would be taken by the LP sectors with regard to the issue.
KALIPI had a Mindanao Congress sometime after July 8. This was one of the decisions by KALIPI's National Assembly during its 5th Congress in Nov. 2004: owing to the fact that there was just one delegate from Mindanao, we would pursue an aggressive rebuilding in Mindanao by holding a congress for that Area. Yet we had to postpone it because calls went out to the our partner organizations and contacts among the local LP leaders that it was already cancelled. How can it be cancelled when the National Board had not even decided on the issue when some of Drilon's people called our Sec Gen to ask KALIPI to postpone it, in view of July 8? We heard that, following our strong position on the issue of July 8, there were fears that we would say some things on July 8 that some people won't like to be said.
I can go on and on here, but Drilon's people would only spout their line. No: let's deal with facts here, instead:
- The NECO had not been convened since Nov. 2004, nor in the 8 months following July 8;
- Drilon's group continued to say in the public that the LP was anti-Gloria, eventhough the NECO had not been convened for the discussion of a stand;
- Actual records of LP members among the congressmen, governors, city mayors and other local leaders showed who these leaders of the Party were supporting;
- LP sectoral groups and leaders were being muzzled, even if they were simply asking for forums where the problem could be discussed, and calls from them to convene the NECO fell on deaf ears
So much as I wish there were other options - Eddie Villanueva had not convinced me that he was the right man for the job; I have no doubt he is a good and religious man, but the presidency demands... something else than those - I wrote, "Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo" on the president's slot of the ballot because I had no excuse to my Party for going against its decision.
Process. That's what's important for Liberals. It is what separates us from other ideologies, our adherence to protocols that ensure all our decisions are reached in a rational and democratic manner.
The pain I feel over what befell the Party is magnified whenever I look at the roster of those in the Drilon camp: Butch and Dina Abad; Sen. Rodolfo Biazon and Rep. Ruffy Biazon; Neric Acosta; Bobby Tañada; Gov. Grace Padaca.
These and more are people I respect and look up to in the Liberal Party. Especially the Abads, Cong Ruffy, Ka Bobby, and Gov. Grace, they have added to that pride one feels in wearing the L-in-a-shield of the LP.
Yet... I cannot go over the fact that July 8 was wrong. I should know. I was a staff of the HQ then. We were the ones who processed these things for them, who organized activities for them. We knew what July 8 was supposed to be about and were shocked at what really happened. We were appalled by the actions that followed after that, and outraged when the Drilon people started picking us HQ staff off in clusters. Jan and Cali were the firs to go. Me, Mante and Donna were recently removed, just this February. Hah, Mante and I were told it was because our contracts expired. See, they made us sign something sometime in Feb of last year, but it was never signed by Drilon. And, oh: I've been working for the Party since 2000, Mante since 2003, if not 2002.
I am outraged by the callousness in which the Drilon camp touts their moral ascendency. Because I know, as someone once intimately involved in the workings of the Party, that their actions since July 8 bankrupted any claim they had to being right with regard to this issue. At the very least, they should have called for the NECO. But they didn't, while continuing to claim that they spoke for Liberals all over the country.
I cannot join my old comrades in the anti-Gloria camp because of this. Because they are there. Because if people who can bend even a political party's rules and laws for their own benefit are the ones I will replace with someone like Gloria... how different is that? I'd rather have Gloria. At least she had no pretensions. Or at least, if she made one, you knew it was just propaganda.
So do I say that March 2 was right? Not exactly. But I can understand what led Atienza and more than 300 local leaders of the Party to do what they did, given the context of July 8.
It's actually funny when you look at it: the anti-Gloria LP claim that their call for GMA's ouster, even through people power or whatever means, is because the constitutional processes to address the griveances brought about by the Garci tapes have either been co-opted or rendered ineffective. Resign, Impeach, Oust, yes? (God, that used to mean something good back in 2000...)
Yet when leaders and members of the Party did so, because they who hold the levers of power in the LP refused to go through constitutional channels to resolve the issue of July 8, they refused to recognize this, to even acknowledge the grievances that led to March 2.
And like some of Gloria's people, they even lambasted their opponents. I can never forget the... venom in which they looked down on the barangay captains and municipal mayors who were present last March 2. Aren't those Liberals, too? What makes a "lowly" barangay captain any less Liberal than the Senate President? What makes the voice of our Municipal Mayors any less than those in Congress?
Why am I surprised? Didn't they muzzle us, the youth wing and the other sectoral groups? Wasn't there a plan by Chito to raise a "new" liberal youth oraganiztion since KALIPI wouldn't side with them?
This is the most painful part. We are the Liberal Party. We were supposed to be the ones who will reform the political sphere. We were the good guys, for God's sake.
But if the good guys are so ready to set aside what is right in order to get what they want... where does that leave you, then?
Who do you believe in?
Who do you trust?
I thought I had seen enough, acheived a level of equilibrium between my Atenean-inspired idealism and the pragmatism needed to engage in politics. I thought I had found a group that resonated with my most cherished values and ideals.
Now, I'm not so sure anymore...
Maybe that's why mourn. Because something I loved so much is dead. Because no matter how this is resolved, the LP might never recover, at least in my lifetime. The wounds are too deep, too much blood has been spilled, and the warfare between the camps so total that the landscape is a devastated and desolate mess.
So... there.
Maybe Bam was right: we should give up on our elders. There are no paladins there anymore. Just a bunch of thugs in armor bashing at each other to prove who has the bigger sword, while the countryside burns and withers in the face of plague, poverty and pillage.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Drawing a Line on the Concrete. With my blood, if necessary
Just in case I didn't make myself clear with the previous post (I guess I didn't), then let me make it clear, especially to my old comrades in the UCSC, and to its current generation if they are still inclined to listen, even for a bit, to the ranting of an old man:
First, I do not agree with violent overthrow of governments. Corollary to that is my disagreement with military juntas or any similar systems. Liberals are supposed to be process-oriented, yes? The ends can never justify the means, and if someone will tell me that they have to burn the house in order to save it from termites, then I definitely have a problem with that. The same with authoritarian regimes: so long as individual and human rights are being curtailed in any way, then I am also very much against those.
Which leads me to my second point: the rampant and brazen assault of the Macapagal-Arroyo government on the Bill of Rights. Dammit, Madame President, but one does not need to be a lawyer to understand what Sec. 18, Article VII means in its entirety. Nothing, absolutely nothing justifies the government's actions at the proclamation of 1017. In many cases, it was not only illegal but indecent, too. The best example is the way Randy David and Argee Guevarra were picked up. Or how about the way those poor people who were at Karingal with Prof. David were treated? Dammit, Madame President, but those were women and children! On the way to EDSA to celebrate People Power I! Not only did your men deny them their constitutionally-mandated right to freedom of speech and assembly, but your men also treated them- especially the children! Good God, those poor children!- harshly, as if they were hardened criminals!
Illegal? The way government has been comporting itself since Proc. 1017, it has been nothing but barbaric. Inhumane, even.
Let me level-off here: as someone who has experience and training in security matters, I can understand and even appreciate the situation that can make a President of a democracy call on the extraordinary powers granted him or her by their constitution. Until the brazen disregard for the Constitution by the Macapagal-Arroyo government, I was ready to argue to anyone that, given the possible threat posed by disgruntled members of the military, government's declaration of a State of
Government has a right to defend itself. That I can understand. If some soldiers and policemen get the short end of the stick (or, in this case, the very hard end of one) for actions contrary to their standing orders and the chain of command, then tough luck. The military is not a democracy, and going against the chain of command outside normal channels can really get you into a lot of heat. But even if the military is not a democracy, there should be other ways, other means, because the country they serve is (supposedly) a democracy.
I'll also argue against those who could so... carelessly endanger the Republic through actions like this. This is not Martial Law (well, at least until last Friday). This is not the Erap years. This is a country we built together, at least until
Yet... I cannot sit here and say I agree with what has been done to our rights in the last few days. Disagree? No: I am horrified. I am indignant. I am shocked. I am outraged.
Yes, I know what the Tribune and
As the Tribune petition to the Supreme Court said, Proc. 1017 is not even a law, so what right does government have to do what it did? Sec. 18, Article VII? Bullshit. Again I quote Par. 4, Sec. 18, Article VII: "A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus."
I don't like the Tribune. I believe it's too biased a paper for its own good, or even to be regarded as serious journalism. I believe it's just propaganda on print. The
But those two were newspapers. Legit newspapers. Members of the Press. Government has no right to even threaten media nor tell it what to do because the fundamental law of the land says so.
I don't like rallies all that much, in the context of so much democratic space. I believe they serve a purpose, and are a necessary part of civil society's toolkit, but a functioning democracy should have other, more effective avenues for addressing the issues confronting its citizenry.
But rallies are expression both of free speech and assembly. In a democracy, we, the people, should be able to gather where we choose and say what we want, observing only the natural laws of decency and reason. The people - on whom, as the Preamble to the '87 Consti states, resides all powers and emanates from them - should have a right to complain about a President they think has been failing them. Why? Because the fundamental law of the land says so.
And no one, most especially the President who swore she'd defend that Constitution, nor the military and police who said the same oaths, is above that fundamental law.
Y'know what? I helped kick Erap out in '01. But in fairness to the guy, he gave us this much: the right to assemble and speak. Even if it cost him so much after.
I wonder, if the current President could (continue to) do worse than that?
No, this is wrong. I may not agree with the way Black and White has defined the whole issue that began with the Garci tapes, but in this I will agree: there are just some things that are downright wrong. And government’s actions since Proc. 1017 have been nothing but wrong.
The Bible says that when your brother offends you, the first thing you do is point it out to him. If he still doesn’t get it, you bring a friend along who will witness to his wrongdoing. If he still thinks otherwise, then the Bible was clear on how such a person should be treated.
If the Macapagal-Arroyo administration continues to think it’s not doing anything wrong with Proc. 1017, then we have a problem here.
And then, I think, it’s time to once again draw a line on the concrete with our blood, and tell those who would trample on our hard-fought rights that enough is enough, and that we’d be damned if we let another dictator rise and put us and the Republic in chains again.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Dangerous Times
When that aborted coup last Friday happened - along with the reaction of the Palace to it - I was very little, if any, perturbed. I even had a bit of stress from my own father because he was so worried and wanted me back at the house. I guess his statements - if I didn't want to listen, that was my problem, or something like that - rankled me because of his four children I was the one who was part of one revolution and helped stop another. I've seen my share of conflict and recieved training to handle it and myself. I wanted to tell him that, if I wasn't worried about a few tanks then he shouldn't.
Yet, with tonight's news of the takeover of the Daily Tribune, my anxiety over the state of emergency has heightened.
Part of me understands the action: the Daily Tribune has done nothing but castigate the Arroyo administration since 2001. The Tribune, after all, is an Erap paper, in much the same way Malaya is an
Of all the classes I had with journalism institution Doreen Fernandez, one has remained etched in memory. We had her as our prof during soph year Intro to Journ. We weren't freshies anymore, wide-eyed and in awe of our status as Atenean college students, but I think we still had a bit of the naivete of our age. Doreen's class would show us a little bit more of the world we were going to confront and hopefully change. That day, she posed us a question: why did we think some newspapers still operate eventhough they are losing money for their publishers? No answers from the class, so she answered her own question for us: because it gives one power. Having one's own media gives one the power of a Gatekeeper of Information, the ability to influence the thinking of large segments of the population. And in a society that trusts media more than government, that can be quite the power indeed.
As a longtime media operator, and for a major political party no less, this lesson given to naive little soph me is something I can fully appreciate. I've seen it in action. In fact, it's one of the beginning exercises I give my trainees in KALIPI's media directorate, that of identifying which media is with which faction or interest group. There is no objective media. The first rule of media ops brings home the point: do not piss off media. If media were objective, they wouldn't mind being dissed by media ops like me if they can get the Truth, whatever the hell that is in a post-July 8 Philippines.
But, if the press is such a pain and does take sides in a political contest, is that any reason to take such radical, punitive action against a segment of it?
I'm looking at the 1987 Consti right now (thank you, Chan Robles). First, let's look at the provision that Gloria invoked:
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Gloria quoted the first sentence of Section 18, Article 7 as justification for Proc. 1017, and is presumably the operating “law” for any and all actions being taken in accordance with the State of
This is because of certain provisions that come before Article 7, some of the most important provisions of the ’87 Consti:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
Section 19. (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Those provisions are from Article III, more commonly called the Bill of Rights. And if Gloria wants to use the Consti as justification for Proc. 1017, then she'd better read it again. Because even with Proc. 1017, she can't have opposition papers closed, or highly critical media organizations like, say, ANC, because Sec. 4, Article III says so. And she can't have... "inconvenient" people like Nemenzo and Randy David, nor Anakpawis congressman Crispin Beltran picked up because so many Sections in Article III says so. She can't do what she wants because the very same Sec. 18, Article VII that she quotes says so. And it holds even if she had the gall to declare Martial Law.
I read somewhere - I think it was a column in the PDI about freedom of the press - that any opinion or statement that elicits strong reactions (or something like that) is precisely what the right to freedom of the press and speech protects. Because it is precisely strong words that create debates that should be the basis of a functioning democracy. A true, strong and vibrant democracy must not be scared of high-handed criticism; in fact it should encourage it. Because the essence of a democracy is about people having their own opinion and not being afraid of it being heard, especially if it concerns the powers-that-be. Yes, there is a fine line between freedom of speech and sedition but wouldn't it be better to err on the side of democracy?
Gloria's people should have seen from last year that what we have now is a people that thinks. Otherwise, the little lady would've been out since, say, July 8. But because the Filipino people refuse to be so easily hoodwinked to any faction, we all still sit and wait for more proof to come out.
But what is going to happen now, that Gloria is appearing like some dictator in all but name with her recent actions?
This a very, very dangerous time. People probably would have understood some of the measures taken to secure the Republic last Friday. Some probably didn't do more than shrug when they heard the President read Proc. 1017. But a lot of people will look with growing alarm at her recent actions. And coming as it is during the celebration of the First People Power... Gloria and her people couldn't have chosen a worst time to act the dictator.
Dangerous times indeed. Marcos was able to put the country under Martial Law because he moved fast, and the people initially thought it was for the best. I think the Filipino is wiser now, despite all those surveys that say people wouldn't mind another dictatorship if it'd clean everything up. And Gloria's people have not moved with the speed and efficiency that Marcos did.
How absurd. As Tin said in a text a while ago, she's just comitting political suicide.
We'll see. The Filipino people are very patient and forgiving, but a lot of dictators and corrupt leaders found out the hard way not to tempt fate when it comes to trampling the Filipino's rights and sense of right and wrong.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
People Power at Twenty
Bandwagoning again, goodness... But, then...
It’s funny how I reacted to the articles on the First People Power that have been coming out of PDI. Ha, ha: they actually bring a tear or more to my eyes.
I belong to the generation who fought on the Second People Power. And before. I can still remember those days of the Resign-Impeach-Oust (RIO) Initiatives against Erap. All those meetings. All those street actions and forums. More meetings. More actions, some of them really big ones like the Impeachain, the Jericho March (and its near-disastrous security lapse by yours truly that allowed those damned NDs to overrun the K2Y positions, grr), and the first gathering at EDSA on November.
Even those of us who were at the forefront of the RIO and the Second People Power still stand in awe of those who made the First possible. Men and women like Dinky Soliman, Butch Abad and Jovy Salonga were our idols, men and women who literally faced the guns and goons of a dictatorship and won.
Yet, I think we who stood against Erap, and tried to maintain what little sanity (and security) could be maintained in a crowd of up to a million in those days of the PP2, can appreciate what went on in the First. In fact, I think it was also the answer of my generation to our elders', that, yes, we can make a difference, too.
Still, PP1 awes me. True, I had a cannon barrel facing me squarely during the Second, but I knew there was little to no intent of its use, at least immediately. So when I see pix or vidcaps of those people who literally stood against those tanks in the First... awe is the least thing I would feel. These were ordinary people. These were the kind of people you meet everyday on the streets or at work. These were people who didn't have an ounce of training for operations in the public sphere, not the people who usually waved flags or shouted slogans. How many of those standing on EDSA in 1986 were part of the First Quarter Storm? How many of them, at least before 1983, participated in rallies and other actions against the dictator?
Yet they were there. For four glorious days the people we call "ordinary" flocked to EDSA and stopped the tanks and heavily-armed troops. They came there not with red-colored flags but with rosaries and packets of food and drinks that they eagerly shared with the soldiers they came to stop and could have rolled over them anytime. They came not to shout slogans but to pray and talk with the soldiers, and to peacefully demand a change in government.
Now, People Power is twenty years. All I can remember of that date was my parents debating on whether they would get my grandparents from Manila and bring them to us at Muntinlupa. I was too young then, to appreciate what was happening, and I can't recall my parents telling me things like "malaya na tayo, anak," after Marcos left. And growing up with a grandmother who's a Blue Lady can really screw up your appreciation for the Martial Law years and People Power. Add to that one's distressing memories of the Blackout Years (imagine being one of the first families in your community with a PC - this was 1990, okay? - and not being to use it with impunity because there's no electricity for, say, half the day), and things really get kind of muddled.
But, yes, I can appreciate it now; after all, I've been serving as part of Civil Society since the formation of the UCSC in 1998. And I wish that the government could've done a better celebration of this landmark date. Or if government won't, maybe CivSoc should. Proper remembrances of dates like this are important to the rebuilding of a nation. People need to properly remember what happened and why it happened. We need these stories to remind us of a time when we were better. Or rather a time when the Filipino acted the way the should. Filipinos need to remember how and why the First People Power happened, because we just might find in the experiences of those four days the answers for many of the questions we've been asking since the Second.
It’s funny how I reacted to the articles on the First People Power that have been coming out of PDI. Ha, ha: they actually bring a tear or more to my eyes.
I belong to the generation who fought on the Second People Power. And before. I can still remember those days of the Resign-Impeach-Oust (RIO) Initiatives against Erap. All those meetings. All those street actions and forums. More meetings. More actions, some of them really big ones like the Impeachain, the Jericho March (and its near-disastrous security lapse by yours truly that allowed those damned NDs to overrun the K2Y positions, grr), and the first gathering at EDSA on November.
Even those of us who were at the forefront of the RIO and the Second People Power still stand in awe of those who made the First possible. Men and women like Dinky Soliman, Butch Abad and Jovy Salonga were our idols, men and women who literally faced the guns and goons of a dictatorship and won.
Yet, I think we who stood against Erap, and tried to maintain what little sanity (and security) could be maintained in a crowd of up to a million in those days of the PP2, can appreciate what went on in the First. In fact, I think it was also the answer of my generation to our elders', that, yes, we can make a difference, too.
Still, PP1 awes me. True, I had a cannon barrel facing me squarely during the Second, but I knew there was little to no intent of its use, at least immediately. So when I see pix or vidcaps of those people who literally stood against those tanks in the First... awe is the least thing I would feel. These were ordinary people. These were the kind of people you meet everyday on the streets or at work. These were people who didn't have an ounce of training for operations in the public sphere, not the people who usually waved flags or shouted slogans. How many of those standing on EDSA in 1986 were part of the First Quarter Storm? How many of them, at least before 1983, participated in rallies and other actions against the dictator?
Yet they were there. For four glorious days the people we call "ordinary" flocked to EDSA and stopped the tanks and heavily-armed troops. They came there not with red-colored flags but with rosaries and packets of food and drinks that they eagerly shared with the soldiers they came to stop and could have rolled over them anytime. They came not to shout slogans but to pray and talk with the soldiers, and to peacefully demand a change in government.
Now, People Power is twenty years. All I can remember of that date was my parents debating on whether they would get my grandparents from Manila and bring them to us at Muntinlupa. I was too young then, to appreciate what was happening, and I can't recall my parents telling me things like "malaya na tayo, anak," after Marcos left. And growing up with a grandmother who's a Blue Lady can really screw up your appreciation for the Martial Law years and People Power. Add to that one's distressing memories of the Blackout Years (imagine being one of the first families in your community with a PC - this was 1990, okay? - and not being to use it with impunity because there's no electricity for, say, half the day), and things really get kind of muddled.
But, yes, I can appreciate it now; after all, I've been serving as part of Civil Society since the formation of the UCSC in 1998. And I wish that the government could've done a better celebration of this landmark date. Or if government won't, maybe CivSoc should. Proper remembrances of dates like this are important to the rebuilding of a nation. People need to properly remember what happened and why it happened. We need these stories to remind us of a time when we were better. Or rather a time when the Filipino acted the way the should. Filipinos need to remember how and why the First People Power happened, because we just might find in the experiences of those four days the answers for many of the questions we've been asking since the Second.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Faith in the People
Mass, at least where I regularly go to, has been quite... routine for me, most days. I rarely hear one at the Gesu, since the ones there are usually held at 10:30 in the morning, and I oversleep a lot during weekends, and I also rarely hear Mass at Greenbelt.
This Sunday's Mass, though, was rather different. You see, at Pandacan's Sto. Niño Church, there's this elderly beggar who attends the 3:30 p.m. Mass. Not always, but regularly enough. He has this kid he lugs around, a big kid, obviously unable to move on his (her?) own.
Even in a Parish Church for a community that's essentially "middile-Middle," the pair are, well, a sight to behold. 3:30 in the afternoon is the Children's Mass, but the priest who used to celebrate it, Fr. Romy de Castro, has quite a bit of a following from the parishoners that many of the attendees to the Mass are adults, or young people.
One time, the old man sat on the center-left aisle area. You could see the way people... moved away from the pair. It wasn't even that subtle. And the looks they gave...
This afternoon was different. I arrived late, and the new, young priest was already well into his sermon; it would seem the Gospel for this Sunday was about the leper (lepers?) that Jesus cured, and the young priest was telling his flock about how we would feel if we were lepers - whether physical or something else - and people would shy away from us, ostracize us even. Because that's what Jesus thought and felt, and which was why he acted as He did and cured the leper(s). The young priest said that with that single act, Jesus changed the way society viewed its outcasts, calling on the people to shun the practice of shunning, that we should bring everyone into the community especially those that most need our love and care.
The pair of beggars at that time were sitting in the third-to-the-last pew of the rightmost aisle of the Church. There was the... expected space around them, and I was observing how the people around the pair would react. To tell the truth, I was expecting more of the shunning of this pair, and was quite ready to feel bad throughout the whole Mass.
Then, one of the people nearest them stood and gave a small amount of money to the old man. Then another. The next thing I knew, nearly everyone beside them gave them money. Even in farther pews. There was even this young woman in front of me who chased after them just to give a few pesos. If i remember correctly, the first to give was this young couple, who had their baby with them.
To say my heart was touched is to give an understatement. This was totally unexpected. But maybe I should have. As a Guardian, I have seen the worst and the best in the Filipino. And this is but a simple expression of the best in the Filipino soul: that, regardless of all the things that has bowed down this once-noble race, we have not forgotten what we are. And what we are is a people whose hearts are so big that, no matter how small, we will extend help to our fellowman.
I said in an earlier post that this country has stood countless trials not because of its leaders or heroes or martyrs, but because of its people. This magnificent, brilliant, beautiful and deeply-spiritual people. When disaster strikes, we don't abandon each other but pick one another up, and the rule always is women and children first. We give so much to charities and to worthy causes, not out of a sense of noblesse oblige - how can that be the case when many of those who give are not of the "noblity" of this country? - but out of a genuine desire to help others. This charitable and helpful aspect of the Filipino spirit is I think part of the reason why the NGO culture is so much alive here, why volunteerism is a living, changing force in this country.
Perhaps we are apathetic, young and old alike. Perhaps that new, ugly word of sociopolitics - pragmatism - has buried the Filipino soul under so much muck. But the FIlipino soul is a resilient and powerful force that cannot be broken nor buried for so long. It cannot forget nor deny for long what it truly is. It yearns to shine forth. That was what both People Powers were all about: the Filipino soul blazing forth in all its majesty and glory to show the world that, yes, there is another, better way. That the world need not be about darkness and pragmatism, that reality can be soo much better and sweeter.
And, yes, that's why you fight on, even as your idealism flutters in tatters in the cruel winds of Philippine politics. Because you have faith in the Filipino, and that its true worth will once again shine true.
This Sunday's Mass, though, was rather different. You see, at Pandacan's Sto. Niño Church, there's this elderly beggar who attends the 3:30 p.m. Mass. Not always, but regularly enough. He has this kid he lugs around, a big kid, obviously unable to move on his (her?) own.
Even in a Parish Church for a community that's essentially "middile-Middle," the pair are, well, a sight to behold. 3:30 in the afternoon is the Children's Mass, but the priest who used to celebrate it, Fr. Romy de Castro, has quite a bit of a following from the parishoners that many of the attendees to the Mass are adults, or young people.
One time, the old man sat on the center-left aisle area. You could see the way people... moved away from the pair. It wasn't even that subtle. And the looks they gave...
This afternoon was different. I arrived late, and the new, young priest was already well into his sermon; it would seem the Gospel for this Sunday was about the leper (lepers?) that Jesus cured, and the young priest was telling his flock about how we would feel if we were lepers - whether physical or something else - and people would shy away from us, ostracize us even. Because that's what Jesus thought and felt, and which was why he acted as He did and cured the leper(s). The young priest said that with that single act, Jesus changed the way society viewed its outcasts, calling on the people to shun the practice of shunning, that we should bring everyone into the community especially those that most need our love and care.
The pair of beggars at that time were sitting in the third-to-the-last pew of the rightmost aisle of the Church. There was the... expected space around them, and I was observing how the people around the pair would react. To tell the truth, I was expecting more of the shunning of this pair, and was quite ready to feel bad throughout the whole Mass.
Then, one of the people nearest them stood and gave a small amount of money to the old man. Then another. The next thing I knew, nearly everyone beside them gave them money. Even in farther pews. There was even this young woman in front of me who chased after them just to give a few pesos. If i remember correctly, the first to give was this young couple, who had their baby with them.
To say my heart was touched is to give an understatement. This was totally unexpected. But maybe I should have. As a Guardian, I have seen the worst and the best in the Filipino. And this is but a simple expression of the best in the Filipino soul: that, regardless of all the things that has bowed down this once-noble race, we have not forgotten what we are. And what we are is a people whose hearts are so big that, no matter how small, we will extend help to our fellowman.
I said in an earlier post that this country has stood countless trials not because of its leaders or heroes or martyrs, but because of its people. This magnificent, brilliant, beautiful and deeply-spiritual people. When disaster strikes, we don't abandon each other but pick one another up, and the rule always is women and children first. We give so much to charities and to worthy causes, not out of a sense of noblesse oblige - how can that be the case when many of those who give are not of the "noblity" of this country? - but out of a genuine desire to help others. This charitable and helpful aspect of the Filipino spirit is I think part of the reason why the NGO culture is so much alive here, why volunteerism is a living, changing force in this country.
Perhaps we are apathetic, young and old alike. Perhaps that new, ugly word of sociopolitics - pragmatism - has buried the Filipino soul under so much muck. But the FIlipino soul is a resilient and powerful force that cannot be broken nor buried for so long. It cannot forget nor deny for long what it truly is. It yearns to shine forth. That was what both People Powers were all about: the Filipino soul blazing forth in all its majesty and glory to show the world that, yes, there is another, better way. That the world need not be about darkness and pragmatism, that reality can be soo much better and sweeter.
And, yes, that's why you fight on, even as your idealism flutters in tatters in the cruel winds of Philippine politics. Because you have faith in the Filipino, and that its true worth will once again shine true.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
The End of the Reform Age
Okay, before people react too adversely to the title, let's level-off here: yes, this is not based on any "scientific" proof, like demographics or even statements from the people involved. But, I do speak from my long experience and association with the civil society movement, especially with its more younger generation, who are essentially my comrades-in-arms if not close friends.
I think it all started sometime in the early nineties. There's this local band that has a song entitled, "para sa mga namulat sa dekada sitenta," or "for those who became aware in the '90s." For, truly, the call for deep-seated reform had its beginnings with the awakening of the Filipino youth in the administration following Cory Aquino's. We were the last children of Martial Law and the youth of the new democractic era that was ushered by the First People Power. We were the young who saw the Wall fell, who witnessed despotic governments - whether Right or Left - fall one by one as a wave of democracy swept the globe. Many older people regard my generation with a certain level of approbation, muttering beneath their breaths that we who came of age after 1986 never had it so good and that we never had to fight for anything more than parking space, a table during lunch and dinner at some snazzy resto or cafe, or for a place up front in some concert.
Of course, we proved the damned elders wrong when the student movement picked up in the mid-90s. I still remember my first mass action: it was over the Ramos initiative to amend the consti, and the usually Ivory-towerish Ateneans joined their rivals from UP Diliman and the also-resurgent ladies of Miriam College to form a chain protesting the thinely vield attempt by Fidel Ramos to extend his term via concon. I don't know about the others who were there that day, but it felt... good to do something like that, to shake a fist at Authority that thinks it can get away with abuses to power. We were young, we were Aware, and we were Active, and we were going to shake the corridors of power! And shake them we did in 2000 and 2001, as everyone whose opinion is worth something agrees that the success of the Second People Power was due to the millions of young Filipinos who turned out to protest the blatant display of trapo politics at the Senate's refusal to open the Second Envelope. It was the young who started it all by showing their indignation with the flash street protests that followed the refusal. And it was the young who, in the words of my generation, "put paid" to a regime of corruption and immorality by coming out in the millions to show the powers-that-be that they may hold the levers of power in society, but if nothing then through sheer numbers the young will trample their sorry trapo ass.
It was a good time, wasn't it? And a good time to be good. Despite everything our elders would like us to believe and accept, we showed them all that idealism, especially when backed by determination, dedication, defiance - three Ds to combat the three Gs? Hmm... - and a lot of creativity - the celfone as a weapon for a revolution; who'd have thunk? - can move more than one mountain. We dreamt, we acted on that dream, and we made that dream a reality.
Yet...
Has it really been just six years since PP2? But so many things seem to have changed, and many for the bad. What better way to... destroy the forces of reform than to drain them out of the country or co-op even their best and brightest? How many young people took up nursing even if their skills and talents are better served for other fieldds? How many even of the young leaders who fought on the Second People Power now work for the call centers? Heck, even my contemporaries who went to "traditional" corporate jobs have been eaten by their work. Back then, when there was a cause to fight for you didn't need to call twice; sometimes, we even went around looking for causes to espouse. Now, it seems so hard to gather people even for a simple get-together because of work. Hah, even those in civil society and government are eaten by work.
I don't know. Who's to blame? Gloria? C'mon: like what I've always said since the Garci tapes surfaced, she only acted the way we expected her to act so what's to be disillusioned about Gloria? To blame Gloria for all the ills of the Philippines is a gross reduction of the problem. Yes, she is part of the problem, but not the only factor in the equation. No: like the stuff you see in some astrophysicist's whiteboard, the equation is far more complex than adding one to one and getting two.
In the National Youth Commission, there is a changing of the guard that I think is significant, regardless of other opinions. Bam, despite a good chance of being retained for another term as Chairperson, has decided not to. In his own words - we got to chat today at his soon-to-be-former office, after a long while - "it's time to move on to other things." And he was saying the same thing to his longtime EA, Saira (also a good friend and adviser of mine, one of only two women who can give me a scolding and get away with it), and he was telling me the same thing. Cel Aves and Cris Arnuco have also moved on from the Commission. It's hard to find a team in the premier youth institution of government that is more reform-oriented than the one Bam led and had the likes of Cel and Cris.
This to me hammered the point that, perhaps, the "Age of Reform" that started with the Awakening of my generation in the 1990s has, at least for now, come to an end. The grand experiment of Generation X with trying to change society before we're 40 is over, and... we've lost. In one sense I can understand the Ostrich-like actions of many of even my colleagues in the old UCSC because the last few years have been a trauma bordering on fatal for our idealism. Our elder leaders have not only betrayed our confidence in them but also in many cases abused us, seeing us as no more than pawns in their power games. Our icons have failed us, whether to serve as a continuing inspiration or to reach the lofty goals and image they portrayed when they came out to challenge with us the demons plaguing this country and its people. And the values that we held dear have not only been broken by our elders - so blatantly in many cases! - but what's left has been dragged through muck and mud that we can't recognize what's left of our hearts and souls anymore.
Given the context following the mad clash for power unleashed by the May 1 Mayhem - civility between the contending political forces died on the bloodied streets of Mendiola that day, alongside propriety and a modicum of pakitang-tao among the trapos - how can we bring about change? Whatever little hold we had on the levers of power and influence now fade with the exit of Bam, Cel, Cris and the others in the NYC. The national-level youth organizations are either compromised, marginalized, or engaged in inter-org and inter-ideology rivalries to become as effective as we were in 2001 (but then, given the propensity of the NDs to stick to their overarching goal - the success of their Revolution and the installation of a communist government in the Philippines - who can blame the others for becoming so paranoid and going on the defensive?). The leaders who rose during the Second People Power are lost in the corridors of career and corporation.
Gawad Kalinga shows that hope still exists and that there still is something we can do. And there is Rock Ed. But unless GK and Rock Ed have a strategy in mind - I'm actually hoping the two are some part of one big strategy, a last attempt by the remaining reformist forces to bring about positive change, but maybe I hope too much - then all these "tactical" moves can do little the way they are now to effect change. It's like standing on some beach and trying to send the ocean back using only a pail, when you need a dike to hold back the stormy seas. And lots of people. But the strategy appears not there, and the people scattered.
I have a fear. Sometime when I'm ten years older, someone who is a kid now will be in their late teens or early twenties, old enough to understand the world he or she is moving in. And then that young person will ask me, why is the world a darker, crueler, messed up place? What did you and your fellows did to prevent this?
I could probably give a dozen excuses, but perhaps there isn't. Because we who will succeed those in power faltered sometime in the first decade of the 21st century. Because we were swept under by the forces of reality and pragmatism - the newest ugly word of Philippine politics, a convenient replacement for Trapo, since it sounds far more real and palatable than the latter but actually connotates the same - and were unable to put up a unified enough stand.
So there ends the Age of Reform.
Well, who knows? In Tolkien's Silmarillion, the forces of Good, represented by the Eldar and the Edain, were decimated. Yet one couple won over to the Powers and got them to rescind their Ban and thus Evil was defeated. I love that book, Silmarillion. It's one of my all time favorites. Who knows, someone or someones will be our Earendil and Elwing, find the way to our Aman the Blessed for us, and bring us the necessary reinforcements to end this age of darkness that has swept the country once again.
I think it all started sometime in the early nineties. There's this local band that has a song entitled, "para sa mga namulat sa dekada sitenta," or "for those who became aware in the '90s." For, truly, the call for deep-seated reform had its beginnings with the awakening of the Filipino youth in the administration following Cory Aquino's. We were the last children of Martial Law and the youth of the new democractic era that was ushered by the First People Power. We were the young who saw the Wall fell, who witnessed despotic governments - whether Right or Left - fall one by one as a wave of democracy swept the globe. Many older people regard my generation with a certain level of approbation, muttering beneath their breaths that we who came of age after 1986 never had it so good and that we never had to fight for anything more than parking space, a table during lunch and dinner at some snazzy resto or cafe, or for a place up front in some concert.
Of course, we proved the damned elders wrong when the student movement picked up in the mid-90s. I still remember my first mass action: it was over the Ramos initiative to amend the consti, and the usually Ivory-towerish Ateneans joined their rivals from UP Diliman and the also-resurgent ladies of Miriam College to form a chain protesting the thinely vield attempt by Fidel Ramos to extend his term via concon. I don't know about the others who were there that day, but it felt... good to do something like that, to shake a fist at Authority that thinks it can get away with abuses to power. We were young, we were Aware, and we were Active, and we were going to shake the corridors of power! And shake them we did in 2000 and 2001, as everyone whose opinion is worth something agrees that the success of the Second People Power was due to the millions of young Filipinos who turned out to protest the blatant display of trapo politics at the Senate's refusal to open the Second Envelope. It was the young who started it all by showing their indignation with the flash street protests that followed the refusal. And it was the young who, in the words of my generation, "put paid" to a regime of corruption and immorality by coming out in the millions to show the powers-that-be that they may hold the levers of power in society, but if nothing then through sheer numbers the young will trample their sorry trapo ass.
It was a good time, wasn't it? And a good time to be good. Despite everything our elders would like us to believe and accept, we showed them all that idealism, especially when backed by determination, dedication, defiance - three Ds to combat the three Gs? Hmm... - and a lot of creativity - the celfone as a weapon for a revolution; who'd have thunk? - can move more than one mountain. We dreamt, we acted on that dream, and we made that dream a reality.
Yet...
Has it really been just six years since PP2? But so many things seem to have changed, and many for the bad. What better way to... destroy the forces of reform than to drain them out of the country or co-op even their best and brightest? How many young people took up nursing even if their skills and talents are better served for other fieldds? How many even of the young leaders who fought on the Second People Power now work for the call centers? Heck, even my contemporaries who went to "traditional" corporate jobs have been eaten by their work. Back then, when there was a cause to fight for you didn't need to call twice; sometimes, we even went around looking for causes to espouse. Now, it seems so hard to gather people even for a simple get-together because of work. Hah, even those in civil society and government are eaten by work.
I don't know. Who's to blame? Gloria? C'mon: like what I've always said since the Garci tapes surfaced, she only acted the way we expected her to act so what's to be disillusioned about Gloria? To blame Gloria for all the ills of the Philippines is a gross reduction of the problem. Yes, she is part of the problem, but not the only factor in the equation. No: like the stuff you see in some astrophysicist's whiteboard, the equation is far more complex than adding one to one and getting two.
In the National Youth Commission, there is a changing of the guard that I think is significant, regardless of other opinions. Bam, despite a good chance of being retained for another term as Chairperson, has decided not to. In his own words - we got to chat today at his soon-to-be-former office, after a long while - "it's time to move on to other things." And he was saying the same thing to his longtime EA, Saira (also a good friend and adviser of mine, one of only two women who can give me a scolding and get away with it), and he was telling me the same thing. Cel Aves and Cris Arnuco have also moved on from the Commission. It's hard to find a team in the premier youth institution of government that is more reform-oriented than the one Bam led and had the likes of Cel and Cris.
This to me hammered the point that, perhaps, the "Age of Reform" that started with the Awakening of my generation in the 1990s has, at least for now, come to an end. The grand experiment of Generation X with trying to change society before we're 40 is over, and... we've lost. In one sense I can understand the Ostrich-like actions of many of even my colleagues in the old UCSC because the last few years have been a trauma bordering on fatal for our idealism. Our elder leaders have not only betrayed our confidence in them but also in many cases abused us, seeing us as no more than pawns in their power games. Our icons have failed us, whether to serve as a continuing inspiration or to reach the lofty goals and image they portrayed when they came out to challenge with us the demons plaguing this country and its people. And the values that we held dear have not only been broken by our elders - so blatantly in many cases! - but what's left has been dragged through muck and mud that we can't recognize what's left of our hearts and souls anymore.
Given the context following the mad clash for power unleashed by the May 1 Mayhem - civility between the contending political forces died on the bloodied streets of Mendiola that day, alongside propriety and a modicum of pakitang-tao among the trapos - how can we bring about change? Whatever little hold we had on the levers of power and influence now fade with the exit of Bam, Cel, Cris and the others in the NYC. The national-level youth organizations are either compromised, marginalized, or engaged in inter-org and inter-ideology rivalries to become as effective as we were in 2001 (but then, given the propensity of the NDs to stick to their overarching goal - the success of their Revolution and the installation of a communist government in the Philippines - who can blame the others for becoming so paranoid and going on the defensive?). The leaders who rose during the Second People Power are lost in the corridors of career and corporation.
Gawad Kalinga shows that hope still exists and that there still is something we can do. And there is Rock Ed. But unless GK and Rock Ed have a strategy in mind - I'm actually hoping the two are some part of one big strategy, a last attempt by the remaining reformist forces to bring about positive change, but maybe I hope too much - then all these "tactical" moves can do little the way they are now to effect change. It's like standing on some beach and trying to send the ocean back using only a pail, when you need a dike to hold back the stormy seas. And lots of people. But the strategy appears not there, and the people scattered.
I have a fear. Sometime when I'm ten years older, someone who is a kid now will be in their late teens or early twenties, old enough to understand the world he or she is moving in. And then that young person will ask me, why is the world a darker, crueler, messed up place? What did you and your fellows did to prevent this?
I could probably give a dozen excuses, but perhaps there isn't. Because we who will succeed those in power faltered sometime in the first decade of the 21st century. Because we were swept under by the forces of reality and pragmatism - the newest ugly word of Philippine politics, a convenient replacement for Trapo, since it sounds far more real and palatable than the latter but actually connotates the same - and were unable to put up a unified enough stand.
So there ends the Age of Reform.
Well, who knows? In Tolkien's Silmarillion, the forces of Good, represented by the Eldar and the Edain, were decimated. Yet one couple won over to the Powers and got them to rescind their Ban and thus Evil was defeated. I love that book, Silmarillion. It's one of my all time favorites. Who knows, someone or someones will be our Earendil and Elwing, find the way to our Aman the Blessed for us, and bring us the necessary reinforcements to end this age of darkness that has swept the country once again.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Ruminations on some rather... inconvenient events
Where was I when I heard that?
Okay, I know: I have not posted anything on this blog for quite a while not. Part of me says, "ha, like anybody cares?" But then, the intent wasn't to be an ace blogger like, say, MLQ3 (an aside: the man is good. I've had the honor of working with him a couple of times in the course of my duties with the LP, and his mind works wonderfully. Basta. I will probably write something about some of the things he discussed some other time). No, no. This a place online where I can stuff these... thoughts. Mentats have problems staying silent. If for no other reason, my blogs are my sounding boards, so there.
Anyway:
Hearing about Ariel Sharon's stroke should have a cause, more or less, for minor concern for me. I'm not one of his fans; ha, ha, I am part of the legions of people who, though understanding the need of the people of Israel for a measure of peace and security, think that the late, great Yitzhak Rabin and maybe his chosen successor Shimon Peres had the best idea in securing an end to the decades-old Palestinian conflict.
That was until I realized something: Sharon was the one who called - and managed to pull off - the Gaza Withdrawal. Its pros and cons are not the issue here; that an Israeli leader would do so is an act that can be called... courageous. The IDF withdrawing from Gaza and allowing the Palestinians to govern it. The sheer... audacity of the move was so unlike the conservatives of Likud, much less its leader.
I am not a pacifist. I fervently believe that a people who destory their weapons simply to make a point about peace will be the first ones to die - if they're so lucky - under the bootheels of people who think in socially-darwinian terms. I am a firm believer of the concept that people have a right to defend their way of life if that way does not necessarily impinge on the ways of their neighbors, and that being sheep is nice, but there are always wolves on the prowl outside of the fence.
But I do believe that Men of Peace are the ones who truly make a difference when it comes to bringing solid results in the realm of conflict resolution. We Guardians are just there to allow them the opportunity to tame the lions. Peacemakers are effective because they change people in the place that matters: in their thinking, in their outlook.
How badly has the cause of peace suffered because of the untimely deaths of its leading lights? Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a delusional conservative fellowman of his at a crucial moment in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. John Paul II and Mother Theresa were given their rest at a time when the world needed men and women like them the most.
I think few people would call Ariel Sharon a man of peace. The man was from Likud, after all. But he was perhaps the only one with political will enough to enforce measures that would push the peace in Palestine, regardless of the cost to Israel. And given that Gaza, because of so many factors, is fast becoming a balkanized mess where the Palestinian Authority has no authority at all and the radicals hold sway, would the people of Israel follow another man who calls for a peaceful resolution to their ages-old problem? It is a mess there: hate feeds on hate.
And the people who have the capability to break that cycle of hate... are falling one after the other...
*sigh* Sometimes, it really is a weird world, isn't it?
Okay, I know: I have not posted anything on this blog for quite a while not. Part of me says, "ha, like anybody cares?" But then, the intent wasn't to be an ace blogger like, say, MLQ3 (an aside: the man is good. I've had the honor of working with him a couple of times in the course of my duties with the LP, and his mind works wonderfully. Basta. I will probably write something about some of the things he discussed some other time). No, no. This a place online where I can stuff these... thoughts. Mentats have problems staying silent. If for no other reason, my blogs are my sounding boards, so there.
Anyway:
Hearing about Ariel Sharon's stroke should have a cause, more or less, for minor concern for me. I'm not one of his fans; ha, ha, I am part of the legions of people who, though understanding the need of the people of Israel for a measure of peace and security, think that the late, great Yitzhak Rabin and maybe his chosen successor Shimon Peres had the best idea in securing an end to the decades-old Palestinian conflict.
That was until I realized something: Sharon was the one who called - and managed to pull off - the Gaza Withdrawal. Its pros and cons are not the issue here; that an Israeli leader would do so is an act that can be called... courageous. The IDF withdrawing from Gaza and allowing the Palestinians to govern it. The sheer... audacity of the move was so unlike the conservatives of Likud, much less its leader.
I am not a pacifist. I fervently believe that a people who destory their weapons simply to make a point about peace will be the first ones to die - if they're so lucky - under the bootheels of people who think in socially-darwinian terms. I am a firm believer of the concept that people have a right to defend their way of life if that way does not necessarily impinge on the ways of their neighbors, and that being sheep is nice, but there are always wolves on the prowl outside of the fence.
But I do believe that Men of Peace are the ones who truly make a difference when it comes to bringing solid results in the realm of conflict resolution. We Guardians are just there to allow them the opportunity to tame the lions. Peacemakers are effective because they change people in the place that matters: in their thinking, in their outlook.
How badly has the cause of peace suffered because of the untimely deaths of its leading lights? Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a delusional conservative fellowman of his at a crucial moment in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. John Paul II and Mother Theresa were given their rest at a time when the world needed men and women like them the most.
I think few people would call Ariel Sharon a man of peace. The man was from Likud, after all. But he was perhaps the only one with political will enough to enforce measures that would push the peace in Palestine, regardless of the cost to Israel. And given that Gaza, because of so many factors, is fast becoming a balkanized mess where the Palestinian Authority has no authority at all and the radicals hold sway, would the people of Israel follow another man who calls for a peaceful resolution to their ages-old problem? It is a mess there: hate feeds on hate.
And the people who have the capability to break that cycle of hate... are falling one after the other...
*sigh* Sometimes, it really is a weird world, isn't it?
Monday, November 07, 2005
Marriage in the Season of (Filipino) Discontent
This incident happened about... a week or so? Sorry, bu tmy PC at the house crashed and I don't like making blog posts in public.
Anyway, I was on my way back from Makati. There were three girls behind my seat and I couldn't help overhearing their conversation because they were so loud about it. I was tuning them out, of course, but the Mentat Protocols works on trigger-terms, so when a set of triggers related to immigration cropped up in their conversation, my Mind simply refused to tune them out.
It would seem that one of the three was leaving for a European country, ostensibly to immigrate. All along, I thought she was doing it either as a nurse (and I will have an entry on that later on) or under petition from relatives. Then I heard she was marrying a national of that country she was going to.
Nothing unusual with that. Many Filipinos have tried the marriage route to get a "Green Card" or citizenship in another country. But what really caught my attention was the way this marriage was to be brought about: it would appear that relatives of that woman paid another cousin 70k euros to make it look like he was marrying her. Legally, there would appear to be nothing wrong; the "husband" would be picking up his "wife" here on January and then she'll be a naturalized citizen of that country by virtue of marriage. When she gets there, she told her friends they wouldn't even be living in the same house.
If I was a tad bit more conservative. I'd be scandalized. As it was, Liberal Catholic that I am, it still shocked me, especially with the casual, almost nonchalant way the woman viewed marriage, even more so with a cousin of hers, if only to ease the entry into a new country.
This is not to judge the woman; I don't intend to, scandalized as I am at the way something I was brought up to regard as sacred could be treated so casually. In a very real sense, who can blame people like her for acting the way she did?
But my Soul is... "profoundly disturbed" by this little incident. I brought it up with my Dad about a few days after, and I was surprised to find out that not only was this "practice" more prevalent than I thought, but is quite an old phenomenon! It's been going on since at least the mid-80s so it's not as if it's a product of our globalized world.
I was just wondering... what the hell has this world come to that marriage could be reduced into something so... simple as a means to an end? That people could be so... cavalier in their attitudes towards this most sacred of sacraments?
Anyway, I was on my way back from Makati. There were three girls behind my seat and I couldn't help overhearing their conversation because they were so loud about it. I was tuning them out, of course, but the Mentat Protocols works on trigger-terms, so when a set of triggers related to immigration cropped up in their conversation, my Mind simply refused to tune them out.
It would seem that one of the three was leaving for a European country, ostensibly to immigrate. All along, I thought she was doing it either as a nurse (and I will have an entry on that later on) or under petition from relatives. Then I heard she was marrying a national of that country she was going to.
Nothing unusual with that. Many Filipinos have tried the marriage route to get a "Green Card" or citizenship in another country. But what really caught my attention was the way this marriage was to be brought about: it would appear that relatives of that woman paid another cousin 70k euros to make it look like he was marrying her. Legally, there would appear to be nothing wrong; the "husband" would be picking up his "wife" here on January and then she'll be a naturalized citizen of that country by virtue of marriage. When she gets there, she told her friends they wouldn't even be living in the same house.
If I was a tad bit more conservative. I'd be scandalized. As it was, Liberal Catholic that I am, it still shocked me, especially with the casual, almost nonchalant way the woman viewed marriage, even more so with a cousin of hers, if only to ease the entry into a new country.
This is not to judge the woman; I don't intend to, scandalized as I am at the way something I was brought up to regard as sacred could be treated so casually. In a very real sense, who can blame people like her for acting the way she did?
But my Soul is... "profoundly disturbed" by this little incident. I brought it up with my Dad about a few days after, and I was surprised to find out that not only was this "practice" more prevalent than I thought, but is quite an old phenomenon! It's been going on since at least the mid-80s so it's not as if it's a product of our globalized world.
I was just wondering... what the hell has this world come to that marriage could be reduced into something so... simple as a means to an end? That people could be so... cavalier in their attitudes towards this most sacred of sacraments?
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Martial Rule and the Law
According to the 1987 Constitution, the President can declare Martial Law, but (a) several things remain in effect, like the Consti, the civil courts, nor is the writ of habeas corpus necessarily revoked, and (b) it needs Congressional approval to extend it beyond one month.
When I was born, Martial Law was only just about five years old, so my first-hand recollections of the event are rather nebulous, to say the least. Like most of my generation, all we know of the... horror when Proclamation 1081 was announced is through history books, teachers and professors, tales from our elders in CivSoc, and the occassional docu. Heck, we all thought Erap was going to do something to that effect - I mean, with Lacson and all - but it seemed the guy, in fairness to him, was a lot nicer than we gave him credit for. In fact, as one pundit described him, Erap was, despite everything, in awe of the law.
But from what has been handed down to us, a grim picture emerges. If the docu they showed us at the Ninoy Aquino Center is true, and so goes with history taught to us, Marcos actually acted even before 1081 was proclaimed. That while Tatad was reading 1081 the opposition and activists were being arrested. And there was also a ConCon going on at that time whose provisions would have severly limited Marcos' powers, and that of his cronies.
A lot has been said about the 1987 Consti as a reaction to Martial Law; in fact, many of its provisions that either enshrine civil liberties or prevent the concentration of power on any branch of government, is a clear indication of where the framers of the '87 were coming from.
Before Gloriagate was even on the radar, there were already talks about the charter being changed, especially during the (first) Philippine Political Parties Conference in 2002. As I've recounted before, I had this memorable conversation with Dr. Jose Abueva over Federalism. I wasn't sold on the idea, being a student of history myself, and nothing I've heard from the presentors - including Dr. Abueva - allayed my fears that the inherent extreme parochialism among some Filipinos, alongside political greed, could lead to the dismemberment of a Federal Republic of the Philippines.
So I asked Dr. Abueva: sir, what would prevent ethnic tensions (or something like that) from escalating to the point that States within a Philippine Federal Republic would secede, ala-Confederacy or Yugoslavia?
Dr. Abueva looked at me as if I was such a slow-witted student and said: that's impossible; it will be illegal.
I just sat there and said, "ah, ok." I wanted to pursue the matter, because I knew for a fact that there are some people - and some can be found here in the Philippines - will care less for the law, much less one drafted by academics in Imperial Manila, if it suited their purposes - whether personal or parochial - to leave the Philippines. I wanted to tell Dr. Abueva, "that's well and good, sir, but isn't there more? Because I'll be one of the persons who'll have to lead the charge to restore such 'rebellious' States to the Federation, and I'd like to know if, pretty soon, I'll have to risk my life because of you and your federalista cohorts who seem to be dominating the discussion on ChaCha."
The same line of thinking struck me as the idea of Martial Rule being reinstated by La Gloria went through one avenue of my Mind. Sure, '87 says she can't just declare Martial Law because Congress can nullify it anytime and impeach her for sure. Sure, the '87 has so many legal impediments to Martial Law...
... but the law could never really stop people who are determined not to follow it.
Nor could the law, as shown during the opening hours of Martial Rule, stop a person or the forces at the command of that person, if said entity cares nothing about the law.
Let's assume certain members of the military remain loyal to their Commander-in-Chief. Part of the thinking here is over the fact that (a) many senior officers remain loyal to Gloria, and (b) the military culture of not questioning orders. Of course, many soldiers have shown that this isn't entirely the rule in the AFP, but it still has to be disproven if men like the Oakwood Mutineers (bad example, but i hope you get the point) are the exception rather then the rule, troops who do question certain of the decisions and commands of the higher-ups.
What's to stop Gloria from using the immense powers of her position to tear down Congress, make the Supreme Court dance to her tune at gunpoint ("dance, judges, *bang* *bang*!"), and to haul off ala-1972 all of her opponents?
One of the things I try to teach my proteges is the necessity of taking things into context. And one of the comparisons I use to illustrate my point is that of EDSA I and Tiannemen Square. Ver wanted to bomb EDSA, but Marcos said no. Believe me when I tell you that no amount of heroism will prevent civilians from runninig away when really big explosions surround them and body parts and blood are flying around. Persons not trained for war or for killing follow the most basic of preservation instincts to run from a threat, and people would have run if Marcos had agreed with Ver and unleashed the power of the military on EDSA. Then maybe things would be different.
Maybe it would've been like Tiannemen. Why did the tanks roll over the students and troops gunned them in the hundreds? Because of differences. Because the people who won the power struggle within the Communist Party of China decided there was nothing wrong in killing the dissidents if it would preserve their power. A gamble, sure, because if the Chinese people had been outraged over what happened to their young who were spearheading the call for democracy, no military might or political creed would have prevented the collapse of the Chinese Communists. But nothing of the sort happened.
There was also this alternate story about a world where Britain lost to Germany in the Second World War, and instead of the liberal, democratic British being rulers of India, it was the Nazis that Ghandi faced. In the end, as the author resolved the story, Ghandi was bodily brought to the firing squad for even thinking of going against the Nazis, even if the protest was peaceful. Because the British were different from the Nazis. In fact, it is even said that what made Ghandi so successful in his resistance to British rule was the culture of the British themselves.
How does La Gloria think? How do her advisers think?
Perhaps, as Civil society and the other members of the opposition go about their campaign to take the little girl down, they should be asking those questions. One cannot simply bat against the wind, thinking one's righteousness will make all the difference. This isn't about morals and values anymore, or what's right or wrong because we who have been engaged in this since 2000 are now in the midst of a war.
And in war, some people play only by one rule: to win it all. And nothing, nothing, will stop people like that from doing anything to come out on top. Nothing will stop them. Not morals, not ethics, not "fair play," not deceny. And most certainly not some piece of paper with a lot of legal gobbledygook in it.
When I was born, Martial Law was only just about five years old, so my first-hand recollections of the event are rather nebulous, to say the least. Like most of my generation, all we know of the... horror when Proclamation 1081 was announced is through history books, teachers and professors, tales from our elders in CivSoc, and the occassional docu. Heck, we all thought Erap was going to do something to that effect - I mean, with Lacson and all - but it seemed the guy, in fairness to him, was a lot nicer than we gave him credit for. In fact, as one pundit described him, Erap was, despite everything, in awe of the law.
But from what has been handed down to us, a grim picture emerges. If the docu they showed us at the Ninoy Aquino Center is true, and so goes with history taught to us, Marcos actually acted even before 1081 was proclaimed. That while Tatad was reading 1081 the opposition and activists were being arrested. And there was also a ConCon going on at that time whose provisions would have severly limited Marcos' powers, and that of his cronies.
A lot has been said about the 1987 Consti as a reaction to Martial Law; in fact, many of its provisions that either enshrine civil liberties or prevent the concentration of power on any branch of government, is a clear indication of where the framers of the '87 were coming from.
Before Gloriagate was even on the radar, there were already talks about the charter being changed, especially during the (first) Philippine Political Parties Conference in 2002. As I've recounted before, I had this memorable conversation with Dr. Jose Abueva over Federalism. I wasn't sold on the idea, being a student of history myself, and nothing I've heard from the presentors - including Dr. Abueva - allayed my fears that the inherent extreme parochialism among some Filipinos, alongside political greed, could lead to the dismemberment of a Federal Republic of the Philippines.
So I asked Dr. Abueva: sir, what would prevent ethnic tensions (or something like that) from escalating to the point that States within a Philippine Federal Republic would secede, ala-Confederacy or Yugoslavia?
Dr. Abueva looked at me as if I was such a slow-witted student and said: that's impossible; it will be illegal.
I just sat there and said, "ah, ok." I wanted to pursue the matter, because I knew for a fact that there are some people - and some can be found here in the Philippines - will care less for the law, much less one drafted by academics in Imperial Manila, if it suited their purposes - whether personal or parochial - to leave the Philippines. I wanted to tell Dr. Abueva, "that's well and good, sir, but isn't there more? Because I'll be one of the persons who'll have to lead the charge to restore such 'rebellious' States to the Federation, and I'd like to know if, pretty soon, I'll have to risk my life because of you and your federalista cohorts who seem to be dominating the discussion on ChaCha."
The same line of thinking struck me as the idea of Martial Rule being reinstated by La Gloria went through one avenue of my Mind. Sure, '87 says she can't just declare Martial Law because Congress can nullify it anytime and impeach her for sure. Sure, the '87 has so many legal impediments to Martial Law...
... but the law could never really stop people who are determined not to follow it.
Nor could the law, as shown during the opening hours of Martial Rule, stop a person or the forces at the command of that person, if said entity cares nothing about the law.
Let's assume certain members of the military remain loyal to their Commander-in-Chief. Part of the thinking here is over the fact that (a) many senior officers remain loyal to Gloria, and (b) the military culture of not questioning orders. Of course, many soldiers have shown that this isn't entirely the rule in the AFP, but it still has to be disproven if men like the Oakwood Mutineers (bad example, but i hope you get the point) are the exception rather then the rule, troops who do question certain of the decisions and commands of the higher-ups.
What's to stop Gloria from using the immense powers of her position to tear down Congress, make the Supreme Court dance to her tune at gunpoint ("dance, judges, *bang* *bang*!"), and to haul off ala-1972 all of her opponents?
One of the things I try to teach my proteges is the necessity of taking things into context. And one of the comparisons I use to illustrate my point is that of EDSA I and Tiannemen Square. Ver wanted to bomb EDSA, but Marcos said no. Believe me when I tell you that no amount of heroism will prevent civilians from runninig away when really big explosions surround them and body parts and blood are flying around. Persons not trained for war or for killing follow the most basic of preservation instincts to run from a threat, and people would have run if Marcos had agreed with Ver and unleashed the power of the military on EDSA. Then maybe things would be different.
Maybe it would've been like Tiannemen. Why did the tanks roll over the students and troops gunned them in the hundreds? Because of differences. Because the people who won the power struggle within the Communist Party of China decided there was nothing wrong in killing the dissidents if it would preserve their power. A gamble, sure, because if the Chinese people had been outraged over what happened to their young who were spearheading the call for democracy, no military might or political creed would have prevented the collapse of the Chinese Communists. But nothing of the sort happened.
There was also this alternate story about a world where Britain lost to Germany in the Second World War, and instead of the liberal, democratic British being rulers of India, it was the Nazis that Ghandi faced. In the end, as the author resolved the story, Ghandi was bodily brought to the firing squad for even thinking of going against the Nazis, even if the protest was peaceful. Because the British were different from the Nazis. In fact, it is even said that what made Ghandi so successful in his resistance to British rule was the culture of the British themselves.
How does La Gloria think? How do her advisers think?
Perhaps, as Civil society and the other members of the opposition go about their campaign to take the little girl down, they should be asking those questions. One cannot simply bat against the wind, thinking one's righteousness will make all the difference. This isn't about morals and values anymore, or what's right or wrong because we who have been engaged in this since 2000 are now in the midst of a war.
And in war, some people play only by one rule: to win it all. And nothing, nothing, will stop people like that from doing anything to come out on top. Nothing will stop them. Not morals, not ethics, not "fair play," not deceny. And most certainly not some piece of paper with a lot of legal gobbledygook in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)